First, tones of aggression or embitterment following the U.S. Keystone rejection risk making the trip’s accomplishments, such as the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement signed by Prime Minister Harper in Beijing last week, seem quaint. Second, unless Canada is prepared to take sides in a conflict, it should be careful not to frame escalating relations with one superpower as occurring at the expense of relations with another. Canadian international policy is most certainly not a zero-sum game.

Christopher Sands writes on this website that middle powers are susceptible to two foreign policy traps – excessive motivation by domestic politics and the pursuit of “the perception of relevance, rather than accomplishment.” Canada can avoid both of these traps by treating multilateralism as an avenue for accomplishment.  As the CIC’s GPS report points out, “Multilateralism is a means to an end… There is no prestige in merely being at the table. All that matters is results.”

The key, of course, is to ensure that we are not left out of multilateral meetings where we actually do want to participate. This often means managing the intersection of domestic and international political manoeuvring, and with a much stronger awareness of the international dimension than short-term domestic interests take into account. The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership is a case in point. As one of CIC’s Rapid Responders, Laura Dawson describes in a recent CD Howe report that Canada is not welcome at the TPP table because our supply management system of certain agricultural products is widely considered highly protectionist. Meanwhile, Mexico, one of Canada’s NAFTA partners, is keen to get to  the table, increasing the attractiveness – and risks of exclusion – for Canada.  If Mexico joins the TPP and Canada does not, the growing trade and investment relationship between Canada and Mexico will slow down, weakening the fabric of a North American trilateralism, which is where Canada should focus its efforts. As two prominent North Americanists, Stephen Blank and Isabel Studer, have pointed out many times, Canadians don’t just trade with each other, they make things together.

A sure way to make multilateralism a source of both Canadian relevance and accomplishment is to use it as a means of finding solutions to global issues. Canada should encourage collaborative North American approaches not only to manufacturing, but also to climate change, clean-energy solutions and infrastructure improvement, among other issues that affect the three North American countries equally. If multilateralism is a means to an end, the most ambitious multilateralism is a means to solving pressing global challenges.

Photo courtesy Reuters.

This week, OpenCanada joined The Economist, Ian Bremmer, and the other ambassadors of state capitalism to prove Adam Smith wrong. While there was disagreement over whether only the hands of the BRICs were becoming visible, all concurred that capitalism is becoming increasingly fettered by the state: global economic freedom is on the wane, the biggest companies in the world have names like Sinopec, China National Petroleum Corporation, and Japan Post Holdings.

And yet Canada remains a striking outlier. According to the Fraser Institute, economic freedom in this country is higher than in many of our peer countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. Among countries with natural resources, we stick out like the oil sands in an Edward Burtynsky photograph. The graph below shows the ten countries with the greatest oil reserves in the world. Canada is the only one without a national oil company.

Shortly after the Keystone XL decision, Slate published an article titled “Saudi Arabia. Nigeria. Venezuela. Canada? Is our neighbor to the north becoming a jingoistic petro-state?” This graphic suggests otherwise.

Graphic by Cameron Tulk.

The report’s title is based on its strategy: a cross-country review of Canada’s foreign-policy interests conducted by Edward Greenspon, former editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail, and his globally oriented, digital-age panel members.

When the Open Canada report was released in June 2010, Canada was assuming the highly visible international profile that it, for better or worse, currently sustains: The Olympic Games had been held in Vancouver that winter, and the G8 and G20 meetings were held in June in Hunstville and Toronto, and were associated with considerable controversy, both at home and abroad.

The CIC chose that moment to take stock of Canada’s international interests in order to make strategic recommendations to our government for navigating the uncharted waters of rapidly shifting geopolitical dynamics and technological change, particularly in communications. The CIC also chose to take advantage of its unique position as an independent, member-based council promoting foreign-policy discussion nationwide by engaging CIC members and branches in the research process. As one of our signature bloggers notes on this website, a foreign-policy review “should be subjected to rigorous discussion across government, and with Canadians.” By involving a wide variety of Canadian constituencies, the Global Positioning Strategy (GPS) panel was able to calibrate the demands of the international moment with the expressed interests and values of Canadian citizens, whose lives, hopes, and future are directly affected by foreign-policy directions and decisions.

The GPS group presented a set of guiding principles on which to base a global positioning strategy. These principles included: the priority of enhancing Canada’s global economic position and the tenet that national interests do not wear partisan badges; and the understanding that international policy is closely intertwined with domestic policy, and that a networked world means that international engagement takes place on many levels among constituencies whose interests have rapidly been internationalized. The report made recommendations for enhancing Canadian international influence and prosperity on issues such as relations with our North American and hemispheric neighbours and the emerging Asian giants, environment and energy, the Arctic, development, aid, and defence policy, all while exploring the new avenues for multilateralism created by technological change.

The CIC believes that a Canadian foreign-policy review must embrace the networked nature of the multilateral world. In fact, we think the Open Canada report made such a good case for the digital nature of Canada’s international future that we gave its name to our website, which seeks to aggregate the best ideas on international issues and presents them for discussion among Canadians nationwide. OpenCanada.org continues with the call to action of the Open Canada report – a call on all Canadians, not just those in government, to “concentrate our minds” on the international issues that directly impact our lives and determine our prosperity. OpenCanada.org is part of the international affairs discussion. Please join in.

