Tories Elected to Set Foreign Policy: Cannon

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has shot back at critics and federal civil servants upset over the government's recent changes to Canadian foreign policy language reported in Embassy.

In an interview on July 30, the minister said some of the modifications are semantics, but acknowledged that others are designed to move the country's foreign policy in a direction decided by the government. Either way, he said the government's actions are what matter.

Others, however, have questioned whether Mr. Cannon fully understands the implications of the changes being made, and have called on the government to bring the issue into the public to be debated in front of all Canadians.

Last week, Embassy reported that terms such as "gender equality" and "child soldiers" were being stricken from the language employed by Canada's foreign service. From now on, diplomats are to use the terms "equality of men and women" and "children in armed conflict".

In addition, "international humanitarian law" would now be simply "international law" and, in one specific example, the words "impunity" and "justice" would not be used when calling for an end to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Instead, there would be calls only for efforts to "prevent" sexual violence.

Last week's report came hot on the heels of other reported changes to Canadian foreign policy language, unearthed by Embassy, which included abolishing "good governance," "public diplomacy" and even "the Responsibility to Protect"—many of which came into use during the tenure of previous Liberal governments.

Malcontents Free to Leave

Sources within the public service have pointed to political staffers at the minister's office as being behind the changes, and an internal email acquired by Embassy and circulated to numerous senior officials within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade say bureaucrats have been looking at ways to stop the changes.

Mr. Cannon said Foreign Affairs deputy minister Len Edwards is in charge of implementing government policy and would be responsible for dealing with any malcontents within the bureaucracy. However, he said anyone who disagrees with the government's direction is free to leave.

"I've told my people that this is the policy that we carry out and if anybody is not happy with these policies that we're carrying out, well all they have to do is go and run in the next election and get themselves elected and support a policy that is different from ours," the minister said.

"We've been elected to govern the country and the government of Canada puts forward, sets forward its objectives, its policy objectives as it does in any other department. And it is up to the departments to execute the policies that the Canadian population supported and acknowledged by putting this government in place. And that is exactly what we are doing."

When asked specifically about the language changes, Mr. Cannon simultaneously downplayed the significance and acknowledged that the government is charting new territory.

"They don't change anything," he said. "It's our vocabulary. You're driving this down into the weeds."

However, he later said that "in some circumstances it's semantics. In other circumstances...whether it be the Responsibility to Protect, we're going to be changing policies so that they reflect what Canada's values are and what Canadians said when they supported us during the last election. That's the role of government, that's the role of an elected official."

Mr. Cannon indicated what is more important than any language change is the actions a government takes to implement its foreign policy.

"If you change a word, it doesn't make a substantial difference," the minister said. "If you do a different action, if you take a strong stance on human rights, if you stand up for Israel and make it quite clear that you want to be able to make it known that we can't continually be on a picket fence, that you have to be able to stand up and be counted for, that's the role that this government is playing."

Changes a Fait Accompli

In an open letter to Mr. Cannon in response to last week's Embassy articles, NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar decried the changes, saying there will be major ramifications.

"Your government may not agree with the evaluation that Canadian citizen Omar Khadr is a child soldier," he wrote. "However, removing the term 'child soldier' and replacing it with 'children in armed conflict' is a significant legal and political change that will have a critical impact on Canada's foreign policy and its reputation on the child-soldier file.

"The same applies to modifying the language of impunity on sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an effort that goes hand-in-hand with the government's inaction on Security Council resolutions 1325 and 1820, which call for an end to impunity and a meaningful engagement of women in peace building."

Such dramatic changes, he wrote, should evolve from deliberations between government officials, experts in the field and, most importantly, the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Cannon said he is "always amenable to debating anything with [Mr. Dewar], but it's not going to change the government of Canada's policy. We're elected to govern and that's exactly what we're doing."

In an interview, Mr. Dewar said it's a fair point that the government has been elected to govern. However, he refuted Mr. Cannon's statement that the Canadian public was supportive of the changes.

"No one elected the Conservatives to drop nomenclature terms like 'child soldier,'" he said.

Mr. Dewar said it is inappropriate for staffers within the PMO to be politicizing Canada's international positions and language, which he feels is exactly what is happening.

"Let's be frank here, this is ideological," Mr. Dewar said. "This is controlling a message and certain words they don't want used because they're seen as either too soft or kind of connected to another political persuasion.

"It's not by people who have spent their time working in the area of foreign affairs, but people who have spent their time working in backrooms. And that's really a huge change from any government in being that controlling on what is being stated by our foreign affairs representatives, diplomatic corps, and it's very chilling."

It also confuses those with whom Canada interacts internationally, he said, who won't understand why Canada would stop using an accepted term like "child soldiers."

Former deputy minister Gordon Smith, now a professor at the University of Victoria, said he found the reported changes "disturbing."

While he agreed there is no question a government can change foreign policy and the way it is presented, he said excising words like "human security" goes too far.

"They are not just 'Liberal' concepts or policies," he wrote in an email. "The concept of human security is now deeply rooted in international organizations, international politics and scholarly works. It is not an 'either or' matter.... It is both.

"Policy is being changed and so is the way it is being presented. The point is that the changes should be clear and not hidden in the clouds of obfuscation, as now seems to be the case."

lee@embassymag.ca

http://embassymag.ca/page/printpage/tories_elected_foreign_policy-8-5-2009