Canadian foreign policy towards the region under Stephen Harper, already in poor shape, has taken a decided turn to the right, and the Prime Minister is clearly seeking to develop a different, and rather bullish, foreign policy for Canada – and not just in Latin America. 229
227 Shamsie and Grinspun, supra note 19, p.184.
228 Quoted in Chase, supra note 30.
229 Hence this quotation from an editorial of the Globe and Mail “Stephen Harper’s much-touted Americas strategy has never been clearly articulated.
It has never been funded. And, the advisory committee meant to oversee it never actually took up its new role [...] Canada has not demonstrated leadership or fostered dialogue, and its influence in the region will diminish
This is part of the new Harper approach to foreign policy, with a radically different “brand” clearly being developed. From the renaming of the armed forces (using the “Royal” prefix for the Navy and Air Force) to his annual trips to the Arctic (to support claims of Canadian sovereignty), from a huge increase in military spending to the costly war in Afghanistan, Harper has unabashedly developed a conservative, more aggressive, and intentionally muscular foreign policy. Foreign Minister and trusted Harper confidant John Baird has even changed his business card, eliminating both the word “Canada”
from the standard government design and a reference to the “Lester B.
[148] Pearson Building” (as the home of the ministry is universally known), seemingly because of his displeasure with the name of the former Liberal Prime Minister (and Nobel laureate). This studiously developed partisan exercise was visible in an election campaign ad in 2011, in which images were shown of Canadian fighter jets streaking through the sky, as Mr. Harper extolled the virtues of the new Canada that “must be great... by turns a courageous warrior and a compassionate neighbour.” 230
This is seen most clearly in the policy which he has developed towards the Middle East, where the Prime Minister’s apparently unquestioning support for Israel has been well documented. Speaking to a B’nai Brith audience in 2006, he made this abundantly clear :
“Israel, as a fellow democracy that prefers peace – as true democracies always do – can count on Canada’s steadfast friendship, support and encouragement.” 231 In so doing, however, he runs a significant risk, as Sasley and Lensink point out : “Harper should be wary of being more Israeli than Israel.” The secretary-general of Amnesty International, Salil Shetty, referred to this shift in Canadian policy under Harper, noting the “unflinching refusal” to consider criticism of Israel’s human rights abuses, and criticism of Palestinian organizations, concluding : “Globally, Canada’s reputation as a reliable human-rights champion has dropped precipitously.” 232
unless countries perceive ‘more concrete evidence on the ground of Canada’s interest’” Globe and Mail, April 4, 2011, A10.
230 Quoted in Bill Curry, “The end of Gadhafi’s rule ; the beginning of a new tougher Canada” Globe and Mail, August 23, 2011, A3.
231 Quoted in Brent Sasley and Neil Lensink, “Harper’s honest mistake at the G8 summit” Embassy Magazine, June 15, 2011. Online.
To a large extent this one-dimensional, rather simplistic, approach to supporting Israel can also be seen in the manner in which Harper clearly interprets contemporary Latin America. In 2008, for instance, he lavished praise on the former Uribe government in Colombia and emphasized how it stood out as a beacon of hope for free enterprise and individual liberty in a region where left-wing governments ruled :
“While many nations are [149] pursuing market reform and democratic development, others [read Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia] are falling back to economic nationalism and protectionism, to political populism and authoritarianism.” 233 In a rather simplistic formula, Mr. Harper seemed to be placing Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras and Mexico as the “good neighbours” (clearly supportive of similar right-wing economic policies to his own), while ignoring others like Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and of course, Cuba. The previous year he had expressed a similar sentiment : the choice facing Latin Americans “is not simply between unfettered capitalism and Cold War socialism. The Canadian model offers a middle course for countries seeking democratic institutions, free markets, and social equality.” 234 Clearly, “Cold War socialism” has to be avoided at all costs, even when the approach of the governments to which he refers are introducing straightforward measures to improve access to education and healthcare. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is unable to see the region from anything other than a one-dimensional, rather simplistic manner, and this is reflected in his foreign policy thrust toward the region. (From confidential interviews with DFAIT
232 Quoted in Campbell Clark, “Amnesty International says Canada has lost its status as human-rights paragon” Globe and Mail, April 1. 2011, A6. Shetty noted that this criticism was the result of a combination of several factors, including “a reluctance to sign new UN rights declarations, avoiding accountability for the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, and a failure to stand up for the rights of Canadians accused abroad, such as Omar Khadr, the Canadian detained in Guantanamo Bay”.
