A few evenings ago I had the pleasure of hearing Ken Taylor, former Canadian ambassador to Iran and the same portrayed by Victor Garbor in Ben Affleck’s Argo, discuss both his experiences and his thoughts on current Canadian foreign policy at Toronto’s University Club.  For those who haven’t seen the movie, Argo is a portrayal of the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis, when, in a fit of nationalistic rage the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was stormed and fifty-two Americans were held as hostages by Iran for a year and a half.  Where Ambassador Taylor comes into this story is his role in harbouring six escaped Americans in the Canadian Embassy house while working with the CIA to help them evacuate Iranian territory.  For his heroic efforts, Ambassador Taylor received the Order of Canada and became the first Canadian to receive the U.S Congressional Medal.

Although Taylor maintains that he chooses to remember the incident as an historic Canadian event rather than a movie made by Americans for Americans, and his role as one in a “Canadian operation with some cooperation of the CIA”, it is undeniable that Canada’s part in the story becomes subservient to that of other foreign players.  So much so, that when Argo premiered worldwide at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2012, it caused a significant backlash among a predominantly Canadian audience to the point that Ben Affleck changed the closing segment of the film to better reflect the role of Canadians, and flew Taylor and his wife out to ask their opinion (for the first and only time, and well after the end of the production process).

“Canada,” reflects Ambassador Taylor, “has been described as a country with too much geography and not enough history.  We are a country of 33 million people, many of which have aspirations outside our border.”  This “magical sense of crossing the border” which Taylor describes has been responsible in the past for Canada’s substantial yet understated role in international diplomacy, of which the Iranian hostage crisis was only one example.

While reflecting on the experiences surrounding his claim to fame, the substance of Ambassador Taylor’s speech rested on current conflicts in Iran and the Middle East, exacerbated by Canada’s recent closure of the embassy in Tehran.  The Obama administration’s current policy of non-interference, in an effort to avoid the mistakes of its predecessor and not instigate a third war against a Muslim nation, is also in a larger philosophical sense is an effort to give the agency for development over to these nations currently struggling to find their own destiny.  It took centuries for North American society to develop into the democratic societies of today, and many would argue that instead of replacing totalitarian Middle Eastern regimes with artificial systems of government, a more long term solution is to let an awakening people fight their own battles and forge their own way, ideally resulting in a structure and ideology better suited to their culture.

Turkey and Iran are emerging in recent years as the two potential regional powers.  Turkey, it seems, has better acclimated to a more secular and Western-style economic model.  Iran, on the other hand, appears more inclined to be driven by self-interest and status in policy.  This is best exemplified by the bomb question: is Iran really invested in having the bomb, or is a “virtual bomb”, the potential capability and threat of arsenal as a measure of international status, the true goal?   The revolution of thirty years ago would appear to be ongoing, and the history of the last bi-century could well be repeated.

If one were to look at the events of 1979, it would appear that Ambassador Taylor had opted for a more intrusive approach as circumstances unfolded.  Sheltering six fugitive Americans in his home, unofficially under the protection of the Canadian government, Canada’s other role in international diplomacy, that of unhesitating support of and friendship with the United States, was par for the corps of an international cooperation that continues to this day (as Canada continues to follow American lead in foreign policy under the Harper government).  However, as Taylor points out, there was “some grace to turning that knob”, and perhaps this best summarizes Canada’s role in international affairs.

How, Taylor asks, can Canada better bolster its role abroad in the current diplomatic climate?  Is an increase in resources in the private sector necessary to funding the efforts needed? Or is Canada’s current stance of non-interference the better, more responsible course of action?  Unfortunately, there is some merit to the argument brought by a former Spanish diplomat in the audience that non-interference is a convenient North American policy, as, so far removed geographically, it becomes a mere academic question.  As North Americans appraise a remote situation with our own set of economic and political criteria, we fail to see either the immediacy of the situation or the cultural roots that go far deeper than our own shallow evaluation.  Described by the same Spanish diplomat as the “looming perfect storm for Europe”, is there credence to the criticism that in terms of policy “the conclusion we want is one we believe in”?

The Arab Spring, which two years later is an ongoing struggle in the region, can be interpreted as a struggle to give dignity to the individual.  In a post-Bush administration, and after the limited success of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, policy no longer dictates that American-brand democracy works elsewhere.  Also, in a society increasingly dictated by social media and communication technology, the “message” in foreign policy no longer originates or is controlled by those at the diplomatic helm.  The current Canadian and American policy of non-involvement in Iran is a hazardous one.  Canada’s once sophisticated foreign service in Tehran has closed its offices in a country that has the potential to become the most influential one in the volatile Middle East. Perhaps its not the most prudent course of action to close embassies where they are most needed, and sever the lines of diplomatic communication with a nation struggling to come to terms with its identity.