News

Michael Ignatieff's recent foreign policy speech, part of his “Big Canada” kick, is an admirable, wide-ranging canvass about how “it is time for the world to be at the centre of our national conversation, not the margins.” But a grab-bag of proposals do not constitute a vision. And in the very week he gave his speech, Mr. Ignatieff appeared to downplay its contents, reflective of the political calculation with which he has been seized of late.

The Monday address to the Canadian Club of Ottawa stands squarely in the Liberal internationalist tradition of Pearson (multilateralism, peacekeeping), with a good measure of Chrétienism (Team Canada trade missions, African investment) thrown in. It lands a couple of blows at the Conservatives' expense, noting Canada has had four foreign affairs ministers in less than four years, while failing to stand up for Canadians abroad.

Some ideas are old or borrowed. Mr. Ignatieff wants to send special envoys to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to “engage with China and India”. He calls for a more robust presence in the Arctic, but ends up following Stephen Harper's lead. His prioritization of so many continents leaves him open to the critique that a more regionally-focused foreign policy, like Mr. Harper's concentration on Latin America, can yield more influence.

The lack of an overall strategy haunts the address. The best nuggets feature Canada projecting its soft power – starting an institute promoting peace, order and good government; leading efforts to prevent conflicts before they start; harnessing the talents of Canadians who are already “present in the world”. But the details that would make this plan appealing – which conflicts? how can particular groups of Canadians make a contribution? – are lacking.

This is surprising because Mr. Ignatieff's own vision had been specific and distinctive. In 2001 he helped develop the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, the notion that other states must protect citizens of a country whose own government is unwilling or unable to do so, even if that means military intervention. Perhaps fearful of bringing up his own past as a public intellectual, and unwilling to say too much about Afghanistan, he now ducks the question.

In the same way, Mr. Ignatieff has failed to follow his own advice to discuss foreign affairs on the hustings. On the week he chose to make it a priority, he yet to ask a single related question about it in Parliament. Mr. Ignatieff needs to marshal an overall narrative, and the courage of his convictions, if he wants Canada to have an ambitious place in the world.