233 Gordon, supra note 21, p. 72.
234 Quoted in Shamsie and Grinspun, supra note 19, p.188. In this seminal article the authors also take Mr. Harper to task, noting : “Setting aside the erroneous depiction of events in the region (the recent election of left-of-centre governments does not constitute a return to ‘Cold War socialism’), this statement fails to acknowledge the Harper government’s strategic alignment with US hemispheric priorities, making the charting of a so-called
‘middle course’ difficult to envision”, pp. 188-89.
bureaucrats and one senior minister, it is clear that Mr. Harper has almost singlehandedly fashioned this new, muscular foreign policy.)
Mr. Harper seems genuinely unaware of the widespread rejection over a decade ago of the “Washington Consensus”, along with accompanying neoliberal policies, and massive privatization of many formerly state-controlled industries. That approach is dead, discredited, and rejected. Instead, blinkered by his own well-known free market approach, he sincerely believes that the “trickle down”
approach of creating wealth for Latin American elites (whose investment and prosperity will [150] apparently lead to benefits for the poor) will then work. It seems clear that the filter of his beliefs, and his well-known control fetish, are doing no favours for Canadian foreign policy.
A microcosm of this ideologically-driven understanding is Ottawa’s approach to Cuba. Harper’s insistence on largely ignoring Cuba, a major player in the Americas, raises serious questions about the efficacy of Canada’s inter-American gambit. 235 Significantly, Canadian-Cuban relations during the Harper years have suffered and now appear to be locked in a diplomatic holding pattern. To an outside observer, it looks as if a neoconservative ideology, supported by lethargy (and some fear of pursuing innovative policies) in the Pearson Building in Ottawa, has taken the place of pragmatism and commonsense. Put simply, official Canadian policy toward Cuba is now curiously mimicking the failed U.S. approach of the former George W. Bush presidency – precisely when the Barack Obama administration is initiating a more moderate and more pragmatic Cuba policy. Mr. Harper’s ideology, in short, appears to have resulted in profound blinkers limiting a more pragmatic policy towards Cuba in particular, and Latin America in general.
One should also remember that Canada has an enviable position in Cuba : two-way trade exceeds $1.5 billion, almost a million Canadian tourists visit annually, Toronto-based Sherritt International is the largest single foreign investor in the country, and Ottawa has had a long and storied relationship with the island. Significantly, the only
235 See John M. Kirk and Peter McKenna, “Stephen Harper’s Cuba Policy : From Autonomy to Americanization ?”, Canadian Foreign Policy, 2009, vol.
15 issue 1, pp.21-39.
countries in the Western hemisphere not to break diplomatic ties with Cuba in the early 1960s were Canada and Mexico. And, no less important, the Cubans respect us enormously – as is symbolized by the 2 million Cubans who participate annually in the Terry Fox run.
Yet the [151] Harper government has consistently ignored that goodwill and neglected the bilateral relationship’s huge potential.
More to the point, if the Harper government does not revitalize our engagement policy with the Cubans, Canada faces the very real prospect of jeopardizing its longstanding bilateral advantages and ceding those to the United States and others – including the Chinese.
Havana’s successful medical internationalism in the region (where millions of Latin Americans have been treated at no cost) in particular, as well as the fiercely nationalistic policy of the Cuban revolution, are highly regarded in the region. To be sure, the key to Canada actually opening the door to the wider hemisphere is clearly not through Costa Rica, Colombia or Chile, but by fostering closer relations with Havana. If we fail to cultivate closer ties with the Cubans, Harper’s vaunted “Americas Strategy” is probably doomed to failure – or at least will not live to anything like its full potential. 236
Mr. Harper also seems unaware of the significant trend, usually referred to as the “Pink Tide”, of several socialist and social democratic governments that have been elected in Latin America since the first electoral victory of Hugo Chávez in 1998. They are now in power in Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, Argentina, Paraguay, and Cuba. To put this in a different framework, by 2005 some three quarter of the 350 million people of Latin America were living in countries ruled by left-leaning presidents. With the exception of Brazil (the most powerful economy in all of Latin America, with a population of almost 200 million consumers, tremendous potential for continued growth, and thus a natural target for the Harper strategy of supporting Canadian trade and investment), it is [152] significant that the Prime Minister has not travelled to any of these, instead preferring to travel to those countries in the region which, in addition to reflecting his own ideological disposition, also offer solid commercial potential – especially in the lucrative mining sector.
