Introduction
As the post-Second World War liberal international order gives way to a right-wing reactionary internationalism, the task of reimagining social democratic foreign policy and a progressive internationalism is more urgent than ever.
Canadian socialists have certainly experienced a different foreign policy trajectory than contemporary left-wing and centre-left parties around the world. While today’s German SDP takes a zeitenwende towards increased militarism, reacting to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, left-wing governments in Latin America, such as Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay look to a new multilateralism. Through this multilateralism, countries in the Global South have demanded respect for international law in the ongoing genocide in Palestine, but Canada’s foreign policymakers have lagged as they scramble to figure out their continued dependency on a far-right US government.
Meanwhile, new initiatives like the Progressive International have sprung forth to resurrect left-wing internationalist engagement. Canada’s multicultural society always brings diaspora linkages to the world that should help Canada understand global affairs without the United States. As the new Mark Carney government drops the Trudeau-era “Feminist Foreign Policy” and the façade of international climate leadership that once enamoured the liberal world order, is there an opportunity for social democrats in Canada to provide a vision that turns the superficial into something significant?
For this special issue on the state of Canadian social democracy for Perspectives Journal, guest editor Simon Black interviewed Jennifer Pedersen, Broadbent Institute Leadership Fellow and Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor to NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Heather McPherson, on a social democratic vision for Canadian foreign policy and new internationalism.
– Clement Nocos, Editor-in-Chief, Perspectives Journal
Simon Black: Sketch the outlines of a progressive internationalism. What should the NDP be championing on the international stage and in matters of foreign policy?
Jennifer Pedersen: At a time of increasing inequality, foreign interference, the erosion of the rules-based international order, and threats to democracy, a progressive internationalism is more crucial than ever in promoting a positive and practical approach to foreign policy. More than other political parties, parties of the democratic left are deeply engaged in the concept of solidarity, of seeing people around the world as part of the same struggle against the same challenges: militarism, imperialism, neo-colonialism, ecocide, and neoliberalism. We understand the impacts that our countries’ foreign policies have not only on our own populations and our national interests, but also on the global community – and in particular on people who are largely excluded from power.
These values of progressive internationalism – solidarity with workers, putting people before profit, advancing human rights, and promoting social justice, among others – aren’t necessarily shared by all social democratic parties in the current global context. For instance, the failures of some social democratic parties in government to oppose the genocide in Gaza, to end arms trade with human rights abusers, and to defend international courts, is more than disappointing: it calls into question the survival of an internationalism espoused by some of the giants of social democracy, such as Olof Palme and the NDP’s own Ed Broadbent. At the same time, the global context has shifted significantly with the rise of populist and authoritarian regimes which pose real and troubling security challenges that are forcing governments to make difficult choices in defence and trade priorities. Some of these choices – cutting foreign aid, for example – are dangerous and counter-productive, while others – building new diplomatic, trade and defence partnerships – are necessary to counter the threats from malign actors. These new partnerships should also come with human rights guarantees, but too many governments, including Canada’s, are disregarding human rights at a time when they are most needed.
Over the past few years Canadians have faced Trump’s threats, foreign interference by several governments, increasing inequality, and a Liberal government that refuses to take principled stands on key human rights issues. The NDP has been the lone voice in Parliament fighting for the most vulnerable. At its core, the NDP’s foreign policy is based on human rights, disarmament, and international law. And while some see the party’s foreign policy as idealism, in reality it is very practical. We’re informed by social movements and often take our cue from civil society, including human rights leaders, humanitarian practitioners, and progressive coalitions. We do what we can with the tools we have. We’re limited by what we can achieve as an opposition party in Parliament, and by what the Government of Canada can do. We can’t just shout into the wind – we need to be inventive, build and join coalitions, engage with communities and with other Parliamentarians. I think it is important to remember that the NDP is not the movement, it is the parliamentary and electoral wing of Canada’s progressive movement. We can’t be everything to everyone, but we can amplify the voices of those doing important work.
As social democrats we aim to build solidarity and global justice with like-minded people around the world. But we need to hold tightly to the international institutions and norms that Canadians have helped to build over decades. Globally, the UN system and international law are some of the few places we can look to create and maintain support and to build solidarity with others in a way that actually creates results for people. In other words, we must be practical: what can we achieve in this moment? Who can we work with to achieve these ends? How can we build coalitions with like-minded progressives around the world? We should be results-focused and understand the political context we are working in; one shaped by an increasingly unpredictable and dangerous US foreign policy, but also challenges to unipolarity by China and Russia. The erosion of global norms, including blatant disregard for international law by many governments, make this an especially troubling moment.
SB: Given the party has lost official party status and has only seven Members of Parliament, how can the NDP remain relevant in matters of foreign policy?
