News

Recent surveys indicate that Canadians increasingly care about international matters and want our country to play a constructive role in world affairs. What role should that be?

To help consider the options, globeandmail.com has invited three foreign policy activists to give us their thoughts and lead us in debate and discussion.

Lloyd Axworthy, president of the University of Winnipeg, and foreign minister of Canada from 1996-2000, argued Saturday in his essay We need a new map that we must throw out our slavish adherence to outdated U.S. policies and embrace truly international practices.

"Our present international policy is guided by an outdated set of co-ordinates arising from a slavish adherence to the Bush administration's misguided efforts at empire building, military adventurism, continental border security and bilateral trade deals, while avoiding international collaboration on environmental and disarmament initiatives," he writes.

"Americans are eagerly anticipating the departure of their hapless President by engaging in a broad democratic debate on future directions . . .

"As the charismatic Barack Obama says "change is on a roll." Everywhere it seems, except in the corridors of power that sit astride the Rideau Canal. Well, the starting point for Canadians is right now. The place is Parliament. And the issue that serves as the catalyst is Afghanistan."

Jack Granatstein, political and military historian, and senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, responded Sunday in his essay It's a matter of realizing our national interests that we must pursue our true national interests and they can never be divorced from those of the U.S. and other like-minded nations.

"Some Canadians foresee the Americans being surpassed in the coming years by others such as China, India, Brazil, or the European Union.

"If that occurs, and it may, then Canadians must realize that we will inevitably be forced even closer to the U.S. in our own economic and defence interests. The bulk of our trade will almost certainly continue to flow in a north-south direction, and we will only prosper if it does.

"Who dares to contemplate a future in which Beijing, say, occupies the economic role that the U.S. now plays for us?

"Could anyone, even the most fervent anti-American, believe that would be better for Canada?"

David Eaves, a public policy consultant, and the lead author of the 2004 Canada25 report From Middle to Model Power, writes today in his essay Unleash the power of our citizens that we must unleash the great under-utilized power of our outward-looking citizenry in roles still to be determined.

"For two decades, pundits have argued that Canada has lost its way in the world, that it no longer articulates a clear role for itself.

"But, in our search for answers, perhaps we've asked the wrong question. Rather than 'what is our role,' maybe we need to reaffirm 'what is our goal?' . . .

"Most of all, Canadians are looking for leaders who will empower each of us. As employees, consumers, business owners, investors, aid workers and, above all, citizens, the decisions we each make increasingly shape Canada's reputation and impact.

"The modern world is one in which the capacity to affect international affairs is shared among organizations and, indeed, among all citizens.

"A foreign policy that enables each of us to make better choices in pursuit of our common goal will create a role in which Canada and Canadians will thrive."

All three experts will answer questions today from the readers of globeandmail.com.

This is not one of our regular one-hour live discussions. Rather, it's a question-and-answer session. The answers will be posted no later than 5 p.m. EST today. Thanks to everyone who submitted questions before the 5 p.m. EST deadline yesterday (Monday).

For additional reading and insight, you can also go to The Canada's World website

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome to our readers and to our three experts. Throughout the day today, we will be posting first their responses to each other's articles, then their answers to the questions from our readers.

J.L. Granatstein: Thanks for the opportunity to reply to my colleagues' articles in this interesting exercise in 21st Century journalism.

I find much to agree with in David Eaves' article. Like him, I think that we need new leaders who can be warriors, diplomats and activists as circumstances demand.

But what should guide their (and our) choices? To me, Canadian national interests, as laid out in my original article, remain the best road map toward peace, order and good government.

I firmly believe that actions that best serve a free and democratic Canada will almost always serve global interests well.

Running our planned actions and initiatives through a national interest test can help us decide when to act — and when not to act.

I have much more difficulty with Lloyd Axworthy's article. He writes with an animus to the United States that is markedly unhealthy.

I am no supporter of President Bush or his policies. He is, I believe, the worst American president since Warren Harding.

But Bush blessedly will soon be gone and the U.S., our neighbour and biggest trading partner, will remain. We simply must get along — in our own national interest.

Too many Canadian jobs depend on good relations to allow anti-Americanism to shape our policies, as it sometimes appeared to do under the Chrétien and Martin governments.

