The following is the text of the Inaugural Shefrin Dialogue Address, delivered by Policy Contributing Writer and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute Colin Robertson at the Mauro Centre for Peace and Justice, University of Manitoba, 17 September 2025.

The Stakes of Global Dialogue

‘Dialogue’ is to diplomacy what force of arms is to deterrence. Foreign ministries praise and practise dialogue, summits revel in it, and communiqués promise more of it. Yet dialogue arguably matters more today than at any time in recent memory, as the international security situation deteriorates.

The guardrails of the post-war, rules-based international order—once underwritten by American might and leadership—are no longer guaranteed. Instability in a newly multipolar world is dangerous. The threats we face—proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change, pandemics, rogue actors, and cybercrime—are exacerbated by AI and quantum technology.

Canada is not fireproof — literally or figuratively. Mitigating these risks requires diplomatic dialogue grounded in strategy and backed by credible deterrence.

When dialogue breaks down, alternatives escalate from sanctions to severed relations to outright war. Just look at Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, or Myanmar. Without dialogue, people die.

The Forms of Dialogue

Dialogue comes in many forms. There is traditional, closed-door diplomacy—like Canada’s current efforts to stabilize relations with China through ambassadorial meetings and ministerial visits to resolve trade disputes over pork, canola, and seafood.

There is public diplomacy, where culture builds connections. Think of Chantal Kreviazuk singing with Paul Anka and David Foster at the Getty during a Team Canada mission in late 2001, reminding post-9/11 Americans of our solidarity. Or the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and the Winnipeg Symphony touring abroad while Canadian diplomats host key contacts over Crown Royal, letting artistic excellence speak for national character.

Track 1.5 dialogues—hybrid gatherings of officials and NGOs—offer innovative ideas ahead of summits, especially on climate or social policy. Then there’s Track Two: former officials, businesspeople, and academics exchanging views off the record. I’ve participated in such discussions with Chinese counterparts, hosted by the University of Alberta’s China Institute. These dialogues rely on trust and intellectual honesty.

As former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz told me, “Trust is the coin of the realm.” Without it, dialogue risks becoming an exercise in polite futility.

Strategy, Not Sentiment

Effective dialogue depends on strategy. You must know your ask, your red lines, and your interests. For middle powers like Canada, that means pursuing a strategy of prudence, pragmatism, and perseverance.

Prudence demands careful, historically informed judgment. It means resisting overreaction and recognizing, in Donald Rumsfeld’s words, “the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.” Quiet diplomacy—once Canada’s hallmark—requires such prudence.

Let me illustrate where prudence was lacking. When President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, the Harper government declared it a litmus test of Canada–U.S. relations. Ministers blitzed Washington. The result? Obama dug in. Relations froze. Seventy pipelines already crossed the border—was it wise to stake the whole bilateral relationship on one pipeline project?

Or take the case of Meng Wanzhou. Canada detained her at the U.S.’s request, and China responded by seizing and holding hostage the “two Michaels” for 1,000 days. Former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley later suggested we might have shown some “creative incompetence” at the airport—a more prudent course.

Prudence also means avoiding reckless interventions. Brian Mulroney insisted the Gulf War have UN authorization and George H.W. Bush followed his advice. George W. Bush didn’t seek such approval for Iraq. Jean Chrétien kept Canada out telling the House of Commons: “Canada will not engage in a war of choice.” He was correct. The WMDs were never found. Sometimes diplomacy means saying “no.”

Contrast that with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who rose in the House to accuse the Indian government of involvement in an assassination on Canadian soil. He got headlines—but not results. Ambassadors were expelled. Visas suspended. Relations froze upending Trudeau’s Indo-Pacific strategy. Only now are relations resuming.

Pragmatism and the Art of the Possible

Pragmatism means knowing what’s possible, what can be parked, and what’s worth giving up. When hold and when to fold. Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. And remembering that patience is a virtue.

After 9/11, John Manley and U.S. homeland-security chief Tom Ridge quickly negotiated the Smart Border Accord—balancing trade with security. Mexico wanted in, but Manley said no: our borders were fundamentally different. Manley and Ridge agreed on goals, shared briefing books, and used online dashboards to track results. Their approach turned our shared border into an asset. Manley was right to say, “Security and prosperity are two sides of the same coin.”

Or consider our recent digital services tax. Ontario opposed it. We forged ahead anyway, faster than the EU, then stopped implementation to keep trade talks with the U.S. alive. Collecting the tax would have seen damaging trade retaliation. Pragmatism prevailed.

Canada’s access to the U.S. market is vital. The Auto Pact—our original free trade deal—employs half a million people. Two-thirds of our economy is tied to trade. For Canada, trade policy is national policy.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is now reviving industrial strategy, in partnership with the premiers, First Nations, business and civil society. It’s long overdue.

