Let's hear it for being average.

Axworthy, Lloyd

RE: "LET'S HEAR IT FOR BEING AVERAGE," BY CHRISTOPHER BERZINS (MAY 2009)

One of the constants of Canadian foreign policy is the role of the naysayer, usually occupying an academic or bureaucratic perch, who finds ways to debunk the achievements of our country in the international sphere. Normally, the argument is that we have no business trying to follow made-in-Canada policies, reflective of our history, culture or values, but instead that we should only be guided by power interests that, translated, means do as we are told by the reigning "great power" (i.e., formerly Great Britain, now the United States).

The latest, and one of the more curious, of this genre, is the essay by Christopher Berzins, who implores us to forget our lofty ambitions of following an "exceptionalist" role in the world and resign ourselves to being ordinary average joes performing worker-like toil in the global vineyards and following assigned tasks set out by bigger, more powerful states who rightfully claim the exceptionalist role.

What is curious about this argument is the idea that Canadians have been seized with some sense of divine ordination, and that we see ourselves above the rules and absolved of having to exercise the pragmatic skills of navigating the treacherous shoals of an uncertain and risky international environment. I can't recall, during my years in Foreign Affairs, any clandestine cabal plotting how Canada could claim itself to be on a holy crusade and thereby be separate and apart from the realities and the opportunities to establish a more effective set of rules to govern a messy world. In fact, if there is one dominant element in our foreign policy it is how to steward our limited capabilities toward contributing to the establishment of rules and institutions that limit the freelancing of self-identified exceptionalist states.

Indeed, the times when Canada did demonstrate particular skill in advancing a more humane international system seem to be dismissed by Berzins as some kind of show-off behaviour ill befitting the mundane role of an "average" nation. Canada's peacekeeping efforts in the Suez crisis and the human security policy that was instrumental in bringing about the Ottawa treaty on landmines and the International Criminal Court are apparently examples of how we betrayed the role cast for us by our betters. Berzins's citing of comments from a British foreign service official--generally among the most stuffy of diplomats--that we pushed too hard on the human security file only shows that his views reflect a position shaped by those who think we were being too uppity in pursuing policies contrary to those of old exceptionalist powers that do not like to be challenged.

This is where the naysayers go wrong; they form their opinions from theories, analyses and attitudes not from Canadian roots, but from sources within the self-defined great powers who have no understanding of what Canada is or what Canadians want in their foreign policy. If they were better informed they would know that a strong majority of Canadians want to see their country playing an effective, progressive role, doing its best to secure peace, the rule of law, a functioning international system that protects people and the global pursuit of human rights.

Unfortunately, this is a factor overlooked by those who preach from a pulpit too far removed from the "street smarts" of Canadians. That's why we should ensure that democratically elected members make our foreign policy choices, not the naysayers.

LLOYD AXWORTHY

WINNIPEG, MANITOBA