Event Summary:
Panel on The Harper Government:
Implications for Canada’s International Relations
16 February, 2006
Royal Canadian Military Institute (RCMI)
By: Michael Newson, Graduate Student at Ryerson University
The panel discussion at the Royal Canadian Military Institute on February 16th 2006 was designed to discuss the implications of a Harper Government on Canadian foreign policy from diverse perspectives. In this spirit, the panelists represented a mixture of professional backgrounds: David Dewitt (the Academic) Professor of Political Science at York University, Peter Goodspeed (the Journalist) Senior Reporter International Affairs for the National Post, and Tim Woolstencroft (the Pollster) Managing Partner of The Strategic Counsel. The panel was moderated by Keith Martin, President of CIIA Toronto Branch.
The discussion was broken up into three broad topics, each introduced by a brief and lively debate between the champion debaters of the Hart House Debating Club. The topics broached were: Canada-US Relations under the Harper Government (Will Harper bring us too close?), the state of the Canadian Military and its reinvestment needs, and finally, the role and future of NAFTA in Canada-US trade relations.
Canada-US Relations Under the Harper Government:
There was general agreement on a definite need to re-engage the United States and improve Canada-US relations. However, it was noted that Conservative foreign policy objectives may not be all that different from the foreign policy of their Liberal predecessors. Professor Dewitt noted that Paul Martin was widely expected to re-engage the US when he came into office. Due to domestic issues, the Martin government got sidetracked and was unable to follow through on its plans. PM Harper, it was suggested, may simply form the same sort of foreign policy and Canada-US relations Mr. Martin would have done had circumstances been different. On a similar point, Mr. Goodspeed noted that there was wide support from all parties when the Liberal party tabled their new foreign policy plan. This would seem to suggest the Tories are not too far away from the Liberals in their understandings and objectives for Canadian foreign policy.
In terms of possible changes in foreign policy under PM Harper, it was noted that what is most likely to change is emphasis and style rather than the general content of foreign policy. The Tories may be more given to emphasizing bilateral relations and hard power on issues such as trade and the military. It was also remarked however that the Tories don’t have much political room to maneuver as they lead a minority government and will certainly be short-term focused, looking closely at national polls, when developing foreign policy. As Mr. Woolstencroft noted, the Liberal ads near the end of the campaign playing on fear of American alignment did cut into the Conservative lead. Given these issues, the Tories are on a rather short leash when it comes to altering or broadening Canada-US relations.
Some issues in the near future that may play a role in the amelioration of Canada-US relations are UN reform, the appointment of a new UN Secretary General, as well as political issues in Haiti and Sudan in which Canada may be able to offer its considerable expertise. Other issues that, according to the panelists, should be at the top of Mr. MacKay’s to-do list are: working out a deal on border security, the softwood lumber dispute, and Canada’s continuing military role in Afghanistan. In terms of wild cards in Canada-US relations, all panelists agreed that US policy towards Iran will be the biggest question mark.
The State of the Canadian Military and Its Reinvestment Needs:
The panelists seemed to agree that there was a serious need for re-investment in the military and that the current financial commitments were really only scratching the surface (It’s thought most of the money will be needed for salaries, pensions, benefits, etc.). The real questions as to re-investment are not should we, but how and where do we invest. What are we defending ourselves from? What do we want the military to do? What does it mean to deal with Canadian Security? The types of issues that effect Canadian security today are more social issues involving migration and trans-national crime. These are issues a traditional military is incapable of dealing with. Furthermore, there is no real public appetite for a military build-up.
As Professor Dewitt suggested, the role of the Canadian military is largely to deal with obligations abroad that contribute to Canada’s vision of a just or ideal global order, as well as to alleviate American security fears. These objectives should guide the direction of our military spending. In respects to this, it was suggested a military build-up in the Arctic may help in regards to US security concerns but is not particularly popular with Canadians. In order to gain support for such a policy, the Harper government would have to play on the issues of sovereignty and the environment.
The topic ended on the issue of international law. It was noted that the current direction of international law has been to decrease state sovereignty with such initiatives as the “responsibility to protect” justifying international intervention in internal state affairs. Canada has played a significant role in this movement and it will be interesting to see the Harper government’s initiative to intervene either through the UN or broad coalitions.
The Future of NAFTA:
It was widely agreed that NAFTA has been largely beneficial to Canada and that walking away from the agreement is simply not an option; instead Canada must focus on managing the relationship appropriately. It was suggested that the Harper government will focus much of its attention on trade with the US and is not particularly concerned with the issue of diversifying Canada’s trading partners. The trend in recent years has been to form regional trading (and increasingly political) blocks. Thus, Canada must be sure to work with its regional trading partners.
The rise of China and India as major economic and political powers will result in new demands and opportunities for Canada’s raw materials and service sectors but is also a serious challenge for the manufacturing industry. While there are a number of question marks as to what the Harper government will push in terms of international trade, there has been no indication of any interest in increasing trade relations with the Global South and little talk of market diversification. The NAFTA and particularly Canada-US trade relations appear to be the major focus of the Harper government in terms of international trade.
View the event flyer: Flyer.
Snaptshot of Debators at the Event: Hart House Debators.
Event Photos:
Members of the Harper Government Panel Event engage in a discussion. From left to right: Keith Martin, David Dewitt, Tim Woolstencroft, and Peter Goodspeed.
Keith Martin, David Dewitt, and Tim Woolstencroft at the CIIA Toronto panel event.
University of Toronto Champion Debater Joanna Nairn makes her points.
David Dewitt, Peter Goodspeed, and Tim Woolstencroft join Keith Martin in listening to the Champion University of Toronto Debater Ren Renihan.
Keith Martin listens to comments by Professor David Dewitt
Moderator Keith Martin and the Harper Government Panel: David Dewitt, Professor of Political Science at York University, Peter Goodspeed, Senior Reporter International Affairs for the National Post, and Tim Woolstencroft, Managing Partner of The Strategic Counsel.
|
|
|
|