Dr. Axworthy sounds even more harsh than Jack Layton in his criticism of Canadian participation in the Afghan war.

Both forget that this is a United Nations-mandated mission to which a Liberal government quite properly committed us. We must remember that Canada and its friends are trying to rescue a failed state and its impoverished, abused people.

Yes, the government in Kabul is inefficient and corrupt. But could it possibly be worse than another Taliban regime which would terrorize the population and again be a terrorist haven?

The struggle in Afghanistan today is the "Responsibility to Protect" in action, every bit as much as Darfur would — and should — be.

As Foreign Minister, Dr. Axworthy had little hesitation in committing Canada to the Kosovo bombing campaign in 1999, even though the UN did not back that operation. The UN supports the Afghan operation, and we see from his article that Dr Axworthy is a believer in the global organization.

What is it about Afghanistan that so infuriates him — other than that the Americans are involved?

Just as he did when he was in government, Dr. Axworthy seems to believe that pulling the tailfeathers on the American eagle is in the Canadian national interest.

Many of the readers who commented on these articles seemed to agree with him. I believe that he and they are wrong.

Anti-Americanism is Canada's secular religion, the one form of socially-sanctioned "racism" that we allow ourselves in a politically correct nation. It clearly makes many of us feel good to preach our superior morality and wisdom to the neighbouring superpower.

But the question we need to ask is if it serves our national interest to carp and complain and proclaim our small differences.

Will doing so help us to open up the Canada-U.S. border once more? Will it resolve our trade disputes? Will it encourage the U.S. Administration to approach problems in a multilateral fashion? Or will it only rile whoever sits in the White House today and tomorrow?

Let's begin to think of our national interests before we spout off.

David Eaves: Hanging over Axworthy and Granatstein's pieces is the shadow of Bush's deplorable ultimatum: "You are either with us or against us."

Axworthy defines "the against" camp. To this end, he doesn't so much as propose a new map, but an updated version of his old map.

This is understandable. Under his stewardship and with remarkably few resources, Canada enjoyed several accomplishments — most notably the land mines treaty.

However, his vision of Canada as global activist is also narrow. Wishing the United States didn't exist won't make it disappear, particularly when many of his priorities — Arctic sovereignty, nuclear weapons, and the responsibility to protect principle — will require American support or acquiescence.

In contrast, Granatstein appears comfortable with the current government's approach. Clearly, we are with the United States "whether we like it or not."

But important differences remain and we must be vigilant to ensure we never conflate American interests with our own.

Yes, many Canadian government and American administrations have sought to advance freedom and democracy around the world.

However, virtually every American administration balances this goal with structuring the international system to ensure the United States' supremacy, sometimes at a cost — in human rights, freedom and democracy — that should be unacceptable to Canadians.

In summary, despite their apparent differences both pieces are united in that they validate Bush's ultimatum. To a degree, they assume the world must be seen through this lens. But isn't this the first mistake?

America was in a similar mood in the mid-60s over Vietnam. And yet Pearson's refusal to join the war did not prevent the signing of the auto pact, nor, a few months later, did his public criticism of the war result in the pact's cancelation.

America is far more complex than Canada often gives it credit. There is always room for nuance and a more balanced approach, no matter what its leaders may say.

More importantly, significant pieces of both Granatstein and Axworthy's pieces are not mutually exclusive.

We do not need to choose a single tool — activism or warrior; microphone or hammer.

Our toolkit has always been much more complex — and this flexibility has served us, and the United States, well.

Lloyd Axworthy: I've had a chance to read the comments of the other two contributors and would like to make a short comment on their charges of my being anti-American.

If they had bothered to read more carefully — rather than falling all over themselves to condemn — they might have noticed that what I was promoting was an agenda that counselled working with a new U.S. administration on rebuilding the UN's capacity to prevent the ongoing slaughter of innocent civilians using the R2P principle.

I was also arguing for an agenda that joins the admirable effort of former U.S. secretaries of state and defence to raise the need to pursue nuclear disarmament, of using our best efforts to bring the U.S. into a global partnership on climate change, and in particular to work with us in forging a new legal regime for the Arctic.

