with Ian Townsend-Gault
Director of the Centre for Asian Legal Studies
Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
International Civitas and Canada's 2012 Budget
International Civitas
and Canada's 2012 Budget
Ian Townsend-Gault
Those of us
who devote the greater part of our professional lives to working in Asia have
long known that Canada's
international standing, especially in East and Southeast
Asia, has been in steady decline for more than a decade. The
federal budget tabled on March 29, 2012 will do nothing to halt, much less
reverse, this trend. Indeed, it could give it fresh impetus. This is not only
undesirable, it is also unnecessary. Such an outcome serves neither Canada nor the
international community as a whole.
The
international system, legal or political, depends on engagement. Countries are
obviously heavily engaged where their interests are or may be directly
affected. This obviously leads them to take sides, promoting an initiative or
attempting to stand in its way. But there is such a thing as disinterested or
altruistic engagement, playing a role to promote the general good, as opposed
to advocating for one's own country or one's allies. And if this kind of effort
results in a strengthening of the international system, then all states benefit,
always excepting those who put their own (usually short term) self-interest
before any other consideration. Canada's
contributions to the international commonweal are innumerable. For example, this
country is not plagued by landmines: there are probably none within its
borders. But Ottawa
played a major role in the adoption of the convention intended to see a ban on
the deployment of these hideous weapons. Neither the country nor its citizens
would be associated in anyone's mind with the commission of war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and aggression. But Canada played a pivotal role in the
establishment of the International Criminal Court. To use another example, the
claimant states have obviously the greatest stakes in the resolution of the
various island disputes in the waters of East and Southeast
Asia. But all coastal states have an interest in developing the
relevant rules of international law promoting maritime cooperation, insisting
on strict interpretation of the rules pertaining to the generation of zones of
jurisdiction in the oceans. Canada
has funded a number of initiatives designed to reduce regional tensions and
promote cooperation in its place.
It is for
reasons like this that many heard the government's determination as expressed
in the Budget speech to review Canada's
participation in a variety of international forums with a view to considering
whether or not to continue. If that review is to be conducted as exercises in
bean-counting, that is, a demand to see a clear correlation between an
international initiative and Canadian interests, the result could be
devastating. It would be akin to saying that the only countries with an
interest in human rights conventions such as the Convention on the Elimination
of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women are those where there is
discrimination against women: s.15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that this does not happen in this
country so, this line of reasoning might go, why do we need to be a party to
this Convention and to participate in its operation?
The answer to
this question lies first in the need for a genuine international consensus on
how the rights of minorities are to be protected. Put another way, the
situations of those groups in society which have been traditionally
disadvantaged must now receive a united and international effort aimed at amelioration.
Second, the courts of Canada
now draw, to a great extent, on international norms and concepts, as well as
the jurisprudence of other countries (just as they draw on Canada's).
Any move to detach Canada
from the international community would be highly regressive, and scarcely in
the national interest.
The Budget also
called for cuts to the budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade. This budgetary erosion has been going on since the 1990s
and again, those of us who work extensively abroad know how debilitating this
can be for the staff engaged in Canada's
diplomatic missions. It also sends curious signals to foreign governments. If,
for example, the Canadian ambassador arrives at an official reception in a
vehicle very much inferior to that of others, one of two conclusions are likely
to be drawn. First, the government of Canada does not value this
ambassador, so why should we? Alternatively, the government of Canada does not
regard our country in sufficient esteem to equip its diplomats as others do.
Can either inference possibly be in Canada's national interest? You
join the club, you play by the rules, unless you can
persuade the majority to change them. I was staying with the ambassador of a
small Southeast Asian country in the mid-1990s when something of a media
onslaught targeting what was perceived to be "high off the hog"
diplomats took place (actually rather amusing, considering the antics I have
witnessed on the part of some journalists). There was a slight atmosphere of
despair at what the embassy staffers perceived to be not only a complete lack
of understanding of the circumstances in which they had to work, but also a
rather contemptible inclination to play up to the notion that public servants
working abroad must, by definition, be on some sort of boondoggle. That was the
very term the CBC in Vancouver used to describe
a trade visit to Asia by the, then, newly
elected NDP Premier Mike Harcourt when first elected in 1991. No doubt the term
was not meant literally, but it betrayed an attitude of mind which simply has
to change.
