All swagger, no substance

Ettore Fiorani
June 10, 2017
Canada’s Liberal government announced a wholesale makeover of foreign and defence policy this week that repudiated much of what they ran on in 2015. Instead of cheap soft power diplomacy, they’re now promising expensive hard power militarism. It’s exactly what U.S. President Donald Trump wants Canada to do, but the Liberals say they’re doing it because they can’t depend on Trump to reliably defend the free world anyone. Whatever the case, writes Ettore Fiorani, this hawkish new Liberal doctrine is likely to go down badly with their voters and is therefore unlikely to last any longer than the Trump presidency.

All swagger, no substance

Ettore Fiorani
June 10, 2017
Canada’s Liberal government announced a wholesale makeover of foreign and defence policy this week that repudiated much of what they ran on in 2015. Instead of cheap soft power diplomacy, they’re now promising expensive hard power militarism. It’s exactly what U.S. President Donald Trump wants Canada to do, but the Liberals say they’re doing it because they can’t depend on Trump to reliably defend the free world anyone. Whatever the case, writes Ettore Fiorani, this hawkish new Liberal doctrine is likely to go down badly with their voters and is therefore unlikely to last any longer than the Trump presidency.
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

On the face of it, this week’s pronouncements on Canadian foreign and defence policy by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau marked a stunning change of direction. It was elected in 2015 on dovish promises to stop Canadian participation in bombing missions against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and return to classical peacekeeping. During their first two years in office, the Liberals cut defence spending to less than one percent of GDP and dithered endlessly over where to send peacekeepers. But this week, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered a startlingly hawkish speech announcing that Canada would henceforth use “hard power” to defend itself and stop “free riding” on American military protection. A day later, Liberal Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced a massive arms build-up over the next 20 years. What’s next, mandatory military service and a nuclear weapons program?

Don’t hold your breath. Freeland’s rhetoric was not aimed mainly at Canada’s enemies but at its friends – fellow progressives among the western powers who have concluded that they’re on their own as long as deranged President Donald Trump is making a mess of everything in Washington and turning the liberal world order upside down. As for Sajjan’s shopping list – warships, weaponized drones, more troops and special ops fighters, and more fighter jets than even the Harper Conservative “warmongers” wanted – almost all of it is backloaded to after the next election and beyond.

To be fair, Minister Freeland is probably made of sterner stuff than her predecessor at Global Affairs, the owly professor Stephane Dion. He lost his job and was banished to diplomatic obscurity in Europe just a few months ago, perhaps because he wouldn’t or couldn’t man up and lead the Liberal charge in this new martial direction. Freeland, by contrast, had been refreshingly belligerent in defending her Ukrainian kinsmen from the depredations of Russian President Vladimir Putin. And there’s no sign of the bleeding-heart Trudeau Liberal who was mocked when she took offence at the mere discussion of radical Islam on Bill Maher’s Real Time or when she left CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) talks on the verge of tears.

Despite his squishy feminism and earnest preference for sunnier ways, Trudeau has occasionally shown some backbone, and a temper, such as when he beat up Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau in a charity boxing match and charged across the floor of the House of Commons, elbowed a female NDP MP out of the way, and frog-marched another MP to his seat for a vote. So it may not have been too difficult for the hawks in his cabinet to convince him that the doves should be caged. Especially after German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued her recent invitation to the western powers to dump Trump and form a new alliance without the U.S., at least until America comes to its senses on international trade and climate change.

U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis and Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan at the Pentagon. (Image: AP/Cliff Owen)

Still, what’s a liberal urban millennial hipster to make of the government they voted for? They didn’t sign on for hard power and an arms build-up (or oil sands pipelines, but that’s another story). Chances are they like Freeland standing up to Putin and Russian aggression, as long as it doesn’t cost any blood or treasure. And they may be reassured that Trudeau still holds “legendary revolutionary” Fidel Castro in high esteem. If the new foreign and defence policy puts some daylight between Canada and Trumpland, so much the better. And on the promise that mattered above all the ones he’s broken, he is apparently going to deliver on the legalization of marijuana.

Freeland and Sajjan have probably not gone rogue. Indeed, the boys and girls in short pants in the Trudeau PMO are undoubtedly just as top-down in managing the ministries as they were in Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper’s time. However tempting it is for conservatives to go on believing the former drama teacher is in way over his head, it is highly improbable that he takes instruction from his top ministers.

Besides, the proposed shift in policy is not as dramatic as the flurry of announcements would suggest. For one, multilateralism is at the core of Canada’s foreign policy, and is not a new concept. Whether governed by Liberals or Conservatives, as a middle power Canada has no choice but to subscribe to multilateralism. However, Canada’s multilateralism may evolve and become more reliant on NATO and other non-American western allies.