These are not anti-American statements. Rather, they express a hope that Canada will become much more of an active voice in persuading Americans to use their strengths for global good.

As for Mr. Granatstein's take on my views on Afghanistan, my tone is not one of harshness but of lament at the way we are ready to commit ourselves indefinitely to a failed strategy at such a great cost of lives and resources without looking to see if there is a better way — something, by the way, that Americans are now doing over their role in Iraq.

Jim Sheppard: Thank you, gentlemen. Now the questions from our readers.

S.G., Montreal: Dear sirs, your expertise and opinions are highly valued. Thanks for allowing us to participate in this debate with you.

My question for all of you relates to this: I'm a U.S. citizen, now wholeheartedly Canadian and here permanently, and I find that the once-recognizable but somewhat superficial distinctions between Canadians and the U.S. are changing, to some extent based on region.

In the West, we have an increasing sense of alliance with the U.S. on policy matters (though we'll see how this is tested when a new President is elected, particularly if a Democrat comes to power), while in the Central and Eastern provinces (including the Atlantic region) we see a very fundamental anti- American sentiment that is more and more entrenched.

How can we as a nation find the collective courage (explicitly) to say to the U.S.: "We respect you and are intertwined with you. But you're intertwined with us too. So how about we each do what's right for us and hope to find common ground when possible?"

At present, we simply float along, appearing even weaker than we actually are.

J.L. Granatstein: S.G., I don't disagree with what you describe. Canada is divided regionally and linguistically, and we have had successive governments more interested in devolving power to the provinces than in governing nationally.

We need leaders who can speak strongly to the United States on the issues that divide us and work with the Americans on the issues that unite us — and there are many of both.

What we must do is base our actions on what serves us best in the short- and long-term: Our national interests.

T.L.: Laurels to Lloyd Axworthy and David Eaves in speaking out for Canada's uniqueness and determination on the world scene. Canada needs to redefine and underline its own existence, stand for its own political determination and world-class values when it comes to peace or such issues.

Darts to Jack Granatstein who advocates the "indivisible" marriage which exists between Canada and the U.S. How naive is one who — however learned he may be — forgets that the historic tenet of the United States is "Manifest Destiny?"

One does not need to be Einstein to figure this one out! As a Canadian, I want Canada to remain CANADIAN.

Lloyd Axworthy: Let me say first that I find it to be a uniquely "global" experience to be sitting in a Thailand hotel, about to give a talk on the R2P principle to the opening of an Asian Center set up to advance the principle among Asians and to be addressing Canadian foreign policy issues with fellow Canadians from such diverse spots as Montreal, Peterborough and Ottawa.

It shows what a powerful new tool we have to engage one another in serious debate and to make it worldwide.

This is what I meant when I suggested in my piece that our Department of Foreign Affairs should become the hub in a worldwide network that can greatly foster participation of Canadians in making foreign policy and developing networks globally to engage others in the same kind of questions.

We truly are at the cusp of a revolution in the democratization of global politics and Canada could take the lead in fostering this new tool for people to become informed and in breaking down barriers.

Now to the specific questions, the first two basically deal with how do we define a distinct role for Canada when sharing the same geography with the world's most powerful nation.

We do it carefully, creatively and consciously, not allowing ourselves to be pushed by special interests — what Linda McQuaig has called the Comprador Class — into accepting without reservation U.S. assessments of the problems and accepting without question their solutions.

That has become all the more difficult since 9/11 when the Bush administration's definition of the crisis was accepted without questioning and when Canadian policy-makers did not make an effort to do their own analysis of the terrorist threat and how we should respond.

Fortunately, Canadians gave a strong message to Mr. Chrétien's government to stay out of Iraq.

Unfortunately, the same did not happen when it came to Afghanistan where it is now openly admitted that our reason for going to Kandahar was to appease the Americans for not going to Iraq.

But we are now entering a new phase when the time for our new map-making is at hand.

The prospect of a new Democratic administration gives us hope that they are interested in playing a constructive role in rebuilding international institutions and restoring a rule of law.

This gives Canada a chance for a new dialogue on how to alter the Homeland Security rules that so deeply discriminate against many of our citizens in full contradiction of our Charter.