Though one was an urbanist and the other a philosopher, Jacobs and McLuhan both predicted this shift. Jacobs’ urban writings and grassroots activism on behalf of the city are well documented, but McLuhan, too, took a deep interest in cities – and not just in an indirect “global village” type-of-way. McLuhan commented on the “rich community effects” caused “simply by locating dwellings in non-linear patterns” and drew parallels between a suburb killing an old city and a new medium killing an old one. In fact, Jacobs and McLuhan served together on the Stop Spadina, Save Our City Coordinating Committee and produced a short film in support of their cause (Jacobs was apparently amazed that McLuhan’s unsystematic narrative produced such a compelling visual tale).

As we reflect on 2011, and move forward into an increasingly city-dominated world (in 2007, for first the first time, the world’s population became more urban than rural, and this trend continues), it is worth considering what these two Canadians – or, more appropriately, Torontonians – taught us about global politics.

The first lesson they taught us is that national borders are quickly disappearing. In the “age of the information explosion,” as McLuhan put it, walls between nations and economies will blow out. And what will be left amid the rubble? Dense communities of individuals who have, in McLuhan’s words, “adjusted to the new proximity.” The city will become the lifeblood of the state. Canada will be nothing without Toronto (or Vancouver, or Montreal, or Calgary), the U.S. nothing without New York, and Japan nothing without Tokyo. More importantly, Haerbin, Shantou, Guiyang, and the other cities McKinsey names in its report on global cities of the future will wield far more power than many states.

In this scenario, David Cameron’s decision to place the concerns of “the City” above those of the rest of England in opting out of the Brussels Treaty seems less political, and more prescient. So, too, do the efforts of the C40, a group of cities working to solve climate change, and trade deals between Hamburg and Dubai, and Abu Dhabi and Singapore. Less so are treaties signed between nations – and not cities – such as the Kyoto Protocol, the perimeter border deal, and countless Free Trade Agreements.

The second lesson is that, without the proper governance structures, this environment of close proximity will be a scary place. Yes, “the medium is the message” – but how? McLuhan argued that the shift in how we communicate would change us neurologically – and not into David Brooks-imagined “social animals” excelling at everything in a peaceful world. Rather, we would regress to primal tendencies, devolving into bicameral humans who operate unconsciously and automatically.

When the world is a hockey rink and its inhabitants David Steckels (and not Sidney Crosbys), global governance systems are crucial. With the exception of the intervention in Libya, 2011 proved another year in the United Nations’ slide toward irrelevance. As Parag Khanna argues, we need global institutions built on “cities and their economies rather than nations and their armies.” Jane Jacobs recognized this a long time ago when she observed that democratization is no longer the purview of states, and proceeded to develop the concept of “localism.” Next week, we will have the opportunity to evaluate how a new form of global diplomacy might work when diplomats of the digital age – prime and finance ministers, but also mayors, academics, and Bono – come together at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Finally, McLuhan and Jacobs taught us to plan our cities with global visions. As Jacobs described them, cities are active urban organisms that require the proper nourishment to flourish. This may not come in the form of a gravy train, but it does require a certain amount of funding. As the Toronto City Council prepares to cut TTC services and close shelters, pools, and city programming, we should think about what this means, not just for Toronto, but for Canada’s place in the world. 

Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

In terms of financial stability, we are in an enviable position. As chair of the Financial Stability Board, Mark Carney is a new kind of multilateral ambassador. A stable and equitable international financial system is the best start to addressing an issue that the global community is realizing could be the defining problem of our age: inequality both within and between nations. Canada is in a unique position to lead by example. Inequality in this country is on the rise, but, due to our solid financial performance over the last five years, we have the flexibility to use a myriad of tools to address this challenge. If we act quickly and decisively, we have the chance to set Canada up as the global leader in this area.

Second, Canada has one of the largest and most diverse diaspora populations in the world. While our total investment in emerging economies is strangely – and embarrassingly – low, we can turn that performance around by leveraging the almost three million Canadians living abroad, who total close to 10 per cent of Canadians. We should sustain our recent engagement with China by relying on our vast diaspora network, using human ties as a foundation for economic linkages. Our Indian diaspora should be pushing us to be much more proactive in terms of Canada-India engagement and partnerships in a wide variety of areas. Our much smaller Latin American diaspora should be growing, encouraged by the expanding trade and education linkages between the region and Canada that have been witnessed in recent months.

Canada also has strong human ties to Syria and Russia, which is a good reason to pay close attention to the changes taking place in those countries. With its history of helping to build legal, financial, educational, and security infrastructure at home and in developing countries, Canada is in a unique position to be a global leader as these countries undergo transformation. Moreover, unlike many other countries with similar democratic histories, we are perceived by many developing countries as less burdened by special interests. Let’s not wait until the last moment to demonstrate our willingness and ability to be supportive and encouraging of democracy movements everywhere.

