Howard Anglin: The danger of Canada’s domesticated foreign policy

In 1822, British Foreign Secretary Lord Castlereagh, overwhelmed by the responsibility of his office, slit his throat and died. There can be no fear that any Canadian foreign minister will meet such an end. While Castlereagh had to contend with the Irish Question and redividing Europe at the Congress of Vienna, what cares assail a Canadian foreign minister are petty and, ironically, now chiefly domestic. Mélanie Joly memorably confirmed this to Thomas Mulcair last year. Puzzled by Canada’s flirtation with pro-Hamas forces, Mulcair asked the then-foreign minister to explain it. Joly’s supposed reply was an instant Canadian political classic: “Have you seen the demographics of my riding?” Mulcair later confessed that he “was astonished to hear such a candid admission that very local politics were playing such a role in shaping Canada’s foreign policy.” The mystery is why he was astonished. What did he think keeps a Canadian foreign minister up at night? It obviously isn’t the high-stakes, great power politics that drove Castlereagh mad. On a particularly trying day, she may be tormented by the wording of a press release. Was the precise calibration of adjectives and adverbs sufficient to signal international concern while avoiding domestic consternation? Drafting statements and crafting policy positions, a Canadian foreign minister worries as much about internal as international affairs. Making the international national  Foreign policy in Canada is already driven by domestic politics; at times, it seems they are indistinguishable. Politicians’ promotion of foreign independence days (with festivities featuring more foreign than Canadian flags) is not a pander to foreign governments or their ambassadors, but to Canadian voters. It’s an unhealthy practice that prioritises what is alien in our fellow citizens and, as Michael Bonner has observed, “perpetuates the foreignness of newcomers…and prevents national cohesion.” For a country that has grown through immigration, diaspora celebrations (though not necessarily foreign independence days) have long been a staple of the political circuit. As our population has diversified, we have added more and more colourful events to the old Orange marches and St. Patrick’s Day greenery. Nor is the influence of domestic politics on foreign affairs new. The many Canadians of Ukrainian descent were surely one reason why Brian Mulroney was the first Western leader to recognise an independent Ukraine. In that case, domestic pressure reinforced the morally and, crucially, politically correct decision for Canada. But it is not always so simple. Social media brings global affairs into our homes and hands and allows newcomers to maintain active contact with online networks back home. Combine the speed of modern communication with the number and range of diaspora groups in Canada today, and there is hardly a question of foreign affairs that doesn’t resonate politically here. Our politicians have taken notice. Indian domestic politics is probably the most important non-Canadian issue in Canadian politics, and if it’s not, it’s either the Chinese regime’s wooing of Canada’s leadership class and intimidation of Chinese Canadians or the Qatari– and Iranian-backed antisemitic protests blocking city streets and menacing Jewish neighbourhoods, community centres, and places of worship. These issues dictate what some Canadian politicians feel they can say and require them to take public stands on matters otherwise unrelated to Canada. Which way, Canadian politicians? The domestication of foreign affairs is taking a dangerous turn. Both Joly and her successor as foreign minister, Anita Anand, have been targeted at their homes by anti-Israel demonstrators. I would like to think that the fact that this intimidation has coincided with their government bending over backwards to meet the protestors’ demands, including by rashly signalling that it will recognise a Palestinian state, would teach them a lesson on the futility of appeasing a violent mob, but it almost certainly won’t. With more ridings in each election potentially decided by single-issue sectarian voters, it feels like we are approaching a threshold after which we will be locked into foreign and domestic policies by the most vocal and violent members of minority special interests. Perhaps we’ve already crossed it; that is certainly how many politicians act already. On issues from Palestine to Khalistan, they’ve done the electoral math and adjusted their principles to match the percentages. It is the coward’s choice. I have no doubt they can justify it to themselves politically, but it is morally wicked and unpatriotic to seek electoral advantage against the national interest. This is especially so when it may provide an electoral advantage, but it is not yet an electoral imperative. Few ridings, if any, are irresistibly determined by foreign sectarian politics, and there is a silent majority who would reward a politician prepared to stare down the public agitators and insist on what is best for Canada. If politicians feel it is getting harder and harder to win without playing this game, that is all the more reason for them to think about the kind of country we are becoming and the kind of politics an obsequious approach to democracy is rewarding; to consider their responsibility as Canadian leaders, stop confusing foreign and domestic politics, and stand up for the national interest against those who pressuring them to co-opt it for alien causes.