Harder's exodus; must be borrowing bush's shoes

Foreign affairs bureaucrats miles from PM
James Travers Toronto Star Ottawa (Feb 1, 2007)

Just four city blocks separate the prime minister's residence from the Sphinx-like home of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The proximity is deceiving.

Once at the policy centre, DFAIT, as it's universally known, is being pushed to the political periphery at a time when conflicts and globalization demand holistic national responses. Underlined by the resignation of highly respected deputy minister Peter Harder, foreign affairs is a victim of an accelerating power shift away from strong departments and towards the prime minister and his elite advisers.

As always here, change is best measured with money. Even as defence spending soars to record highs and the controversial Canadian International Development Agency is throwing more millions at Afghanistan, penny-pinching is forcing DFAIT to close four foreign missions.

It's tempting to blame declining influence, budget cuts and low morale on changing priorities as well as on a controlling prime minister who admires individual bureaucrats -- including Harder -- but doesn't trust the bureaucracy.

The reality, though, is that Harper's international perspective, iron grip and suspicious nature are only among the contributing factors.

Successive administrations reached the damning and not wholly unfounded conclusion that DFAIT is a talking shop best suited to hosting diplomatic parties and managing Canada's rich offshore real estate. Its reputation hit bottom when then Prime Minister Paul Martin was so disappointed with the 2005 foreign policy review that academics were hired to write new drafts.

Ugly as that was, it was only a symptom of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Liberal and Conservative prime ministers contributed to the slide by using the department's remaining prestige to fix internal political problems.

Martin strengthened Quebec cabinet representation by bouncing Toronto's intelligent and competent Bill Graham for Montreal's smart but dilettante Pierre Pettigrew. Harper both rewarded and isolated Peter MacKay by giving the unseasoned former Tory leader -- and partner in uniting the right -- with a job that puts a premium on experience.

No minister has made much of an international impression since Lloyd Axworthy proselytized soft power and protecting the world's most vulnerable people. Even Axworthy failed to give the department a lasting purpose or bring the most sensitive international files back under its control.

Those are now Canada's relationship with the United States and the Afghanistan war. While more than a passenger, DFAIT isn't driving either of them.

As Canada's ambassador in Washington, Michael Wilson is essentially Harper's eyes, ears and mouth. Drawing power directly from the prime minister, the former Brian Mulroney finance minister only theoretically reports to the department and is far more influential in setting national policy than his civil service masters.

Afghanistan is even farther removed from DFAIT's sphere of influence. Life and death decisions mostly fall to an inner circle that includes Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier and the two secretariats supporting the prime minister and his cabinet.

Liberals used the same Washington model and there's nothing inherently wrong with it or even with how Afghanistan is being managed -- except that recent results range from disappointing to dangerous.

Harper has improved rapport with the U.S. but that hasn't led to favourable outcomes on the issues that matter most to Canada -- trade disputes, border controls and privacy abuses personified by Maher Arar. And the Conservative government was either so determined to support the Afghanistan war effort, or so poorly briefed, that it muscled a mission extension through Parliament without the commitments from Pakistan and NATO required for success.

Those are not the only bones of contention. While Harder is too much the consummate mandarin to air frustrations publicly, colleagues mourning his loss are now piling policy reasons for his departure on top of the personal rationale that, after 29 years, he had nothing more to prove or gain.

High on the presumed list are concerns over limited Conservative interest in China, the tilt away from Canada's balanced Middle East policy and fear that globalization is leaving this country behind.

Then there is the other problem, the one felt across the senior bureaucracy, that working for this government isn't rewarding.

Instead of analysing options and proposing solutions, those near the top of the civil service pecking order mutter that their jobs are being reduced to unquestioning implementation of the ruling party's ideas and platform. That's felt particularly strongly at foreign affairs, a department once synonymous with creative policy thinking.

Whatever the reasons, Harder's exodus is seen here as more evidence that the distance between the prime minister and the department has grown far beyond four city blocks and won't be bridged any time soon.