Seems to me this is a good overview of why we need to review Canadian Foreign Affairs policy first, before Defence. Having said that, it's ridiculous how the bureaucrats will drag it out as long as they can (as an aside, I find it amusing when a liberal-leaning newspaper refers to "Martins Liberals", implicitly insuating they're not "real" Liberals ... like "Papa Doc Crouton's" ... but, I digress).
This editorial offers it in point form, and for the sake of argument ... it's not too shabby:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...&c=Article&cid=1099000209076&call_pageid=null
(oh, Good Grief! There's an equally compelling editorial in the National Post, too)
http://www.canada.com/national/nati....html?id=288802ab-4cdd-4334-8f75-5529dff8536f
Defining Canada's role in the world
Canadians aspire to a "very ambitious role in the world," Prime Minister Paul Martin declared during the election campaign. And so we should.
Our $1.3 trillion economy puts us in the elite Group of Seven club of wealthy democracies. We are a principal power, if not a major one, with wide interests. No country is closer to the United States, with its huge impact globally. Americans buy more than 80 per cent of our exports, and we buy 25 per cent of theirs. As friends, neighbours and allies, we understand Americans as few others do, and share values and interests.
And their perils. Osama bin Laden has named us as a target.
Canadians have similar ties of affection, too, with many other parts of the world, including Britain, China, Southeast Asia, Italy, Portugal, the Caribbean, Poland, the Philippines and Latin America. We can use them to make the world freer, safer, healthier.
To do that, Martin favours a "three-D" approach and an "integrated national agenda" combining diplomacy, defence and development. He promises better Canada/U.S./Mexico relations. A more coherent war on terror. A stronger effort to fight AIDS. And more.
But while Canada's interests are broad, our resources are finite. We spend more than $18 billion on diplomacy, defence and aid. That's $1.7 billion on our diplomatic corps in 2004/05, $13.6 billion on the military and some $3.3 billion on aid. Yet we could double our spending in these areas and still lag behind our allies, in relative terms. Had we done so by now, Canada's submarine fleet might not be in drydock today. And Martin might not have to suffer through lectures from allies, as well as critics at home, that we should spend more on aid.
Redefining Canada's sense of global purpose, as Martin proposes to do, will involve costly, wrenching change. And tough choices. After tightly managed consultations with bureaucrats, politicians and academics, Martin promises an International Policy Statement, the first since 1995, by late fall. A defence policy statement, the first since 1994, is to follow.
The timing of these reviews is ideal. Given the Liberals' minority status, this is a chance to define a role for Canada that embodies a broad national consensus, and that will far outlive the current government.
Typically, policy reviews produce checklists of priorities. In 1970, Pierre Trudeau put economic growth and social justice ahead of peace and security. By 1985 Brian Mulroney made national unity and sovereignty his main themes. In 1995, Jean Chrétien put prosperity first, then security.
This process of ranking matters to a government. It led Trudeau to screen foreign investment and redistribute oil wealth. Mulroney squandered energy on go-nowhere constitutional reform. And Chrétien favoured Team Canada trade missions over human rights.
What should Martin focus on?
First, coherency is key. Canada/U.S. relations are run out of the Prime Minister's Office, while the foreign affairs and trade department has been split in two. The potential for policy confusion, drift, and sending mixed signals to allies is evident. That would scupper Martin's ambitions.
Second, a focus on the North American hemisphere, with our American and Mexican partners, makes political and economic sense.
Third, we must stand by the United Nations and our other allies as required, and go our own way when necessary, as we did by not joining the Iraq war. Polls suggest Canadians are confident enough to disagree with allies and expect the government to speak boldly when need be.
How to define Canada's core interests? Here is a proposed list:
Promoting prosperity, and economic growth.
Affirming our sovereignty and independence.
Assuring our security in a world shaken by instability and terror.
Projecting our values: Democracy, peace, justice, compassion.
This ranking differs markedly from those of our our allies. The Americans put military supremacy first. So do the British. The French highlight independence. The Germans freedom, peace and prosperity. The Italians promote Euro-Atlantic relations. The Australians focus on Asian ties. New Zealanders focus on Australian ties. Each nation spends accordingly.
This ranking gives Canada/U.S. relations pride of place, but within a regional framework, and in the context of a sturdy nationalism. It also puts a higher priority on thwarting threats to this continent than on humanitarian concerns elsewhere. It reflects a 9/11 world dominated by the U.S., bound by a globalized economy and shaken by instability and terror.
In such a climate, Ottawa will have to be sovereignty-conscious, proactive and assertive to promote our interests even with friends.
Since 9/11 "the principal aim of American foreign policy is to integrate other countries and organizations into arrangements that will sustain a world consistent with U.S. interests and values," said Richard Haass, former head of policy planning for the State Department. "We are doing this by persuading more and more governments ... to sign on to certain key ideas as to how the world should operate for our mutual benefit."
Canada will continue to feel this pressure whether President George Bush or Sen. John Kerry is elected on Tuesday.
Also, Canadians must juggle other priorities: Arctic sovereignty, foreign overfishing, the softwood lumber spat and beef exports. Africa's economic crisis and pandemics. United Nations reform. Martin's push for a broader Group of 20 club of nations to address pressing issues. Building stability in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti. The Mideast conflict. Saving lives in Darfur and other regions. Peacekeeping. Arms control.
However the Martin Liberals define our priorities, after due Parliamentary and public consultation, Canada's spending must be upgraded to match our ambitions. Otherwise the reviews will be sham exercises. Parliamentary committees and experts have called, credibly, for a defence budget of $20 billion or more, and for $8 billion in aid, within a few years.
Why spend so much, so fast? Because we must reverse a generation of decline. Martin's ambition to "build Canada's influence in the world" and to "take the lead" cannot be realized on the cheap.
