The first formal meeting between Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly and her Chinese rival Wang Yi was just made, a multi-year political crisis-free.
Some observers have called for a return to regular diplomatic politics between Canada and China because “glimpses of a kaleidoscope seem to be on the horizon” for the partnership as a result of the resumed governmental contact.
Other people have noted that Canadians are also concerned about foreign interference, but re-engagement with China is politically difficult due to icy public opinion.
Some people seem to have noticed that there is no turning again: Canada officially ended its longstanding relationship with China in November 2022 with the release of its Indo Pacific Strategy.
With China, Canada slowly ended the majority of its high-level discussions and bilateral relationship mechanisms and instituted a review process that makes it difficult to develop novel engagement strategies.
Problems of proposal
Ending relationship makes feeling. China’s propensity for authoritarian politics was illuminating how poorly Canada’s engagement policy fared, as well as other democracies like Australia and Norway.
In Canada’s situation, China unlawfully detained French nationals Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in December 2018, using them as bargaining chips to compel Canada to release Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou after she was detained by Canadian officials acting on an arrest warrant from the United States.
Yet there were also earlier symptoms political commitment was failing, including Taiwanese crackdowns on freedom of expression, China’s dismissal of the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration, its authoritarian business practices, human rights abuses in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, and the conclusion to presidential term limits. These and other events may have demonstrated the futility of nearly four decades of efforts to engage with China and motivate its acceptance of the rules-based global order.
Even in the midst of years of diplomatic friction between Canada and China, Canadian officers made attempts to re-establish diplomatic relations, including trade agreements, from what the country first characterized as a” diplomatic disagreement.”
Why did Canada wait so long to finish its proposal policy? Why are there still so many other northern governments angling to cooperate with China? And how did Canada finally put an end to a scheme that had been in place for almost four years?
Ending proposal is challenging
Engagement guidelines are foreign policy initiatives that place a premium on the development of platforms, dialogues, and other tools to promote political contact at all levels of government and on a range of issues.
Canada’s involvement in China’s relationship approach began in the 1980s as a development plan and attempt to influence the Chinese political and economic systems ‘ evolution. For nearly four decades, engagement was maintained by both Conservative and Liberal governments, at various levels.
New open-access scientific research from the University of Toronto based on interviews with top American diplomats and policymakers uncovers that relationship policies are difficult to quit again adopted.
Canada’s wedding coverage with China was maintained, despite data that it was n’t achieving its goals, because relationship is hard to determine. The plan was not subject to any critical analysis or testing. The achievement of relationship eventually became more of a routine than a conscious plan option.
While wedding plans are especially difficult to change, additional procedures may also fall into this trap. Any unmeasureable foreign policy plan may gradually develop resistance to its own problems.
How to stop wedding
When a policy becomes a routine within the public services, it is difficult to modify. Some policymakers acknowledged that China’s failure to engage with them, but they were able to problem the policy because its justification seemed clear and apparent.
However, two new avenues for high-level policy discussion were established in the middle of 2020: the establishment of a standard deputy ministers meeting on China and the establishment of an interdisciplinary review process.
These platforms gave policymakers the power to challenge the reasoning of engagement, test new policy concepts, present those fresh ideas to the most effective decision-makers, and create interdepartmental consensus on a new policy direction.
Working relationship required
Full separation from China had, of course, been a mistake. A working partnership with China and a clear-eyed approach are in Canada’s best passions and you gain both countries because of its worldwide impact and influence, as well as its military and economic potential.
Engagement may also be a part of this wider strategy: constructive discussion on issues of common interest like wildlife protection and climate change governance may continue. China’s involvement in discussions of human rights and foreign intervention may still be beneficial in its efforts to hold Chinese authorities responsible for breaking international law.
However, relationship cannot be pursued solely for its own gain. High-level discussion and another means of engagement must support specific and concrete policy objectives. In other words, choosing to engage should be a proper and wise choice rather than a forced choice.
At the University of Toronto, Michaela Pedersen-Macnab is pursuing a PhD in social research.
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.