By Nick Ubels (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: September 19, 2012
What does Canada seek to gain by severing diplomatic ties with Iran?
Last week’s surprise decision was meant as a symbolic gesture to distance Canada from an embattled, potentially hostile state. It was a flashy show of solidarity with the UK who withdrew its diplomats from Iran when an attack on their embassy went undefended by the Iranian government last November. But in abandoning the Canadian embassy in Tehran and expelling all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada, with only five days’ notice, the country has much to lose in provoking the Iranian government and surrendering hope of future negotiations.
In his September 7 statement, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird called Iran “the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today,” hyperbole designed to induce fear and further damage relations between the two states. He cited a wide range of reasons for the abjuration of diplomacy, from Iran’s nuclear program to its lack of respect for the Vienna Convention’s provisions for the treatment of foreign diplomats. These and other problems should be enough to convince the Canadian government that it is more important now than ever to pursue diplomatic solutions to a developing crisis rather than remove another barrier to armed conflict.
Dissolving one’s diplomatic ties is a move that leaves little room for foreign policy action other than military intervention. It is rarely done, even in the case of open hostilities. It was months after Canada began its NATO military operations in Libya before Harper closed the Libyan embassy. The soft power benefits of a diplomatic presence far outweigh the impact of any message sent to a belligerent state. In what universe will such action help defuse tensions with Iran or convince the government to change its oppressive policies?
The embassy’s presence was one of our few ways to gain first-hand insight into Iran and communicate with its leaders. How will Canada be able to make informed foreign policy choices concerning the region without this critical channel? By relying on US intelligence? We all know how well that worked out in Iraq.
As other Western countries withdrew their diplomatic ties with Iran, Canada found itself in an increasingly rare position to serve as a mediator. It was an opportunity to salvage a tarnished international reputation as a middle power squandered by a passive aggressive move that belies the Harper government’s ambition to reshape Canada’s foreign relations in the interventionist policing mould.
Baird laid out more of his vision for Canada’s foreign policy in a speech delivered to the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations, describing it as “principled” and “values-based.” If the decision to suspend diplomatic relations with Iran is an example of this philosophy, these statements translate to a pursuit of the illusion of strength through military force instead of real strength through non-violent measures and negotiation.
Rather than committing to the unglamourous, often frustrating work of collaborating in the interest of peace, Canada has chosen the easy path of brinkmanship.
This is a foolish move on the part of the Harper government. It robs Canada of genuine agency by modelling policy on the expensive, aggressive and unsuccessful cowboy tactics of our neighbours to the south.
