Uniquely Canadian

interviewed by Paul Crookall and Chris Thatcher

Modern peacekeeping operations bear little resemblance to the vision advocated by Lester B. Pearson when he helped establish the first United Nations emergency force in 1956. Conflict in failed and failing states is compared to a ‘three block war’ – military operations on one, stabilization on the next, while development agencies and diplomats coordinate humanitarian aid and begin reconstruction on another – making it far more dangerous and far more complex. Despite funding cuts that have forced all to do more with less, and the perception of a lesser role on the world stage, Canadian Government Executive discovered in recent interviews that when crises arise, Canada continues to be heavily in demand. With the release of the International Policy Statement, the government has signaled a greater commitment to ensuring Canada can meet those demands.


PETER HARDER,
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
I am impressed by how often and how respectfully other governments approach and engage public services across Canada to help them reform their public services. The provinces are wonderful experimental grounds and have built very close working relationships with developing and developed countries. We don't as Canadians fully appreciate how much we are respected beyond our borders for our public service and for the society we have built – one which has hospitality to differences. We should do more cheerleading, but in a way that maintains the modesty we are known for.

"Good public policy, good public administration, is a combination of poetry and plumbing," former New York State Governor Mario Cuomo wrote. A successful leader has to integrate both. It’s a matter of aligning the plumbing to a purpose. And you’d better establish the purpose with clarity before you begin to articulate what the ‘management reform agenda’ is. You have to make change purposeful for your organization.

That purpose must be understood throughout the organization. Leadership is a group sport, not a Sermon on the Mount. Aligning your human, technology and management systems to achieve your purpose is the big challenge. Increasingly, we need to build purposes and systems across a number of departments or even engage actors outside of government. That’s what’s exciting about modern government.

Canada's foreign policy review brought together not just the core international assets of the government of Canada – defence, diplomacy, development – but other departments as well, Environment, Energy, Agriculture, Heritage.

Our business is changing. Heads of state are playing a more significant role internationally. Domestic departments now operate internationally - SARS, for example, required a national and global approach by provincial and federal health ministries.

Our reflections have led us to articulate what value-added the foreign ministry brings and how we can build on our strengths and deal with some of our inherent weaknesses to be a better and full partner in managing international relations. Our value-added comes from living and working abroad and bringing that understanding to bear on Canada’s interests. We create deliberate networks of commerce, diplomacy, development, ideas, academics, civil society, and do that in a way that isn’t exclusively ours, but brings the broad array of all three levels of government to bear.

We're the most headquartered-centric foreign ministry in the Western world. We've got to have more of our officers abroad, have more third-language skills, be more present where the world is going, not
where it was. One key role is to support other departments internationally. Only 25% of Canadian staff abroad are from Foreign Affairs – the rest are program staff that we host from 14 departments, four agencies and three provinces. The Head of Mission has to be the integrator of those interests.

Part of our mandate is to support other agencies that promote good public service in other countries. We are by and large not a program department though we do have some programs - contributing to security through a counter-terrorism capacity building program, a human security program, decommissioning Russian nuclear submarines. The Global Peace and Security Fund will give us a new tool to respond to international crises with greater agility.

Canada has always had an active multilateral engagement but we’re talking about being more focused on outcomes. Through UN reform, the G8, the L20, we’re talking about how Canada can play its role in building international consensus on the big geopolitical and geo-economic issues. But success often comes through working without a large degree of attention seeking.

Success stories and lessons learned: I think that we integrate our international assets pretty well. In Bosnia and Afghanistan we learned there is a mutually supportive approach among defence, diplomacy and development. Our tsunami response featured well-integrated coordination across federal, provincial and municipal governments. It illustrated our ability to work horizontally. And when it's over, you look back and say, "That's what we mean by horizontal management."

The tools of influence today for countries asserting their interests – of course they’re the usual economic, diplomatic and military – include engaging in and having an understanding of civil society, of the development of good governance. And good governance includes not just how you build public institutions but how you build civil society. You don’t have civil society if you don’t have hospitality to differences.

Managing diversity in Canada has given us a sensitivity to managing difference, openness to difference, hospitality to difference, and that allows us to contribute globally.

