While it is often overshadowed by Asia’s giants China and India, the ASEAN region is both geographically and strategically central to the Indo-Pacific framework.1The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprises ten countries in Southeast Asia; Timor Leste is on a pathway to join the association as the 11th member. The numerous Indo-Pacific strategies that have appeared since the United States began promoting the framework in 2017 reflect this by endorsing ASEAN centrality and underscoring the importance of deepening economic, political, and security linkages to the region.2The White House, “Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States,” The White House, February 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/U.S.-Indo-Pacific-Strategy.pdf.
The reasons for Southeast Asia’s appeal are clear. At over US$ 3.5 trillion, its combined GDP already surpasses all countries aside from the US, China, Japan, and Germany. With a relatively young population and rapidly expanding middle class, it is well-positioned to sustain growth in the decades ahead when more established markets in North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia face demographic-related slowdowns. As importantly, Southeast Asia’s geographic location, flanked by the emerging great powers of China and India, situates it at the heart of what may become the world’s geopolitical centre of gravity in the next century.3Paul Evans, “Canada and Southeast Asia: entering through a different door.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 29, no. 2 (2023): 202-206.
Enter Canada. Geography and history have long served to orient the country’s focus towards the United States and transatlantic partners. However, recent political developments, most notably the Trump camp’s America-first orientation, have underscored how vulnerable an overreliance on traditional ties leaves Canada. Among other things, the Indo-Pacific is a forward-looking response to the imperative of diversification. Southeast Asia is a key part of that for Canada, as it is for other countries.4Kai Ostwald, Grégoire-François Legault and Dominque Caouette, “Canada and Southeast Asia in the new Indo-Pacific era.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 29, no. 2 (2023): 117-130. In Canada’s case, serious tensions with both India and China further elevate the importance of the ASEAN region, given the need to build momentum for its Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), which was launched after much anticipation in November 2022.
There are grounds for cautious optimism about the Canada-Southeast Asia relationship following the IPS’s inaugural year. The strategy’s decisive language sets a fitting tone for Canada’s aspirations across the region, which a series of major political speeches reinforced.5The IPS, for example, calls Canada a Pacific Nation and recognizes the Indo-Pacific is “rapidly becoming the global centre of economic dynamism and strategic challenge” (p. 1), and as such requires that Canada makes a generational, whole-of-government shift (p. 4). While it is not a robust metric, the IPS mentions ASEAN 22 times, second only to China (40), but well ahead India (16), Japan (17), and Korea (17). Trudeau, for example, provided headline-worthy statements about the centrality of Southeast Asia to Canada’s Indo-Pacific endeavors during the ASEAN Indo-Pacific Forum,6Office of the Prime Minister, “Remarks at the ASEAN Indo-Pacific Forum Leaders’ Talk,” Office of the Prime Minister, September 6, 2023, https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/videos/2023/09/06/remarks-asean-indo-pacific-forum-leaders-talk. while Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly called on Canada to invest in ASEAN just as it has in the European Union.7Mélanie Joly, “Address by Minister Joly on Canadian Diplomacy amidst Geopolitical Uncertainty,” Government of Canada, November 3, 2023, https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2023/11/address-by-minister-joly-on-canadian-diplomacy-amidst-geopolitical-uncertainty.html. In September 2023, Canada’s formal relationship to ASEAN was elevated from Dialogue Partner—a status it has held since 1977—to Strategic Partner, ostensibly in recognition of the meaningful, substantive, and mutually beneficial nature of the partnership.8Note, however, that several other countries have recently seen their status elevated, leaving unclear what the status means and how it is different from the previous Dialogue Partner designation. See: Joanne Lin, “Is ASEAN’s Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Becoming a Farce?”, ISEAS Fulcrum (2023). Progress on the ASEAN-Canada Free Trade Agreement also continued, with its conclusion anticipated by 2025.
