Canada’s staunch support of Israeli policies has put the country squarely in the minority and led critics to question whether Ottawa is not isolating itself internationally.
Most recently, Canada ignored international pressure to condemn Israel’s announcement that it would expand settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. The move led allies, including the United States, to urge Israel to reconsider, and prompted five European nations to recall their envoys in protest. Canada made do with a general statement that the Israeli action “is not helpful to peace,” as Foreign Minister John Baird told Parliament.
“It’s a diplomatic mistake,” argued Alistair Edgar, a political science professor at Wilfred Laurier University in Ontario, and executive director of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, a nongovernmental organization that analyzes and disseminates research on the United Nations. By making this decision, Edgar believes Canada has lost its chance to play any role in the peace process.
“I think that role has been given away, has been thrown away actually, when we said we’re going to vote and always support Israel,” Edgar explained. “What influence do you suppose you’re going to have when you say you’re going to support them no matter what?” he added, calling Ottawa’s latest response “one further nail in the coffin [of influence].”
The planned settlement expansion was announced the day after “Palestine” was upgraded to “non-member state observer” status at the United Nations. Nine countries, including Canada and the United States, voted against the move, with 41 states abstaining and 138 voting in favor.
Responding to the UN General Assembly vote, Canada announced that it would be reviewing its aid to the Palestinian Authority and that it is temporarily recalling home its heads of mission in the West Bank and Israel for consultation. Currently, the Canadian government has agreed to contribute $300 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority, to be dispersed over a period of five years (ending in 2013), for humanitarian assistance, private sector development and justice sector reform. That’s in addition to the Canadian Partnership Branch, which gives yearly disbursements of about $1.6 million, earmarked for peace, security, basic education and health.
“Where it counts, Canada has been there and has made a contribution,” said Shimon Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy body of Jewish Federations of Canada-UIA.
Since the Conservative government of Stephen Harper came to power in 2006, Canada has consistently been in a minority position on Middle East issues. It was one of the few to vote against a Dec. 9 UN resolution calling for the inspection of Israel’s nuclear facilities. The vote passed by a wide margin, 174-6, with six abstentions.
In 2010, Canada withdrew its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council when it became apparent that it would suffer a defeat in the vote – the first time that Ottawa has ever failed in an effort to land a seat on the council. Analysts blamed the setback on Canada’s foreign policy, including its staunch support of Israel and its funding cuts for international organizations, such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
“This government has essentially walked away from the UN,” said Edgar. “We have withdrawn from UN peacekeeping, turned down requests to engage in new peacekeeping operations, we are cutting our funding to overseas development and narrowing the number of countries we give money to.”
Fogel, however, sees nothing wrong with Canada’s growing tendency to buck the international trend. “The reality is that this government has an incredible moral clarity when it comes to core issues,” he said. “It’s indicative of just how skewed everything has become over the years that it’s become inconceivable that Israel would merit support.”
Edgar is concerned about the impact Canada’s positions at the UN will have on its international relations. “We’ve made it clear that we’re going to go by an increasingly narrow set of interests and if you want to call that standing up for principle, then go ahead and call it that,” he said. “It’s a very narrow definition of what a principle is.”
Vicky Tobianah is a freelance writer and editor based in Toronto and a recent McGill University graduate. Connect with her on Twitter, @vicktob, or by e-mail to vtobianah@gmail.com. A version of this article appeared on haaretz.com.