Long before
the 2012 budget, however, there were unmistakable signs that the Conservative
government was prepared, even eager, to view foreign policy from the standpoint
of dogma (one hesitates to dignify it as doctrine), as opposed to a pragmatic
acceptance of the reality of doing business with the rest of the world. The
government's policy, we were told, was that it should "facilitate
transactions." It would not otherwise become involved: no
grand policy strategies of the sort that brought about the Landmines
Convention, or the International Criminal Court. The private sector would make
the running. The trouble is, most of the rest of the
world does not view the role of government in that way at all. In particular,
this approach is completely antithetical to that of the countries of Asia. One can be out of step with one's peers if one is
in a position of strength. Is Canada
in this position? The country is far from weak, but not in a position to
dictate the terms of international engagement to the rest of the world.
University teachers are used to hearing the private sector advocate that their
institutions would benefit from being run on sound business principles. But
universities are not businesses, and neither are governments. They cannot be
administered properly on the basis of abstract rules which take no account of
the reality - like it or loathe it - in which they exist.
It is all
very well for politicians to advocate "making do with less", but
there comes a time when less input results in less output. In the University,
this would take the form of cutting courses, programs, or even whole
departments. This is not to say that no cow is too sacred to be sacrificed. But
it is one thing to wield the axe to get rid of dead wood, and quite another to
lose a living and breathing and valued part of what the University was
established to provide simply because government won't fund it (but that
government will, of course, satisfy the demands of other calls on the public
purse). If Canada
wants to participate to its fullest extent in the international community, it
must play by the international community's rules, and these do not envisage the
role of government as merely "facilitating transactions." It may be
that some in official Ottawa
think that this country might change that, but surely the humiliation over the
failure under Harper to secure that seat on the Security Council suggests
otherwise.
And it is
perhaps instructive to consider why Canada
lost that vote to Portugal.
Generally, I would have thought that the country's transition from engaged
international citizen with a broad spectrum of friends - Ottawa broke ranks
with a number of Western governments in the early 90s by upgrading its
diplomatic relations, which had never been broken, with Hanoi, and Washington
does not like its friendship with the government in Cuba - to a more partisan,
self-interested approach would annoy many. And then there were the somewhat
inexplicable decisions which carried a political price, the benefits of which
are rather hard to discern. Shortly after the vote on Security Cancel
membership, someone close to the Prime Minister remarked that it was doubtful
that our head of government was losing any sleep over the matter. Two points:
first, he should have been lying awake at night after night pondering this
unmistakable snub, and second, if Canada didn't care one way or the
other, why did it try so hard to lobby for the prize? As they say, it doesn't
compute.
The current
Conservative government decided not to support the United Nations resolution on
the rights of indigenous peoples. This annoyed many members of the
international community because the previous (Liberal) government lobbied
strongly in favour of it. Admittedly a new government is not bound by each and
every decision or stance of its predecessor, but there is such a thing as
continuity at least in foreign policy, and in an area where that country has already
made a strong commitment.
All too
often, Canadians assume that their world vision is more or less that of the rest
of the world. But this is simply not true. I was once at a symposium (in Canada) where someone asked a panel their
opinion of the "Team Canada"
trade missions, very popular with the government of Jean Chretien (1993-2003).
That opinion was none too high (based on what, one wonders?). I commented from
the floor that the opinion of a group of Canadian academics was more or less
irrelevant: these missions were designed to make an impact on the government
and business sectors of the target countries. Surely their success or failure
could only be gauged by consulting those for whom they were intended, a group
which included no one in that room that afternoon.
Not to be
seen in the international community is not to be valued - how could it be
otherwise? Similarly, obvious signs of disengagement or lack of commitment
sends signals which are not difficult to read. Shortly after the devastating
natural disasters struck Japan
last year I attended a meeting between security experts from that country and Canada. Despite
being deeply marked by recent events, our guests were engaged, prepared, and
participated fully. This was in contrast to the behaviour of some on the host
side who seemed to find more of interest on their smart phones than the meeting
they were ostensibly attending. They could not have sent a message of less than
full commitment had they not bothered to show up at all. If some of us on the
Canadian side noted this discourteous behaviour, we can only suppose that our
guests did likewise, and drew the appropriate conclusions. It appears that
Etiquette 101 is no longer a compulsory subject in the academies of the
Department of National Defence. Another sign of budgetary
exigency? Or can it be that the individuals concerned were not taught
how to behave in gatherings such as this where they were, in a sense,
representing their country.
Finally, in his
budget speech the Minister of Finance made great play of Canada's relative
financial security amidst international monetary turmoil, and rightly so. And
the cut to the budget of the Canadian International Development Agency, what
message was that intended to send to the world, other than "We are doing
very well, thank you, and we are going to share our largesse with fewer of you
than before"? It is as if the Canadian role in promoting international
development and the Millennium Development Goals, in particular, had never
been.
