SPEECHES
FEBRUARY 18, 2005
MONTREAL, Quebec
2005/10
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY
THE HONOURABLE PIERRE PETTIGREW,
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
AT THE MCGILL INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF CANADA
It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning. I think you have done an excellent
job—with your themes, your panels and your speakers—of capturing the issues and
debates around Canada’s role in the world.
I am particularly impressed that you managed to get three federal ministers to speak to
you all in one day! Of course, being first up means that I will have to deal with the
question, “Why is it taking so long to release your International Policy Statement?”
In the brief time I have with you this morning, I would like to share a few thoughts on
what is, in my view, a key challenge facing Canadian foreign policy.
The International Policy Review (IPR) that the government has been undertaking in the
last year has grappled with many issues. But since I am unable, unfortunately, to tell
you what has been decided at this point, and I certainly cannot confirm, deny or
otherwise comment on any stories you may have read or heard about the outcome of
the policy review (nor on who is writing it), allow me to speak about something that my
experience tells me is a critical determinant.
I want to talk, more specifically, about what I would call the “politics of choice.”
Seven years ago, in a book entitled The New Politics of Confidence (Pour une politique
de la confiance), I wrote that “Canada in the year 2005 will be faced with strategic
choices it will be unable to ignore.” I then suggested that while we would be “particularly
well-equipped to play an international role…in a changing world system, we will…have
to fight to maintain and improve our image and preserve our special nature in a more
fluid international context…”
Let me assure you, I did not enter politics to become a soothsayer, but here we are in
2005 and perhaps the words I used seven years ago are not too far from the truth! We
do indeed face important strategic choices today—domestically and globally.
My experience at CIDA [Canadian International Development Agency], as International
Trade Minister, and now as Foreign Minister leaves me even more convinced that our
international “personality” is well-suited to play a valuable role in today’s era of
globalization, asymmetrical threats, an unprecedented number of failing and fragile
states, and a pre-eminent global actor—the United States.
I have just returned from the Middle East. While I do not want to draw any major
conclusions from such a brief visit—I am reminded of the story about a man who visited
China for three days and then wrote a book: An Analysis of China – Yesterday, Today
and Tomorrow—I was struck by the level of interest in Canada’s role.
Notwithstanding the fact that a parade of high-level visitors had just preceded me, it
was clear that my hosts were happy to see Canada involved. Wherever I visited, I was
told that we are considered a faithful and reliable partner.
We are trusted by all sides—Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians. We
are almost uniquely seen to have a policy position based on fairness, the rule of
law—particularly international law—and one that is grounded in working with all the
parties to find just and practical solutions.
They want Canada there, offering the best that we have in terms of expertise in
governance, security, economic and social development. They want both governmental
and private-sector involvement.
As I reflect on this and many other experiences, there is absolutely no question in my
mind that we must be prepared—in a world crowded with complex and difficult
challenges, many actors and a seemingly infinite number of opinions regarding what
needs to be done—to not just respond to the interests of others, but also to “fight” for a
distinctive voice if we want Canada to continue to be—and be seen as—a valued and
valuable global player.
The key question we are asking ourselves, through the IPR and otherwise, is how do
we do so effectively, taking advantage of our international personality? In ways that
show that we can make a difference in the world? Without spreading ourselves too thin
and trying to do too much?
Canada’s response to the recent tsunami tragedy in Southeast Asia demonstrates very
well both our collective commitment and our dilemma. Despite our relatively small
financial capacity, Canada has provided fully 10 percent of the total global funding
committed for relief. This includes $200 million in donations from individual Canadians.
This outpouring of support by Canadians for the victims of the tsunami indicates our
collective sense of global responsibility.
But it also illustrates another point. When an international crisis occurs, there is an
immediate expectation that Canada should actively respond, often above and beyond
our relative capacities.
In Afghanistan, Canada has been one of the largest military contributors, and has made
that country our largest bilateral aid partner. Three years ago, Afghanistan received
zero development assistance support from Canada.
After Haiti’s crisis a year ago, we have been providing 10 percent of the international
community’s assistance, including significant police-training support, and I intend to
reinforce Canada’s commitment there when I return in a few weeks.
We had one of the largest election observer teams to witness the birth of a new
democracy in Ukraine last December.
We led the planning for managing the recent—and for many, unexpectedly
successful—elections in Iraq.
We have been active in Sudan, including a diplomatic push with the members of the
Security Council to agree to let the International Criminal Court (which Canada helped
to found) proceed with war-crimes investigations in Darfur.
