Canada’s middle power diplomacy is far from ‘errant nonsense’

EDMONTON—In calling Mélanie Joly “a disgrace,” because she stood up for the vigorous exercise of Canadian diplomacy, Andrew Caddell has attacked not only the current foreign minister of Canada, but a long list of distinguished Canadian leaders, including Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Paul Martin Jr., Jean Chrétien, Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, and Lloyd Axworthy. In The Hill Times, March 23, Caddell excoriated Joly for sputtering “errant nonsense” in calling for stronger Canadian diplomatic action to press states to work harder to build a cooperative international community. No, said Caddell, Canada needs “new weapons systems, tanks, planes and ships,” and to deny this is to live in a “fool’s paradise.” Joly, he said, should acknowledge this or “step aside.” I am not now attacking Caddell personally (I’ve never met the former Global Affairs Canada officer). But I am attacking his thinking and the militarist domination now taking hold in government, political, and media circles as but one of the calamitous outcomes of the Ukraine crisis. It is not more money that NATO needs, rather new thinking to plan a common security agenda. The bullying tactics used by generals, pundits and the Conservative Party in demanding more—and more—money for Canada’s defence budget is intimidating those who see that the route to peace in the world demands a wider agenda than the willingness to fight. Joly advanced that agenda, rather timidly, when she said: “We all know that Canada is not a nuclear power, it’s not a military power, we’re a middle-sized power, and what we’re good at is convening, and making sure that diplomacy is happening, and meanwhile convincing other countries to do more.” The thoughts expressed in that sentence were at the core of policies held by many Canadian statesmen who realized that Canada’s main strength internationally was as an “honest broker” between competing players. Lester Pearson established peacekeeping. Pierre Trudeau went directly to the nuclear powers to urge them to back away from the arms race. Jean Chrétien refused to join the U.S. war in Iraq. Brian Mulroney (and later Paul Martin Jr.) said no to joining U.S. ballistic missile defence. Joe Clark brought the Vietnamese boat people to Canada. Lloyd Axworthy produced the landmines treaty. Former prime minister Lester B. Pearson, pictured in 1957, the year he received the Nobel Peace Prize. Photograph courtesy of Library and Archive Canada In all these instances and more—one thinks of other great Canadian figures like George Ignatieff, Saul Rae, Maurice Strong—Canada put forward a “convening” policy to bring disputants together to work out the problems of arms control, economic and social development, the environment, and human rights. Canada has been rightly called a middle power. We do not have the economic, political or military strength to force our way into anything, but we have long had an extraordinary ability to contribute to developing solutions to stave off war. This does not mean that Canada has avoided combat. The performance of the Canadian armed forces in both world wars and numerous conflicts, not least in Korea and Afghanistan, showed bravery at its finest. I refuse to be pinned down as some sort of pacifist because I recognize that what Canada needs desperately to do now is increase not its military but its peacemaking capacity. At this moment of high emotions, as we witness the deliberate and wanton killing of innocent people in Ukraine, the military leaders are calling for more arms. It must be said that military campaigns have failed to bring us the peace promised in the 1945 Charter of the United Nations. Of course, Putin must be stopped in Ukraine. Does that mean we cannot also talk about strengthening the peace-building capacity of the United Nations, which, once again, has been swept aside in demanding an end to war? Canada spends $24.3-billion a year on defence; the foreign affairs, trade and development budget is $6.7-billion (of which only one-third is for actual diplomatic efforts). Boosting defence spending to reach the arbitrary figure of 2 per cent of GDP would demand more than $40-billion a year. That’s money that would be better spent on domestic health and education needs and boosting the Sustainable Development Goals in vulnerable areas that are seeding grounds for future wars. This is what Mélanie Joly senses. She deserves not to be attacked by the militarists but encouraged by all those in and outside government who recognize that Canada’s greatest contribution to the world is not to fight wars but prevent them. It has to be said bluntly: the militarism of U.S. foreign policy in the past fifty years has produced untold suffering in the world. Those in Canada who want to ape U.S. militarism do a great disservice to the Canada that has done so much for the world in the past and is capable of doing more if we but raise our sights from the barrel of a gun. I call on Caddell to lift up his vision, as Mélanie Joly is trying to do, to make Canada a driver in preserving the world as a safe and secure habitat for all humanity. Douglas Roche is a former Senator and author. The Hill Times