Peter Harder is Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. For more on Canada's new international policy paper see www.dfaitmaeci. gc.ca/foreign_policy.


VICE ADMIRAL RON BUCK,
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Canada has a specialized role on the world stage. Canadian Forces members are seen as effective and professional because we bring more than our military capacity; we tie those efforts into stabilization and nation building. We are in constant demand, in part because we don’t impose ourselves on others and because we leave places better than we found them. The people in the nations in which we operate are very comfortable to see Canadians arrive. The international policy statement and the defence policy statement formally express Canadian’s desire to continue to play a meaningful role internationally.

However, there is also a clear recognition that we need to rebuild our capacities, not just our military, to play a more vibrant and effective role. The last budget was the first significant statement on this path. It’s the largest infusion of money in a very long time – $12.8 billion over five years. It also recognizes there is a need to address some of the shortfalls that have developed as a result of the lack of funding during the ‘90s. We view it as a down payment to lead us through some very significant change.

The defence policy statement is based on fundamental logic drawn from the current world situation and where we believe it will be in the foreseeable future. We believe this is the right paper no matter what government. While there may be nuances between parties, the fundamentals will not change. We also believe that with the tremendous support we now see in the Canadian public, the commitment of new resources will be an enduring feature in the years ahead.

Our focus will be on the defence of Canada and North America as well as working effectively in failed or failing states. We need a spectrum of government wide capability from the hard end, including combat, to stabilization and humanitarian aid, and nation building.

Peace enforcement is much different from the classical view of peacekeeping. Peacekeepers operated when two sides had come to an agreement and called in a monitor. But most operations today are very dangerous. Peacemakers operate in what would appear to be a benign environment while recognizing the potential for sudden lethal threats; you need the capacity to be able to defend yourself, defend others and do that at a moments notice.

You need to establish secure conditions so that nation building can happen. That affects how you train. You need to be able to react instantly as the situation turns from benign to hostile, but to do it in a manner where you are applying an appropriate amount of force, not overreacting. You need to perform a range of missions. Not many nations can do that. The US is obviously very effective at the hard edge but is just now coming to understand the nation building activities needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a perfect example of a failed state moving – and regressing, then moving ahead –through the various phases so it can be a fully functioning nation. As the Afghan government has started to develop itself and its institutions, members of the CF have assisted in the planning and training of the Afghan national army and the Kabul police.

Leaders in such situations need a full and broad understanding of the geopolitical situation they’re dealing with; an understanding of the human dynamics of the individuals they’re dealing with; and an understanding of the relative objectives and constraints that other members of the coalition may have. They then have to broker a process wherein they take the best of the coalition to bring it to best effect. And because of the complexity, what they achieve will probably be a compromise, but it has to be the right compromise. Commanders basically have to be able work and operate with just about anybody in the world.

Leadership is an art, not a science. It is not something that you can take out of a book and teach. Although each individual leads differently, the fundamentals are really quite simple: it’s being able to energize and enhance the capabilities of individuals to come together so that that the sum of the individuals is greater than the individuals themselves. On a ship, for example, the commanding officer’s role is to make sure that the men and women are well trained and he/she has their respect. Respect is gained by being seen to be fundamentally competent, highly professional and fair, and understanding that while individuals have different roles – from the youngest seaman to the CO – each of those roles is critically important to the operation of that ship and each of those individuals is owed respect. The young men and women of this country are put in our charge and we owe them and this country the absolute highest standards of leadership.

We want to ensure that as Canadian Forces go abroad, we will be more integrated to allow at the regional level – what we call the operational level – a greater leadership role. By bringing more to the table, you have more influence to shape what the coalition or group of like-minded nations is trying to achieve.

Canadians have an optic of their military that is often shaped by the media – they don’t see the CF in context. The one thing I would want Canadians to understand, the thing that has made my
38 years most amazing, is the quality of Canadians that I have had the opportunity to work with. They are highly dedicated, highly talented and they believe in what they do and in their country.

Canadians have a wonderful capacity in the CF but it is truly important for Canadians to not only understand that but to give the men and women of the CF the respect that they are owed.