It hopefully means that we can take a serious look at how to implement the R2P strategy in killing fields like Darfur and even begin to work together on a different Afghan approach that emphasizes using the R2P criteria.

What is especially crucial is the need to search together for cross-border answers to environmental issues, especially fresh water and energy, not by simply accepting the dictates as we have been doing with the Bush Administration but by working out a collaborative scheme that will demonstrate a balanced solution and one that obliges us to meet stewardship standards.

Most of our present treaties are ineffectual on these signature issues, including NAFTA, and it will require major diplomatic effort to arrive at mutually beneficial agreements.

What is instructive is that right now various combinations of states, provinces, civil and business groups are establishing coalitions and partnerships to share information and to work together on things like emission standards and water basin management, bypassing the national governments.

It shows there is a will for us to work on our joint problems. The elites in the two capitals now have to get the message.

J.L. Granatstein: T.L., Just so you know, I am now and have always been a Canadian nationalist. But I don't believe that demands I be anti-American.

Sure, the Americans in the 1840s talked about the idea of a "Manifest Destiny" aimed north of the border, but Canadian military planners in the 1920s also drafted plans to attack the United States in the event of an Anglo-American war.

Can we not live with the present realities? Your job, T.L., or if not yours, then some of your friends' and relations' jobs, likely depends on Canada's trade with the U.S.

The question is not how to defame our neighbours (or me!), but how best to get on with them in ways that respect our — and their — needs and rights.

They really don't want to seize our territory and acquire more quarrelsome states in their union.

Margaret Dalziel, Ottawa: What might a global governance regime for Arctic lands, seas and people look like? Is there any chance for a cooperative approach amongst the countries with territorial claims in the area? Has there been any international effort to consult with the people living in the region?

David Eaves: Margaret, thank you for your question.

To start, with the exception of Canada's dispute with Denmark over the ownership of Hans Island, there is no challenge to Canada's territorial integrity.

What is in dispute is the ownership over certain underwater terrain as well as whether the Northwest Passage should be Canadian internal waters (and thus under our control) or an international waterway (and thus free for anyone to use as they wish).

There is certainly an opportunity for cooperative approaches. Sadly, little has been done to engage in them.

I thought it was embarrassing when Canada planted a flag on Hans Island, modelling the worst way to manage a dispute of this nature.

Canada and Denmark — two countries with a strong history or peacekeeping and deeply committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts — should be able to find a way to resolve this dispute and set a precedent for how other disputes in the North can and should be resolved.

More importantly, there has been little effort to consult with people living in the North.

I've been fortunate enough to spend a short period in this part of our country and it is clear to me that the best way to legitimize our claims is to ensure that Canada's Arctic communities are healthy and sustainable.

The fact that the Inuit have been using these lands and waters for centuries is possibly the best argument in support of Canada's claim.

Sadly, we have seriously underinvested in these important communities. Homelessness, overcrowding, tuberculosis, and other challenges are two, three and sometimes four or more times above the national average.

If Canada does not commit to sustainable communities in its North, then we will eventually begin relying on large, inefficient and expensive military installations to project our sovereignty.

Lloyd Axworthy: Margaret, the Arctic is the greatest contemporary diplomatic challenge for Canada.

In the mid-90s, a prime concern of the government was to apply its human security policies to the North. That meant engaging Northern people and circumpolar governments on cooperative environmental, social and political matters.

One direct result was the establishment of an Arctic Council, a unique multilateral institution that incorporated indigenous people along with ministers of government.

It was supposed to become the forum for cooperative action and indeed it initiated the first major study of climate change's impact in the region.

But again it became ignored by governments post 9/11 and as the ice has melted and the possibility of a ice-free passage becomes a reality, the response is to fall back on 19th Century sovereignty arguments.

It is now up to Canadian diplomacy to reassert the strategy of cooperative treaty-building, an action that was started over 10 years ago then forgotten when the Bush Administration showed its disinterest.

We can begin by using basic documents such as the Law of the Sea and then work on specific actions to prevent oil spills and exploitation.

Most of all, there must be careful definition on how to preserve the well-being and cultural rights of indigenous people.

This could give leadership to other regions facing the same problems.

