Why Harper wants to take on the world

Why is the PM preoccupied with external threats?

by Paul Wells on Friday, July 15, 2011 9:00am - 234 Comments
Stephen Harper

SEAN KILPATRICK/CP

“When I have something to say, I’ll tell you,” Stephen Harper said at one of his first news conferences as Prime Minister in 2006. Very well then. What has he been telling us since he won a majority on May 2?

In two important speeches and an interview with my boss at this magazine, Harper has given important hints, and left open important questions, about his plans for the country. A surprising amount of what he’s said has to do with foreign policy.

I don’t want to overstate this. In two speeches to Conservative partisans, at the party’s Ottawa convention on June 10, and again at the Calgary Stampede on July 9, Harper spoke first about more familiar subjects: his party’s electoral success and the economy. But Canada’s place in the world has grown as a theme until these days foreign policy is one of Harper’s big applause lines. He clearly sees it as a way to sharpen the contrast between his party and its opponents, to Conservatives’ advantage.

That hasn’t always been the case. Before the 2006 election, foreign diplomats in Ottawa couldn’t get a meeting with Harper or any trusted lieutenant. He didn’t travel much.

This is common enough among political leaders. Very soon the realities of the job caught up. Here’s how Harper described it a couple of weeks ago in his interview with Ken Whyte: “Since coming to office—in fact since becoming Prime Minister—the thing that’s probably struck me the most in terms of my previous expectations—I don’t even know what my expectations were—is not just how important foreign affairs/foreign relations is, but in fact that it’s become almost everything.” Canada’s economy is obviously strapped into the global roller coaster, but our prosperity depends on trade, our security starts far from our shores, and so on.

At first Harper turned to international tasks from a sense of duty. What’s new is the enthusiasm. “Re-equipping the military is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to making Canada a meaningful contributor in the world,” he told the Conservative convention in Ottawa. “We also have a purpose. And that purpose is no longer just to go along and get along with everyone else’s agenda. It is no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the United Nations. And I confess that I don’t know why past attempts to do so were ever thought to be in Canada’s national interest.”

Hooray, a chance to caricature the Liberal record. Indeed, if you’re looking for an explanation for Harper’s increasing rhetorical reliance on foreign affairs, it may lie in this extract from earlier in the Ottawa convention speech. “Within 100 sitting days of this majority Parliament, as promised, we shall combine our outstanding criminal justice bills—measures the opposition has been blocking in some cases for years. We will put them into comprehensive legislation and we will pass them.”

If that happens, it won’t be an unalloyed triumph for the Conservatives. Politicians like to have something to fight against. Harper got a lot of mileage out of his frequent displays of frustration at the opposition for blocking his crime bills. Even when the opposition parties weren’t blocking his crime bills. Often Harper’s own decisions to prorogue Parliament killed his bills before they could be passed. But the opposition was handy to blame.

If he gets that omnibus bill passed, Harper will need something else to fight against. The opposition is a bit of a toothless foe these days. The world will make an excellent substitute enemy. “We are living in a world in which, after decades of stable, sometimes stagnant international relationships, change is the new constant,” he told the Ottawa convention. “New forces are coming to the fore. Some we will be pleased to work with. Some we must resist.”

This is, more or less, the “sea of troubles” speech Harper repeated at every stop in the spring election campaign. The argument contributed mightily to building voter support for a stronger Conservative government. Might as well keep making it.

In his Maclean’s interview, Harper discussed “the kind of values we have in the world: freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law.” As a rule of thumb, he added, “those societies that promote those values tend to share our interests, and those that do not tend to, on occasion, if not frequently, become threats to us.”

He seems preoccupied with threats. In Ottawa and again in Calgary there was an odd passage about Canada’s future. “Friends, in a few short years, we will celebrate our 150th anniversary as a united country. If, in 50 more years, we wish our descendants to celebrate Canada’s 200th anniversary, then we must be all we can be in the world today.”

“If?” What’s the 50-year challenge to Canada’s very survival?

“We know there are challenges to us,” he told Maclean’s. “The most obvious is terrorism, Islamic extremist terrorism. We know that’s a big one globally. We also know, though, the world is becoming more complex, and the ability of our most important allies, and most importantly the United States, to single-handedly shape outcomes and protect our interests, has been diminishing, and so I’m saying we have to be prepared to contribute more.”

This is, to say the least, a bold bunch of claims. Canada’s survival is not assured; our allies, including even the United States, are less able to defend it; Canada has to do more. Just talk? Harper rarely says the same thing three times in a month unless he’s been thinking about it a lot. But he still has a lot of explaining to do.

