A terrific partner

by Paul Crookall

William Fisher, Australia's High Commissioner to Canada, spoke with editor Paul Crookall about Canada's contribution in the world of diplomacy, defence and development.

Canadians tend to underestimate Canada's role in world affairs. I hear Canadians talk about not having a special role, but you do. You are one of the major western countries, and you are distinctive – not part of the European Union, not part of the United States. I had lunch recently with a group of ambassadors from Asian countries. They noted that a message coming from Canada is often more palatable, even if it is the same message. Canadians know how to deliver a message; you are good at soft diplomacy. It is often harder for the US, as a superpower, to deliver a soft message. Canadians come in and say: "We've looked at this, what do you think about doing it this way?"

You are well received as a voice of western rationality and reasonableness. I see the same thing in our geographic area of the South Pacific where, because we are the biggest power, it is sometimes easier for New Zealand to say the same thing as we do and be better received. People don't look as much for an ulterior motive or a hidden agenda. The message is more palatable. Canada has a good role in that regard. Perhaps that role is underestimated because people focus on immediate issues rather than long-term results.

The Americans look at the world from their view as a global superpower, a sometimes top-down view. Some developing nations take a bottom up view of Canada as an aid donor, and benefit from Canadian generosity. For some, the Canadian International Development Agency is their first concern in Canada.

We see Canada laterally. And we see a terrific partner. We see a modern, western, progressive country with liberal views of what should be done in the world, views we share absolutely. Our two countries are not rabid this or rabid that. We are not religious fundamentalists. As countries with smaller populations but with significant economies, we share much in outlook. (Canada is #13 in GNP, Australia #16.) We see Canada very much as a compatible, active participant, pushing for the same sorts of things in world affairs as we are, so we regard Canada as uniquely relevant internationally.

We also cooperate through mutual support. Because neither of us has the resources to have offices in every other country, we have regional priorities. They complement each other well in our spheres of interest. We benefit from each other’s actions in parts of the world in which we are not a force. For example, there are 15-20 countries where we don't have embassies, where we have an agreement that the Canadian embassy will act on behalf of our citizens. Similarly, there are 15-20 countries where Canada has no embassy, and we do, and act for your citizens: for example, Laos, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Nauru, Burma, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, Cambodia, Tonga, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Hawaii, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Bali and Samoa.

In exchange, Canada acts for us in Venezuela, Syria, Tunisia, Congo, Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Gabon, Niger, Cameroon, Cuba, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Morocco, Algeria and Ecuador.

We also cooperate at the United Nations through the CANZ group. We share similar views as to how things should be done perhaps 99% of the time. Our voting patterns at the UN are very similar. Therefore, along with New Zealand, we work together at international bodies. As a single country it is difficult to make an impact in multilateral organizations. You have to be a group. This has been partly driven by the European Union acting as a group, together with the explosion in numbers of committees, and other groups acting as blocs.

So to increase our influence, Canada, Australia and New Zealand form a group. At so many meetings in the UN now, you will find CANZ speaking jointly. One of our three countries, rather than speaking only for itself, will say, "I am speaking on behalf of CANZ." For three countries, we get 10 times the weight by doing that. One of us gets on most small groups that are set up to resolve problems, whereas if we acted individually, many of these important committees would have none of the three of us on it, such as the Secretary-General’s Committee on UN Reform. We have an identity of views on most topics – nuclear disarmament, human rights. It's because we come from the same premises, use the same logic, and so tend to come to the same conclusions.

Throughout the Commonwealth there is a great overlap, feelings of community and partnership, and cooperation in the area of public administration. But that doesn't seem to apply so much in foreign affairs, as the Commonwealth members from different continents have different foreign agendas. The Commonwealth is a strong link at a personal level and especially at the prime ministerial level, but less so in foreign policy matters. If you are India, you see your national interests quite differently, being more concerned about problems with Pakistan and China, and the global role of representing the soon-to-be most populous country. The Commonwealth African countries are first and foremost African before they are Commonwealth, they generally do not give priority to matters outside Africa. Whereas within CANZ, apart from regional interests, globally we are very similar, as continental size, federal system, Westminster countries with similar values and standards of living.

How do you see Canada's role in assisting developing nations?

States are not motivated by charity. If you were to run a foreign policy based on charity, it would be a strange foreign policy. Your taxpayers might feel good in the short term, but they would probably throw you out of office fairly soon.

