Canadian diplomacy takes a backward step

WHERE CANADA has no foreign mission and Britain does, the two countries will now seek to pool their diplomatic resources for consular purposes, for dealing with emergencies and possible evacuations, and for sharing local expertise.

As British Foreign Secretary William Hague told CTV News: “So it is natural that we look to link up our embassies with Canada’s in places where that suits both countries. It will give us a bigger reach abroad for our businesses and people for less cost.”

And if you listened to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird tell it, last week’s decision to share embassy office space, services and staff with Britain is little more than a “small administrative agreement” and cost-saving measure.

Former clerk of the Privy Council and Canadian high commissioner in London, Mel Cappe, also concurred: “This is merely a matter of sharing facilities. I don’t see this as a problem at all. We’re never going to see a British officer delivering a diplomatic note to a foreign minister on behalf of Canada.” At least not yet. While it may be true that such a move will not immediately affect the independence of our foreign policy decision-making process, this is still a bad idea.

Let’s remember that Canadians fought long and hard to secure the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which effectively extricated us from the colonial box and turned over autonomous conduct of foreign affairs to Ottawa.

Furthermore, at least part of the push for these changes comes expressly from the Brits (who first leaked it to the Daily Mail newspaper in London). But we should be careful here that Canada is not being used by the British for their own domestic political interests — that is, for putting some diplomatic space between them and the extension of the European Union’s (EU) own foreign policy reach. (One is left wondering: does that explain why the Brits would not want to utilize the diplomatic missions of other EU countries as opposed to those of Canada?) To be sure, the last thing that Canada needs to do is to jeopardize ongoing free trade negotiations with the EU, which are now at a very crucial and delicate stage.

We also run the risk of having Canada’s brand undermined globally. Canadians could be simply lumped in with the British whether we like it or not. And given the U.K.’s less than stellar colonial history, such association will only hurt Canada’s image and profile in regions like Africa, Asia and the Caribbean.

Indeed, we have tried in certain parts of the world to take advantage of the fact that we don’t have the baggage of a colonial master and military intervenor. Canadians constantly tell others that we conduct ourselves differently than the Brits or the Yanks.

But our reputation in Latin America (to say nothing of our bilateral relations with Argentina) has already suffered because of our siding with the British at the 2012 Summit of the Americas over the Falklands/Malvinas territorial dispute. Do we really want to further cement the idea — by moving forward with these diplomatic changes — that Canada is doing the U.K.’s bidding in the Americas?

Foreign policy is, in part, about image-making and perception, sending messages to the world and national branding. We certainly don’t want anyone abroad mistaking us with British support for apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s (which we opposed), with British reluctance to put boots on the ground in Bosnia during the early 1990s (where we sent peacekeepers), and with British military engagement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which, thankfully, we stayed out of). Do we want this kind of confusion and blurring of Canada’s image to mark our foreign relations?

Accordingly, former Canadian ambassador Louis Delvoie worried about the collateral damage to Canada in countries where the British are held in low regard. “The British embassy in Iran was attacked last year — if it was a joint embassy, our Canadian diplomats would have been in danger,” he explained.

The timing of this announcement is also questionable given the recent election of a secessionist government in Quebec. Everyone knows that the sovereigntists have no time for the “Britainization” of Canadian foreign policy or for expanding connections with the motherland, the Queen or even the Commonwealth. Why would we want to make this change knowing that the Péquistes will only use it to bolster their own argument for why they need to chart their own course in international affairs?

More important, could key Canadian interests be negatively affected by this move? What happens in a place like Burma, where Canada has no diplomatic footprint, and one or two Canadian diplomats are posted to the British embassy (will the Canadian flag be prominently displayed?). Will Canadian economic interests be aggressively pursued in that country from the British embassy?

Are not the Brits and Canadians commercial competitors in Burma? And how does it look when you have to hold Canada-Burma bilateral trade discussions back at the British embassy compound. Is that a secure office location for Canada?

After all, Canada should not be trying to conduct its foreign policy on the cheap. We are a rich industrialized country, with vast mineral wealth, and a respected member of the G-8. We don’t need to be pinching pennies when it comes to our foreign relations and diplomatic presence abroad. If we want to be a real player on the world stage, this is not the way to do it.

The bottom line is that we should have our own embassy and physical presence in Burma (and elsewhere) to build constructive relationships with the host government and civil society, to collect valuable intelligence and to identify business opportunities, and to serve Canadians there (and those who want to come to Canada). As a former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations opined succinctly to one media outlet: “You need your embassies to be your eyes, ears and your voice abroad.” Well said.