Canada wants to give itself the means to regain its influence on the international scene by transforming the way it exercises its diplomacy in the world. To do this, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mélanie Joly, presented to the heads of mission meeting in Ottawa last week a working document resulting from an internal review of the functioning of the three components of Global Affairs Canada: the Department of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and International Development.
After a year of consultation and reflection, officials have produced a high-quality document whose recommendations will be implemented over the next three years. These recommendations revolve around four areas of action: acquiring new policy expertise; increase the country’s presence abroad; investing in people; and finally, improving the tools, processes and culture necessary to carry out the mandates of Canadian diplomacy. The reader will have understood that this document is not a statement of foreign policy, but rather a guide to applying it.
Over the past few years, I have often highlighted in these pages and elsewhere how Canadian diplomacy has become a business run by efficient managers rather than a box where diplomats generate ideas to improve international relations. Both actions are necessary to conduct active diplomacy, but the first has clearly taken precedence over the second. The document deplores this situation: “Certain employees, we read, particularly [ceux] with deep expertise in particular geographies and areas, have felt increasingly disadvantaged over time, including in promotion processes, where the focus has been on management skills rather than on expertise […]. »
The result of this managerial drift was not long in coming. The last time Canada distinguished itself on the international scene was in 1996-2000 thanks to the spectacular diplomatic initiatives of Lloyd Axworthy, one of our great Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and a brilliant cohort of diplomats.
The government wants to remedy this state of affairs by betting on better internal training, by favoring the most creative, by encouraging the spirit of initiative and risk, by recruiting more specialists and by offering a better personal and professional. But reversing a trend that has been favored for twenty years will take time and constant monitoring. Departmental officials will need to ensure that thinkers move as quickly to the top as managers do, if they are to create a critical mass of advisers capable of explaining to their political masters the best choices for Canadian diplomacy.
“Diplomacy is about influence,” the document reads, and much of that influence is exercised through a presence on the ground. In this area, the findings established in the working document are overwhelming for a G7 country. We are clearly not living up to our claim to play a role on the international stage. Canada has 178 missions (embassies and consulates) in 110 countries, 40 of which are concentrated in 4 countries: United States, China, India and Mexico. This mechanism has been stable for twenty years, while competition between large and medium powers to influence international affairs has never been so intense. Thus, South Korea is present in 191 countries, Germany in 153, Turkey in 136 and little Norway, with its four million inhabitants, in 81.
The situation is not prettier in international organizations. The number of employees in Canada’s representation to the UN is now one of the lowest among G7 partners and competitors, with 25 employees compared to 60 to 150 employees for the other six G7 members: Germany , Italy, United States, France, Japan and United Kingdom. The working document does contain a few recommendations to increase the Canadian presence, but it does not set any objective aimed at approaching the system deployed by our allies. The lack of human resources can have a direct impact on Canada’s chances of running a good campaign in order to win a seat in major international forums, such as the Security Council.
The initiative to transform the exercise of Canadian diplomacy is a first step in restoring the country’s credentials. However, it cannot be content with being an exercise in administrative engineering intended to tighten the bolts, repaint the walls or connect our diplomats to the latest and most modern technologies. It must be accompanied by ideas on the meaning to be given to Canada’s action on the international scene. The publication last year of the Indo-Pacific strategy went in this direction for this region of the world. Much remains to be done for other regions.