Ad hoc coalitions aren’t going to cut it for Canada in the new world order

Open this photo in gallery:

Michael W. Manulak is associate professor at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and author of the forthcoming book The Ghost in Geneva: The Untold History of the League of Nations – And Why it Matters Now.

Since his January speech in Davos, Prime Minister Mark Carney has been rapidly recasting Canada’s role in the world and transforming this country’s foreign policy. In July, he elaborated on his vision, publishing an article in The Economist with Finnish President Alexander Stubb titled Prepare for a World of Ad Hoc Coalitions. They argued that the world is becoming increasingly multipolar, and that “wishful” multilateralism is no longer an effective response when the international order is unravelling and existing institutions, including the United Nations, are proving ill-equipped to manage the transition. The answer for Canada and other middle powers, they wrote, is to build flexible, “plurilateral” coalitions around specific issues.

Opinion: Canada’s diplomats have been dispatched on a new mission

Mr. Carney and Mr. Stubb label their approach “values-based realism,” a foreign-policy doctrine that stands by core values, especially democracy and human rights, while recognizing the necessity of collaborating with governments that don’t share those values.

But Mr. Carney is also acting on this values-based realism. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, he has emerged as a central player in redirecting the economic and military orientation of Europe away from the United States. Under Mr. Carney, the doctrine is becoming an organizing principle for Canadian diplomacy, ahead of a foreign policy review that could codify this new approach.

Yet Mr. Carney risks mistaking defensive tactics for diplomatic strategy. Canada’s real interest lies less in building ad hoc coalitions than in reinforcing the core institutions at the heart of the rules-based order.

Plurilateral arrangements, including the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine, can be a useful stopgap measure when the principal multilateral channels are blocked. I saw this firsthand as a Canadian representative within the Proliferation Security Initiative, a multinational effort to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Informal coalitions can move swiftly in a crisis and provide needed flexibility.

But without permanent institutional machinery, they are prone to drift as the original impetus dissipates. Informal institutions tend to rely on the health of the wider global system of rules to provide a legal framework for their activities. They cannot themselves stand in for those rules.

Opinion: The great luck of the talented Mr. Carney, the lone leader riding high in the West

These ad hoc tactics must also not be mistaken for long-term strategy. In a world where the bedrock rules around respect for the territorial integrity of states and the prohibition against the use of force are threatened, Canada’s paramount interest lies in reinforcing core multilateral infrastructure. The most important element of this infrastructure is the world’s chief bulwark against aggression: the United Nations.

After eight decades, Canada and other governments have allowed the UN’s peace and security role to erode. Yet Canada’s security interest in an effective UN has perhaps never been greater. This is not mere nostalgia: History has shown repeatedly that national armaments and alliances alone offer no guarantee of security and prosperity. As we have seen recently, faraway conflicts disrupt trade, spike prices, polarize debates and trigger migration, while modern technologies risk making war deadlier than ever.

Effective multilateralism is not a “wishful” response to a dangerous world. If endowed with the capacity for forceful action in defence of peace and stability, the UN can be a potent tool for protecting Canada’s vital national interests.

Rather than dispersing diplomatic effort among an expanding array of plurilateral initiatives, the government should focus on building a cross-regional coalition to reinforce the UN’s peace and security role. Governments could consider extraordinary measures to meet the UN’s budgetary crisis, take steps to protect the independence of UN staff, and offer heightened military support for UN-authorized missions.

Opinion: Is Mark Carney a model for a new centrist politics, or will he be the end of the line?

With growing military capacity, Canada and other NATO members could sponsor a Multilateral Compact for UN Peace and Security. Signatories would make a political commitment to strengthen UN peace operations and collective security by offering increased personnel, strategic transport, logistics, engineering and medical support. Large states outside NATO would be invited to join.

This plan does not downplay the need for, or complexity of, UN reform. At the same time, the inability of governments to achieve it does not absolve them of the responsibility to make the most of the tools available to them. Many of the actions proposed above could be taken nationally, without waiting on other governments. It would amount to a “back-to-basics” agenda, reinforcing the UN’s role as a barrier against aggression and territorial conquest.

The need for this type of renewed agenda is urgent. Ad hoc coalitions can help to navigate an immediate crisis, but a Canadian initiative, including the proposed Compact, would constitute a strategic and far-sighted response to an increasingly dangerous world.