This also applies to the fledgling democracy in our NAFTA partnership. Being supportive and helpful to Mexico will not only allow Canada to capitalize on its geographical proximity to large markets, but will also earn us the respect of the United States, for which Latin America represents a point of major concern. Given the number of strategic trade and commerce relationships in the hemisphere, it is pragmatic to engage more fully with our neighbours.

It has long be an argument that bad media is better than no media. Let’s make this true. Canada’s withdrawal from Kyoto has given the country more international profile than it saw after Roméo Dallaire commanded the UN mission in Rwanda, after Lloyd Axworthy ratified the Ottawa Treaty, and after it introduced the concept of the Responsibility to Protect to the world. Not since the days of Lester B. Pearson – or perhaps the ’72 series – has Canada achieved such international notice.

The time is ripe for Canada to show the world that its levers of international impact go beyond withdrawal. Canada is ideally positioned to be a global leader of the future. With our unmatched reputation for economic stability, we can advise other countries in tackling the problems of the post-Occupy world. With our unrivalled diaspora outreach, we boast a network of informal ambassadors poised to act in the age of new diplomacy. And with our history of developing the central institutions of civic society, we can provide crucial support to the countries that, in the wake of democratic transformation, will become pillars of international society.   

Photo courtesy Reuters.

In our inaugural Dispatch post, Taylor Owen suggested four ways to adapt the Canadian foreign-policy discussion to new global dynamics. OpenCanada is still in its infancy but, with the end of 2011, we reflect on the site’s progress in these four areas:

(i)            We desperately need innovation of ideas.

While Canada boasts a wealth of top thinkers on international relations, they rarely interact outside of the academic world. Instead, their ideas are presented publicly isolated in newspapers, with little room for commentary or discussion. The Roundtable blog seeks to give a group of Canada’s top foreign-policy innovators a place to share ideas, and to give the Canadian public a portal into their conversations.

Sixty-one blog posts later, Roundtable has delivered, producing OpenCanada’s two highest-traffic-generating pieces – Roland Paris’ “What is Stephen Harper Afraid of?” and John Hancock’s “Quitting Kyoto: Un-Canadian” – and prompting vigorous debate about the Responsibility to Protect in Libya and Canada’s China policy. All addressed ideology in the context of foreign affairs, challenging the widespread notion of an “ideal, centrist, moderate foreign policy.” 

This desire to confront ideology permeated other areas of the site as well, with the Think Tank inviting four prominent conservatives to answer the question “What Does Conservative Foreign Policy Look Like?”, and the Rapid Response asking, “Is Conservative foreign policy different from Liberal foreign policy?” Jennifer Welsh’s critique of David Cameron’s brand of British Exceptionalism caught the Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan’s attention, spurring an international discussion of transatlantic conservatism.

(ii)          We must reform, dismantle, or replace the institutions through which we conduct foreign policy.

The Arab Spring demonstrated the promise of new technology in pushing global governance away from hierarchy. OpenCanada embraced this trend, particularly through our Rapid Response feature. Each week, for 24 weeks, we asked a select group of high-profile Canadians a question via email. This has provided unique personal and direct insight from 25 of Canada’s top foreign-policy thinkers on 24 different issues. For the first time, Canadians were able to hear what Rob Prichard and Janice Stein really believe should be John Baird’s priority, what former UN ambassador Paul Heinbecker seriously thinks about Ethical Oil, and if Roméo Dallaire sees secession as the solution to African conflicts. The questions that solicited the greatest response were, “What issue should John Baird prioritize?” and “Are diplomats needed in the digital age?”

(iii)         We must meaningfully engage and incentivize the new foreign-policy actors.

OpenCanada recognizes that it is not only the procedures of global governance that require updating; it is also the actors. The principal drivers of Canadian foreign policy are no longer the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency – they are the individuals, corporations, and groups working at the new intersections of domestic and international affairs.

Before we can incentivize these actors, we must identify them. To this end, OpenCanada has sought to broaden the definition of who qualifies as a foreign-affairs actor with series’ on Canada’s diaspora, Canada’s stake in intellectual property, and the Canadian manufacturing sector.

Two of OpenCanada’s most popular pieces were written by rising academics studying Africa. Erin Baines of the University of British Columbia wrote about U.S. President Barack Obama’s challenge to Uganda and Sudan’s Lord’s Resistance Army, spurring international Twitter debate about the implications. After the recent Congo elections, Oxford’s Emily Paddon’s “Beyond Elections in the Congo” drew large global readership, including thousands of views from within the Congo thanks to its mention by a prominent Congolese blog.

(iv)         We must base our foreign policy in the tools and tactics of a networked world.

OpenCanada recognizes that it is not only the actors of global governance that require updating; it is also their methods. We seek to actively innovate in this new and rapidly changing space. The #cdnfp Twitterati list, our active @TheCIC handle, and our Readings section have all sought to bring together the emerging online debate of Canadian foreign policy. More broadly, though, Canadians clearly agree that aggregation and “super-curation,” as Anne-Marie Slaughter puts it, are the editing practices of the future. Beyond Canada, the most meaningful and innovative international-affairs conversation is now almost exclusively online, with key content nodes around the world forming the core of a global network of audience, reader, and content creators. This media space is immensely exciting, and rapidly changing, and we intend to be a part of it.