These are positive and important developments, but they contend with substantial challenges that are decades in the making. In short, Canada has long underinvested in its transpacific partnerships relative to other global players, leaving it with significant ground to make up before its ambitions in the ASEAN region can be fully realized. The investments committed by the IPS help, but they do not resolve the key question and dilemma facing Canada: in the increasingly crowded playing field that is the ASEAN region, what is Canada’s role and what does it offer to potential partners who have no shortage of other suitors?
Canada is no newcomer to Southeast Asia. Its first systematic engagement with the region began on the periphery of the Colombo Plan in 1951, after which followed twenty years of involvement on International Commissions in Indochina. Those built familiarity with Southeast Asia in pockets of Canada’s foreign service, which proved valuable when efforts were refocused on providing development assistance throughout the region beginning in 1975. All of that made Canada a significant player in the region at this time, as reflected in the 1977 commencement of formal linkages with ASEAN: only Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union established those linkages earlier.9Pushpa Thambipillai, “External Partners in ASEAN Community Building: Their Significance and Complementarities.” Published through the Fredrich Ebert Stiftung and the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore (2007). This largely continued through the 1980s, with Canada being present for several key milestones in ASEAN’s evolution, including the creation of the ASEAN Regional Forum in 1993.
Starting in the late 1990s, however, Canada’s engagement with the region gradually became thinner, more sporadic, and narrower in focus, often punctuated by abrupt policy changes. Critics lamented Canada’s turn into a fair-weather friend, prone to appearing and retreating as its domestic political winds shifted, and interested more in protection of economic interests than broad-based engagement. Others noted that Canada’s tone and posture had a tendency to come across as smug when engaging counterparts abroad, driven by an apparent conviction that Canadian values were unusually virtuous and morally superior.10Denis Stairs, “Myths, morals, and reality in Canadian foreign policy”. International Journal, 58, no. 2 (2003): 239-256. The Harper government’s “Americas Strategy”, together with the symbolically important closures of diplomatic presence in Southeast Asia, further embedded the view that Canada did not prioritize its relationship with the region.11Phillip Calvert, “Canadian diplomacy in Southeast Asia: Challenges for the coming decades.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 29, no. 2 (2023): 131-143. There were, nonetheless, some meaningful improvements to the Canada-ASEAN relationship between 2011 and 2021—the Canada-ASEAN Joint Declaration on Trade and Investment, the initiation of free trade agreement negotiations, and the opening of a dedicated Canadian mission to ASEAN being prominent examples—but the momentum and political goodwill that Canada built prior to the late-1990s had clearly been disrupted, leaving its reputation and influence in the region diminished relative to other key actors.
That is the backdrop against which Canada embarks on its renewed ASEAN-focused efforts. Elements of the IPS strike the right notes. Counterparts in Southeast Asia appreciate the categorization of Canada as a Pacific nation and the references to the Indo-Pacific as critically important to Canada’s prosperity. The IPS’s explicit recognition that geopolitical changes require a “generational”, whole-of-government and whole-of-society response from Canada is symbolically important as well, to which the initial commitment of over C$2 billion adds substance.
Such announcements would have made considerable waves ten or fifteen years ago. But as the IPS itself notes, the world has changed. Among others, Australia, Britain, the EU, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, the Philippines, South Korea, and the United States all have some version of an Indo-Pacific strategy that recognizes the geopolitical and economic significance of the region, as well as ASEAN’s centrality within it. In short, the playing field has become increasingly crowded. Canada enters that mix relatively late, handicapped by the aforementioned reputational burdens, and with similar objectives to many others, namely economic diversification and strategic influence.