JP: We’re currently a political party with very limited resources, working within a Parliamentary system where we usually have a Foreign Affairs Critic, a Defence Critic, a Trade Critic, an Immigration Critic, and sometimes – when we have more caucus members – a separate International Development Critic. At present, our MPs each hold multiple critic roles and generally have only one staffer to help cover all of them. We have lost our seats on Parliamentary committees due to the loss of party status. The loss of Committee roles is especially unfortunate since we have done a lot of heavy lifting at committees in the past, proposing studies, amending bills, and suggesting progressive witnesses to testify. The loss of party status is certainly impacting our ability to raise concerns about foreign affairs and human rights in the House; a recent CTV article revealed the Liberals expect fewer questions in the House on foreign aid cuts because of a weakened NDP.
In my experience, every elected New Democrat believes strongly in a progressive human-rights based foreign policy. While most of this work falls to the Foreign Affairs, Trade, Defence and Immigration Critics, you’ll often see other caucus members presenting petitions, attending meetings on human rights issues, or speaking with local stakeholders about Canada’s role in the world. At the same time, foreign policy isn’t usually a top priority of constituents. MPs offices are swamped with calls for help with federal government services, and the work for housing, healthcare, and affordability have to be the priority.
By necessity, our work is focused on what we can accomplish with the limited tools we have, in the moment we’re in. Our work is largely responsive to international events that affect Canadians, like Trump’s tariffs or the genocide in Palestine or the war in Ukraine. We respond to government bills and initiatives on issues like sanctions policy, immigration rules, and defence funding. Sometimes we introduce motions or legislation on urgent foreign policy concerns, such as Heather McPherson’s March 2024 motion on Palestine that led to a full day of debate in the House of Commons – the first time Palestine was ever debated by all parties. This motion was debated because the entire NDP caucus saw it as a priority and pushed for it to be chosen as one of our three Opposition Days that year. Unfortunately, in the current Parliament we no longer have Opposition Days due to the loss of official party status.
Given our Parliamentary focus, there is rarely time to draft broader thought pieces on where Canadian foreign policy should go. Even so, when we are asked to define our vision of what a progressive foreign policy would be, it’s generally within the established parameters of Canada as a middle power, as a member of the existing global organizations like the UN and its agencies, or the G7, or NATO, or the Commonwealth and La Francophonie. It’s within the context of Canada as a major donor to humanitarian crises. We criticize where the government gets it wrong – for example, when Harper’s Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative didn’t include reproductive rights; when Trudeau continued the $15 billion deal with Saudi Arabia for Canadian-made light armoured vehicles; when Trudeau (and now Carney) refused to accede to the Nuclear Ban Treaty; when the Liberals continue to send military goods and tech to Israel during a genocide; when Canada’s sanctions policy has no teeth; when the Liberals refused to support the waiving of intellectual property rights for life-saving vaccines; or when Canada takes a lax approach to foreign interference, leaving Canadians vulnerable to repression and attacks.
Coming back to the question, “what should the NDP be championing?”, we must choose what makes the most sense at a given time. The values will always be the same but the issues will depend on what can be done with the limited resources and opportunities available.
For example, the past two years we focused largely on Ukraine and on Palestine. We found that Canadian solidarity with Ukraine was strong from the beginning, and most parties were in general agreement on Canada’s approach, with some differences. All parties oppose Putin’s aggression and believe in a sovereign and free Ukraine.
On Palestine, the NDP stood mostly alone. Despite hundreds of thousands of calls and emails and actions from Canadians demanding more action from the Liberal government to end Israel’s genocide, New Democrats were consistently the only voice in Parliament for the people of Palestine. We were the only party to oppose the genocide and demand an end to trade with Israel, sanctions on its leaders, a two-way arms embargo, and unlimited humanitarian access to Gaza. We brought the issue to the House of Commons repeatedly, with motions, questions, and petitions. Every day we defended international law and human rights norms. Because it was the right thing to do – and our caucus had the political will to do it. I can’t express how much pain the Palestinian community has gone through in seeing their existence and lives devalued by the Liberals and Conservatives over the past two years.
SB: From support for Israel’s genocidal violence in Gaza to extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean Sea, the Trump administration is making a mockery of the “rules-based” international order. But Western double standards in matters of international law are not new, and some progressive parties, when in power, are guilty of upholding double standards as well.
JP: There is no question that over the past few years we have seen a horrific backsliding by many governments when it comes to the “rules-based” international order.
In Canada, it has been so disheartening to see the Liberals abandon the very principles that they helped to create. Former Liberal Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy was instrumental in developing the Ottawa Treaty and the Rome Statute. To see his successors backsliding on support for the International Criminal Court is horrifying. This government is choosing to defend the human rights of some people but not others. The principle of universality has been eroded under the Liberals.