There is no reason to think that the next six months will not bring as much change to Canadian foreign policy as the past six did. In preparation, we are experimenting with new ways of stimulating conversation and broadening our reach. In January, we will launch our Future of Aid series, creating a platform for discussion among five of the top thinkers on international development. As part of this, we will launch our video conversation technology, taking Facebook chat to a new level. Later in the year, we will delve into the future of Canada’s military and the complexity of contemporary supply webs.

For us, this will be a year of rapid expansion of both our content and staff. A year of constant platform and technological experimentation. A year of pushing Canadians and Canadian international affairs into the global conversation. We hope you will join us!

2011 OpenCanada Content Glossary

Think Tanks:

For each Think Tank, we ask a group of experts and practitioners to reflect on an international policy issue.  Here are the subjects we explored in 2011.

• Are Social Media Driving the Arab Spring?
• Is Good Banking Regulation Good Foreign Policy?
• Can Diplomacy and History be Transparent?
• How Can Canada Engage its Diaspora?
• Can War Be Beautiful?
• Who Shot Ahmed Wali Karzai?
• Will Germany Kill Europe?
• Did al-Qaeda Hijack the Terrorism Discourse?
• Canada Navigates China’s Rise
• Is Brazil the Key BRIC?
• Sitting on the Stimulus
• What Does Conservative Foreign Policy Look Like?
• Does IP Policy = FP?
• The CIC and CCA Welcome Colombia’s President
• Does Brazil Care about Canada?
• Diplomacy in the Digital Age
• Tweeting Genocide
• Will Globalization Kill Canadian Manufacturing?
• A Billionaire Revolutionary?
• Perimeter: NAFTA 2.0?
• How We Fight

Essays: 

Stand alone essays are individual long-form contributions

• Colin Robertson’s ‘Could the Great Lakes Represents Canada’s Economic Future?
• Erin Baines’ ‘Target or Captives? Obama’s LRA Challenge’
• Simon Wexler-Collard’s ‘Designing Institutions for a New Libya’
• Jean-Frédéric Légaré-Tremblay’s ‘Ghengis Khan Keeps an Eye on his Riches’
• Emily Paddon’s ‘Beyond Elections in the Congo’
•  ‘How can Canada Engage its Diaspora?’: Patrick Johnson
• Canada Navigates China’s Rise’: Joanna Wong and Michael Hart
• What Does Conservative Foreign Policy Look Like?’: Hugh Segal
• ‘The CIC and CCA Welcome Colombia’s President’: Stephen Randall
• ‘A Billionaire Revolutionary?’: Paul Sedra and Bessma Momani
• ‘How We Fight’: Stephanie Carvin, John Tirman, Michael Spagat and Leslie Roberts

Interviews

We have conducted a wide range of interviews, by phone, email, video recording and online chat.

• ‘Is Canadian Liberal Internationalism Dead?’ with Andrew Cohen
• ‘What is Canada’s Legacy in Afghanistan?’ with Graeme Smith
• ‘The World Focused on Oslo’ with Kristian Berg Harpviken
• ‘When Civil War and Drought Collide’ with Chris Tidey
• ‘Ignatieff’s Greatest Success?’ with Michael Ignatieff
• ‘Tales from Tahrir’ with Lyse Doucet
• ‘Al Qaeda: A Hostage Reflects’ with Robert Fowler
• ‘Are Social Media Driving the Arab Spring?’: Sarah Abdurrahman, Sonia Verma, Brian Stewart and Jillian York
• ‘Is Good Banking Regulation Good Foreign Policy’: Chrystia Freeland, Colin Robertson and John Manley
• ‘Can Diplomacy and History by Transparent’?: Margaret MacMillan, Clay Shirky and Jeremy Kinsman
• ‘Can War be Beautiful?’: Danfung Dennis and Sophie Hackett
• ‘Who Shot Ahmed Wali Karzai?’: Mark Sedra and Matthieu Aikins
• ‘Will Germany Kill Europe?’: Louis Pauly, Brian Milner and Hans Kundnani
• ‘Did al-Qaeda Hijack the Terrorism Discourse?’: Stephen Walt, Mark Juergensmeyer and Sean Brighton
• ‘Canada Navigates China’s Rise’: Paul Evans and Jon Penney
• ‘Is Brazil the Key BRIC?’: Ted Hewitt, Raul Papaleo and Richard Pound
• ‘Sitting on the Stimulus’: Catherine Swift and John Curtis
• ‘What Does Conservative Foreign Policy Look Like?’: Adam Daifallah, David Bercuson and Nicholas Gafuik
• ‘Does IP Policy = FP?’: Rafi Hofstein, David Wolfe and Richard Gold
• ‘The CIC and CCA Welcome Colombia’s President’: Arlene Tickner
• ‘Does Brazil Care About Canada?”: Paul Knox, Jamal Khokhar, Joao Augusto de Castro Neve, Christopher Garman, Jean Daudelin and Susan Kaufman Purcell
• ‘Diplomacy in the Digital Age’: William Thorsell, Brian Box, Ed Greenspon and Drew Fagan
• ‘Tweeting Genocide’: Rick MacInnes-Rae, Mona Eltahawy, Gordon Smith, Roméo Dallaire and André Pratte
• ‘Will Globalization Kill Manufacturing?’: Jim Milway, Andrea-Mandel-Campbell, Stephen Chase, Christopher Sands and Edward Burtynsky
• ‘Perimeter: NAFTA 2.0?’ Duncan Wood
• ‘How We Fight’: Peter Singer, Michael Rubin

Editorial Content

These stand alone pieces were developed in-house by our editorial staff.

