Canada’s naive policies forgo our national interests

Protectionism is usually frowned upon as harmful to the stability of the international community and an unrealistic approach to free-market economic realities.

For the most part, I am left thinking about the stereotypical case of the prisoner's dilemma.

The prisoner's dilemma plays out regularly in the global stage when nations negotiate free trade deals or give up chunks of their sovereignty for overarching treaties such as those on climate change which promise to greatly improve the world.

The fascinating connection between the prisoner's dilemma and global deal-making comes from the inability of states to faithfully communicate with each other, and in most cases to hold each other accountable for their promises.

The dilemma is even more important in today's world where a rapidly normalizing trend in international deals in the form of non-binding agreements in which nations can free-ride off of their neighbour's cuts without the fear of reprisal.

In the case of climate change agreements for example, some nations can provide their manufacturing sectors with a massive competitive advantage by simply not enforcing adequate cuts.

On top of these problems, you now have a plethora of bad faith actors such as the United States, China, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia which actively are pursuing a zero-sum approach to deal making, where there must be clearly defined winners and losers.

Pragmatism seems to be winning the day in international politics and Canada hasn't been in on the game.

Even when it comes to direct deal-making, Canada is being bullied openly by the United States, China, and the Saudi government in order to accept their demands. Sadly, in many cases, the bullying is working.

For example, Canada has acquiesced to a lukewarm NAFTA 2.0 and furthermore has failed to adequately respond to the diplomatic fiasco with Saudi Arabia, as the Middle Eastern nation continues to profit by selling us carbon tax-exempt oil while pulling out all Canadian investments.

Now with such large nations involved, some may point out Canada's rather small size as the key factor behind our limited capacity to respond.

But this flatly ignores and grossly underestimates the capacity of Canada, a nation which has a GDP equal to Russia, and one fourth the population.

Plainly stated, Canada is wealthy, and if it wanted to, it could respond with the same capacity as Russia if it wanted to, something I imagine most Canadians never actually think about.

If its not our size what is it?

In my view, we lose because the current government aims for the globally united decision in a globally disunited world. While Canada panders to the international community in both word and deed, other countries work behind closed doors to actively circumvent their neighbours and international obligations.

Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna has even can so far as to say countries need to see beyond their national interests.

While the intent is respectable, the overall outcome pushes some to argue it may be best for Canada to now work independently in its interest rather than engaging in vanity projects.

I argue that, Canada should take an independent role in order to gain a position of power, from which it can more gracefully help guide international policy.

Now that may at first sound counter-intuitive. Why not simply follow the global mandate as is?

As displayed in this episode of Golden Balls, when facing a situation similar to the prisoners dilemma, it is far better to shape the way the game is played, than to let others shape it for you.

Canada could be a global power and in turn push global decision making far more by focusing on improving its own standing, than continuously engaging in hopeful bouts of diplomatic exchange with nations who at this time, just don't seem like they want to cooperate.

We need to change the rules or get on the same game board as everybody else, if not for ourselves, for the greater good of the international community.

What do you think? Is Canada being bullied? Should the nation place its interests ahead of others?