And I don’t know if there is consensus on the democratic left anymore – Palestine has been a good example of that. In Canada, the NDP has been unequivocal in its condemnation of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. I have been encouraged by progressive parties in countries like Spain, Chile, Ireland, France, and New Zealand who also bravely stood against the genocide.
But some social democratic parties in government – Labour in the UK, the SPD in Germany – have refused to uphold international law and recognize the genocide. This is profoundly troubling and a betrayal of progressive values. Progressive internationalism is under threat, not only from fascism and authoritarianism, but from social democratic governments who have abandoned social justice movements and millions of people demanding justice.
SB: At moments in the NDP’s history, Canada’s participation in NATO has been a matter of hot debate within the party. What should the NDP’s position on NATO be? And how should the NDP respond to the Carney Liberal government’s plans to ramp up military spending?
JP: There’s no question we are entering a new era where collective security is going to matter a great deal more to Canada than a decade ago. Some of this is due to Trump’s threats to Canadian sovereignty and the increasingly volatile relationship between our two countries. Much of it is also due to the rise of authoritarian governments, changing security threats, and foreign interference. In my conversations with social democrats in Europe, the Russian threat is real and terrifying in a way that hasn’t been felt in decades. We are also seeing the impact of Russian disinformation in Canada, especially with the far right, and we have to work hard against that influence. Canada will have to build stronger partnerships with like-minded European partners in order to navigate the difficult years to come.
Of course, there are legitimate critiques of NATO coming from within and outside our party. I spent several years working in and studying peace movements, so I know these critiques well, and I think alternative visions for peace and security are both necessary and hopeful if we want to build a better world. Canada should be championing peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and disarmament, but under the Liberals we are not. At the same time, I think it’s clear from Canadians and the majority of our party members that, at this terrifying moment in time, isolationism is the wrong approach. We need to be at the table voicing Canada’s priorities. And at home, we need to be electing New Democrats to ensure Canada is pushing for peace and security for all people, and not upholding oppressive systems that benefit the few.
The questions people in our movement are currently asking are less about Canada’s membership in NATO and more about the government’s senseless funding priorities. New Democrats consistently advocate for the most vulnerable in their communities, while the Liberals ignore the basic needs of Canadians and just increased the defence budget to 5% of GDP, without even discussing it during the election. People are right to ask: why is so much money going to Canada’s defence industry when people don’t have homes to sleep in, food to eat, or clean drinking water?
Of course, New Democrats have consistently argued for better resources and support for Canada’s armed forces. But a sudden increase in military spending on that scale could take billions of dollars away from fixing healthcare, building affordable housing, training young people and helping families make ends meet. We have no guarantees of what the government’s plans are and whether they will actually benefit the Canadian public. One of the key areas Canada should be focusing on is Arctic security – but that needs to be done right in full and meaningful consultation with Arctic and Inuit communities who will inevitably be at the front lines of the climate and security crisis, and who need far greater federal investment in infrastructure.
Clearly, Mark Carney is trying to appease Donald Trump by flirting with the outrageous Golden Dome, which could cost us billions and will deliver nothing. I am also concerned that a big chunk of Carney’s increased defence spending is likely going to go to the same Canadian defence companies that are exporting military goods and technology to human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, Israel, India, including through the United States. The NDP has been trying to fix this for years, and MP Jenny Kwan has recently introduced Bill C-233 to close loopholes that allow arms exports to go through the United States with zero oversight.
The Liberals’ rapid increase in defence funding coincides with cuts to peacebuilding and human rights programs at Global Affairs – areas that are already seriously underfunded. Moreover, the government just announced a $2,7 billion cut to international development funding in the 2025 budget! Given the horrific impacts that Trump’s cuts to USAID have had on global health and poverty, any cuts to Canada’s international development funding are inexcusable. These cuts will be measured in lives.
None of this will actually make Canadians safer in the long run. People are right to be angry and scared. I often think of one of our fellow progressives in the UK, the late Tony Benn, who was a champion of human rights in the Labour benches and very active in the anti-war movement. He said in 2008: “There are two flames burning in the human heart all the time. The flame of anger against injustice, and the flame of hope you can build a better world.” The problems we are facing globally need to be addressed with a whole-of-government approach that tackles root causes of insecurity – not by fuelling insecurity through cuts to services, aid, and peacebuilding. We need to uphold the core progressive values that Ed Broadbent and others in our movement have articulated – cooperation, trade unionism, working for the public good, global consciousness, solidarity, feminism, indigenous rights. These are the values the NDP should continue to champion at home and abroad.