Anyone who spends the taxpayers' money for altruistic purposes has very tolerant taxpayers. We all act very much in the perception of our national interest. The difference is whether we see the long-term view, or have a short-term focus. International affairs are not charity. There is charity, as in international disaster relief, but for the most part countries act to promote their interests.

One of Canada's contributions has been to the international response to terrorism. There have been suggestions that Canada is not pulling its weight militarily, and, at the other end of the spectrum, that we should get out of peacemaking and forceful interventions and back into traditional peacekeeping. Australia has been more directly attacked than Canada. How do you see our role? And what is Australia's response to the bombings at the hotel in Bali and the embassy in Indonesia, that killed so many of your country's citizens?

Because our countries are so similar, we share the same ambitions, priorities and outlook – and the same enemies. It was communism, now it is terrorism. We see it from different sides of the world. In terms of where we seek to exert influence, Afghanistan is part of a global war, and we are both there. But beyond that, we are more capable in Oceania, you in the Caribbean and Africa.

Anyone who suggests Canada is not pulling its weight should make a trip to Afghanistan. Your involvement there is dramatic. No major power outside India, Pakistan, China and North Korea spend what the US does on military, as a percentage of GNP. Canada is low but not alone. From the American point of view, it must be irritating to look at countries benefiting from American power but not doing enough to pull their weight.

The bombings that specifically targeted Australians in Bali and Jakarta rocked us out of our complacency. We had thought, "We're too distant, we're too busy surfing and enjoying the sun, for them to care about us." We were attacked, it seemed, not so much because we were Australians, but because we were a good second best alternative to Americans and an easier target in those locations. Our government had been aware of the potential danger, but the public had largely ignored it. The bombings caused a revolution in Australian public opinion – a revolution that may not yet have affected Canadians, because it hasn't quite reached that level of personal awareness. But Canadians are just as much targets as us; not too many Fedayeen have a huge appreciation of the differences between Canadians and Australians and Americans.

We take the terrorist threat seriously, both in terms of its immediate danger and in terms of long-term policy.

Australia has been more interventionist in the Pacific area, in Timor, the Solomons. You seem to have selected that geographic area for focus, whereas Canada has identified 25 countries in various parts of the globe.

We don't have the luxury of sitting back and deciding where we should go. Events force themselves on us. We have to give strategic priority to our own region. The USA alliance is global, but we should be able to handle our region by ourselves, pulling our own weight in our own region, which we do. Any major threat to us will come from within our region, so we need to take action to promote stability and security.

Apart from Indonesia, which has the fourth largest population and fourteenth largest economy in the world, there are few large players in our immediate area. The South Pacific countries look to us (and New Zealand) for help. There is nobody else there. Whereas in the Caribbean and Africa, they have others to look to and you need to coordinate your efforts and can decide where and when you can be most effective.

Do you have any advice, in terms of Pierre Trudeau's expression, for the mouse sleeping next to the elephant?

The last thing you need is advice from an Australian, I wouldn't dream of it. There is one difference in our foreign policy though – whatever Canada does, you cannot escape the US, you are there, you are noticed. In contrast, we fear that because of our distance America might escape us. We have to work harder at the alliance.

In fact, the advice should be flowing the other way. Canada has done a remarkably good job of getting along with the Americans. Other countries should be looking to Canada for your knowledge of how to understand the Americans. It is a skill many of us could benefit from.

It seems many countries have an animosity-dependence relationship with the US, whereas Canada and the US tend to be friends who sometimes disagree. There is an article elsewhere in this issue about Canadians training others to use mediation and alternative dispute resolution in their domestic situations. Perhaps we should add a capacity to train others in how to get along with a superpower.

Good idea. International leadership is the tactful and purposeful use of power, through both direct and indirect means, the leadership of being able to sell your message, and promote trade. It involves knowing when to use the soft and hard sell. Timor involved the use of hard power, as did the Solomon Islands. We adjust tactics to the occasion. Some countries just use hard power all the time – think of the former Soviet Union – and others get ticked off at that. But you can't be so soft as to be ineffective. You have to use the full spectrum to achieve your objectives.


William Fisher was appointed Australian High Commissioner to Canada in March 2005. A career diplomat, he has served as Ambassador to France, the Kingdom of Thailand and Israel as well as Consul-General in Honolulu, Vila and Noumea, and has held numerous positions in the public service.