That's a good question.

I think the people at Global Affairs Canada thought long and hard before they came up with the word “disruptive”; they wanted to find the right word. It would be fair to say that this is a time of change and turbulence in terms of power dynamics. Also, we don't know what will happen next November.

Canada has long relied on its reputation as a friendly country, a country open to dialogue. That dates back to the time of the current Prime Minister's father. Canada was respected because it was seen as powerful enough to have its own foreign policy and its own ideas, while at the same time having a knack for bringing people to the same table. Another unique feature, one that has since changed, was that when people from the Department of Foreign Affairs met with representatives of Asian countries, those representatives knew Canada had a reputation to protect whether the government was Liberal or Conservative. Canada's stance on the region was therefore consistent and transcended partisan affinity.

Canada's number one challenge is to work with its partners in Southeast Asia, including the Japanese, who have been a constant presence in the region. Canada needs to maintain its own constant presence by playing the role of dialogue facilitator. That's what it tried to do from 1982 to 2002, when it enabled and supported regional dialogues. It's important to note that there has been no conflict between the countries surrounding China. Yes, there was the Vietnam War, but countries in the region have not been at war with each other. ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, has its own distinct modus operandi, and we have much to gain from working with our allies.

The same is true of India. It is important to be a sought-after nation, one respected for its positions and capable of bringing people together around the same table, as we've done in the past. We need to reclaim a role that will restore our reputation as a soft power, one that leverages its power of persuasion. Consider Mr. Axworthy's human security doctrine and peacekeepers' military interventions.

Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy is a first step, but the big challenge is implementing it. Efforts have been made over the past year, but sometimes we've messed up rather than restoring Canada's reputation as a power capable of bringing people together around the same table and taking action on specific issues. Just look at the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, which Canada put forward. I think Canada has expertise on issues such as Uighurs and the exploitation of trafficked workers. We need to focus on our strengths, not try to do it all, which sometimes seems to be the case with Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy.

Transcript

Discussions (0)