Quick Link

for your convenience!

Far East/Far West: Embedding Canada as an Asia-Pacific Nation

Outline for remarks by the Hon. David Kilgour MP for Edmonton Southeast and Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) to the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada’s Roundtable on the Foreign Policy Dialogue and Canada-Asia Relations
Ottawa Congress Centre, Ottawa, ON, March 27, 2003

Thank you for inviting me to speak today. As is always the case when I visit the Asia-Pacific Foundation, I’m humbled by the wealth of knowledge in the room; its depth and breadth was certainly evident in the papers on India, China and Japan this morning and in the quality of interventions from the floor.

Congratulations to the Foundation for its initiative in hosting this event. It comes at a time when we’re facing difficult questions regarding the way our world is ordered and exactly where Canada fits into it. Minister Graham’s Foreign Policy Dialogue and the APFC’s contribution to it will give us an opportunity to emphasize the importance of Asia-Pacific for Canadians today. In turbulent time like these, Canada has a responsibility – as the title of my talk indicates – to re-assert itself as a major player in Asia-Pacific.

Setting the Stage

The war in Iraq reinforces our complex and very deep relationship with the United States. We face enormous pressure to ensure that the disagreement on a principle does not adversely affect the relatively seamless passage of people and goods across the Canada-US border -- the one across which flows almost $2 billion in trade a day. In allocating more resources to keeping it open, we as Asianists have a responsibility to ensure that it doesn’t come at the expense of our relations with Asia-Pacific.

The second pressure resulting from the war is exclusively economic. As American Ambassador Paul Cellucci noted this week, “Probably for Canada, the priority is trade. For us, the priority is security.” Canada’s economy will certainly be tested severely if more economies of in West fall into recession. We can’t forget though that the war could also have disastrous consequences for Asia-Pacific. The Asian Development Bank has identified the war in the Gulf as one of the major risk factors for their economies. One observer estimates that a prolonged war in Iraq could shave two to three percentage points off the economic growth of some economies this year.[i]

Consistently high oil prices could send Asian economies back into recession. Moreover, as the Far Eastern Economic Review has reported, any extended conflict in the Middle East would threaten the multi-billion dollar flow of remittences from expatriates working in the Gulf to various countries including India and the Philippines.[ii] Finally, Asian economies are more than ever dependent on the United States – where exports to the US account for 5% of the region’s GDP; any further downturn in the US economy would be felt across Asia. The effects would inevitably also be felt in Canada.

Such economic uncertainty adds to the potential for political unrest fomented by war in the Middle East. As belief that the war in Iraq is a direct attack on Islam could radicalize some moderate Muslims, there exists real potential for governments in the region to be destabilized. Faith-based opposition to the war in Iraq has the potential to play itself out violently in the streets of several Asia-Pacific capitals. Let’s not kid ourselves, no country - including Canada - can consider itself immune to this impact.

Ignoring Asia-Pacific at our own peril

Asia-Pacific is ignored at our own peril. Ne pas tenir compte de l’Asie-Pacifique est risqué. On trade, the region represents an opportunity to diversify our heavily slanted pattern. Undeniably, the U.S. does - and always will - represent our most important bilateral relationship. The idea is not, however, to reduce trade with any of our current partners, but to ‘widen the pie’ and expand opportunities in a part of the world that has been largely overlooked for too long. Canadian businesses risk losing market share to faster movers and missing a chance to start building the all-important long-term relationships needed to succeed. Doing business in Asia-Pacific is not for everyone, but there are a lot more Canadian success stories than most realize. DFAIT is working hard to collect and share them; to promote the idea that, as Manulife Canada CEO, Dominic D’Allesandro puts it, “it’s at least as attractive to go East as it is to go South”. One Canadian diplomat says much of the ‘70s and ‘80s were characterized by Canadian business communities pushing the government to develop new markets. However, comfort with North American markets, particularly in provinces like Ontario where upwards of 93% of Ontario’s exports flow to the U.S., has changed the tone from ‘push’ to ‘pull’: in many areas our various governments are now promoting opportunities to the business community.

