OP-ED: Canada’s ambiguity during global crises risks irrelevance

"In today’s world, polite neutrality is not rewarded. It is interpreted as weakness. A country that refuses to take clear stands does not remain above conflict. It simply becomes irrelevant."

Source: Adobe Stock

Author: Dotan Rousso

The world today is more interconnected than at any point in modern history. International politics no longer remain confined to distant capitals. Wars, sanctions, energy disruptions, migration flows, and security crises now shape domestic realities almost immediately. Global affairs directly affect Canadian prices, safety, alliances, and prosperity. Ukraine, Venezuela, and Iran are not abstract foreign issues. They are part of the same global system in which Canada must operate and compete.

Yet despite this reality, Canada has become increasingly irrelevant on the international stage. This is difficult to justify given Canada’s objective standing. Canada is a G7 member, the ninth-largest economy in the world by GDP, a NATO ally, and one of the most stable democracies globally. It has diplomatic reach, economic leverage, and institutional credibility. On paper, Canada should be a serious international actor. In practice, it has chosen near invisibility.

Over the past decade, Canadian foreign policy under both Trudeau and Carney has been marked by risk aversion, ambiguity, and an almost obsessive desire not to offend anyone. This is not merely a communication problem. It is a policy failure. Canadian governments have consistently avoided articulating clear principles, strategic priorities, or moral red lines. Statements reflect policies, and Canadian policies are designed to remain safely centered, carefully balanced, and ultimately toothless.

The Middle East provides a clear illustration. Throughout the war in Gaza, Canada adopted a two-sided approach that satisfied no one and influenced nothing. Official policy repeated that Israel has the right to defend itself, while simultaneously criticizing Israel as it exercised that right. Canada offered no coherent framework for distinguishing lawful self-defense from illegitimate force, no serious engagement with Hamas as a governing terrorist entity, and no strategic clarity. The result was predictable. Canada’s position carried no weight. No regional actor, ally, or adversary cared. Canada might as well have been Saint Lucia or Antigua and Barbuda for all the influence it exerted on the conflict.

The same pattern emerged in Venezuela. When the United States undertook an unprecedented operation targeting Nicolás Maduro, Canada expressed conditional support and acknowledged the criminal nature of the regime. Yet it quickly retreated into abstract appeals to international law and procedural caution, avoiding a clear moral and strategic justification for the action itself. This hesitation reveals a deeper failure to articulate an obvious truth: regimes that traffic drugs, crush opposition, and hijack state institutions do not deserve the same deference as legitimate governments. Treating them as morally equivalent is not principled restraint. It is moral evasion disguised as diplomacy.

This chronic avoidance of clear positions has consequences. Canada’s influence with allies erodes. Its ability to shape multilateral outcomes weakens. Its leverage in trade, security, and diplomacy diminishes. Countries do not look to Canada for leadership, nor do they expect it to carry weight in moments of crisis. Canada is increasingly treated as a spectator rather than a participant in shaping global norms and outcomes.

In today’s world, polite neutrality is not rewarded. It is interpreted as weakness. A country that refuses to take clear stands does not remain above conflict. It simply becomes irrelevant. Moral posturing without commitment convinces no one, deters no adversary, and inspires no ally.

Canada can do better, but only if it chooses to. That requires accepting that leadership carries costs, that taking principled positions will sometimes anger others, and that strategic clarity matters more than universal approval. Canada must decide whether it wants to be a serious country or a comfortable bystander.

It is time for Canada to grow up, articulate a foreign policy rooted in principle and realism, and build a spine.