The Value of Perseverance and Patience

Perseverance and Patience are crucial for a middle power on the receiving end of great-power actions either directly or as collateral damage. Canada must set long-term goals and stick to them—even through transitions in government. To be successful, national security and defence policies must enjoy the continuity of cross-aisle support.

Trudeau’s 1983 peace initiative, calling for nuclear restraint during the Cold War, lacked leverage but showed moral leadership. “We must not merely be on the side of peace,” Trudeau said⁷ “but be prepared to work for it.” What we have learned over the decades is that the road to peace is a very slow business requiring patience and perseverance.

More impactful was Lloyd Axworthy’s human security agenda: the landmines treaty, the child soldiers; convention, and the International Criminal Court. Axworthy’s vision succeeded through perseverance—with support from a broad network including US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Mexican Foreign Minister Rosario Green, Critically, he enjoyed the full backing of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark showed similar perseverance in opposing apartheid. Mulroney stood firm even against Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Nelson Mandela later thanked Canadians for their “steadfastness” saying our “respect for diversity”  was a model for South Africans.

Deterrence and Diplomacy Go Together

Middle powers like Canada cannot coerce. But we can convene. We can broker as a helpful fixer. And we must contribute to collective deterrence.

Today’s world is fragmenting into spheres of influence. Canada needs both dialogue and deterrence. The Carney government’s pledge to hit NATO’s 2 percent defence commitment this year — and 5 percent over the next decade — puts the national interest first.

So is a major rethink and reinvestment in how we do diplomacy, including reforming development assistance to put the emphasis on technical assistance that will also serve our trade interests.

The lesson of Pearsonian diplomacy is that credibility requires hard power. After WWII, Canada had the world’s fourth-largest navy and air force. That earned us a seat at the table in the design of post-war rules-based multilateral institutions. If the Americans were the architects, we were the engineers.

Geoffrey Pearson, son of Lester B. Pearson, and my first big boss when I joined the foreign service, said that diplomacy requires “timing, experience, and personality.” His father demonstrated all three  in his belief that diplomacy meant “letting the other guy have your way.”¹¹ He and his colleagues—Escott Reid, Hume Wrong, Norman Robertson—devised a strategic doctrine for Canada: functionalism.

Functionalism means that if you have interests and competence, you earn a seat at the table. It anchored Louis St. Laurent’s 1947 Gray Lecture, which outlined five enduring Canadian foreign policy principles: national unity, political liberty, the rule of law, human values, and international responsibility.

It’s time to restore functionalism as our north star.

What Carney Understands

Prime Minister Carney gets this. “A new imperialism threatens,” he recently warned. “Middle powers compete for interests and attention, knowing that if they are not at the table, they will be on the menu.”

To be at the table, Canada needs world-class diplomacy and credible deterrence. Neither is currently adequate. We’re starting to rebuild military capacity. Now we must reinvest in diplomacy and development assistance that can respond to our changing geopolitical and socio-economic circumstances.

Functionalism can guide our engagement in areas where interests and competence intersect: energy and critical minerals, agri-food, water, pluralism, and the North.

We possess critical minerals. We have oil and gas to help our allies in the transition to renewable energies. We have uranium and the knowledge to develop small modular nuclear reactors.

We led on food security after WWII—Pearson helped found the FAO.

We are a model, albeit imperfect, for pluralism.

And we must get serious about the Arctic—our sovereignty, our environment, our security.

The New Threat to Dialogue

But there is another danger—to dialogue itself.

Political polarization, algorithmic social media, and culture wars have narrowed our capacity to talk to those we disagree with. Or to disaggregate fact from feeling, truth from fiction in a digital world where disinformation and misinformation are just a click away.

While digital technologies connect, they also inflame. Social platforms reward outrage over understanding. As Cass Sunstein warns, algorithms drive “fragmentation and polarization.”

In a world of memes, TikTok’s, and slogans, nuance disappears. Minor disagreements are recast as moral failures. Yascha Mounk argues culture wars now frame policy differences as existential threats.¹⁵

Even families and classrooms avoid tough conversations. Robert Putnam warned of this civic decline in Bowling Alone—a warning more urgent now than ever.

Without dialogue, democracy decays.

Conclusion: Back to the Table

Canada’s diplomatic history proves that middle powers can help shape our world—but only if they show up with ideas, credibility, and coalition partners.

We need prudence, pragmatism, and perseverance—plus a dose of humility and willingness to listen. To repeat Lester Pearson:  diplomacy is “letting the other guy have your way.”¹⁷ To do that, we must be in the room—ready to talk, ready with solutions, and ready to act.

Let’s not just cheer for the rules-based order. Let’s work for it—with purpose, with patience, and with perseverance.