Canada in the World: Canadian International Policy

Video Interview Steven Spiegel Subscribe to eNewsletter and/or Email Alerts and Podcasts

Video Interview

Note: The opinions presented are not necessarily those of the Government of Canada.

U.S. Policy on the Middle East	4 min 23 sec	Windows Media l QuickTime
Canada’s Role	4 min 08 sec	Windows Media l QuickTime

U.S. Policy on the Middle East

I am a professor of Political Science at UCLA. For 11 years I was the Associate Director of the Burkle Center. I am now the head of the Center for Middle East Development within the Burkle Center, and in that role we seek to see ways of providing initiatives for promoting conflict amelioration in the region.

I think that the United States has a number of problems in the Middle East, to put it mildly, and I think that they can be explained in part by a tendency on the part of the United States to emphasize issues in the region on a global basis. In the earlier decades it was an attempt to combat communism and contain communism in the area. We’ve always had the oil interest, of course. But we’ve also tended to see issues in very cosmic terms—the war on terrorism, the promotion of democracy—and attempted to apply global principles regionally, which as we see in Iraq particularly, but also region-wide, doesn’t always work. We’ve been disappointed in elections and outcomes, in part in Iraq and obviously in the Hamas situation. We also tend to look at issues, if we don’t look at them globally, very locally, like Israeli-Palestinian issues, or we’ve now become experts, we think, on Shiites versus Sunnis in Iraq. What we don’t do enough is deal with the regional issues—the possible implications of our actions in Iraq for the rest of the region, or the implications of our actions towards Iran for the rest of the region. And I think that’s where the great weakness in American policy has been and that’s where I’m trying to do some of my own work now.

There are hints the United States is prepared to have some controlled discussions with the Iranians on Iraq. It’s not clear that the United States is prepared to talk on the nuclear issue. In fact, quite the contrary—there are indications it’s not. If you believe, as I do, that eventually to resolve the nuclear question we are going to have to have some kind of conversation with the Iranians, Canada is critical because of its closeness to the United States—not only geographically but diplomatically and the like, especially with the new government—and because of its respect in the region, I would say. If there are going to be discussions, Canada is kind of a unique country. It hasn’t been part of the European talks; it’s not France, Britain or Germany; it doesn’t have the same kind of history. At the same time, it understands the importance of preventing if possible, controlling if necessary, any kind of Iranian nuclear armed force option. Therefore, I think the Canadian government could be extremely important in three respects. One, promoting dialogue, preferably on the official level. Secondly, promoting Track 2 dialogue—unofficial dialogue which leads to that, and that’s very critical and that’s where Canada can play an extremely important role. Thirdly, creative new ideas for resolving the issue. If Canada were to come up with such ideas, a Canadian initiative could be very helpful, especially coordinated with the United States. The current administration has actually, particularly in the last year or so, been very receptive to initiatives by other countries that are coordinated with it. I think the French, Germans and British have been very effective in this regard. And even the Russians, with their suggestion of enriching nuclear fuel for the Iranians, have had an initiative that has had American support. Canada could do the same.

Canada’s Role

Canada has in the past played an important role. One thinks of the famous 1956 Prime Minister Pearson example, with the UN force in Sinai, but also the recent past, such as Canada leading the refugee multilateral in the 1990s. Canada has played, in such examples as those, from 1956 to the 1990s, a very important role, and I think that countries like Canada can play that role, not of establishing peace between Arabs and Israelis or solving the Iraq war, but of coming up with new ideas that can have an impact on the international scene. Certainly we are begging for new ideas on what to do in Iraq. I’m not talking about the military campaign, but the attempt to ameliorate the current conflict internally, and the role of outside powers.

One can think of the Iranian situation, where the Iranian nuclear force—even to talk about an Iranian nuclear force—has become such a destabilizing factor in the region. And one can also think, in the Arab-Israeli arena, of bringing parties together... Track 2, unofficial diplomacy, which is playing a more and more important part in the Middle East, supporting through funds, supporting through sponsorship. Even bringing people to Canada to talk, because it’s very hard now to get to the United States (visa impediments, some people don’t want to come to the United States). But Canada has no such problem, and therefore Canada could be a very important country in discussions about the Iranian nuclear force, in discussions about the issue of democracy, the impact of economic developments in certainly the Arab-Israeli and Iraqi arenas. I think Canada can play a very important role if it’s imaginative and creative.

I think that Canada is most effective when it’s a partner of the United States, working with the United States, though it has a broader perspective often, because of its lower ranking in power and because it has, in a way, more friends because it has not threatened anyone... so that through coordination with the United States, through understanding the importance of the American-Israeli relationship, which I think is a vehicle for achieving an effective policy in the region. In past decades—the fifties, sixties and seventies, for example—the American-Israeli relationship was not as clarified as it is now. Once it’s clarified, we can move forward and get that out of the way toward resolving the Arab-Israeli issue in a way that is satisfactory to both sides. Canada can play a role in that respect.

I think that when Canada gets into trouble, and is less effective, is when it’s not working with the United States. Now obviously the Canadians had serious problems with our Iraqi policy. So did many around the world; so did many Americans. And there are times when a Canadian government will find itself less able to work with the United States, and obviously when you simply cannot agree with the United States, that is your prerogative. But I think that when Canada is able to work with the United States—get ahead of the United States, perhaps, but not get so far ahead that it leads to conflict with the United States—then Canada is most effective diplomatically. And that’s whether it’s Israel, Arab states, the economy, moves for democracy, the Iraq question, the Iran question—no matter what the issue, that’s when it’s most effective. And I think that’s a lesson that’s probably been learned from the last few years: when you can work with Washington, I think you’re best off. And hopefully that will be the case in the future.

Last Updated:2006-10-16

Top of Page

Important Notices