Vice-Admiral Ron Buck is Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. Over 38 years of service, he has served as Chief of the Maritime Staff and Commander, Maritime Forces Pacific, as well as commanded the destroyer-escort HMCS Restigouche.


RIC CAMERON,
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Development is a long term, high-risk business. And it is a critical part of international social and economic order. Development is deeply valued by and in the interest of Canadians. Any malady can be around the world in 24 hours. It’s not just terrorism. Organized crime thrives where people do not have security and the ability to meet their fundamental needs. Failed and failing states, places where people don’t feel they have economic opportunity or the ability to influence the things that impact their lives, that is a tremendous breeding ground for resentment and problems. If states are in trouble, you can’t ignore them – the costs of trying to patch up something after are much higher in human and other terms.

Canada has a history of accommodating different perspectives. We’re often invited because we don’t sell the Canadian model but because we do have a model that supports multiculturalism and tolerance. The fact that we are a bilingual country, we work with both main legal codes of the world, and we accept regional disparities means we’re better at adapting than some. There are fundamental principles we want: democracy, equality and respect for human rights, the rule of law. Those are important for us – without them we can only do basic humanitarian work; with them, we have the basis to do meaningful and sustainable development.

As confirmed in the International Policy Statement, our primary long-term objective is poverty reduction. How do you help societies and economies become better able to provide for the needs of their citizens? We measure success by having our metrics related to the universally adopted millennium development goals – including improved health and access to potable water, sanitation, and education.

Governance is our biggest single sector of activity. We’ve worked with governments to help them establish schools and strengthen public institutions and administration. Some of the eastern block countries did not have public administration as a discipline. Others didn’t have business administration. The Ukraine did not have a foreign service. Justice Canada and our judicial partners have done excellent work to support the establishment of courts and legal reforms in different countries. We are working with Nicaragua in the development of their national education plan and we are also helping train Iraqi police. We’re working with Elections Canada to support and strengthen electoral processes and structures in Haiti and Palestine. Development is by definition partnership; there is nothing you can do as a lone ranger in this business.

One of the keys to success, and it underpins the international policy statement, is to meet the needs of the people you are working with and secure their ownership of the project. It is imperative that countries have the ability to identify their own development needs and long-term solutions – recipient countries are, or should be, in the drivers seat. You need committed local people – you need a critical mass. You can imbed small things, but if the overall effort doesn’t fit into the local culture and context, you end up with programs that don’t last once the two or three key individuals are gone.

Our policy statement is not a partisan development program. The three opposition leaders have said CIDA should have a legislative mandate for poverty reduction and support continuing growth in international assistance expenditures. That's pretty solid support. It’s an effective development framework for Canada built on decades of development experience, so we hope its major tenets will hold. Most international commentary to date has been supportive.

We will focus on a core 25 countries based on three primary criteria for country selection: level of poverty, the country’s ability to do effective programming, and Canada’s potential to make a meaningful and sustainable contribution. Do we have a program that provides the substantive basis to work there? Does Canada have a history with this country and these people so that we understand enough about each other to participate effectively? Then all the pieces have to fit together – if you have a good court system but weak policing, there will be limited progress.

And we have to coordinate. Especially in countries under stress. It used to be donors in-country sitting around a table making decisions. Now we realize a key ingredient for success is to coordinate before going in, and plan for the longer term, so you don't end up duplicating efforts, or later abandoning people. You could argue that's what happened in Haiti. There were a lot of donors but little progress was being made, so each pulled out. Canada kept a small program to keep things from getting worse, but not a big enough program to effect real change. The current international effort there recognizes that a long-term commitment requires substantial continuing assistance.

To really have an impact, we need to pick a few countries and priority actions and work hard to accomplish our goals. If we don’t bring something to the table we’re not going to be listened to. If we’re there, we want to have an impact, to be effective. CIDA has a tremendous base of competency and commitment.

My primary job is to engage the incredible talent and motivation, and create an environment where people can be effective. The movement of a glacier is impressive – if you have 25 years to watch it. Development is a 25-year business, but if you spread it too thin, you won’t even get glacier-like movement. So we need to focus, concentrate our efforts. Canada has ideas, expertise and a values system that makes us well placed to work with others.

Ric Cameron is Senior Vice President of the Canadian International Development Agency.