• Who are the #cdnfp Twitterati?
• 10 Ways 9/11 Changed Canadian Foreign Policy
• Canada’s Stance on Palestine
• Occupy vs. The Tea Party
• A Story of Widgets
• Sawiris: Globalist of the Year
• Counting the Dead

Rapid Response Questions:

Each of the questions below, was sent to a group of Canadian international affairs experts.

• What issue should John Baird prioritize?
• How has Canada’s experience in Afghanistan changed Canadian foreign policy?
• Can Lagarde and the IMF save the Euro?
• Should Canada strengthen its military presence in the Arctic?
• Does last week’s creation of a Southern Sudanese state point to secession as the solution to other African conflicts?
• What’s the ultimate objective of Harper’s softer stance on China?
• Should we view the Oslo attack as an arbitrary act or as a reflection of wider political and religious extremism?
• Was Jason Kenney’s public outing of 30 wanted war criminals legitimate and / or effective?
• What societal problems have the London riots exposed?
• Does the ‘royal’ rebranding of the Canadian Forces have a wider meaning?
• What would be the regional fallout from the end of Assad’s regime?
• Is Conservative foreign policy different from Liberal foreign policy?
• If 9/11 defined the last decade, will the Arab Spring define the next?
• Is a U.N. resolution on Palestinian statehood a step forward or backward for the Israel-Palestine conflict?
• Is the Ethical Oil Campaign helping or hurting Canada’s international reputation?
• Is Jean Monnet’s dream for Europe ending in nightmare?
• Should Canada treat its intellectual property as a national asset?
• Are diplomats needed in the digital age?
• Why commemorate the War of 1812?
• Could the spread of information via digital media reduce mass atrocities?
• How can the G20 help save the euro zone?
• Can the Egyptian revolution be counted a success while the Armed Forces remain in power?
• With the delay in Keystone XL, will attention now shift to the Northern Gateway?
• What is the best international affairs book of 2011?
• What was Canada’s best international moment of 2011?

The Roundtable:

Gregory Chin:

• Global Leadership at Cannes: China’s Arrival or What Happened to America?
• Dear Prime Minister Harper – A Good Time for an Asia Strategy
• Dear Prime Minister Harper – A Good Time for an Asia Strategy, Part II

André Pratte:

• Questions on Libya and R2P
• The Provocation Flotilla
• God Save the Superstars!
• What Future for the Euro?
• Somalia: No Water. No Solution.
• Power Corrupts. Even the Fourth.
• Norway: Tweeting at the Speed of Light.
• Libya and Canada’s “New” Foreign Policy
• The Canadian Forces are Royal… and Obese (Again)
• Obama’s Jolt: Will it Work?
• Secrets? What Secrets?
• Desperately Looking for Leadership

Jennifer Welsh:

• Question, Challenge and Dispute 
• Libya and R2P
• In Defence of R2P
• Canada’s Bush?
• Blame the Bobbies
• The Big Deal? The Big Distraction.
• What’s Next for Capitalism?
• Rights and Responsibilities in a Post- Qaddafi Libya
• In Conversation on Libya
• The Folly of Europe Bashing
• Recognizing States and Governments – A Tricky Business
• The Impact of 9/11 on the Ethics of Military Action
• It’s About Politics, Not Economics
• Revenge of the Technocrats
• How New is the Threat of Cyber Attack?
• British Exceptionalism and the ‘National Interest’

Photo courtesy Reuters.

Think Tanks:

For each Think Tank, we ask a group of experts and practitioners to reflect on an international policy issue.  Here are the subjects we explored in 2011.

• Are Social Media Driving the Arab Spring?
• Is Good Banking Regulation Good Foreign Policy?
• Can Diplomacy and History be Transparent?
• How Can Canada Engage its Diaspora?
• Can War Be Beautiful?
• Who Shot Ahmed Wali Karzai?
• Will Germany Kill Europe?
• Did al-Qaeda Hijack the Terrorism Discourse?
• Canada Navigates China’s Rise
• Is Brazil the Key BRIC?
• Sitting on the Stimulus
• What Does Conservative Foreign Policy Look Like?
• Does IP Policy = FP?
• The CIC and CCA Welcome Colombia’s President
• Does Brazil Care about Canada?
• Diplomacy in the Digital Age
• Tweeting Genocide
• Will Globalization Kill Canadian Manufacturing?
• A Billionaire Revolutionary?
• Perimeter: NAFTA 2.0?
• How We Fight