Bill Templeman, Peterborough, Ont.: In terms of received public wisdom, the putative narrative in support of Canada's continued combat role in Afghanistan seems to rest on two core themes. They sound something like this:

(1) The Taliban support al-Qaeda. If the Taliban regain power in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda will re-establish itself, set up training camps and resume their export of terror attacks against the West.

(2) On 9/11/2001, a NATO member was attacked by al-Qaeda. As a member of NATO, Canada must continue its present role in Afghanistan in order to fulfil its treaty obligations.

If we assume this narrative to be correct — please challenge this assumption — then what sort of role should Canada play in Afghanistan?

What should be the optimum balance between development, diplomacy and defence?

Is the current U.S.-inspired counter-insurgency strategy — "take it to the enemy, no matter what the cost to civilians" — the most effective course of action Canada can take?

Are there other counter-insurgency models that Canada could adopt that would be more effective?

J.L. Granatstein: Mr. Templeman, those are good questions.

First, I accept your "putative narrative." I believe that our present role in a UN-sanctioned and NATO-directed mission in Afghanistan is the right one.

But I don't believe that Canadian troops are "taking it to the enemy, no matter the cost to civilians."

Our rules of engagement are strict, and our soldiers do everything they can to avoid harming civilians. The troops try to engage with the people, to hold shuras, to provide development aid.

I don't think CIDA has been very effective as yet, in part because of the bureaucratic rigidity in Ottawa that Dr. Axworthy understands better than I.

But as the Afghan National Army and Police improve, as security increases, and as military commanders take control of funding for small development projects, the results will show.

It is abundantly clear in Kandahar province that the Taliban will not fight as formed units any longer. They did so in 2006 and now they resort to (admittedly costly) suicide bombers and IEDs.

That is nonetheless progress and, to my mind, proof of Canadian effectiveness on the ground.

David Eaves: Bill, thank you for your excellent question. I agree that the first narrative was broadly used to instigate our involvement in Afghanistan.

Problematically, the debate is increasingly dominated by the second narrative.

Lost is the discussion is any debate about Canada's strategy and if it is helping us achieve our goals.

The Manley commission was quite explicit about the mission's shortcomings: endemic corruption of Afghan institutions, the damage caused by unnecessary civilian causalities, poor coordination between departments and the failure to use diplomacy effectively.

Any strategy needs to address these shortcomings. This should be the focus of our debate.

And yet, rather than discussing how we — and our allies — need to re-engage the 3D approach, the entire debate now turns on how many troops there will be and where they will come from. This is only a tiny piece of the puzzle.

Finally, the Afghan mission remains distant from us — not only because it is half a world away, but because it remains wrapped in a cloak of government secrecy.

No one within government, on or off the record, can talk to commentators, academics, military or other subject matter experts. The best minds in the country can't contribute, mostly because the government won't let them.

Shauna Sylvester: At a Canada's World citizens' dialogue session in Calgary this past weekend, participants developed a series of recommendations for Canada's role in the world.

While the group supported a strong and adequately funded military, they wanted greater focus on domestic security (the Arctic and our maritime borders) and a more-focused military that would implement UN-sanctioned Responsibility to Protect (R2P) missions.

They expressed frustration that Parliament and Canadians have not been adequately consulted about major military interventions like Afghanistan.

They called for a full parliamentary review of the military, including a review of Canada's role in NATO and NORAD.

The questions to all of you: Does it make sense for Canada to develop a more strategic orientation for its military interventions? Is R2P a good framework? What would this mean for our current alliances (NATO and NORAD)? What is the role of Parliament and citizens in deciding where our military goes and when?

Lloyd Axworthy: As I stated in my opening piece, Canada has gone missing in action when it comes to providing leadership in advancing the R2P strategic concept even though it carries Canadian paternity.

This is happening at a time when many others like Gordon Brown are advancing the idea as a way of meeting global risks — especially those where genocide and other forms of violence against civilians are involved.

In fact, I'm in Bangkok today, speaking at the opening of a new Center on R2P for Asia, demonstrating the growing interest and acceptance of the principle.

So, my answer to Shauna Sylvester is that the idea gives us a way of considering an alternative strategic lens through which to look at the world and move us away from the one-dimensional military focus that dominates thinking in Ottawa.