This raises several questions. First, on the implementation front, the obvious unknown is whether the intention of a generational shift in Canadian foreign policy will yield an actual shift worthy of that description. Announcements and press releases, ultimately, are no substitute for actual engagement, and counterparts in the ASEAN region have a range of alternative partners to turn to if Canada shows signs of wavering. This is especially challenging given the plethora of geopolitical hotspots that already leave Canada’s diplomatic and security structures stretched thin, and could easily further draw Canada’s focus away from the Indo-Pacific. In short, Canada does not have the capacity to simultaneously prioritize everywhere, particularly if it hopes to make up lost ground in the expansive Indo-Pacific. Even if the commitment to shift Canada’s orientation to the Indo-Pacific is sincere, previous shifts in Canada’s foreign policy have demonstrated how difficult it can be to overcome institutional inertia.12Kai Ostwald and Julian Dierkes, “Canada’s foreign policy and bureaucratic (un)responsiveness: public diplomacy in the digital domain.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 24, no. 2 (2018): 202-222. That includes intangibles as well, for example tone and posture: as Southeast Asia’s economic and strategic stature has grown, so too has its expectation that it be approached as an equal—or at least serious—partner, which is not always the default for representatives of rich countries.
Second are questions on precisely what role Canada seeks to play in the region. While the IPS is clear on Canada’s ambitions, it is ambiguous on precisely what form they might take. Some look for Canada to act as a relatively independent middle power. This would create unique opportunities, but also place significant demands on Canadian resources. An alternative model sees Canada act as an aide-de-camp of the United States, benefiting from the US’s extensive presence and capturing spillover from US gains, but in the process constraining Canada’s operating space as well.13Jennifer Mustapha, “Rethinking Canada’s security interests in Southeast Asia: from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 29, no. 2 (2023): 175-188. In reality, the choice is not strictly binary and there is some room to strategically leverage elements of both. But nor it is the case that Canada can fluidly move between the two models over the long-run, since being perceived as strongly US-aligned will limit Canada’s credibility as a more neutral actor or “honest broker”. Counterparts in ASEAN will look closely at Canada’s actions for indications of its orientation.
One year into Canada’s IPS, there are more questions than answers about the prospects of Canada’s relationship with Southeast Asia. Three points stand out as essential if Canada is to realize its ambitious agenda in and with the region.
First, Canada must continue to show up often and at high levels. This is key to demonstrating sincerity and beginning to make up ground vis-à-vis other actors whose commitment to the region has been more consistent. Prime Minister Trudeau’s visit to Indonesia and Singapore in September 2023 set a positive tone, as did Mélanie Joly’s earlier participation in key ministerial-level ASEAN meetings. Alongside high-level visits of this kind continuing, other initiatives that boost Canada’s visibility across the region, of which numerous examples already exist, are essential. For example, the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada and Universities Canada hosted an inaugural Canada-in-Asia Conference14Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, Canada In Asia Conference 2023, https://www.canada-in-asia.ca/ciac-2023. in Singapore that brought together major private and public sector players from Canada and Southeast Asia. Other initiatives, for instance IDRC’s Knowledge for Democracy Myanmar, build good will and demonstrate Canada’s capacity to address some of the region’s most pressing needs.15International Development Research Centre, The Knowledge for Democracy Myanmar (K4DM) Initiative, https://k4dm.ca. These need to continue over the longer term to fully pay dividends.
Second, Canada must demonstrate a capacity to listen to regional interests and respond in nuanced ways that balance competing demands and reflect cultural competence. It must be remembered that Southeast Asia has not been unequivocally supportive of the Indo-Pacific concept, largely for fear of it compounding great power tensions: as Huong Le Thu notes, few places are subject to more pressure from the US-China rivalry, or have more to lose from it, than Southeast Asia. Its leaders,16Huong Le Thu, “How to Survive a Great-Power Competition: Southeast Asia’s Precarious Balancing Act” Foreign Affairs (May/June 2023). including from more democratic countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, have regularly expressed discomfort with viewing the world through an ideologically-infused democracy-versus-autocracy lens. This does not imply ambivalence with China’s rise; to the contrary, the region is keenly aware of the risks that an assertive China imposes. Instead, it reflects a preference for broad-based engagement in pursuit of development and conflict avoidance. In practice, that means living with China, rather than working against it. In any case, the region has no desire to “pick sides” and is unlikely to embrace language—whether like-minded, decoupling, containment, friend-shoring, or ring-fencing—that implies the inevitability of conflict between the United States and China.17Kuik Cheng-Chwee, “Navigating the Narratives of Indo-Pacific: “Rules,” “Like-mindedness,” and “De-risking” in the Eyes of Southeast Asia.” Georgetown Journal of Asian Affairs, 9 (2023): 51-56. Canada will find greater welcome and more opportunity in the region by demonstrating sensitivity to such sentiments, even while it invariably aligns with some of the United States’ security initiatives.
