Diplomacy in a dangerous world

Opinion

In a world unmoored from its postwar foundations, dialogue has never mattered more. Once the preserve of summit communiqués and embassy drawing rooms, diplomacy today must confront a darker, more dangerous reality: the rules-based international order is fraying, great power rivalry is back, and Canada, like many middle powers, is exposed.

We face a Pandora’s box of threats — nuclear proliferation, climate breakdown, pandemics, rogue actors — and they are all intensified by new technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Canada is not fireproof. In this volatile environment, diplomacy must be strategic, but it must also be backed by hard power. Dialogue without deterrence is theatre. Deterrence without diplomacy is peril.

Dialogue, in all its forms, is the best instrument we have to defuse conflict and advance Canadian interests. It ranges from traditional Track One negotiations to people-to-people exchanges through music, art, and sport. It includes hybrid 1.5 tracks where officials and non-state actors brainstorm solutions, and Track Two diplomacy where former diplomats, businesspeople, and civil society leaders build quiet bridges across seemingly impassable divides.

Trust is the currency of diplomacy. It’s earned face-to-face, conversation by conversation, over time. George Shultz, who served as Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, told me that “trust is the coin of the realm.” Without it, even the best-crafted strategies fall flat.

But trust alone is not enough. Canada’s strategic approach to diplomacy must be built on three pillars: prudence, pragmatism, and perseverance.

Prudence means knowing when not to act. It means thinking before leaping, as former prime minister Jean Chrétien did when he refused to send Canadian troops to Iraq despite pressure from allies and business leaders. His government’s position — that Canada would not join a “war of choice” lacking UN approval — proved to be both principled and wise.

Compare that with the Stephen Harper government’s decision to make the Keystone XL pipeline a litmus test of the Canada-U.S. relationship. The result? A stalled bilateral agenda and fewer gains across the board. Prudence also means understanding that sometimes, quiet diplomacy outperforms loud condemnation.

Pragmatism means prioritizing what matters most. After 9/11, then-foreign minister John Manley negotiated the Smart Border Accord directly with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. It wasn’t flashy, but it was effective — a bilateral deal that protected both trade and security. That model — focused, practical, and well-briefed — is how Canada should approach all major negotiations, from trade to climate to digital regulation.

Today, as the Carney government retools Canada’s trade and industrial policy, it is following that same logic. The goal is not to win every fight but to protect access to the U.S. market — the world’s most important economy for Canadian exporters.

Perseverance is about staying the course. As Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark did in taking on apartheid despite the opposition of our close allies Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Nelson Mandela later thanked us for our perseverance and as a model for managing diversity.

When Lloyd Axworthy launched the human security agenda in the 1990s, he was told it wouldn’t work. Yet that vision led to the landmines treaty, the child soldiers convention, and the International Criminal Court. That legacy is what diplomacy can achieve when backed by political will and patient coalition-building.

Middle powers like Canada do not dominate through force. We earn our seat at the table by showing up with ideas, competence, and credibility. This is the essence of the “functionalism” championed by Lester Pearson: if you have a stake in the issue and expertise to offer, you deserve a voice in shaping the outcome.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has signalled his understanding of this.

“A new imperialism threatens,” he said earlier this year. “Middle powers compete for interests and attention, knowing that if they are not at the table, they will be on the menu.”

His commitment to meet NATO’s defence spending target — along with promises of reinvestment in diplomacy — suggests a serious recalibration.

Yet dialogue today faces not only geopolitical constraints, but cultural ones. Our digital age favours outrage over understanding, memes over meaning. The rise of algorithmic polarization and culture wars has narrowed the space for genuine dialogue — across borders, across party lines, even across kitchen tables.

To revive diplomacy, we must also renew civility. It starts with listening. With showing up. With rejecting performative politics in favour of the hard work of relationship-building.

Canada once punched above its weight by being useful. We should do so again — not by lecturing the world, but by bringing ideas, making deals, and building trust. That is what it means to be a middle power with principles.

Dialogue in diplomacy isn’t magic. It’s just showing up — with purpose, with patience, and yes, with perseverance.

A former diplomat, Colin Robertson is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and this draws from the Inaugural Shefrin Dialogue Lecture given at St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba on Sept. 17.