In her speech, Freeland called out Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and questioned his commitment to carry the mantle of American global leadership. But even if Freeland’s jab at Trump makes progressives feel good, America will nevertheless remain central to NATO and western strategic planning. On the flipside, despite criticizing Trump, the Canadian government is effectively capitulating to his demand that other NATO nations “pay up.”

Some say they won’t believe the Liberals renewed commitment to Canada’s military until they see concrete results. As Conservative MP and former Canadian military helicopter pilot Erin O’Toole put it, “future behavior is judged by past action, and the Liberals have repeatedly cut defence and backed away from global work with our allies.” He makes a fair point. Canada indeed pulled out of the aerial combat mission against ISIS (although the Liberals did substantially increase Canada’s on-the-ground support for Iraqi troop training), and the most recent federal budget gutted current defence spending even more.

Freeland has provided some hope for those who favour a Canadian foreign policy based on a principled approach and unwavering commitment to NATO. But they will likely be disappointed unless the Liberals are confident a plurality of Canadian voters are on board with talking louder and carrying a bigger stick on the world stage. They rarely are, and this week’s announcements were all talk. Acquiring the bigger stick and using it will be the real test of this apparent Liberal volte-face on foreign and defence policy. The better bet is that it will last no longer than the Trump presidency.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Content over Process: Alberta’s New K-6 Curriculum is a Welcome Shift in Educational Thinking

It is clear that “progressives” are intent on rewriting, discrediting or wiping out the past. That context helps to clarify the left’s horror at Alberta’s proposed new K-6 school curriculum. Its fact-based approach to elementary schooling includes the history of Western civilization back to its beginnings, and to progressives, that simply cannot stand. With the curriculum’s comment period open until next spring, the controversy continues to boil. A lifelong educator, Patrick Keeney well knows what progressives have been up to. Keeney sees this as the moment when parents and all those who believe in a genuinely liberal education can take back our schools.

Canada's natural resources: A practical way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A Practical Path to Lowering Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The zeal with which many politicians push environmental policies seems in almost inverse proportion to their practicality. The more expensive, unrealistic, utopian and unachievable, the more it animates them. Justin Trudeau and his key ministers are the apotheosis of this tendency, appearing determined to wreck western Canada’s economy and ruin the prosperity of millions in an impossible quest to “save the planet.” The economic carnage and impoverishment they’ll wreak seems almost like a feature rather than a bug, worn like a national hairshirt or display of religious penance. Gwyn Morgan, however, believes it’s still possible to craft a Canadian emissions reduction strategy based on facts and economic opportunity rather than ideology and fantasy. Canada, he explains, “can do good by doing well” – reducing global emissions by exporting to eager markets around the world a Canadian natural resource that we have in practically unlimited supply.

How to Cool Canada’s Overheated Statue Removal Business

Just a few years ago we passed them on the street without a second thought. Today, they’re political minefields. Statues are one way for a society to remember its heroes and its great moments. But amid a rethinking of our past, perhaps we need a new way to decide which heroes are worthy of remembering, and which moments were truly great. Setting aside the heated rhetoric and rampant vandalism currently determining the fate of Canada’s statues of historical figures, Lloyd W. Robertson surveys the global experience and looks for ways to reconcile public memorials from the past with present-day concerns.   

More from this author

Did Canada’s first immigrants fall from the sky?

Aboriginal grievance and entitlement stories made a lot of news in Canada in June. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau renamed National Aboriginal Day as National Indigenous Peoples Day. He also renamed his office to erase its historic link to Hector Langevin, an architect of the residential schools system. And he gave the old American embassy in Ottawa to native groups. Still aboriginal activists weren’t satisfied. So they badgered an apology out of Governor General David Johnston for calling First Nations peoples immigrants. Which left Ettore Fiorani and Paul Bunner wondering, where on or off earth do these insatiably aggrieved activists come from?

Where have all the Chavistas gone?

Anybody seen Sean Penn or Oliver Stone or Noam Chomsky in Caracas lately, pleading with angry, hungry Venezuelans to stop rioting against the Maduro government and support the revolutionary vision of the late socialist saint Hugo Chavez? How about Canadian Chavistas Linda McQuaig and Naomi Klein? Surely they all believe the country’s current economic and democratic meltdown is the result of a conspiracy by western capitalists and imperialists. They better get that story out quick, writes Ettore Fiorani, before they catch blame as enablers of the world’s next failed state.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.