J.L. Granatstein: Dear Calgarians, we're a small country with a small military.

To me, it doesn't make sense to specialize in one or two roles — primarily because we'll likely get it wrong and it takes much time to retrain and re-equip.

The best standing military for us is one that is professional, well-trained, and well-equipped. Such a small force can do anything from peacekeeping to war-fighting in coalitions.

I don't believe UN-sanctioned R2P should be the only framework for our interventions. Who decides where R2P will be employed?

The UN didn't sanction Kosovo in 1999, but Dr. Axworthy took us there anyhow.

What if the host government disagrees with a Security Council mandate? Do we invade?

To me, Canadian intervention in any conflict should occur only if it serves our national interests and if Parliament approves.

I should add that seeking approval from Parliament is our way — elections aside — of consulting the people. No one should want to see opinion polls determine policies.

I believe very strongly that overseas deployments must go to the House of Commons — a practice which our governments had allowed to lapse until 2006.

And Canadian participation in alliances such as NATO and NORAD must serve our national interests too. Fortunately, both do.

David Eaves: We should all be deeply concerned about the lack of parliamentary oversight in our military operations as well as the lack of debate over when and how our military is deployed.

Prior to both the First and Second World Wars, declarations of war (and thus a commitment to deploy troops) occurred after parliamentary debates.

But starting with the Korean conflict and then successive peacekeeping missions, military deployments were made by order-in-council, and then, only afterwards, was there a parliamentary debate. But by then the decision was a forgone conclusion.

Deploying our soldiers abroad in a combat role — or even in a capacity that puts them at risk — in one of the most difficult decisions a country must make. It should never be done lightly or in a moment of passion.

More importantly, ensuring a genuine parliamentary debate is the best way to ensure the full catalogue of risks and challenges is surfaced so that Canadians and their MPs can be aware of the full magnitude of our commitment.

In this regard, a full debate feels like the minimum standard that must be met before any decision is made. This needs to be made the practice again.

Briefly, on the subject of NATO. I remember a couple of years ago participating with several military personnel in a roundtable on "NATO in Transition."

Halfway through the discussion, I stopped the discussion to ask: What is NATO transitioning to? And no one could answer the question.

To say we are in transition is to say that we had a starting point, have an end point in mind, and are in the process of moving between the two. If, however, there is no end point, then one cannot be in transition. One is simply adrift.

This isn't to say the organization is without value, but rather simply to say that Canadians understood NATO's original mission and Parliament voted almost unanimously in favour of its creation.

Perhaps a similar discussion is needed again?

Joy Division: The myth of Canada as a conventional peacekeeper is premised on the mistaken assumption that Canada historically opted for UN-led missions when providing leadership or troops, and put the bulk of its defence budget towards these missions.

Not since Bosnia has Canada contributed its forces to UN robust "peacekeeping," choosing instead the NATO route or support for regional organizations (the AU, ECOWAS) or coalitions of the willing (East Timor).

Historically Canada's contribution to conventional peacekeeping has always been much smaller in comparison to its contributions (troops and budget) to conventional defence.

Even at the height of the Cold War, the ratio was quite small.

As for increasing ODA to the magical 0.7% mark and beyond, this is yet another benchmark premised on a myth.

Include remittances from Canada's diaspora groups and the picture changes significantly. The flow of funds to developing countries from Canada easily exceeds the 0.7% mark.

There were approximately $300 billion in remittances in 2007 measured globally.

Countries such as Sweden and Norway lack the demographic makeup that make diaspora remittances possible and set their ODA benchmarks higher as a result.

But the money flowing out of Canada easily exceeds both of these countries, when measured in either relative or absolute terms.

The challenge for Canada's future leaders will be to map ways in which to harness these informal flows and to draw on our demographic diversity to develop coherent and focused foreign policies.

Domestic politics and interests (both public and private) will be the key driver of Canadian foreign policy in the 21st Century.

And it isn't just about an informed citizenry as David Eaves suggests. Private interests matter too. In Latin America, we are advancing our values and interests with coherence.

In this regard, geopolitics will be important but not nearly as important as linkage politics. We need leaders who can make these connections. Most still think in two dimensions when we need something more.

