A rchive Date
[ 14-01-2020 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-trudeau-finds-that-whipping-out-some-rhetoric-doesnt-earn-canada-respect
Trudeau finds that whipping out some rhetoric doesn't earn Canada respect
Some day Ottawa may learn that when it comes to foreign relations, you have to make contributions that go beyond the minimum
Kelly McParland
January 13, 2020
Canada, the country that wants so desperately to be liked, once again finds itself caught in a situation over which it has limited control.
Justin Trudeau may have the moral high ground in demanding “answers, closure, transparency, accountability and justice” from Iran in the downing of Flight 752, but that’s about the limit of his influence. Iran doesn’t recognize dual citizenship, so as far as Tehran is concerned those passengers holding a second passport from Canada are still Iranians, first and only.
The prime minister has no access to Iranian authorities in Canada, because Ottawa expelled Iranian diplomats in 2012 and shuttered the embassy. That act was the doing of the Harper government, but while Trudeau condemned the move and pledged to re-establish relations, it was never done. Canadian interests with Iran have been handled by Italian diplomats instead.
Dealings with Iran is yet another matter of international relations over which Canada struggles to make itself heard. While Twitterites wage war over who is more to blame for the missile attack - Donald Trump or the Iranian leadership - the answer makes little difference if Canada hopes to see anyone held to account. The first four years of the Trudeau government’s foreign policy were devoted largely to surviving the Trump presidency with minimal long-term damage to Canadian interests. The new NAFTA accord was signed with great sighs of relief, in recognition that any policy that requires co-operation from Trump’s Washington is doomed from the get-go to a long, uphill battle against erratic and unpredictable circumstances. To achieve it, Trudeau had to endure taunts, ridicule and insults from the Oval Office (though admittedly not without provocation) while keeping a smile on his face and insisting everything was fine, just fine.
The same holds for the impasse involving Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, whose detention resulted in Beijing seizing and jailing two Canadian citizens on spurious charges. Other than simply releasing Meng, thereby confirming to China that thuggery and extortion works well as a diplomatic weapon, solving that riddle again depends largely on Washington, except that in this instance the administration has shown little inclination to help, other than offering a bit of sympathetic rhetoric. Barring another sudden and unexpected reversal - not wholly improbable given the White House record - U.S. officials are expected to sign a trade agreement with China on Wednesday that will have serious negative implications for Canada. Any additional purchases from the U.S. could reduce those from Canada. And unless the deal includes an agreement to end the Meng standoff, it may only prolong its resolution.
So Canada waits, nervously, watching from the sidelines while others determine the fate of issues that are of great concern to us. It’s a consequence of the times, but also of Ottawa’s reluctance to get too deeply or directly involved as an independent force in international affairs. The Trudeau government’s most determined priority has been securing a temporary, second-level seat on the United Nations security council, a position that might carry a bit of prestige but little in the way of actual influence. It is not likely to get the seat anyway, given that one rival, Ireland, contributes much more to peacekeeping while another competitor, Norway, contributes much more generously to aid. As in so many areas, Canada talks a good game on both fronts, but doesn’t follow through. Liberals are big on proposing joint action with others as a means of obtaining critical mass, but then skimp when it’s time to hold up our end.
As a candidate, Trudeau was often critical of the Harper government for choosing sides. Liberals felt Stephen Harper was too vocal in support of Israel, too willing to commit Canada’s military to causes that might entail risk, even if minimal. Committing Canada to a small combat role in the fight against ISIL was the target of jeers: “Mr. Harper is intent on taking Canada to war in Iraq,” Trudeau cried. “Why aren’t we talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in? Rather than, you know, trying to whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are. It just doesn’t work like that in Canada.”
Whatever it is Trudeau viewed as an alternative obviously hasn’t worked either. Canada isn’t taken seriously as a military contributor or as a peacekeeper, having pulled out of the one mission it agreed to at the earliest possible date, leaving peacekeeping numbers at lows not seen in 60 years.
Some day Ottawa may learn that you don’t earn respect with words, you have to make contributions that go beyond the minimum, and sometimes it might be inconvenient, costly and even painful. Otherwise you get to stay on the sidelines and hope things work out for the best.
© 2020 National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited
 World Fact Book (CIA)
Cross-Indexed:
 Canadians are, rightfully, demanding the truth. But are we ready to hear it?
|
|