The Foreign Service Journal, March 2005

reassemble the foreign ministry as previously constituted. Indeed, that was the course followed 20 years ago when the foreign affairs ministry ini- tially gathered up trade and com- merce elements. Thus, many Cana- dian diplomats believe that the cur- rent reorganization has “fixed” some- thing that wasn’t broken. A recent book by Canadian jour- nalist Andrew Cohen, While We Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the World , encapsulates many of these themes. Its thesis is that for a long time now, Canada has failed to pull its weight on the world stage, in terms of military affairs, foreign assistance lev- els and diplomatic presence. Instead, Ottawa has coasted on its past diplo- matic accomplishments and refused to devote the financial resources nec- essary to continue to “punch above its weight” as a global power. Cohen shares his compatriots’ nos- talgia for Canada’s diplomatic glory days during the Cold War and their respect for some of the country’s stel- lar figures from the past, but he rec- ognizes that the unique historical cir- cumstances associated with the end of World War II — in particular, the rel- ative absence of global rivals — can- not be replicated. He also points out that while the U.S. was the most pow- erful Western state at that time, it was not at its current level of virtually unchallenged supremacy; conse- quently, it still needed allies, paving the way for Canada to play an impor- tant role as a power acceptable to both the West and the East. Whether Canadians like it or not, that is no longer the case. Whatever the outcome of those issues, this is a time of troubles for Canadian diplomacy. If a nation’s for- eign influence requires a combination of astute diplomacy, military strength and foreign aid, Ottawa has systemat- ically undercut the latter two ele- ments of the equation. While a long- pending new “white paper” on inter- national security policy is supposed to address these concerns, whether what it (eventually) proposes can reverse this decline falls into the “remains to be seen” category. Indeed, Canadian diplomats not only have a weaker hand to play with their professional counterparts, but believe themselves increasingly disrespected domestical- ly and fear they are about to become de facto subordinates to trade policy. When those concerns are com- bined with the standard, garden- variety assortment of 21st-century frustrations involving family/spousal needs, noncompetitive pay levels, international terrorism and the like, it is the rare Canadian diplomat who does not conclude that he or she could do better in another career. Many still choose to stay, of course, but increasingly, they view doing so as a sacrifice. n 50 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A R C H 2 0 0 5