A Foreign Policy U-Turn?

Since the end of the second world war Canada has pursued an activist foreign policy, utilizing multilateral forums under the aegis of the U.N., as a way for it to punch above its weight in global affairs. For many years, the cream of Canadian diplomacy represented the country at the United Nations in New York and Geneva. 

This evolved further after the fall of the Berlin wall. During the 1990’s, Russia under Boris Yeltsin sought cooperation with the West. The U.N. Security Council became more effective and robust as consensus among the permanent five rose to new heights. It seemed that an effective United Nations would be a political complement to the thrust towards economic and trade globalization. The sun was rising on a new era of international cooperation and a shared global vision for the future.

This all started to unravel with the rise to power of Vladimir Putin who made it clear that his goal was the resurrection of the Russian Empire as he pursued an activist foreign policy that sought confrontation over consensus and rule of force rather than rule of law.

Following 30+ years of unprecedented economic growth, China under Xi Jinping has also focused on becoming a world power. While balancing its economic interests with the West, he has aligned Russia on many issues, forming an axis of autocratic powers dedicated to challenging the West for global hegemony. This is contrary to the initial hopes of many that China’s increased prosperity would lead to its opening up politically.

For some years I and a good number of international observers have called for a coming together of liberal democracies to create the bridges required for like-minded countries to combat Russian and, perhaps, to a lesser degree, Chinese attempts to divide the West and weaken liberal democracy around the world. 

Russia has attempted to penetrate Western democratic institutions and electoral processes by stealth through surrogates in political and social circles, coopting the radical right in these countries and weakening them from within without firing a shot.

Western democracies may now be taking this threat more seriously, as illustrated by Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland in a speech to the Brookings Institution in Washington DC two weeks ago. As a former foreign minister and minister for international trade, and as a recognized author and journalist, Freeland has a full command of Russian foreign policy and where it is headed.

In her speech Freeland focused on three pillars of foreign policy essential for liberal democracies to survive and to meet the challenges posed by authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.

She described them as follows:

1. Strengthening ties between Liberal Democracies: “friendshoring” which is a conscious effort to build supply chains through one another’s economies (first proposed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen). This implies stronger trade and investment deals that bind our economies without tying them to the whim of authoritarian regimes.
2. Maintaining this alliance open to democracies that are not as liberal as ours – those of Latin America, Africa, or Asia – many of whose countries are currently reluctant to choose our side but who seek an international rules-based order.
3. Changing our approach to autocratic states that seek to subvert the international order and use force rather than dialogue to achieve their goals.

Freeland said that we need to understand that authoritarian regimes are fundamentally hostile to us, that they do not desire their political systems to evolve, and that we must be cautious about our economic relations with the world’s dictators and their elites. “We need to make clear that it will no longer be possible to rule like Stalin but live like Abramovich”. 

Readers who have heard or read her speech will note that multilateral institutions appear to play no role in Freeland’s proposed new world view. Given her background and experience, I do not think that this omission was accidental. Many citizens of liberal democracies are dismayed by a United Nations that continues to have such major human rights violators as Cuba, Nicaragua, China, and Russia on the U.N. Human Rights Council – the top UN Human Rights body. The presence of Iran on the UN Commission on the Status of Women at this particular time in its history reads like a bad joke. The same goes for the North Korean role as Chair of the UN Conference on Disarmament which calls into question the seriousness of the institution’s political bodies as institutions to be taken seriously.

The United Nations is increasingly being perceived by some as the problem and not the solution.

Freeland’s omission of the United Nations in her speech may mark a U-turn in Canadian foreign policy if my reading is accurate.

It remains to be seen if the Canadian government clarifies its position, and if other liberal democracies buy into this vision.

[email protected] 

Keep reading: Iran Today and Tomorrow

Edición: Laura Espejo