John Robson: Liberals’ Indo-Pacific Strategy Poised to Be a Toothless Pastiche of Trendy Virtue Signals

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly addresses the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York on Sept. 26, 2022. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)

Commentary

It seems the Canadian government is finally going to turn on a dime and produce its strategy for dealing with China’s basic dictatorship. Apparently the key elements are cooperation on climate change and jobs for the boys and girls when they leave office, although the latter may not even get into the fine print. Nor, probably, will such concepts as vigilant armed defence of liberty in the spirit of Vimy, Waterloo, and Egbert’s Stone.

In an interview with the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C., clearly a better venue than our musty Parliament, especially given its slogan “Shaping the global future together,” our overwhelmed foreign affairs minister said, “I’ll be coming up with our Indo-Pacific and China policy before the end of the year.” Which doesn’t sound as though she even has a draft yet, something of a red flag given the struggles of this administration, and the entire Canadian government, with deliverology lately. And why just her?

If Mélanie Joly were some kind of Canadian Henry Kissinger or Klemens von Metternich, a forceful intellect and personality steeped in the history and logic of geopolitics, she might generate such a thing in fairly short order. And we might get some sense of its probable contours by studying her record of thoughtful and consistent pronouncements. But alas it is not so.

Instead, she characteristically drew the entire discussion deep into our collective naval with, “We haven’t defined ourselves as an Indo-Pacific country, since the beginning of our history.” As if what mattered was how we felt about the world rather than what it was actually like. Then she burbled, “We’ve always invested a lot in the transatlantic relationship,” which might arguably be something to do with two world wars centred on Europe (despite the real Japanese threat in World War II, only about 15 percent even of the American military budget was directed that way).

Finally, she Horace Greeleyed “We need to turn west.” (For instance, by addressing the Pacific Council? It does exist and seems equally vacuous.) But if we do, what will we find? Not, evidently, a recklessly belligerent and expansionist nation backing Putin in Ukraine, threatening Taiwan, and building coal-fired power plants at break-target speed. No, we’ll find a pupil and ally.

According to the Canadian Press, “Montreal is hosting a major UN summit on biodiversity in December, despite China’s role as its chair,” and Joly’s ridiculous explanation is, “We will be leading the way and that’s why it’s important to bring China along. … That’s the only way we’ll be able to achieve our objectives. This is existential for us.” Unlike, say, deterring aggression? Defending liberty? Knowing history? Making sense?

Caroming giddily along, CP reports that as she jets around the world fighting climate change, “Joly said her looming visit to Peru will include discussions on how countries can send more fertilizer to Latin America to help offset the knock-on impact of sanctions on Russia.” The same fertilizer her ministry is seeking to suppress to fight climate change? Or some other substance with the same name and purpose? Just as we’ll be discussing how countries can send more energy to Europe while making sure we don’t.

Not to worry. Ms. Joly is saving the world, making democracy function, and otherwise being splendid. For instance, “We need to make sure that government works, because following the pandemic, there are definitely frustrations.” Tee hee hee.

It may be bad manners to mention the extraordinary way Canadian politicians who avoid rocking the junk in office happen to land lucrative consulting contracts from the Chinese government afterward. And I’m not suggesting they’re all completely venal. Rather, with rare exceptions they’re so geopolitically daft they don’t see the problem in sliding between Beijing’s silk sheets.

Those with long sour memories may recall that when Ronald Reagan undertook to consign communism to the rubbish heap of history, helped by Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, a prime minister named Trudeau tried to thwart him with a widely mocked 1983 world peace tour. The same Trudeau who earlier said Canada lived under American military domination and the USSR had a federal system like ours.

It’s not that he was actively trying to promote tyranny, or stupidity. He was just trendy and shallow. And the little potato didn’t fall far from the tree.

Our current prime minister, who called Canada a genocidal regime under… himself, doesn’t take national defence seriously, revere Alfred the Great, or quote “Nineteen Eighty-Four” from memory. And his administration routinely brushes aside or ignores major security challenges, from cybersecurity to espionage.

When his or Joly’s Indo-Pacific strategy appears, it will be a pastiche of trendy virtue signals the thugs in Beijing regard with ill-concealed contempt, not maxims like “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war). Essentially a balloon full of greenhouse gas. And laughing gas.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.