236 See Peter McKenna, “Harper can’t ignore Cuba”, Ottawa Citizen, August 12, 2011, A13.
What needs to be borne in mind, however, is that this powerful role in the mining industry in several Latin American countries is also remarkably controversial. 237 Significantly, the request of local communities affected by Barrick Gold’s operation in Chile to meet with the Prime Minister and express concern at the Canadian company’s practices was denied. Criticisms have also mounted in recent years against the operations in the region of many Canadian mining companies. Goldcorp, for instance, which has mines in Mexico, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile and Argentina, has been singled out as a company where severe infractions have taken place at its mines, “including the destruction of archeological sites, acid mine drainage, water resource depletion in drought-prone areas, polluting water resources with copper and iron, high levels of arsenic and lead in local inhabitants, mercury poisoning, pipeline bursts and disregarding the pleas of locals.” 238 To date, the Canadian government under Mr. Harper has widely ignored this well-documented litany of complaints, preferring instead to trust mining companies in the voluntary compliance with industry standards practiced in Canada.
In the case of Honduras, it is worth noting that former President Zelaya, concerned about mining practices (and in particular environmental impact and labour practices), imposed a moratorium on mining in 2008 (a policy likely to be struck down as a result of the recently signed free trade accord between Canada and Honduras).
Already [153] about 90% of mining investment is that of Canadian companies there. To be sure, the record is a poor one –as typified by Goldcorp’s operation in the Siria Valley, where there are major problems with the local water supply which is polluted with heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cyanide. A study of the Canadian role in the mining industry in Latin America in general reveals a history which is disturbing indeed, yet it is one which the Harper government refuses to address, blindly supporting as it does Canadian mining companies throughout the region.
237 For a critical examination of Canadian mining operations, see Liisa L. North,
“Bad Neighbors”, Canadian Dimension, January/Fenruary 2011, vol. 45 issue 1, pp. 19-23 ; and Keenan, supra note 18, pp. 29-34.
238 Whalen, supra note 20.
Both the support by Mr. Harper for Canadian mining companies and the bilateral trade agreements themselves also have a significant political role, since they constitute major levels of support for conservative governments in the region, often guilty of flagrant human rights abuses. In this way, there is a clear union of goals included in the Harper approach : support for both Canadian foreign investment and right-wing (and often authoritarian) governments.
Perhaps more significantly, the Americas approach employed by the Harper government, while clearly beneficial to Canadian banks and mining companies, is not overly popular in the region, where there have been dozens of protests against Canadian mining companies throughout Latin America. The Prime Minister has been skillful in presenting criticisms as the simple frustration of people disinterested in enhanced bilateral trade. In doing so, however, he has ignored (again apparently for ideological reasons) the massive human rights abuses in some of the countries with which he has signed free trade accords (such as Colombia and Honduras). 239 These decisions could, over time, serve to damage Canada’s standing in the region.
[154]
“The Latinos don’t want the US at the table and they see Canada as an extension of the US”, notes a DFAIT official in the April 15, 2009, cable released by WikiLeaks. He was completely correct, since the Canadian reputation in the region under the Harper government has been badly affected. The evidence is compelling. Very few Latin American nations, for example, supported Canada’s bid for a seat on
239 It is interesting how trade issues have caused a major change in Mr.
Harper’s thinking on China and India. Initially cool to developing a relationship with Beijing because of its own poor human rights record, the Prime Minister was not averse to toning down his rhetoric on these abuses once he saw the potential for enhanced commerce. As a result he visited China for the first time in 2009, and again in November 2011. In July, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird travelled to China to prepare the agenda, calling China a “strategic partner”, a “friend” and an “ally” – terms unthinkable in the early Harper years. Once again commercial possibilities are of paramount importance. In Baird’s remarks, it is significant that he mentioned commercial possibilities above all else, but neglected to mention border disputes in the South China Sea and North Korea, imprisoned Canadians, commercial espionage or the supplying of arms to pro-Gadhafi forces in Libya.
the UN Security Council in 2010 – a humiliating defeat for Canada as it was beaten handily by Portugal. Ironically one of the few that did – Cuba – remains on the Harper black list, a stunning error of judgment. In addition, the newly-minted Community of Latin American and Caribbean States formed in early 2010 in Mexico made it obvious that two countries were not welcome to their inaugural meetings : Canada and the United States. Alternative organizations, such as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), also underline a definitive interest for Latin Americans to pursue a more independent approach, while the credibility of the OAS continues to decline.
The fact is that the combination of rapacious Canadian investment (particularly in the mining sector), and Mr. Harper’s ideological blinkers are doing Canada a major disservice from a hemispheric standpoint. We are becoming, to use the fitting title of Jack Ogelsby’s seminal book of some 35 years ago, nothing more than “Gringos from the Far North,” the “Ugly Canadians” who seek profit above all, trample over local populations, ignore massive human rights abuses by the militaries of our political allies, and ignore serious environmental concerns. It is a poor substitute for a thoughtful and progressive Americas policy posture.
[155]