Prime Minister Justin Trudeau leaves a caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Oct. 25. A new book on the foreign affairs achievements and failures of each of Canada’s elected prime ministers since John A. Macdonald, ranks both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Harper near the bottom in terms of overall effectivenessSean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau often presents his government’s foreign policy as the polar opposite of his predecessor’s.
Where Stephen Harper preached hard-headedness and military might and dispensed with diplomatic perks and niceties, Mr. Trudeau has championed a feminist foreign policy that puts its faith in multilateralism, international summitry and sunny diplomacy.
Mr. Harper rooted his policy in Canada’s past as an offshoot of Britain; his successor sees Canada as the first postnational state.
One shunned the international limelight; the other craves it.
Their stylistic differences cannot, however, obscure the reality that neither gets high marks for his foreign policy. Indeed, a new book on the foreign affairs achievements and failures of each of Canada’s elected prime ministers since John A. Macdonald, ranks both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Harper near the bottom in terms of overall effectiveness.
Statesmen, Strategists and Diplomats: Canada’s Prime Ministers and the Making of Foreign Policy, a collection of essays edited by Toronto Metropolitan University professor Patrice Dutil, breaks down the foreign policy characteristics and realizations of each PM based on structures (the bureaucracy and diplomatic corps), substance, and style. A final chapter ranks each based on scores attributed by the book’s 15 contributors.
They are not a kind bunch when it comes to Canada’s two most recent leaders.
Mr. Harper received an average score of 2.87 (on a five-point scale) compared to 2.8 for Mr. Trudeau. Only Alexander Mackenzie (2.78), R.B. Bennett (2.69) and John Diefenbaker (2.49) fared worse. Ouch.
Louis St. Laurent and William Lyon Mackenzie King tied for top place with scores of 4.34 and 4.33, respectively. Brian Mulroney came in third overall with a score of 4.05, followed by Lester Pearson at 4.01. King’s legacy as a wartime prime minister explains his high ranking even though he brought no pizzazz to foreign policy. St. Laurent is remembered for defining Canada’s postwar diplomacy, setting out its principles and creating the institutions that have guided prime ministers since.
Mr. Mulroney is praised for his effectiveness in representing Canada abroad, earning a top score of 4.46 in that category. Canada’s last elected Progressive Conservative prime minister, Mr. Dutil writes, “brought an intuitively compassionate and sympathetic personal style to his diplomacy and managed to be convincing with the likes of Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand.” His accomplishments on trade, climate and human rights stand out.
Jean Chrétien is most remembered for keeping Canada out of the Iraq war, and for that most Canadians will be ever grateful to him. He did send Canadian troops into Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban as part of a NATO coalition in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. But his cuts to the defence budget and diplomatic corps undermined Canada’s influence and effectiveness on the world stage.
Pierre Trudeau is singled out along with Mr. Harper for contentious relations with the foreign affairs bureaucracy. Each turned to outsiders to advise him. Mr. Trudeau père, Prof. Dutil writes, could be “impatient with the foreign policy staff, even quarrelsome. Charismatic as he was, and idealist and peaceable as he showed himself to be, his personal approach could also be alienating and even appear gullible and self-indulgent.”
In their chapter on Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau fils, Jennifer Levin Bonder and Leah Sarson note the stylistic contrasts between the two leaders but conclude that “actual shifts in policy were smaller than the rhetoric suggested – a rhetoric geared toward appealing to the electorate.” Both men made foreign-policy posturing for domestic political purposes the cornerstone of their approach, undermining their influence abroad.
Mr. Harper made a point of highlighting his government’s unflinching, if not uncritical, support for Israel, but, again, this was largely aimed at domestic political audiences. He withdrew Canadian funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (known as UNRWA).
Mr. Trudeau’s government restored UNRWA funding and supported UN resolutions affirming Palestinians’ right to self-determination. But it otherwise has backed Israel (and the United States) at the UN and avoided standing out after Hamas militants attacked Israel last month. It has followed Washington’s lead since.
Mr. Dutil and his co-authors based their ranking of Mr. Trudeau’s foreign policy on his first five years as prime minister. If anything, his government’s performance on that file has only deteriorated since then. Its handling of Chinese foreign interference and allegations of India’s involvement in the killing of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil have not made Canada look good at home or abroad.
If it is any consolation to Mr. Harper, his foreign policy may well end up being remembered as slightly less bad than his successor’s.