Justin Trudeau can’t ignore domestic concerns in foreign policy

John Ibbitson on diaspora politics and how that will influence any future Liberal government’s foreign policy. He is right, of course, that all Canadian governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, respond to diaspora concerns, always have, and always will, and the change is more in the number and relative influence of diasporas, rather than the principle. Democracy, as he notes, responds to interests; the more organized, cohesive and large the diaspora, the more the influence. We are living in a “shopping for votes” world.

But what he and others get wrong is the assumption that diaspora voters are single issue voters (some are, most likely not) and that they all share the same views on diaspora issues. There is political diversity within ethnic communities with respect to both domestic and international issues. Of course, for every diaspora pushing one perspective another exists with an opposing one (e.g., Canadian Jews and Arab Canadians, Armenian and Turkish Canadians etc):

“Diasporas are a huge problem in foreign policy,” he observed. Immigrants’ unwillingness to sever political ties with their homeland “is a problem with diasporas everywhere,” he added. The duty of political leaders is to transcend the “old views” of immigrant communities and craft a responsible, enlightened foreign policy, something Mr. Westall believes the Harper government has conspicuously failed to do.

Mr. Westall is absolutely right. Canadian Tamils influence Conservative foreign policy toward Sri Lanka; Canadian Sikhs influence Conservative foreign policy toward India; Chinese Canadians influence the Harper government’s approach to China; Ukrainian Canadians influence the Harper government’s approach to Ukraine.

But what would you expect? When Canada’s population was mostly of French, English, Irish and Scottish descent, does anyone believe our foreign policy was anything other than diaspora-driven?

Forgive this repetition, but over the past two decades we have imported the equivalent of two Torontos-worth of immigrants, almost all of them from what used to be called the Third World. Any political party that wants to succeed must earn their support. Political parties that lose the immigrant vote lose the election.

The Liberals believe that they can reconnect with Canada’s immigrant community without pandering to parochial concerns. They believe they can improve Canada’s reputation abroad and revitalize the Canadian economy through trade while recognizing the hard realities of today’s global environment.

If so, Mr. Trudeau’s supporters may be surprised to discover that Canada’s foreign policy under his leadership is essentially what it was under the Conservatives, but with softer language and a warmer smile.

Again, governments of any stripe make policy choices of which diasporas to support, and which organizations within each diaspora. How they express that support, how they manage it, and how they dismiss an opposing diaspora’s concern, however, can make a difference.

The Government has chosen a more muscular approach in articulating these choices. In some cases, this is appropriate, in others, “softer language and a warmer smile” may be more effective to “harsher language and a cooler scowl” both domestically and internationally.

Justin Trudeau can’t ignore domestic concerns in foreign policy – The Globe and Mail.