I raise these examples not because I think we should not respond—far from it. There
are very good foreign policy and humanitarian reasons for being in all of these
countries. Canadians, who collectively are representative of so many of the
communities of the world, are clearly showing that they want their country engaged.
These commitments do, however, contribute to an ongoing assumption, reinforced by
our foreign policy history and global memberships, that Canada should be involved in a
wide range of issues and should try to have a role in as many ways as possible.
But doing so bears the risk of compromising our effectiveness. This is our dilemma.
While I often receive advice about issues and countries that Canada should not get
involved in, it is usually accompanied by the suggestion that we should instead be
involved in another issue or another region!
Criticism from the pundits also clouds an important point: we have made important
choices. We make foreign policy choices every day, based on the strength of advice
drawn from our network of missions abroad, and from our international affairs experts
both in Canada and in the field.
The decision to act, to send a message, to lend Canada’s name to a UN resolution, to
provide support to a fledgling democracy, to protect the vulnerable—these are the kinds
of decisions we make on an ongoing basis. Cumulatively, these decisions add up to
Canada’s foreign policy personality, and it is one that continues to be respected the
world over.
Recently, I have also overseen important decisions with respect to the structure and
character of Foreign Affairs Canada which, despite the events of Tuesday in the House
of Commons, is still being called FAC! We have realigned FAC’s structure to better
reflect our roles and interests in North America, to reflect our stronger role in
international security, and to emphasize our commitment to tackling truly global issues,
such as the environment, migration and human health.
Changes we have made also reflect our commitment to help shape a new
multilateralism.
In this respect, the recommendations of the United Nations High Level Panel report,
which includes compelling proposals such as the creation of a Peacebuilding
Commission to better prepare the UN for crisis response, and support for the
Responsibility to Protect principle that the Prime Minister has actively promoted, are
ones I believe you will see some further action on in the upcoming (yes it is coming!)
International Policy Statement.
In the end, choice is really about being able to exercise discipline in the face of constant
pressures to respond to every international crisis, every global trend and every
international opportunity with a “substantial” Canadian contribution, regardless of
whether it fits with Canada’s international priorities.
The fact is that the politics of choice has always been, and will continue to be, a
defining feature of Canadian foreign policy. I want to be clear about this point. To be
successful, Canadian foreign policy has to balance finite resources with seemingly
infinite expectations. Hence, the need to make difficult choices.
There is no question that we have global interests, but in my view, a weakness of our
foreign policy has been our tendency to be global without being disciplined in how we
do so.
Throwing more money at our foreign policy is not, in itself, sufficient. In my view, if we
truly expect to make a difference, our foreign policy needs focus, supported by
dedicated resources. We must focus on key priorities that both reflect the values and
interests of Canadians and respond to the needs of the international community. More
than that, we must accept that while we have many assets and many global interests, it
is vital that we choose priorities among and even, where necessary, within them.
For example, there is much I think we could do to help the peace process in the Middle
East. On my recent visit, I announced a judicial training assistance program for
Palestinians, and I am also sending a fact-finding mission to ascertain what else we can
do to be helpful.
But I already know from my discussions that the list of things we are being asked to do,
could do, are well-placed to do, and even in some cases uniquely able to do, is very
long. Therefore, it is critical that we focus our efforts on key issues and objectives
where Canada’s value-added can be clearly demonstrated, and to which we can
commit resources.
My chosen focus as foreign minister will be on three major activities.
The first is strengthening the role of Foreign Affairs Canada as the chief coordinating
and representative body for Canada’s international policies, both here and around the
world.
In part, this will involve increasing our diplomatic presence abroad, improving our third
language capacity and refining our international crisis response management role.
The second is selectively determining where Canada can play a role in advancing
global peace and security—in the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Haiti and elsewhere—and
leading an active Canadian strategy (multi-departmental and multi-stakeholder) to
pursue that role.
The third is ensuring that our diplomatic service leads Canada’s effort to reform
multilateral institutions—and, where needed, promotes new ones such as the L20—to
better support clearly defined international priorities that are also key Canadian policy
objectives.
These priorities include the Responsibility to Protect, war-crimes prosecution, counter
terrorism capacity building, space security, global infectious-disease management and
global warming, particularly its impact on sustainable development in the circumpolar
Arctic.
Focusing on these priorities will, in my view, help Canada to continue to be a distinctive
and respected voice in the world.
Thank you.
| 
