Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., in June.Mark Schiefelbein/The Associated Press
Thomas Juneau is a professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, and an associate fellow with Chatham House.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s decision to back American strikes against Iran has provoked much controversy. Even though he and several of his ministers partially walked back some of this initial enthusiastic support, the debate still raises difficult questions about what Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand refers to as principled pragmatism. Is Canada moving away from its allegedly traditional support for international law? How can Canada’s rhetorical support for the war in Iran, even if watered down, be reconciled with the principles Mr. Carney enounced in his speech in Davos in January? And how can these principles be reconciled with Mr. Carney declining to close the door on Canada’s eventual participation in the war?
The Davos speech laid out a framework to understand the new, more dangerous state of the world and prescribed guidelines for Canada’s response. Given the speech’s lack of specificity, different audiences were able to project onto it their own preferences: There were references to international norms, the West’s long-standing hypocrisy in pretending to uphold these norms, the need to stand up to bullies, and values-based realism.
For some, the speech lacked credibility because of these contradictions. For others, that was the point: We live in a complicated world in which there are no easy, one-size-fits-all answers. The best foreign policy must be selective in applying these principles on a case-by-case basis.
Lawrence Martin: After shackling Canada to Trump’s war in Iran, Carney’s course correction is wise
As is often the case with debates on Canadian foreign policy, the exaggerated focus on rhetoric comes at the expense of analyzing substance: To understand Mr. Carney’s approach to foreign policy, it is more useful to analyze actions than statements. The Prime Minister, for example, travelled to India and China, signalling a willingness to compartmentalize the reality of ongoing foreign interference in Canadian affairs by both from his objective of deepening trade ties. He travelled to Qatar and the UAE, signalling that poor human-rights records among Arab states of the Gulf were not an obstacle to his objective of also deepening ties with them.
What principles emerge from these and other undertakings? Human rights and international law are secondary, at best, considerations; instead, what weighs more is the cardinal realist principle of being primarily sensitive to the realities of the distribution of military and economic power. There can be a place for values in foreign policy, but chiefly when they are aligned with interests; when there is a tension, values come second.
How does this realist shift explain Canada’s position on Iran? Canada’s most important priority remains managing relations with its much more powerful neighbour and the only one that matters. The reality of geography makes other considerations subordinate. This has long been true; what has changed is that President Donald Trump has vastly inflated the costs of being blind to this imperative.
Canada’s rhetorical support for the American war on Iran – clumsy adjustments notwithstanding – therefore has, to some extent, an audience of one: Mr. Trump. Realism insists on the need to be clear-eyed about the expected payoff. Precedent shows that the easily irritated Mr. Trump will not hesitate to penalize those who criticize or oppose him while rarely rewarding those who support him. Critics are therefore not wrong to say that Canada has nothing to gain from endorsing his war, even if only partly, but they miss the reality that Canada has much to lose. Criticism would not influence American action. But it would open the door to an impulsive President to hold a grudge at a critical time for a vulnerable Canada in its relations with its southern neighbour.
Opinion: Trump offers Iran militarism, authoritarianism and corruption instead of a coherent plan
Opinion: Will Iran ever be free?
Some critics highlight that a democracy such as Spain has been able to oppose American action. A reading based on power relations, however, rejects the comparison: Spain does not have as its sole neighbour the United States, and it is shielded by its membership in the European Union.
Canada faces a proliferation of threats and challenges, and it is not well-equipped to address them. It needs to build its capabilities, fast. That includes increased defence spending and efforts to diversify trade and security partnerships – while inevitably remaining under the American umbrella.
Yet a shift toward more realism also requires cultural and institutional change. Canada has long been complacent about foreign policy and national security: It could afford to neglect the pressures and incentives of the realities of power, comfortably sheltered as it was by a mostly benevolent United States. Now that this luxury is evaporating, it is incumbent upon Canada’s leaders not only to see the world as it is, but also to be much more transparent, truthful and consistent with Canadians about what they see and what they intend to do about it.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to clarify the author’s point that the United States is the only neighbour that matters to Canada.