In the matter of security, Asia-Pacific is of critical importance. While much of the world’s current focus is on Iraq, the DPRK is never far from our thoughts. Although the Bush administration has said repeatedly that it does not intend to attack, the DPRK maintains it is a target. It’s also no secret that some terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, have been associated with other parts of the region.

Geopolitically, Asia-Pacific could hardly be more important. Nations include both developed and developing countries, active participants in the war in Iraq as well as vocal opponents, members of the UN, NATO, ASEAN, the Commonwealth, the Arab league, and the Non-Aligned movement. The world’s future over the next 50 years will be decided to a very considerable degree by decisions made in Delhi and Beijing. Japan’s economy is larger than that of all other Asia-Pacific countries combined. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country on earth. At a time when some accuse Canada of having a fading influence in the world, we need to be more aware than ever of all opportunities within our reach.

A new dialogue

The current Foreign Policy Dialogue could not have come at a more important, yet more uncertain time. Much has changed since the last major policy review in 1995. Among other things, we have seen the continued rise of Islam in many parts of the world. China is an emerging force. Several Asia-Pacific nations have asserted themselves as nuclear powers. The so-called ‘Asian flu’ reined in the seemingly unbridled optimism of many of Asia-Pacific’s markets. September 11th traumatized North America and the Bali bombing did the same for many Asians. The first led to a global war on terrorism, hurried pledges to stand either “with us or against us”, and the designation of an “axis of evil”. Increasingly, the present and future effectiveness of our most important multi-lateral alliances and institutions, including NATO and the UN Security Council- which have vital roles to play with respect to North Korea and Iraq - is subject to debate.

Canadians are also now more tied to Asia-Pacific than ever before. As part of what I refer to as Canada’s “Asianification”, our population is increasingly linked through immigration and education. While closely integrated in North America, our economy - at least in some Western provinces - now increasingly looks west: every year since 1990, Canada’s trans-Pacific trade has surpassed trade across the Atlantic. Our presence in the region is buoyed by our long and valued history, and although we have a widely identified branding problem in some parts of the region, it certainly could be worse! Images of Canada, although not always reflective of our high-tech and business capabilities, are mostly very positive.

Canada’s existing and potential people to people links are unparalleled almost anywhere in the world. From Afghanistan to the South Pacific, Mongolia to Australia, each Asia-Pacific nation has a community in Canada. As such, our capacity for building human bridges is enormous. Many see Vancouver itself as the epitome of a North American Asia-Pacific city. Over 60% of students in the Vancouver school board, and half of UBC’s domestic graduates don’t speak English at home! Our knowledge base with respect to Asia is exceptional: take for example the Asia-Pacific Foundation, UBC’s Institute of Asian Research, the U of T and York University’s Joint Centre for Asia-Pacific Studies. Canada’s academic resources on the region exist at universities across our country as illustrated by the papers submitted today and at last week’s Canada-Indonesia symposium. There is also much Asia-Pacific business experience in organizations like Nortel and SNC Lavalin, and DFAIT’s own world-reknown Trade Commissioner Service. Canada is also home to various Canada-Asia business and trade associations. The need to re-invigorate some of these associations is large; the potential payoffs, remarkable.

Canadian education has also served to forge ties throughout Asia-Pacific for decades. Many of the region’s government and business leaders have been educated in Canada, with so many students from Asia-Pacific countries currently studying in Canada, we’re set to leave a lasting influence on the next generation of leaders as well - and vice versa. Finally, Canadian missions abroad continue to be extremely well-received and are widely known for their outstanding political, trade promotion, and development work.

New Responsibilities

We have an opportunity to expand our role in Asia-Pacific. Facing us now, I would argue, is a new responsibility to do so as well. More than ever, the world needs bridge builders. As Canadians, we have defined ourselves as proponents of multilateralism and seekers of constructive compromises. It is a matter of sharing experiences and seeking common ground. Economic and political transformations in many of Asia-Pacific’s developing nations will be shaky and we should be asking ourselves, ‘what can and should we offer?’.