J.L. Granatstein: Joy, let me briefly comment only on your peacekeeping remarks.

You are absolutely correct in what you write, and the real question for us all — one I've been trying to grapple with for some time — is how and why our limited role in peacekeeping came to play such an important part in the Canadian psyche.

I fear that myth-making seems endemic to Canadians.

Joseph White: As a recent immigrant, I realize my views of Canada are skewed by my enthusiasm for my new country.

The views of Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Granastein seem to come from different places.

Mr. Axworthy — with whom I agree — sees the world changing and the need for Canada to re-evaluate our historical adherence to U.S. policies.

This is already happening and it is based on Canada being true to "Canadian values."

We did not invade Iraq. We do not blockade Cuba. We incarcerate 107 out of 100,000 compared to the U.S. at more than 700 per 100,000. We've legalized gay marriage, and the list goes on and on.

My question to Mr. Granastein: Are the growing cultural and political differences with the U.S. too great and too many to turn the clock back?

Isn't the time ripe for Canada, with progressive values of tolerance, non-violence, internationalism, freedom and multiculturalism, to show the way in this increasingly diverse world?

Doesn't the US need our help before it destroys itself and poisons the world even more?

Mr. Granastein focuses on the dangerous world and our huge economic relationship.

Do Canadians really want to live under the perpetual fear-based policies of the U.S.?

Will our economic partnership with the U.S. somehow change if globally respected "Canada values" lead the way, now that the U.S. moral leadership is in decline?

I say Canada needs to step out front — lead with our values and worldview — and offer an alternative to the U.S.

Directly engage U.S. constituencies that share our views. Bring them along with us so they can help change America.

Of course, the question it raises is this: Are Canadians willing to embrace all the good for which we are known around the world and use it pro-actively?

Or will we fear that leading on climate change, offering safe haven for anti-war activists, brokering peace deals, we might poke a stick in the eye of the belligerent behemoth just south of our border?

J.L. Granatstein: I fear that nothing I write will persuade Mr White.

We can try to advance our values everywhere if we choose.

And they are good values that can benefit the world. (It would also be helpful if we actually lived up to our professed values.)

But the harsh and unchanging reality is that we share a continent with a superpower.

Today, many are unhappy with the U.S. But in 1917, 1941 and during the Cold War, the reaction was very different.

Things change, Mr. White. Bush will be gone in 11 months but the US, our biggest trading partner, will still be there. Can we not deal with that reality? We simply must.

If U.S. policies meet our needs and serve our interests, we can go along. If they do not, we can and should object.

But we must remember that superpowers have different roles and responsibilities in the world than middle powers.

Given geography, economics, and history, sometimes we must cut our cloth to fit reality.

John Chuckman: Canada's place in the world is simply being a damn nice place to live, one which cares about human rights and democratic values to a far greater extent than our paranoid neighbour to the south.

I believe that many of Pearson's ideas and ideals are still solid bedrock stuff for a national dream.

The effort by the right wing to make a lot of noise about Canada's role in the world and its need to be active militarily are just shabby stuff.

We were suckered into Afghanistan and the effort represents a colossal waste of life and resources. Afghanistan represents none of our interests abroad and we have no historic connection.

Yes, women are abused in a 14th Century society, just as they are in rural India or Bangladesh or Brazil or dozens of other places. But we are not there for the women anyway.

We are there to please the Pentagon. Anyone who truly believes you can change, in the matter of a few years, centuries-old customs and attitudes, please let me know because I have a bridge you'll be interested in buying . . .

It's ridiculous to call this chasing after windmills a new place in the world. We look the fools.

J.L. Granatstein: Mr. Chuckman, you misunderstand Pearson who was no pacifistic do-gooder.

He was in the Great War, helped run our war effort in the Second World War and was one of the creators of NATO and our military alliance with the U.S.

Yes, he won a Nobel Peace Prize. But that was only part of his career, not it all. Just as peacekeeping is not — and should not be — all Canada can do.

As for Afghanistan, I grant that it's difficult to change a medieval society.

And if the Taliban had stayed insular no one would likely care much. But they did shelter al-Qaeda before 9/11 and we cannot afford to see that recur.