Essays: 

Stand alone essays are individual long-form contributions

• Colin Robertson’s ‘Could the Great Lakes Represents Canada’s Economic Future?
• Erin Baines’ ‘Target or Captives? Obama’s LRA Challenge’
• Simon Wexler-Collard’s ‘Designing Institutions for a New Libya’
• Jean-Frédéric Légaré-Tremblay’s ‘Ghengis Khan Keeps an Eye on his Riches’
• Emily Paddon’s ‘Beyond Elections in the Congo’
•  ‘How can Canada Engage its Diaspora?’: Patrick Johnson
• Canada Navigates China’s Rise’: Joanna Wong and Michael Hart
• What Does Conservative Foreign Policy Look Like?’: Hugh Segal
• ‘The CIC and CCA Welcome Colombia’s President’: Stephen Randall
• ‘A Billionaire Revolutionary?’: Paul Sedra and Bessma Momani
• ‘How We Fight’: Stephanie Carvin, John Tirman, Michael Spagat and Leslie Roberts

Interviews

We have conducted a wide range of interviews, by phone, email, video recording and online chat.

• ‘Is Canadian Liberal Internationalism Dead?’ with Andrew Cohen
• ‘What is Canada’s Legacy in Afghanistan?’ with Graeme Smith
• ‘The World Focused on Oslo’ with Kristian Berg Harpviken
• ‘When Civil War and Drought Collide’ with Chris Tidey
• ‘Ignatieff’s Greatest Success?’ with Michael Ignatieff
• ‘Tales from Tahrir’ with Lyse Doucet
• ‘Al Qaeda: A Hostage Reflects’ with Robert Fowler
• ‘Are Social Media Driving the Arab Spring?’: Sarah Abdurrahman, Sonia Verma, Brian Stewart and Jillian York
• ‘Is Good Banking Regulation Good Foreign Policy’: Chrystia Freeland, Colin Robertson and John Manley
• ‘Can Diplomacy and History by Transparent’?: Margaret MacMillan, Clay Shirky and Jeremy Kinsman
• ‘Can War be Beautiful?’: Danfung Dennis and Sophie Hackett
• ‘Who Shot Ahmed Wali Karzai?’: Mark Sedra and Matthieu Aikins
• ‘Will Germany Kill Europe?’: Louis Pauly, Brian Milner and Hans Kundnani
• ‘Did al-Qaeda Hijack the Terrorism Discourse?’: Stephen Walt, Mark Juergensmeyer and Sean Brighton
• ‘Canada Navigates China’s Rise’: Paul Evans and Jon Penney
• ‘Is Brazil the Key BRIC?’: Ted Hewitt, Raul Papaleo and Richard Pound
• ‘Sitting on the Stimulus’: Catherine Swift and John Curtis
• ‘What Does Conservative Foreign Policy Look Like?’: Adam Daifallah, David Bercuson and Nicholas Gafuik
• ‘Does IP Policy = FP?’: Rafi Hofstein, David Wolfe and Richard Gold
• ‘The CIC and CCA Welcome Colombia’s President’: Arlene Tickner
• ‘Does Brazil Care About Canada?”: Paul Knox, Jamal Khokhar, Joao Augusto de Castro Neve, Christopher Garman, Jean Daudelin and Susan Kaufman Purcell
• ‘Diplomacy in the Digital Age’: William Thorsell, Brian Box, Ed Greenspon and Drew Fagan
• ‘Tweeting Genocide’: Rick MacInnes-Rae, Mona Eltahawy, Gordon Smith, Roméo Dallaire and André Pratte
• ‘Will Globalization Kill Manufacturing?’: Jim Milway, Andrea-Mandel-Campbell, Stephen Chase, Christopher Sands and Edward Burtynsky
• ‘Perimeter: NAFTA 2.0?’ Duncan Wood
• ‘How We Fight’: Peter Singer, Michael Rubin

Editorial Content

These stand alone pieces were developed in-house by our editorial staff.

• Who are the #cdnfp Twitterati?
• 10 Ways 9/11 Changed Canadian Foreign Policy
• Canada’s Stance on Palestine
• Occupy vs. The Tea Party
• A Story of Widgets
• Sawiris: Globalist of the Year
• Counting the Dead

Rapid Response Questions:

Each of the questions below, was sent to a group of Canadian international affairs experts.

• What issue should John Baird prioritize?
• How has Canada’s experience in Afghanistan changed Canadian foreign policy?
• Can Lagarde and the IMF save the Euro?
• Should Canada strengthen its military presence in the Arctic?
• Does last week’s creation of a Southern Sudanese state point to secession as the solution to other African conflicts?
• What’s the ultimate objective of Harper’s softer stance on China?
• Should we view the Oslo attack as an arbitrary act or as a reflection of wider political and religious extremism?
• Was Jason Kenney’s public outing of 30 wanted war criminals legitimate and / or effective?
• What societal problems have the London riots exposed?
• Does the ‘royal’ rebranding of the Canadian Forces have a wider meaning?
• What would be the regional fallout from the end of Assad’s regime?
• Is Conservative foreign policy different from Liberal foreign policy?
• If 9/11 defined the last decade, will the Arab Spring define the next?
• Is a U.N. resolution on Palestinian statehood a step forward or backward for the Israel-Palestine conflict?
• Is the Ethical Oil Campaign helping or hurting Canada’s international reputation?
• Is Jean Monnet’s dream for Europe ending in nightmare?
• Should Canada treat its intellectual property as a national asset?
• Are diplomats needed in the digital age?
• Why commemorate the War of 1812?
• Could the spread of information via digital media reduce mass atrocities?
• How can the G20 help save the euro zone?
• Can the Egyptian revolution be counted a success while the Armed Forces remain in power?
• With the delay in Keystone XL, will attention now shift to the Northern Gateway?
• What is the best international affairs book of 2011?
• What was Canada’s best international moment of 2011?