Third, Canada must formulate a more coherent value proposition for the region. Ultimately, Canada is a middle-sized country that lacks the economic and military heft to be a gamechanger for ASEAN counterparts.18This is not an ASEAN-specific issue. On Canada’s diminished global influence and the implications for foreign policy, see: Zachary Paikin, Walter Kemp, Ann Fitz-Gerald, and Louise Blais. 2023. “True North: A Canadian Foreign Policy that puts the National Interest First.” The Institute for Peace & Diplomacy. Moreover, Canada has not been the most committed partner to the region and can be more complicated to deal with than some others, not least because of its values-based approach to foreign policy (which does not, to be clear, necessarily make a values-based approach inappropriate). Decades ago, a rich Western country could show up in Southeast Asia without a clear message and nonetheless expect an enthusiastic reception. Today’s reception will still be warm, but underneath the pleasantry lingers a fundamental question: why Canada? There must be a clear and compelling answer to this, without which Canada’s relationships in the region will remain underdeveloped and the region’s opportunities perpetually beyond reach. There is no shortage of promising threads, ranging from diasporic linkages through trade, tech, and educational collaboration, among countless others. What remains is for those to be woven into a coherent proposition for how Canada differentiates itself in the increasingly crowded field of Southeast Asia.
Finally, Canada’s leadership must communicate the importance of Southeast Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region to the Canadian public. The IPS correctly recognizes developments that will reshape the global order in the century ahead, and seeks to ensure that Canada will be well-positioned for those changes. But in the meantime, resource scarcity and the abundance of other needs at home and abroad will challenge Canada’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific shift, which will sustain only if the Canadian public is convinced of its importance.
The Western powers have failed to effectively manage the increasing threat of proliferation in the Middle East. While the international community is concerned with Iran’s nuclear program, Saudi Arabia has moved forward with developing its own nuclear program, and independent studies show that Israel has longed possessed dozens of nuclear warheads. The former is a member of the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), while the latter has refused to sign the international agreement.
On Middle East policy, the Biden campaign had staunchly criticized the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal and it has begun re-engaging Iran on the nuclear dossier since assuming office in January 2021. However, serious obstacles remain for responsible actors in expanding non-proliferation efforts toward a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.
This panel will discuss how Western powers and multilateral institutions, such as the IAEA, can play a more effective role in managing non-proliferation efforts in the Middle East.
Panelists:
– Peggy Mason: Canada’s former Ambassador to the UN for Disarmament
– Mark Fitzpatrick: Associate Fellow & Former Executive Director, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
– Ali Vaez: Iran Project Director, International Crisis Group
– Negar Mortazavi: Journalist and Political Analyst, Host of Iran Podcast
– David Albright: Founder and President of the Institute for Science and International Security
Closing (5:45 PM – 6:00 PM ET)
What is the current economic landscape in the Middle East? While global foreign direct investment is expected to fall drastically in the post-COVID era, the World Bank reported a 5% contraction in the economic output of the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries in 2020 due to the pandemic. While oil prices are expected to rebound with normalization in demand, political instability, regional and geopolitical tensions, domestic corruption, and a volatile regulatory and legal environment all threaten economic recovery in the Middle East. What is the prospect for economic growth and development in the region post-pandemic, and how could MENA nations promote sustainable growth and regional trade moving forward?
