What should we make of Carney's foreign policy outlook?

Winnipeg Free Press

3 days ago

Opinion
It's early days yet for the Mark Carney Liberal government. So, it's hard to decipher with any precision what the contours of a Carney foreign policy will be.
On the face of it, his international policy outlook appears to be focused largely on the so-called 'Anglosphere' of countries — that is, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Stated differently, it is a foreign policy posture that is shaping up to be more like Stephen Harper's than that of Justin Trudeau's. You might even posit that it sounds a lot like the language of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's early 1970s foreign policy orientation — including his ill-fated 'Third Option' trade adjustment strategy.
There is an obvious emphasis on greater autonomy and sovereignty, economic progress and transformation, trade policy and diversification, and defence policy, global security and military procurement. But there is also a sense that Carney views Western Europe, China and India (throw in Mexico and Brazil for good measure) as intimately connected to these overarching foreign policy themes.
RICKY CARIOTI / THE WASHINGTON POST FILES
President Donald Trump meets with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the White House in May. Carney's foreign policy includes making distance between Canada and its nearest neighbour.
Moreover, the mid-June G7 Summit in Alberta confirmed Carney's commitment to economic expansion, international security and world order and less interest in the African continent, the Middle East and Latin America and the Caribbean. Carney's worldview, then, is evidently a narrow one, with a sharp focus on a small set of issue-areas and a central banker's fixation on measuring results and outcomes.
Any understanding of Carney's foreign policy universe, though, needs to begin with how he views the international diplomatic space. In a word, he sees global politics through the prism of a political realist and the disposition of someone versed in power politics. The emphasis is on interests, military security, balance of power and, most important, economic advancement.
This all came through loud and clear in Carney's June 9 speech on foreign and defence policy at the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto, where he stressed that this was a 'hinge moment' for Canada. When the multiple threats from a 'dangerous and divided' world (later mentioning 'a darker, more competitive world' and a declining U.S.) are undermining the existing rules-based international order, he said that this country has no choice but to respond to these fundamentally changing circumstances.
Additionally, he reminded his audience that Canada has 'agency in determining what comes next.' As Carney noted in his speech: 'Canada can work toward a new international set of partnerships that are more secure, prosperous, just and free. We can pursue deeper alliances with stable democracies who share our interests, values, principles and history.'
But where exactly does this leave Canada? From Carney's standpoint, Ottawa needs to be on the offensive and can't afford to just sit back and react to events. 'Middle powers must compete for interest and attention knowing that if they are not at the table, they are on the menu,' he explained.
Make no mistake, Carney envisions a stronger defence posture at home with a more activist and reliable diplomatic presence abroad. Accordingly, there will be dollops of money thrown at the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our NATO commitments (including more money for Ukraine), to bolster Canada's defence industry and to strengthen our military footprint in the Arctic.
Carney's speech even had flashes of a 21st century version of the Chinese counterweight strategy on how to deal with a threatening U.S. In other words, Canada needs to find other countries to lessen our dependence on the U.S., to show the Americans that they are not the only game in town and to fortify our bargaining position vis-à-vis Washington.
Tuesdays
A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.
Of course, Carney's outlining of the broader strokes of his foreign policy will need to be fleshed out in the coming months and years. He will most assuredly need to put some meat on the bone and come up with a handful of key policy priorities and initiatives. He also can't simply forget to factor in the 'U.S. equation' in the conduct of Canadian foreign policy.
I'd like to see Carney marry his counterweight and trade diversification strategy to an ambitious push to rejuvenate Canada-Latin America relations. Besides revitalization our role within the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Summit of the Americas machinery, he could seek to assembly in Ottawa (or Mexico City) a high-level meeting of many of the region's top political leaders to set a new course for reinvigorating the overall relationship.
Much of his Munk School speech was about symbolism and signalling — which are always key foreign policy objectives. He needed to inform the Canadian public that Canada is going to lessen its reliance on the U.S. and, equally important, to send a reassuring message to our friends, allies and partners around the world.
But as Prime Minister Carney said pointedly, '…aspiration without effort is just empty rhetoric.' For too long, Canada's role in the world traded on its past reputation and accomplishments, flowery language and resplendent pledges. Only time will tell, though, whether Carney can actually match his encouraging words with concrete actions.
Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.