The Roundtable:

Gregory Chin:

• Global Leadership at Cannes: China’s Arrival or What Happened to America?
• Dear Prime Minister Harper – A Good Time for an Asia Strategy
• Dear Prime Minister Harper – A Good Time for an Asia Strategy, Part II

André Pratte:

• Questions on Libya and R2P
• The Provocation Flotilla
• God Save the Superstars!
• What Future for the Euro?
• Somalia: No Water. No Solution.
• Power Corrupts. Even the Fourth.
• Norway: Tweeting at the Speed of Light.
• Libya and Canada’s “New” Foreign Policy
• The Canadian Forces are Royal… and Obese (Again)
• Obama’s Jolt: Will it Work?
• Secrets? What Secrets?
• Desperately Looking for Leadership

Jennifer Welsh:

• Question, Challenge and Dispute 
• Libya and R2P
• In Defence of R2P
• Canada’s Bush?
• Blame the Bobbies
• The Big Deal? The Big Distraction.
• What’s Next for Capitalism?
• Rights and Responsibilities in a Post- Qaddafi Libya
• In Conversation on Libya
• The Folly of Europe Bashing
• Recognizing States and Governments – A Tricky Business
• The Impact of 9/11 on the Ethics of Military Action
• It’s About Politics, Not Economics
• Revenge of the Technocrats
• How New is the Threat of Cyber Attack?
• British Exceptionalism and the ‘National Interest’

First, David Cameron vetoed a new EU-wide treaty designed to address the eurozone’s economic plight. Jennifer Welsh repudiated any analogy between Cameron’s embrace of “splendid and detached isolation” and Churchill’s over 70 years earlier. While going alone served the British national interest then, in a world of Globalization 3.0 (as Friedman describes it), the case is much less clear. The financial sector accounts for only 10 per cent of British GDP – was spurning key allies like France and Germany really worth saving the city? It would be one thing if Cameron had closed the door to Europe with the intention of opening it to, say, China. It appears, however, that he simply said a Tory ta-ta to globalization.

Then, as John Hancock put it, Canada gave the finger to the rest of the world over Kyoto. For all of its inadequacies, Kyoto represented a global solution to a global problem. Like the Montreal protocol before it, Kyoto accepted that certain problems cannot be dealt with by individual nations acting alone. It implicitly acknowledged that national borders are coming down – that globalization is as much of a reality as global warming. Canada’s withdrawal, then, represented another Tory ta-ta to globalization.

Canada’s no – and Britain’s, to a lesser extent – was incredibly shortsighted. It is not just Chiquita banana that took note – so, too, did international organizations like Oxfam (which tweeted that it was “an affront to poor people fighting #climate change around the world”) and the international media (like The Globe’s Doug Saunders, who tweeted: “You can just watch Canada’s international reputation collapse in the international press this morning. All to save $14 billion”).

But perhaps there is something more profound afoot. While David Cameron and Peter Kent were playing Scrooge, some thoughtful people were also questioning the merits of globalization.

First, Mark Carney, speaking at an Empire Club event, explained, “Europe’s problems are partly a product of the initial success of the single currency. After its launch, cross-border lending exploded. Easy money fed booms, which flattered government fiscal position and supported bank balance sheets.” He went on to describe how this irrational exuberance masked massive imbalances in national inflation rates, labour costs, and other crucial metrics.

Carney, chairman of the Financial Stability Board, clearly believes in finding global solutions to complex problems. His remarks simply suggest that he has a healthy suspicion of jumping into the integration process too quickly – without adequate safeguards in place.

Then I had the fortune of interviewing Samantha Nutt, founder of War Child, in preparation for our upcoming series on the Future of Aid. In her new Damned Nations: Greed, Guns, Armies and Aid (McClelland), Nutt is immensely critical of programs that send untrained students who are in their “gap years” to support relief efforts. She argues that these self-proclaimed aid workers do more harm than good. “With every school that is built by well-meaning western volunteers in impoverished villages in Africa,” she writes, “there is one less opportunity to provide employment and skills training to young people living in these communities.”

This all begs the question: If we are to develop a future generation of global citizens, don’t we need them to see the world’s problems first hand? Like Carney, Nutt believes that global integration is an inescapable process. The problem of development, in particular, requires a global solution. But sending Torontonian teenagers to Darfur, and Vancouver undergraduates to Haiti, won’t do it. We need to first cultivate their global outlook at home, and then send professional aid workers abroad to support local organizations in implementing community-based solutions.