At the same time, Middle Eastern diaspora communities have become financially successful and can help promote trade between North America and the region. In this respect, the diaspora can become vital intermediaries for advancing U.S. and Canada’s business interests abroad. Promoting business diplomacy can both benefit the MENA region and be an effective and positive way to advance engagement and achieve foreign policy goals of the North Atlantic.
This panel will investigate the trade and investment opportunities in the Middle East, discuss how facilitating economic engagement with the region can benefit Canadian and American national interests, and explore relevant policy prescriptions.
Panelists:
– Hon. Sergio Marchi: Canada’s Former Minister of International Trade
– Scott Jolliffe: Chairperson, Canada Arab Business Council
– Esfandyar Batmanghelidj: Founder and Publisher of Bourse & Bazaar
– Nizar Ghanem: Director of Research and Co-founder at Triangle
– Nicki Siamaki: Researcher at Control Risks
The Middle East continues to grapple with violence and instability, particularly in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Fueled by government incompetence and foreign interventions, terrorist insurgencies have imposed severe humanitarian and economic costs on the region. Meanwhile, regional actors have engaged in an unprecedented pursuit of arms accumulation. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have imported billions of both Western and Russian-made weapons and funded militant groups across the region, intending to contain their regional adversaries, particularly Iran. Tehran has also provided sophisticated weaponry to various militia groups across the region to strengthen its geopolitical position against Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel.
On the other hand, with international terrorist networks and intense regional rivalry in the Middle East, it is impractical to discuss peace and security without addressing terrorism and the arms race in the region. This panel will primarily discuss the implications of the ongoing arms race in the region and the role of Western powers and multilateral organizations in facilitating trust-building security arrangements among regional stakeholders to limit the proliferation of arms across the Middle East.
Panelists:
Luciano Zaccara: Assistant Professor, Qatar University
Dania Thafer: Executive Director, Gulf International Forum
Kayhan Barzegar: Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the Science and Research Branch of Azad University
Barbara Slavin: Director of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council
Sanam Shantyaei: Senior Journalist at France24 & host of Middle East Matters
The emerging regional order in West Asia will have wide-ranging implications for global security. The Biden administration has begun re-engaging Iran on the nuclear dossier, an initiative staunchly opposed by Israel, while also taking a harder line on Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen. Meanwhile, key regional actors, including Qatar, Iraq, and Oman, have engaged in backchannel efforts to bring Iran and Saudi Arabia to the negotiating table. From a broader geopolitical perspective, with the need to secure its energy imports, China is also expected to increase its footprint in the region and influence the mentioned challenges.
In this evolving landscape, Western powers will be compelled to redefine their strategic priorities and adjust their policies with the new realities in the region. In this panel, we will discuss how the West, including the United States and its allies, can utilize multilateral diplomacy with its adversaries to prevent military escalation in the region. Most importantly, the panel will discuss if a multilateral security dialogue in the Persian Gulf region, proposed by some regional actors, can help reduce tensions among regional foes and produce sustainable peace and development for the region.
Panelists:
– Abdullah Baabood: Academic Researcher and Former Director of the Centre for Gulf Studies, Qatar University
– Trita Parsi: Executive Vice-President, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
– Ebtesam Al-Ketbi: President, Emirates Policy Centre
– Jon Allen: Canada’s Former Ambassador to Israel
– Elizabeth Hagedorn: Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor
Military interventions, political and economic instabilities, and civil unrest in the Middle East have led to a global refugee crisis with an increasing wave of refugees and asylum seekers to Europe and Canada. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has, in myriad ways, exacerbated and contributed to the ongoing security threats and destabilization of the region.
