Global-role review is already doomed
By HUGH WINSOR
Monday, March 28, 2005 Page A6
Jennifer Welsh, a onetime Young Liberal activist who is now a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, has been labouring at her computer on behalf of Prime Minister Paul Martin, trying to rewrite Ottawa's much-delayed foreign policy review and provide a gloss of coherence to the disparate views of the four departments principally involved.
She was given the job because of the positive response to her recent book, At Home in the World, Canada's Global Vision for the 21st Century. We may even see the results of her handiwork, and the other effort that has gone into the review, in the next few days. But even if Ms. Welsh can insert some capital-V vision into her overview, it's too late.
The process has been so flawed, and so upstaged by eclectic decisions taken on the fly, that the review is already overtaken and discredited. This is especially the case with the handling of the Canada-United States relationship and, to a lesser extent, the re-tasking of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian International Development Agency.
Whatever you think of U.S. plans to develop some sort of shield to protect North America from missiles fired from "rogue" states (and the scientific consensus is that it will not work with current technology), the way the Martin government handled the U.S. invitation for Canadian participation has caused as many problems as the decision.
And don't believe the spin coming out of Texas last week to the effect that the ballistic missile defence issue is now behind us. That is not what President George W. Bush said when he indicated that our differences would not prevent co-operation on other, mostly housekeeping matters, or previously agreed upon border security enhancements. The BMD nettle is still there.
The evidence suggests the Prime Minister's anti-BMD announcement, which came on the eve of last month's Liberal Party convention, is popular with Canadians, regardless of the rationale. But senior U.S. officials are astonished by the eclectic way in which the decision was taken. So are a lot of Canadians who believe the pros and cons of the issue should have been aired and measured. Instead, the government left the field to Mel Hurtig and former Liberal MP Carolyn Parish, who needless to say, are ecstatic about the outcome.
The person who has taken the biggest credibility hit is Defence Minister Bill Graham, who was defending Canadian participation up until the day Mr. Martin pulled the rug out from under him. His department wrote an analysis of Canada's foreign policy, as did Foreign Affairs, addressing, among other things, the touchy issue of whether BMD would lead to the weaponization of space. But none of the analyses made it into the decision-making process.
The review has also been scooped on the more-robust approach to the Department of National Defence. There was initially much rejoicing at DND about the additional $12.8-billion promised in the Feb. 23 federal budget. But a closer look reveals most of this money is for future years, when the Liberals may or may not be in a position to deliver. And far more money will be required if the forces develop a true rapid-reaction force capable of getting to trouble spots quickly.
When the foreign-policy review finally surfaces, expect that it will include a lot about global citizenship and Canada's desire to make a difference in the world. To this end, the government acquired bragging rights with its budget promise to double overseas aid.
But a sage critic of current foreign policy, Derek Burney, former Canadian ambassador in Washington and Mulroney-era apparatchik, called in a recent speech at Foreign Affairs for an injection of realism about what Canada can, and should, do in the world.
"If . . . we indulge fancifully about bringing our 'values' or providing a 'model' to the world," he said, in a direct shot at Ms. Welsh's book, "we will, I suspect, be confined more permanently to the periphery as a dilettante, not to be taken seriously."