And if in fighting the Taliban we can rescue a failed state, a hard task, to be sure, is it not worth the effort?

I believe it is our Responsibility to Protect the people of that unhappy country, even if you and Dr Axworthy do not.

Finally, the right wing did not put Canada into Afghanistan. It was Chrétien, Martin, and Bill Graham, the traditional occupants of the Canadian centre-left.

Tyler Beatty, Saskatoon: In my experience, we Canadians are by large apathetic to international issues. Not that we don't have a voice speaking out for injustices in the world. But what I have seen from my friends, family and peers is an overall sense of indifference.

My question is: Should the government be making big policy changes (for example to the military, CIDA or in international relations), without a large public voice pushing for change?

In my opinion, we should — simply to create debate within the public.

I think there are changes that should be made, like making our aid untied.

Would making changes force us to discuss our common goals? Would this help us divide from American policy? Or maybe bring us closer? Finally, is making bigger changes even possible with only small voices of public opinion?

J.L. Granatstein: I agree on the public's apathy, and our history does not suggest it will change any time soon.

We elect governments to make our policies. And if we don't like the policies, we can toss the politicians out — and we do.

But let's not assume that there have been great changes in our foreign and defence policies under the Conservatives.

It's only two years since Mr Harper was elected and, in truth, not much has changed — except for some military equipment orders.

Raymond Frizell, Bishop's University: My question is for Dr. Granatstein.

I have read your book Who Killed Canadian History — a book I think all history students should read. I am also reading Who Killed Canadian Military and Towards a New World, Readings in the History of Canadian Foreign Policy.

In all three of these works, you lightly discuss foreign policy and seem to suggest that we need to follow one of the great powers in order to be safe with trade and international matters. This includes participating in our military obligations.

My question: In your opinion, if Canada fulfilled its NATO and UN obligations, could Canada then form a distinct and different foreign policy than the world powers? Thank you so much for your time.

J.L. Granatstein: Mr. Frizell, I'm delighted you're reading my books. Buy several copies and give them to your friends!

Historically, Canadians have always been followers — first of France, then of Britain, and now of the U.S.

This comes about because of our limited power and our need for security. We have occasionally tried to break out of this rut — the UN and NATO were such attempts 60 years ago — but inevitably it seems we gravitate to a superpower.

Does that mean we are totally constrained? I don't think so.

We can make our voice heard, push for multilateralism and do many things the US can't.

But how much foreign policy room is left after we fulfill our NATO and UN obligations? Realistically, not much, I fear.

Buck Rogers: On Eaves, this is the "feel good" optimistic and somewhat naive side of the domestic politics projection argument. Not that his points don't have value but there is another important side of the coin.

For example, diaspora groups involved in support for struggles in the homeland, remittance flows that go unchecked in support of criminal activities abroad, and the spillback associated with such activities within Canada — eg. urban crime in demographically diverse cities.

Canada's population growth is in decline and we will become a more demographically diverse society as a result to make up the shortfall.

The unstated point which Eaves needs to stress is that with citizenship goes responsibilities (not just entitlements) and Canada will need a better sense of what those responsibilities should be as we become more ethnically diverse.

David Eaves: Buck, you correctly point out some of the additional challenges confronting us in the 21st Century.

Diaspora groups and remittances present both new opportunities and challenges.

This is to say nothing of how Canadian companies operating abroad shape public perceptions of Canada. I remember living in Spain when a pool of toxic sludge created by a local mining operation broke its borders and gushed into a river. The company who owned and operated the mine was Canadian — a fact that was not lost on the Spanish press, the general public, or my Spanish friends.

We need governance systems that, when appropriate, reward Canadians who advance our collective interests. In some regards, we already do this — such as offering tax deductions on charitable donations.

Conversely, such a system must also be prepared to punish Canadians individuals, organizations and companies whose actions violate the most basic standards of decency and in doing so threaten our collective security and reputation.

We can't and shouldn't control the actions of Canadians, but much like we expect Canadians to adhere to certain standards at home, perhaps should expect them to adhere to a basic set of principles when operating abroad?

These are precisely the new type of difficult choices that arise from the forces I mentioned.

Yours is precisely the type of question we need to start asking ourselves more frequently.