Bookmark and Share
  • Anonymous

    Why does Harper believe Canada needs an army?  If a foreign country wants to take over Canada, it can just tell its soldiers to join the 280,000 immigrants that Harper is bringing in every year. Why is Harper worried about Islamic terrorists overseas? In ten years many of them will probably be living here. What will Canada be like in 50 years? Take a look at Nigeria or Guatemala today.

  • Anonymous

    Why does Harper believe Canada needs a military?  If a foreign country wants to take over Canada, it can just tell its soldiers to join the 280,000 immigrants that Harper is bringing in every year. Much easier than an invasion.  Why is Harper worried about Islamic terrorists overseas? In ten years many of them will probably be living here. What will Canada be like in 50 years? Take a look at Nigeria or Guatemala today.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NBPS6XAMMEMAJRTVKGASETRVFE Live Free

    The Canadian people are peaceful, the politicians in Ottawa less so.  They love war, in fact.  Check out some other tid bits at  http://macleaners.blogspot.com/.

  • vjobson

    Like Ralph Klein defying Ottawa. Much to Harper’s chagrin, that’s one Klein trick he can’t pull. Or else he did, but only by making Ottawa public servants the villains.

  • Anonymous

    Paul is peeved because he is no longer the fly on the wall as he was in Liberal days.

  • Phil King

    “… Why is the PM preoccupied with external threats? …”

    Because he can’t pile on the opposition anymore without seeming like an idiot.

    Any other stupid questions? LOL

  • http://twitter.com/martas_art marta fekete

    The megalomania is  showing..he even dresses like Stalin… 

  • http://twitter.com/martas_art marta fekete

    The megalomania is  showing..he even dresses like Stalin… 

  • http://www.facebook.com/bobby.killsmith Bobby Killsmith

    Paul Wells is the one who doesn’t get it.  This is shown in the last paragraph of the article, in particular, where Well sums up what he calls, “bold claims”.  You have to be pretty naive if you think a relatively weak country (militarily and economically) like Canada’s  survival is assured.  The US will not continue to be the global power it has been, and its power is already visibly diminishing, and has been for years, and they’re giving us no reason to believe the decline won’t continue.  They’ve also never really made any guaranties they would help us, it’s just been assumed.  Concerns along these lines, and a stronger military, and strengthening and widening of alliances is actually very prudent.  Sovereignty is about being seen to be strong, and security comes at least as much from diplomacy and trade as military might.  We do need to stand on our own much more.  I think Harper is on the right track.

  • Bradbury Newt

    It appears that even the great Paul Wells has now been duped by this PM’s subtle brainwashing and misleading rhetoric.  Notice how he (the PM) states that “We also have a purpose. And that purpose is no longer just to go along
    and get along with everyone else’s agenda. It is no longer to please
    every dictator with a vote at the United Nations. And I confess that I
    don’t know why past attempts to do so were ever thought to be in
    Canada’s national interest.”

    And therein lies the great lie and the brainwashing.  What he’s actually suggesting (and this is the scary part) is that the use of diplomacy, something that all previous governments, Conservative and Liberal alike, equals weakness, giving in to other people’s agendas, and conspiring with evil dictators.  The implication is that confrontational foreign policy, with sabre-rattling, demonization of other nations and their people, and even threat of military action, is the only way to do foreign policy effectively.

    I’m not sure where the PM gets his delusions of grandeur.  Canada’s military force, while among the world’s best in terms of competence, dedication, and professionalism, simply does not have anywhere near the size or strength to even defend our own northern borders without heavy US involvement.  That hardly constitutes serious, credible foreign policy.  I don’t think too many dictatorships, like the North Koreans or the Iranians, to name just two, would seriously be quaking in their military boots at the prospect of military action by Canada.  But what confrontational foreign policy can do, however, is to create a lot of enemies and threats, and isolate Canada in international circles, thereby undermining our own interests; something this PM has already made great strides in accomplishing.  A case in point: what has Mr. Harper or Canada gained with 4 years of confrontational foreign policy with the Chinese?

    Even more insulting to our national heritage is that the PM, with his statement, has just flushed down the toilet the significant achievements of our international diplomacy and of the diplomats who tirelessly pursue Canada’s interests abroad with relative anonymity and almost no domestic recognition.  Examples, of course, include our leadership in the establishment of the UN, the International Criminal Court at the Hague, the establishment of the G20, and the land mines treaty.  Even military actions, such as the leadership role we took in the Balkans and in Rwanda, were all achieved through international diplomacy.

    In short, the premise the PM makes is completely false, and dangerous.  Canada never went along or got along with everyone else’s agenda, and it has never tried to please dictators.  Canada is not, and never will be, an international superpower, either militarily or economically.  But what we have always had, and what we have used effectively to the advantage of ourselves and the rest of the world in the past, is our diplomacy, our good will, our respect, and our ability to bring people together in common cause.  In short, our leadership!

    And it’s this, that our PM, is now threatening to throw away!

From Macleans