While these challenges pose serious risks to Canadian security, Ottawa will also have the opportunity to limit such risks and prevent a spillover effect vis-à-vis effective humanitarian initiatives in the region. In this panel, we will primarily investigate Canada’s Middle East Strategy’s degree of success in providing humanitarian aid to the region. Secondly, the panel will discuss what programs and initiatives Canada can introduce to further build on the renewed strategy. and more specifically, how Canada can utilize its policy instruments to more effectively deal with the increasing influx of refugees from the Middle East.
Panelists:
Erica Di Ruggiero: Director of Centre for Global Health, University of Toronto
Reyhana Patel: Head of Communications & Government Relations, Islamic Relief Canada
Amir Barmaki: Former Head of UN OCHA in Iran
Catherine Gribbin: Senior Legal Advisor for International and Humanitarian Law, Canadian Red Cross
In 2016, Canada launched an ambitious five-year “Middle East Engagement Strategy” (2016-2021), committing to investing CA$3.5 billion over five years to help establish the necessary conditions for security and stability, alleviate human suffering and enable stabilization programs in the region. In the latest development, during the meeting of the Global Coalition against ISIS, Minister of Foreign Affairs Marc Garneau announced more than $43.6 million in Peace and Stabilization Operations Program funding for 11 projects in Syria and Iraq.
With Canada’s Middle East Engagement Strategy expiring this year, it is time to examine and evaluate this massive investment in the Middle East region in the past five years. More importantly, the panel will discuss a principled and strategic roadmap for the future of Canada’s short-term and long-term engagement in the Middle East.
Panelists:
– Ferry de Kerckhove: Canada’s Former Ambassador to Egypt
– Dennis Horak: Canada’s Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
– Chris Kilford: Former Canadian Defence Attaché in Turkey, member of the national board of the Canadian International Council (CIC)
– David Dewitt: University Professor Emeritus, York University
While the United States continues to pull back from certain regional conflicts, reflected by the Biden administration’s decision to halt American backing for Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen and the expected withdrawal from Afghanistan, US troops continue to be stationed across the region. Meanwhile, Russia and China have significantly maintained and even expanded their regional activities. On one hand, the Kremlin has maintained its military presence in Syria, and on the other hand, China has signed an unprecedented 25-year strategic agreement with Iran.
As the global power structure continues to shift, it is essential to analyze the future of the US regional presence under the Biden administration, explore the emerging global rivalry with Russia and China, and at last, investigate the implications of such competition for peace and security in the Middle East.
Panelists:
– Dmitri Trenin: Director of Carnegie Moscow Center
– Joost R. Hiltermann: Director of MENA Programme, International Crisis Group
– Roxane Farmanfarmaian: Affiliated Lecturer in International Relations of the Middle East and North Africa, University of Cambridge
– Andrew A. Michta: Dean of the College of International and Security Studies at Marshall Center
– Kelley Vlahos: Senior Advisor, Quincy Institute
The security architecture of the Middle East has undergone rapid transformations in an exceptionally short period. Notable developments include the United States gradual withdrawal from the region, rapprochement between Israel and some GCC states through the Abraham Accords and the rise of Chinese and Russian regional engagement.
With these new trends in the Middle East, it is timely to investigate the security implications of the Biden administration’s Middle East policy. In this respect, we will discuss the Biden team’s new approach vis-à-vis Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The panel will also discuss the role of other major powers, including China and Russia in shaping this new security environment in the region, and how the Biden administration will respond to these powers’ increasing regional presence.
Panelists:
– Sanam Vakil: Deputy Director of MENA Programme at Chatham House
– Denise Natali: Acting Director, Institute for National Strategic Studies & Director of the Center for Strategic Research, National Defense University
– Hassan Ahmadian: Professor of the Middle East and North Africa Studies, University of Tehran
– Abdulaziz Sagar: Chairman, Gulf Research Center
– Andrew Parasiliti: President, Al-Monitor