There are thus two ways to confront the tides of globalization. The first, epitomized by Canada and Britain’s recent moves, is to view integration as an opt-in/opt-out type of enterprise. The problem with this is that, ultimately, globalization will sweep you into its wake – and, particularly if you are a relatively small country, it will be impossible to escape it.

The second approach is to follow in the footsteps of Mark Carney and Samantha Nutt and recognize that there are both upsides and downsides to globalization. As Friedman wrote during a better week, “Whatever people’s fears of change, globalization is here to stay – and, if properly managed, it will be a good thing.”

Photo courtesy Reuters.

To build on the Canada-US agreement, and to think strategically about achieving a “special” relationship with the US that goes beyond the basic trade and economic relationship that we value so highly, Canada needs to pay attention to issues that concern the US. Jobs, energy,  and regulatory harmonization are always front and centre in Canada-US discussions. But Canada also needs to pay more attention to the fact that Mexico also matters to the US in these same ways, as well as in many others that go to the heart of US domestic policy: immigration, drugs,  and weapons, just for a start. Crassly stated, Mexico’s problems offer a vehicle for Canada to demonstrate to the US that it can be a special and strategic partner in more than bilateral trade matters, and that it understands US concerns in the hemisphere.

JenniferJeffs on recent contributions to the drug policy debate

Canadians tend to perceive issues emanating from the US southern border — such as guns,  gangs, illegal immigration, drugs, and organized crime — as “their” problem, not “ours”, hence our insistent differentiation between our border and the US-Mexico border. But if Canada does not become more deeply involved with helping the US and Mexico struggles with drug cartels and criminal networks, it will not only ignore a large and important set of  US domestic issues and Canadian exposure to the social risks associated  with them, it will also fail to acknowledge the issues faced by the large number of Canadian companies with significant — and growing — investment in Mexico.

What could Canada do? How about provide support for the Merida initiative, a military and police training program in Mexico funded by the US. When the Americans notice us sitting by their side on initiatives like this, they will start to see Canada as a natural ally; what greater inroad for influence in Washington? Also, Canada currently sits as an observer rather than full member of Ameripol, a hemispheric intelligence organization. Support for these two programs will not only demonstrate Canadian solidarity with US and Mexican security concerns, it will also resonate with Canadian strategic continental and hemispheric interests.

Mexican civil society is working to strengthen and consolidate democracy and democratic institutions. While Canadians have been watching the unfolding of the Arab Spring with great interest, they have another fledgling democracy much closer at hand, a country that is also a favoured holiday destination for well over a million Canadians during the winter months. Reforms are progressing in Mexico. Labour, fiscal and, judicial reforms are a work-in-progress, as is the fight against corruption. On these files, Canada can be helpful and supportive in areas where the US — with its historical legacy with Mexico — must tread very carefully.

Greater involvement with Mexico’s democracy consolidation also enhances Canada’s reputation in the greater region, which should be another important strategic consideration given the focus on the Americas by the Harper government, the rising levels of Canadian investment in many countries in the area, and the designation of a junior minister with specific responsibility for the region.

This post first appeared on TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin blog. Watch Jennifer Jeffs on The Agenda.

Photo courtesy of Reuters.

Discussions of international affairs are increasingly shaped and facilitated by the evolution of technology and media. This year the CIC responded to these changes with several initiatives, including a major research project on international intellectual property (IP), which examined Canada’s IP regime in the international context. Our major report Rights and Rents: Why Canada must harness its intellectual property resources, provoked much media attention and lively discussion across the country. The CIC has delivered dozens of briefings on the report to media, policy-makers, academics, corporate leaders, entrepreneurs and CIC members.

A major innovation for the CIC this year was the launch of our new website, OPENCANADA.ORG, which expands national dialogue on international affairs by taking it online, where more people can participate. OPENCANADA.ORG uses web-based tools, social media, and editorial features to host discussions on global issues that fascinate Canadians. Since the spring, we have produced multimedia analyses of topics such as diplomacy in the digital age; the impact of Twitter on international crises; Canada’s legacy in Afghanistan; Canadian diaspora engagement; the impact of Wikileaks on diplomacy, and much more. Our lively online activities would not be possible without financial support from donors.

The CIC’s 2011 events calendar demonstrates the vibrant nature of the 16 volunteer-led branches across the country that hosted over 200 events this year. Panels, conferences and seminars covered a wide range of timely foreign policy issues. My heartfelt thanks to our volunteer branch executive members, and in particular to our volunteer branch presidents, who give their time and energy so generously to the CIC.

As a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization, the success of CIC programs depends on donations. As 2011 draws to a close, I invite you to make a tax deductible charitable contribution to the CIC. Our mandate to foster discussion and debate of international issues would not be possible without your generous support. Donations can be made online by clicking here, or by phone, credit card or cheque payable to the Canadian International Council. Click here to download a donation form.

Along with the CIC board, staff and volunteers, I extend my warmest wishes to you and your family for a happy and healthy holiday season.