As a nation serious about promoting justice for all, peace, and democracy around the world, we need to find creative ways of dealing with new problems. We must become more creative in engaging with some countries. In my opinion, one of the most unique roles that Canada can play is the promotion of inter-faith understanding and dialogue. The subject merited only a short paragraph in the Foreign Policy Review discussion paper, but is, in my mind, one of the most important contributions Canada can make in the Asia-Pacific region.

The power of faiths to move peoples in many parts of the world is increasing strongly. A host of other philosophies and political ideologies - all the “isms” if you like - appear to be discredited and are in any case now unable to motivate large numbers of men and women. As new democracies ‘find themselves’ and emerging economies finally blossom, a widespread fear is that perceived religious and cultural divides will deepen and widen.

Undoubtedly, the ‘war on terrorism’ and the one in Iraq will impact the West’s relations with the Islamic world. Within Canada, many remain unaware of the extent to which peaceful Muslim communities around the world feel they are under siege. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir’s recent comment that “An attack on Iraq is an attack on Islam,” was immediately discounted by many in the West, but was cheered in many other parts of the world.

DFAIT recently asked Dr. Uner Turgay, Director of Islamic Studies at McGill University, to travel to some Asia-Pacific countries to assess relations between Canada and Muslim communities in South East Asia. Upon his return a few weeks ago, he reported that the Islamic community in the region feels “under siege” and described what he termed an “intense lack of communication between the West and the Islamic world.”

The need for meaningful inter-faith dialogue is striking - and growing daily. However bridges needed are not limited to those between faiths and religious institutions. Nor should they be designed to flow in only one direction. The greater the contacts between organizations, people, cities, NGOs, parliamentarians and more, the better.

Prime Minister Chrétien has said many times, “We can talk to the world because we have the world within our borders.” Not only do we have the world inside our borders; we have them living peacefully - working and living side by side, teaching and learning from each other. In my own constituency in Edmonton Southeast, we have numerous churches, two mosques, two gurdwaras and a pagoda. With most regrettable exceptions, diverse communities within Canada are demonstrating understanding between faiths. We work together for the security and prosperity of our country and are eager to see Canada’s model of peaceful and productive coexistence enjoyed elsewhere, particularly in our myriad places of origin.

Within Canada itself, this remains a largely unexplored concept. As a nation defined in part by the de facto separation of church and state, some are unsure of our capacity, and some say ‘jurisdiction’, even to deal with these issues. Unlike many of the governments with which these discussions could take place, we lack an institutional structure to do so. Fresh ideas on how to tackle this are needed. I’m anxious to hear your thoughts on how Canada could best set out to play a bridging role.

As Members of Parliament and within DFAIT, we are working hard to assert ourselves more vigorously as an Asia-Pacific nation and to enhance our presence in the region. New ideas are most welcome.

How can we make better use of Track II engagement and where is it needed most? How can we make better use of our hidden “people to people” advantage? How can we better exploit Vancouver as Canada’s gateway to the rest of the region? Is there a need/opportunity - as I have heard on a few occasions lately - to devolve some of our federal functions to create, for example, ‘DFAIT-Pacific’,‘EDC-Pacific’, and others? Yuen Pau referred to this last concept in a recent radio commentary and I think the subject merits discussion.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope I have been clear: Asia-Pacific has never been more relevant to Canadians, and vice versa. Thank you to everyone in this room who is working to ensure that our foreign policy adequately reflects this reality.

I appreciate that it may sound alarmist, but do feel that we are facing a critical moment in history. I’m anxious to hear your thoughts, and course, see the Foundation’s ultimate submission to the dialogue process.

-30-

[ii]. Tom Holland, “War in the Iraq: The Cost of War,” The Far Eastern Economic Review, 18: 16 January 2003.