The Conservatives used their Supply Day this week to move a motion in the Commons that seeks to call on the government to declare a genocide taking place in China against the Uyghur peoples and other Turkic Muslims in the country.  Thus far, the Liberal government has been reluctant to use the word "genocide," because it is a loaded term under international law that comes with consequences, particularly around steps that the international community needs to take in order to prevent it because international law is useless without enforcement.  Without enforcement to back up the claim the Conservatives are demanding the government apply, would this make their motion a hollow gesture, the very kind of grandstanding that they so often accuse the Liberals of on the world stage?

Thus far, the Liberals are insisting that they are following international protocols in both demanding that China allow an international committee of experts unfettered access to the country to assess the claims independently, but are also pooling intelligence with other countries to evaluate what evidence has been presented to date.  These are the kinds of process that need to take place if we want to get the UN or the Hague involved, so that we can ensure that there is coordinated action on the international stage to respond to China's actions you know, the "enforcement" part that backs up international law.  It is also worth noting that the Americans have opted out of this same international law framework, so their Secretary of State making a declaration has no actual weight behind it ­ America has announced no sanctions or other actions against China.  If Canada were to follow suit without other international allies on board, we would be hung out to dry when China retaliates because they have lost face.

I am also not unconvinced that this government is currently engaged in the kinds of backroom talks necessary to get international support for such a declaration.  Earlier this week, we saw Canada lead 57 other countries in launching the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations.  This particular initiative was successfully kept under wraps until its unveiling, though it has been speculated that it took as long to come to fruition as it did because it depended on waiting for a change of administration in the United States, so that their signature could give the document additional heft particularly when it comes to dealing with China, whose use of hostage diplomacy Canada knows all too well given the ongoing detention of the two Michaels.

We also have history around the effectiveness of backroom diplomacy in this country, particularly around the opposition to apartheid in South Africa.  Canada very much depended on behind-the-scenes talks during Commonwealth summits, to the point where it appears that the Queen got involved in an unofficial capacity in order to help pressure then-UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher into changing her position.  Granted, this was an easier sell because South Africa is not the economic powerhouse that China is, which makes it all the more important that we don't alienate our allies by going off half-cocked with making declarations before we have our ducks in a row.

The other danger with a premature declaration of genocide is that a political declaration, separate from the legal declaration, has the ability to undermine the label of genocide, which is the most heinous crime imaginable.  Canada is already walking a fine line with this because of the way the government handled the use of the term in the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls by accepting the term "genocide" in that report without any notion of enforcement or consequence, this government ran the same risk of undermining the label.  Justin Trudeau later walked-back his acceptance of the term "genocide" by saying that he conceived of it more as cultural genocide, but it may have already damaged Canada's credibility on this file credibility that could be further eroded if this Conservative motion goes ahead.

A political declaration, absent allies and enforcement, has the very real possibility of turning into slacktivism on a global stage like Canada putting a black square on its Instagram account for a week, or putting a border around their Facebook profile picture.  There will be consequences to a resolution in that it may not be the best way to proceed in order to get the outcomes that we want namely for said genocide to be halted.  And without a concerted and allied effort, there will be retaliation from China, both economic and symbolic, because we will have caused them to lose face.

What I find most peculiar is the fact that a lot of that economic retaliation will be hitting the Conservatives' voter base, particularly in Western Canada.  We've already had issues with canola exports, and we could pretty much guarantee that would dry up immediately.  Pork is another big export to China, and when there were a couple of weeks nearly two years ago when China halted Canadian imports because of a very real issue of smugglers using falsified labels, pork farmers in this country freaked out.  Lobster exports to China are also a very big deal, and if the Conservatives want to make inroads into Atlantic Canada, they will also be facing those whose livelihoods have been affected by their decision to posture without backup.  And then there is the fate of the Two Michaels, who would likely bear even more of the brunt of such a unilateral declaration.

All parties in this country have a record of deep unseriousness when it comes to foreign policy, and of standing on soap boxes as they declare Canada as being "back" in one capacity or another, with very little follow-through.  This is an extremely serious issue, and there can be no doubt that a genocide is taking place, and that the world has a responsibility to uphold the pledge of "never again."  But we have to be smart about it, and we need to be effective in our enforcement.  I am dubious that a non-binding motion in the House of Commons is the smartest or most effective way for Canada to act at this crucial point in time.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

During the lengthy interview with former prime minister Joe Clark on the CBC's West of Centre podcast over the weekend, there were a number of very interesting things that came up for discussion, but something that I find of particular interest was something that largely got overlooked in the write-up, which is what Clark diagnosed as one of the changes in the nature of political parties in this country, and what effect that has on national discourse within the country and it's something that we should be paying attention to.

