Rarely does foreign policy play a major role in Canadian federal election campaigns. There have been only two exceptions to the rule in the last 60 years. The 1963 campaign was dominated by the question of whether or not Canada’s anti-aircraft Bomarc missiles should be armed with nuclear warheads. More generally it brought into play Canada’s relations with the United States and with NATO. The election was won by the Liberals under Lester Pearson and the new government decided to honour the commitments which Canada had made to its allies. The 1988 campaign was fought largely on the question of whether or not Canada should enter into a free trade agreement with the United States. The election was won by the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney and the agreement was concluded a few months later.

Most often, however, issues in foreign policy and international relations barely rate a few mentions in Canadian election campaigns. The campaign currently underway seems firmly fixated on domestic issues and seems unlikely to produce any serious debate on foreign policy. This is a pity, because many foreign policy issues have a direct bearing on the interests of Canada and Canadians. The foreign policy and the diplomacy of the Harper government are certainly not above criticism and could certainly provide fodder for a lively debate among party leaders. Here are a few issues which might be put on the agenda for such a debate.

Canada-U.S. Relations

The distinguished Canadian political scientist, professor Denis Stairs, wrote some 20 years ago that "There is only one imperative in Canadian foreign policy. That imperative is the maintenance of a politically amicable, and hence economically effective, working relationship with the United States." Over the years, most Canadian governments have recognized the merits of this proposition. Despite significant disagreements over questions such as Cuba and Vietnam, they have striven to maintain the friendliest possible relations with the government of the United States given that the two countries are inextricably linked in the realms of security, economics and culture. It is a relationship from which Canada and Canadians benefit immensely.

The Harper government has chosen a different tack in its relations with the United States. It has gone about deliberately antagonizing the administration of President Barack Obama by very publicly lining up with the president’s Republican opponents in Congress. It has done this in its relentless attempts to secure approval for the Keystone XL pipeline project. In so doing it has made two major mistakes. First, it has injected itself directly into the partisan domestic politics of the United States, something which foreign governments should try to avoid doing at all costs. Second, it is has mistakenly put all of its eggs in one basket. While the Keystone XL project is of some considerable importance, it is by no means more important than the totality of issues in the relationship as a whole. The repercussions of this sorry state of affairs have been felt on a variety of fronts, from the plans to build a new bridge linking Windsor and Detroit to the Trans Pacific Partnership trade negotiations.

The Middle East

The policy of the Harper government in relation to the Middle East seems quite simple and straightforward. It invariably and without qualification supports anything and everything said or done by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government. This policy has had a number of negative consequences: (a) it has alienated numerous Arab and Muslim countries which could otherwise be significant political and economic partners for Canada (b) it has annoyed several of Canada’s major allies which advocate a far more balanced approach to Arab-Israeli affairs, e.g. the United States, Great Britain and France (c) it has deprived Canada of the modest but useful role it once played as an honest broker in relations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Harper government’s subservience to Israeli government policy is also evident in the positions it has taken in relation to Iran. In a move obviously designed to curry favour with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Harper government broke diplomatic relations with Iran. It did this precisely at a time when countries such as the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany were beginning the process of engaging Iran in a diplomatic negotiation aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear programme. When these negotiations finally culminated in an agreement earlier this year, the Canadian government lined up with the Israeli government in criticizing the agreement, the only Western government to do so. This too must have gone over like the proverbial lead balloon in government circles in Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin.

The Harper government has also blundered elsewhere in the Middle East. By issuing statements commemorating the so-called "Armenian genocide" of 1915, it has compromised its relations with the Turkish government, precisely at a time when Turkey is playing an increasingly critical role in the region. It has also got Canada militarily involved in the war against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. This is a highly complex conflict pitting Sunnis against Shias, Arabs against Kurds, Turks against Kurds, Saudi Arabia against Iran etc. The Harper government has done little to explain to the Canadian public what its precise objectives are in this war, and has certainly given no indication that it has an exit strategy.

Image and Reputation

In one area after another the actions and statements of the Harper government have done damage to Canada’s international image and reputation. A few examples will serve to illustrate the point:

(a) As a middle power Canada has long been dependent on a well functioning system of international organizations. This is a point which appears to have escaped the Harper government. Through its disparagement of organizations such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth, it has weakened Canada’s position and reputation on the world stage. This was all made painfully evident when Canada suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Portugal in its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council.

(b) Over several decades Canada enjoyed a very positive image among Third World countries. It was seen as a generous and caring contributor to the economic and social development of poor countries. No longer. Cutbacks to aid budgets and the elimination of the Canadian International Development Agency have relegated Canada to the ranks of the also-rans among Western aid donors.

(c) International peacekeeping was once one of the hallmarks of Canada’s international presence. Whereas Canada was once one of the leading contributors to UN peacekeeping operations, it now ranks behind Mongolia as a contributor. Canadian blue berets and blue helmets are now as scarce as hen’s teeth.

(d) At international conferences on the protection of the environment, Canada was once a world leader in proposing new and imaginative ideas. No longer. The Harper government’s obscurantist environmental positions both at home and abroad have resulted in Canada being the butt of criticism and bad jokes at one international conference after another.

(e) A long series of cutbacks to the budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Harper government’s muzzling of Canadian diplomats working abroad have served to diminish Canada’s presence on the world stage. So, too, have recent cuts to the budget of the Department of National Defence. Diplomats and soldiers are key actors in protecting and promoting Canada’s interests.

Now image, reputation and presence are not ends in themselves. They are, however, key elements in generating influence, and influence is essential to the successful conduct of international relations for a country like Canada.

Envoi

These and other foreign policy issues deserve to be seriously debated during the election campaign. Such a debate would provide the Harper government with an opportunity to defend its record. It would provide the leaders of opposition parties with an opportunity to explain what they would do differently. Canadians deserve nothing less, for their security and prosperity are heavily dependent on what is happening in the wider world.

Louis A. Delvoie is a Fellow in the Centre for International and Defence Policy at Queen’s University.