International | Revising Canadian diplomacy, an opportunity not to be missed

The Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mélanie Joly, announced last Monday that she would soon launch a review of Canadian diplomacy. Centered on the functioning of Global Affairs Canada (GAC), the exercise aims to build, according to him, “a modern diplomacy” “adapted to the challenges of today”.

Marie-Joelle Zahar
Professor of political science at the University of Montreal, researcher at CERIUM and director of the Peace Operations Research Network

Stefanie von Hlatky
Co-director of the Strategic Analysis Network and holder of the Canada Research Chair in Gender, Security and the Armed Forces at Queen’s University

As it has been unveiled, the exercise in reviewing Canadian diplomacy could turn into a missed opportunity. Indeed, according to the information available, the exercise would be limited to the organizational aspect, thus not constituting a review of foreign policy.

While the exercise is desirable internally, as it would respond to critics who bemoan the cutting off of Canada’s diplomatic presence abroad and to frustrations within GAC, it is also desirable externally. If the objective is to transform Canadian diplomacy into a tool adapted to today’s challenges, it is clear that an examination of these challenges is necessary in order to make the right organizational choices.

There are at least two compelling reasons why this decision should be reviewed. The first is obvious. The last white paper on foreign policy dates back to 2005. The position it advocated then seemed both simple and coherent: a strengthening of the North American partnership, a vision of development aid more concentrated on certain countries, an action whole-of-government and a multilateral posture. Although Canada never abandoned multilateralism, the Russian invasion, the rise of China and the American retreat have reduced Canada’s room for maneuver on the international stage.

In 2017, Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke in a speech to Parliament about the profound changes in the world order that Canada would face. She implored us to “reflect carefully and for a long time on what is happening and chart the way forward”. However, this reflection remains unfinished. It has certainly been started with the Feminist International Assistance Policy, the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security and the forthcoming unveiling of an Indo-Pacific strategy, but these efforts are insufficient to take into account the developments new to the current state of the world.

The second reason why a review of foreign policy is necessary relates to the coherence of government action. Indeed, the Minister of National Defence, Anita Anand, has just announced an update of the Canadian defense policy. However, it is obvious that this is deeply linked to foreign policy.

Increasing the capabilities of Canadian diplomacy is essential to the implementation of defense objectives. This complementarity is required to coordinate the Canadian response to the war in Ukraine, for example.

The two exercises should therefore not be undertaken in silos. The coherence of government action requires a conscious effort of strategic coordination.

Beyond these two compelling reasons not to limit the examination of diplomacy to organizational issues, two other elements will also have to be taken into consideration by Minister Joly. For a government that has defined its foreign policy as feminist, recent developments increase the risks of tension between the norms and interests that underpin foreign policy.

Already, some permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are expressing reservations about the Women, Peace and Security program dear to Canada. Our neighbor to the south has also recorded serious setbacks concerning women’s rights, whether it is the right to abortion or their place on the boards of directors, which the American justice system recently called into question.

In such a context, how to reconcile competition between great powers, tensions with China, war in Ukraine, the need for coordination with the United States and feminist foreign policy? Without an answer to this question, without a strategy to demonstrate the usefulness of a feminist foreign policy in building lasting peace and a fairer international order, the flagship of Canadian foreign policy could be seriously tarnished.

Finally, we cannot close this reflection without returning to the way in which the exercise will be carried out. On this subject, the information differs. Some suggest that the committee to be set up will mainly be made up of former members of the diplomatic corps, others say it will include experts, business leaders and youth representatives.

Without making a parallelism between the two exercises, we nevertheless want to underline the lesson of the Arbor report on the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces. Only an open exercise and broad outside participation can give the review of Canadian diplomacy the legitimacy that Global Affairs will need to report its strategies to a population whose support will be all the more necessary as the choices will be difficult.