Around eighteen minutes into the interview, Clark made the following observation:

There's been a quite significant change in the nature of our political parties, and that has had a significant impact on the sense of participation and contentment in the nation. We're accustomed, political scientists in particular, to looking at countries in terms of our formal institutions. One of the realities about political parties when I first began to get involved, was that they were very important informal instruments of reconciliation in the country. They were parties that would, on the one hand, let anybody in they didn't distinguish ideologically. People were quite fierce in their affiliations but they were not closed-minded.

He went on to say that one of the greatest economic debates in our country's history happened within the Liberal Party itself, and pointed to the hard work of Progressive Conservative Party leader Robert Stanfield in defending the Official Languages Act in the parts of the country where it was difficult to do so.

"The parties were determined to not only welcome people, but to reconcile differences," Clark added.  "Its deterioration coincided with the growth of interest groups in the country.  Interest groups have made a lot of profound, positive change a lot of important issues, the rights of women, the environment, others were not getting enough attention until interest groups embraced them, but nonetheless, they have eroded the breadth of national political parties.  People draw their own in."

And this, I think, is starting to narrow in on a definite change within parties that has weakened their ability to be useful vehicles of federalism, and of good governance through bottom-up, grassroots engagement in this country.  But it's only part of the problem.  It also goes hand-in-hand with the way in which parties undermined themselves the more they moved toward American presidential primary-style leadership contests, which centralized power within the leaders' offices and drew it away from the grassroots.

Clark has a very good point about interest groups, quoting Stanfield's warning that political parties are being replaced by interest groups, and citing that political parties reconcile interests, and interest groups insist on them.  Clark cited the environment and women's rights as two successful interest groups that succeeded where parties failed in their traditional approaches to find some kind of consensus among their membership to drive policy, but I think it also speaks to how forces outside of the political system bolstered these interest groups.  After all, if we look at what abysmal civics education we get these days, people are taught that the way to make change is to sign petitions and join these interest groups, rather than joining a party and agitating for change from their grassroots process.  That has become self-reinforcing.

But this also couldn't happen without the power within parties shifting from the grassroots to the leaders, where bottom-up policy development has become top-down, and leadership contests involving full slates of policies that said leader intends to impose on the party.  When your focus is on the leader, the grassroots imperative toward reconciling positions, policies, and even regional differences, withers.

It's also something that former Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray diagnosed in a 2011 interview when he heard about the horrific gong show in how Alberta's PC leadership contests were being run, where people were buying memberships between the first and second ballots.

"Where's the cohesion in that?" Murray asked.  "Where is the commitment?  If the membership of a political party at the constituency level is so fluid and so amorphous, how can that political party play its essential role of acting as an interlocutor of the people of that constituency and the caucus and government in Ottawa or Edmonton, or Toronto, or wherever?  The short answer is that it can't."

This feeds directly into the problem that Clark diagnoses about the ability for parties to act as instruments of reconciliation.  These leaders, sometimes interlopers to the caucus who have never held a seat before, come in without an agenda of reconciling themselves to their own caucus, let alone their positions with those of the grassroots.  Their assumption is that the grassroots voted for them, and therefore their word is law within the party.  And when Clark talks about how there used to be a stronger sense of "us" in a party, and that is now turning into a sense of "us" and "them" both within and outside of the party the ability to engage the country's points of division become strained.

To this end, Clark diagnosed part of the Liberals' problems in engaging with Alberta as part of this loss of an ability to reconcile within its own membership.  In turn, he sees that Alberta's interests are exacerbated when they appear to be ignored (though I would argue that the Liberals have not ignored them, but they simply didn't tell many Albertans the lies they wanted to hear, and those Albertans turned to those who did).

"The Liberal Party in the past, much like the Progressive Conservative Party in the past, used to be much broader than that," Clark said.  "It used to reflect the whole of the country.  It was a reconciling instrument in a country that always needs reconciliation.  I'm quite disappointed about all of the parties in that sense."

He's right in that this loss has impacted our political institutions, but when he said that our political system requires significant changes, he didn't really elaborate as to how.  I think we do need change, but that change has to be getting us to the place where we used to be where leaders were not dominant, where the grassroots could engage, could reconcile, could have broad tents that drew in Canadians to the conversation.  Simply doubling down on how things have devolved will only serve to further stress and strain our system.

Photo Credit: The Chronicle Herald