Point: Sharing embassies is not a threat to Canadian democracy
To see counter-point, click here!
By Gian-Paolo Mendoza
Graphic by Ben Buckley
The Canadian and British governments have both recently announced a plan to share embassies and foreign properties in a number of different countries. This move comes following a provision in the March 2012 budget where our government promised to save around 170 million dollars by “restructuring” its offices and diplomatic missions abroad. It is the first time that both governments have ever announced the co-location of embassies publicly, and has stirred a wide debate in the public and press in the past few days. The harsh adversity to the decision has been slightly blown out of proportion, focusing mainly on abstract socio-cultural elements of our history with Britain instead of the functional benefits of the agreement itself.
According to our government, the rationale for sharing foreign offices with the U.K. is primarily to reduce the cost. Foreign affairs minister John Baird has said that the agreement will take place in only two countries to start: British diplomatic staff will be working out of Canada’s foreign office in Haiti, while Canada’s ambassador to Burma will work out of the British Embassy there. This arrangement would allow Canada to provide diplomatic services in countries where it does not have an embassy, but where Britain does, and vice-versa.
The idea of sharing embassy properties is not a new one either. British and Canadian diplomats already work out of shared offices in countries such as Mali, where Britain’s ambassador operates in the Canadian office in Bamako. Australia also provides consular services for us in a number of pacific countries such as Cambodia, and Italy has recently agreed to provide services to Canadians in Iran.
I’ve noticed that those adverse to the government’s decision tend to congregate around the idea of the social ramifications of the idea of co-located embassies; or more specifically, the message that it would send to the rest of the world. The idea that the Canadian government may appear to be integrating closer on the level of foreign policy with its former colonial power has made many critics of the government uneasy. But Canadian interests would never be spoken for by British diplomats, nor vice versa. The opposite just doesn’t make any political sense.
Sharing embassies is a great idea: we’re cutting a lot of spending from our federal government’s pocket, and only compromising the convenience of having our own building. The critical perceptions of the Union Jack and our flag flying side by side on the same property are reasonably founded, especially for Canadians who are less sympathetic towards our British roots. The Canadian government should be wary of the public’s regard for the aesthetics of the arrangement; perhaps moving our flag to the opposite side of our real estate in Haiti would help to ease the anxiety back at home.
