“There won’t be any fireworks. This is going to be more discussion than debate,” said Canada’s former ambassador to the U.N. Paul Heinbecker, kicking off a talk on Canada’s foreign policy at Isabel Bader last Thursday.
And given the background of each of the speakers, the crowd might have believed them at first. For both Heinbecker and Senator Hugh Segal were former advisors to Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney in the ’80s.
Heinbecker was also Canada’s ambassador the U.N. from 2000 to 2005. He is now director of Laurier’s Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy.
Segal, meanwhile, was a well-known television pundit during the ’80s and ’90s. He served as chief of staff to Mulroney and was one of the main strategists for the Conservatives in the last election.
But despite their past similarities, on matters of foreign policy, the two men each took a distinct tack.
“Canadian foreign policy can foster conflict,” argued Heinbecker, “but it is not now fostering conflict.”
“The world doesn’t take us as seriously as we take ourselves,” said Segal in relation to the discussion of Canada’s influence in Washington and the global community. He went on to elaborate by suggesting that the international respect Canada enjoys is based on the way in which Canada handles its relationship with its neighbour to the south.
“The world doesn’t see us as not [being] serious,” Heinbecker responded. “They respect us on how we integrate and make our own independent foreign policy decisions.”
The crux of the discussion centred on the inimical debate on whether the United States holds sway over Canada’s foreign policy, which caused Heinbecker’s forementioned fireworks to make an appearance. The initial praise that was bestowed by each speaker on the other quickly devolved into acerbic barbs tossed back and forth. The invasion of Iraq became a main focal point.
“Bumper stickers in World War II said, ‘Stop the Nazis,’ and during the Korean war, ‘Stop the commies,’ but during the Iraq war you’d need a placard to say everything about this war [that was a potential threat],” said Heinbecker.
“I suppose responsibility to protect doesn’t include Shiites and Kurds?” said Segal, referring to the legitimacy of the war in Iraq.
Heinbecker retorted that the responsible actions Segal discusses should have occurred when the atrocities against the Shiites and Kurds by Saddam Hussein took place over a decade ago.
Their arguments surveying Canadian-U.S. relations laid little roadway in the discourse of Canadian foreign policy, often leaving the audience to react with both shock and laughter at the back-and-forth jabs.
“I’d peg it as a superficial debate that could have potentially brought out something with depth,” said Aminah Hanif, a second-year history and political science major.
“It wasn’t very serious judging by the clichéd arguments both sides were making. [They were] just reinforcing the audience’s support for one side or another rather than being objective and offering [something] new.”
