National Identity and Canadian Foreign Policy
The Liberal government has laboured somewhat to make it known that it is reviewing and perhaps altering parts of its foreign policy, in effect attempting to counter opposition narratives that their mindset is plagued by meekness and naivete. Reflecting this has been the Prime Minister’s much-welcomed condemnation of the Chinese ambassador’s thinly veiled threat towards Canadians living in Hong Kong as consequence for Ottawa welcoming Hong Kong refugees.
One waits with much interest to hear the details of a new policy to be fleshed out as chaotic circumstances demand, as this is all a moral, strategic, and now a political necessity. As a much-discussed Angus-Reid poll found in May, Canadian opinion of China has declined substantially, with only 14 per cent of adults claiming they have a positive view of Beijing. Contrary to any persistent claims of the necessity of economic engagement, 76 per cent said Ottawa should prioritize human rights and the rule of law over economic opportunity, while support for trade with democratic partners like the EU and Washington had risen.
A nation’s interests and the policy framework to pursue them should be guided by a concern for public opinion, which provides an understanding of who Canadians are and how this should be projected on the world stage. And one of the challenges to formulating an effective foreign policy that Canadian governments (the current Liberals now and their Liberal/Conservative successors) need to surmount in this era is the question of Canadian identity, something about which the public always seems to have a clearer idea than the governing class as polls and studies have suggested there is among citizens a great sense of what Canada is.
It was on this point that, in his address following the Throne Speech earlier this month, the Conservative Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Michael Chong criticized the government’s foreign policy, citing the Prime Minister’s belief that Canada is the world’s “first post-national state” that has no core identity. Moreover, he averred this suggests a lack of shared citizenship and common purpose, which has resulted in an incoherent foreign policy.
“The problem with this government’s foreign policy,” he claimed, “is if you don’t know who you are, then your foreign policy will reflect that.”
There is something to this that Canadians should meditate on. A confident sense of self better enables a nation to define its goals and interests and conduct itself accordingly to pursue these ends. The deeper problem in the current government’s worldview has been its preoccupation with an artificial kind of ‘diversity,’ that essentially argues endless diversity is always good for its own sake. It is not unique to this government; it is, in fact, an excess of Canada’s official multiculturalist doctrine introduced by Pierre Trudeau (who in 1971 proclaimed there was no “official culture”) and the continued fetishizing of it.
With the cultural relativism that comes out of this mindset presuming that all cultures are equal, it strips multiculturalists of the ability to understand how particular cultures inform behaviour either favourable or inimical to Canadian interests or values. In the international realm, it leads to overlooking the importance of understanding how culture and regime type influence a nation’s habits, particularly in their governance and interaction with others.
The multicultural mindset also proves paralyzing as it discourages any acknowledgement or celebration of the uniqueness of the culture that has helped build Canada’s society and institutions, continually making it difficult to actively stand for much or conceive what the national interest is.
A distinct and self-assured culture and identity provides the foundation for a good foreign policy, as they do everything else. It’s especially needed now as our ambiguity over identity and purpose prevails at the same time adversaries such as Xi Jinping are rather certain of their country’s national identity and purpose, thinking of it in terms of grand civilizational narratives and ambitions. Countries like Canada can ill-afford to continue not having an answer to this. There is a history and tradition before the advent of official multiculturalism and the United Nations that can inform a revival of a national identity that can make Canada surer of itself. In this era, the topic should be prevalent in the public debate, not least in the debates concerning foreign policy.
