HARPER MAKING HIS MARK IN FOREIGN POLICY LANDSCAPE
by George Koch, For the Calgary Herald
The Calgary Herald (Alberta)
May 14, 2006 Sunday
Final Edition
When the Danish Muhammad cartoons controversy erupted in early
February, the days-old Conservative government’s equivocal response
disappointed those hoping for a tough answer to terrorist apologists
and Islamist radicalism. Would this become the default mode of a weak
minority government?
Barely three months later, it’s looking like a mere opening stumble
by a not yet fully staffed government. Since then, the Conservatives
have made a series of moves — some small and symbolic, others big
and important — that add up to a sharp departure from the indecision,
inconsistency and political correctness of the Liberals.
The latest item triggered outsized controversy. Last month, the
government issued a statement commemorating the Armenian genocide,
which peaked in 1915. Noting the Armenian people’s “terrible suffering
and loss of life” from Turkish actions that Canada officially considers
a “crime against humanity,” the four-paragraph statement was signed
by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
It barely made Canadian news, but it quickly outraged the Turkish
government, which recalled its ambassador and is expected to boycott
joint air force exercises later this year.
Whatever one’s views on the Armenians’ tragic past, Harper’s
statement hardly suggested timidity. Indeed, since mid-February, the
Conservatives have cut a veritable swath through the foreign policy
landscape, including:
n Harper’s visit in mid-March to Canadian troops fighting in
Afghanistan;
n Suspension in late March of the $25 million in annual funding to the
Palestinian Authority, after the terrorist group Hamas came to power;
n Adding the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers to Canada’s list of prohibited
terrorist organizations, which the Liberals had refused to do;
n The plan, announced in the recent budget, to arm Canada’s border
guards (also after years of Liberal refusal);
n The increased defence budget;
n Casting a March UN vote in favour of Israel;
n Condemning Iran’s president after he called for Israel’s
annihilation;
n A more favourable attitude towards the United States, culminating
in the recent agreement on Canada’s softwood lumber exports;
n The acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide.
“We’re thinking hard about foreign policy, partly because there’s a
lot of interest among Conservative party members in foreign policy,
including earlier policy resolutions,” says one senior government
official, who spoke to the Herald on a background basis.
Some of these are now becoming government policy. For example, the
Conservative party in 2004 resolved to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Harper’s showing up in Afghanistan — at considerable physical risk
— wasn’t a mere stunt. He’s been in the thick of nearly all the
recent moves. According to a recent article in the Western Standard,
following the evidently rigged elections in Belarus in March, Harper
also over-rode Foreign Affairs bureaucrats and personally toughened
Canada’s official response.
“We understand that Canada is not some island on which we can live
in splendid and peaceful isolation,” Harper told the House of Commons
in his response to the Throne Speech in early April.
“We want Canada to be a player, at home and abroad, on the great
challenges of the day.” In his speech to the troops in Afghanistan,
Harper referred specifically to the Canadians killed in the World
Trade Center atrocity on 9/11.
The Conservative government is reorganizing Canada’s foreign policy
around two concepts: that foreign policy must advance Canada’s
interests, and that it should promote four fundamental principles.
Described in the Throne Speech, they are freedom, democracy, the rule
of law and human rights. The new foreign policy concept, and the way
it’s being carried out, almost sounds like an emerging Harper doctrine.
“Foreign policy is what we do outside the country to influence the
behaviour of foreign actors,” says the government official. “It’s a
tool, because we intend to get something out of it — like improved
relations with the U.S.” One beneficial outcome, he argues, was the
recent softwood lumber deal.
It’s a sharp departure from the Liberals’ vision of foreign policy
which, like that of former U.S. president Bill Clinton, seemed driven
primarily by the desire to accommodate various domestic interests. A
classic example was senior Liberals appearing at fundraisers for the
Tamil Tigers’ domestic front group.
In addition, former prime minister Paul Martin’s international approach
was so scattered it became virtually ineffective. A Conservative
official notes incredulously that Martin’s otherwise all-powerful
prime minister’s office (PMO) had no foreign policy section. Martin
PMO officials considered foreign affairs just politics and spent
their time “chasing headlines.”
At its worst, the Liberal approach was largely about striking
fashionable poses in highly visible settings — such as Martin
cavorting with Bono, or calling for relief of African national debts
— while doing little or nothing. “Soft power” in practice was as
oxymoronic as the words suggested.
The Conservatives are intent on concentrating Canada’s middle power
resources on a limited set of achievable objectives. Government
officials describe it as a “team effort.”
Day-to-day activity is handled by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter
MacKay and his department. Stockwell Day, foreign affairs critic in
opposition and now minister of Public Safety, is involved in files
such as banning the Tamil Tigers and arming Canada’s border guards.
The prime minister “maintains a keen interest” in foreign policy and
runs big-ticket items affecting Canada’s direction in the world.
Harper’s key officials include Ian Brodie, chief of staff; Mark
Cameron, manager of policy; and Keith Fountain, Cameron’s policy
adviser for foreign affairs and national security.
It meshes with the Harper government’s broader campaign to advance
the Conservative agenda in small steps, equal parts symbolism and
substance, that don’t require legislation (the budget being a major
exception), avoiding open confrontation with the opposition parties.
It’s been dubbed incrementalism.
Incremental, yes, but not necessarily uncontroversial. The statement on
Armenia may have repeated concepts introduced in previous parliamentary
resolutions. The prime minister’s imprimatur, however, was new.
The Armenian genocide, in which 600,000 to 1.5 million Armenians died
at the hands of Turkish army units and government officials during the
First World War, may seem like a 90-year-old historical curiosity. But
in the Middle East, it’s fraught with meaning. Armenia is the world’s
oldest officially Christian nation, having maintained its culture
and religion amid centuries of expansion by Islam. Today Armenia
is a struggling country with mostly Muslim neighbours, including
totalitarian and soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran.
Turkey continues to deny what it did to the Armenians was genocide.
Turkey’s foreign ministry has accused Harper of displaying a “gravely
prejudiced attitude.”
Turkey is also where the Muslim caliphate was dissolved after the
First World War, and which al-Qaeda and other groups are fighting
to re-establish.
Harper’s comments are very likely circulating among the chat rooms,
websites and e-mails of radical Islamists the world over, and they
are certain to regard them as provocative.
Canadian government officials say they do not think the issue will
increase the risks to Harper, or Canada. “The radical Islamists
already want to kill the PM,” notes one. “And Canada is already on
al-Qaeda’s top five list (of potential target countries).”
Meanwhile, the emerging Harper doctrine will continue to flesh
itself out. Reportedly, Harper will soon deliver a major speech on
Afghanistan. Some believe he may press China to improve its planning
and co-operation concerning anticipated pandemics such as the bird
flu. Canada will likely continue to push reform of the UN.
The government might list additional groups as banned terrorist
organizations, or move to expedite deportations of known criminals
and bogus refugee claimants with possible terrorist ties.
Thanks to better relations with the U.S., American authorities might
allow Canada Customs to station officers at U.S. airports to pre-clear
home-bound Canadians (as U.S. Customs does at Canadian airports).
Although most Canadians don’t seem to have noticed the Harper doctrine,
at the prime minister’s current foreign policy pace, it’s unlikely
to remain obscure for much longer.
George Koch is a Calgary-based freelance writer. More of his articles
can be read at his weblog,