The Indo-Pacific strategy illustrates Canadian weakness

On Nov. 27, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly released Canada’s long-awaited Indo-Pacific strategy. Anyone hoping Canada’s policymakers might find the courage to differentiate Canada’s foreign policy towards China from that of the United States was disappointed. The strategy presented a disturbingly skewed version of reality that demonstrates how far Canada is willing to go as a loyal extension of U.S. power and propaganda. The Indo-Pacific plan designated China a “disruptive power.” This alludes to China’s overreach in the South China Sea. However, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, its continuing “war on terror,” its decision to push NATO up to the borders of Russia, creating the context for the current war in Ukraine, are all far worse than anything China has done in decades. These facts make Canada’s claim that it is acting to protect the “rules-based international order” difficult to fathom. It is the U.S. and its allies that violate international rules and norms more than any other faction in global politics—certainly much, much more than China, the distortions of the Indo-Pacific strategy aside. Canada’s plan rejects any “unilateral” efforts to change the status quo around Taiwan. This statement implicitly targets China. But, again, it is the U.S. that has acted unilaterally and violated the terms of its agreement with China with respect to Taiwan. American President Joe Biden has four times declared the U.S. would militarily defend Taiwan, trashing the concept of “strategic ambiguity.” Congressional House Leader Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan was apparently deliberately designed to aggravate relations with China and greatly increased the threat to Taiwan. Shaun Narine is a professor of international relations at St. Thomas University. Photograph courtesy of Shaun Narine Very few states in the modern international system extend a right of secession to their constituent parts. Canada is unusual in this regard. Most states are like China: they have significant minority populations and contend with ethno-nationalist tensions. Opening the door on secession is a recipe for disintegration. So, why does Canada respect Spain’s or the U.S.’ right to reject secession but does not extend that consideration to China? The answer is that because China is not an electoral democracy, Canada does not regard the Chinese government as legitimate. By contrast, Taiwan, a vibrant democracy, is legitimate. However, like many Asian states, China’s people judge the legitimacy of their government based on its performance, not on electoral procedures. The vast majority of Chinese strongly support their government. They credit it with facilitating the most phenomenal period of economic and technological development in world history. Today, people in China live a better quality of life than at any previous time in their nation’s history. Most Chinese believe that their country’s success is because of its authoritarianism, not despite it. They are probably right. The only country comparable to China in size and complexity of governance is India. India is far less developed than China and, today, its democracy is in danger from Hindu chauvinism. Apparently, Canada cannot process these complex historical and political realities. Instead, the Indo-Pacific strategy relies on simplistic platitudes about “democracy” and “freedom” to pursue a policy of western domination and aggression. The strategy tries to differentiate between the Chinese people and their government. But China is currently under economic and technological attack from the U.S. The U.S. is attempting to cripple China’s development and keep the country forever subservient to western powers. Understandably, the Chinese people see this as attack on them, their families and their country. Why wouldn’t they resent countries like Canada that are supporting American aggression? The Trudeau government seems to have concluded that Canada’s economic, political, and security dependence on the U.S. makes Canada incapable of an independent foreign policy in respect to China. If so, then Canada is laying the groundwork for its own isolation. Most of Asia is not interested in making an enemy of China. Africa has made it clear it will not reject China. Most of Latin America has China as a major trading partner. The U.S. attempt to cripple China’s technological development might work, for a time. But it will most likely backfire and give rise to a new era of home-grown Chinese technology and innovation that will further divide the world. Asia is returning to its historical role as the centre of the global economy. The Indo-Pacific strategy was an opportunity for Canada to show that it can work co-operatively with Asia to accommodate China and prepare for a more complex but productive world order. Instead, the plan is a wasted opportunity and a testament to Canadian weakness and subservience to an American agenda. Shaun Narine is a professor of international relations at St. Thomas University. His primary area of interest is the Asia Pacific region, but he has also published and taught on Canadian foreign policy. The Hill Times