Wendy Drukier
Ambassador of Canada to Spain
Alberto Rubio
Only the so-called ‘Halibut War’ remains, in the depths of memory, as the moment when two Western, democratic countries were on the brink of conflict. “It’s been a long time,” Wendy Drukier recalls. The Canadian ambassador, in excellent Spanish, notes that “we have very good bilateral relations”, which are improving day by day.
Do we have many more coincidences than disagreements?
Undoubtedly. We have a vision of the world that is almost the same on the importance of multilateralism and international relations based on rules. We also have very similar views on domestic politics, in the sense that we have feminist governments and feminist foreign policy. There is virtually nothing we don’t agree on.
Recently, May of this year marked the 70th anniversary of Canada-Spain bilateral relations. How are you commemorating the anniversary?
We are doing several activities. Through social networks we have asked for testimonies, from Spaniards who know or have lived in Canada and from Canadians living in Spain, about how they have lived this relationship. It has been a very nice experience.
And there are not many Canadians in Spain, nor many Spaniards in Canada, is it right?
Yes, there are not many residents in both countries. The fact is that many people in Canada speak Spanish, even if they are not Spanish. They are Latin American emigrants. But there is a great appreciation for Spanish culture. And that is noticeable in tourism, which is on the rise. In Canada there is a lot of interest in visiting Spain
Are there plans to promote the teaching of Spanish in schools?
It is a bit difficult to quantify because primary and secondary education in Canada are provincial competencies. There is no national plan and it is difficult to measure how many Spanish programs there are in schools. But having said that, I myself studied three years of Spanish in my school and interest is growing, on the one hand, because now Canada looks more to America when before the reference was Europe, and also because Spanish is a global language. Speaking Spanish opens many doors.
Spain and Canada, in their Joint Declaration of June 2022, noted “shared values, strong economic ties and links between our peoples” as the main strengths of the relationship. Where do we still have room for improvement?
Relations are improving and are very positive, but there is still room for improvement. In terms of trade, Spain is the sixth most important country in the EU for Canada while it is the fourth largest European economy. That gives an idea of our possibilities. We see a lot of potential.
Since CETA came into force, bilateral trade has increased by 63%. That is impressive in six years. Investment is also growing very fast. Part of our job is to promote the opportunities in Spain for Canadian companies. And the Spanish authorities do the same in reverse.
But even more important than investments are public contracts, which are already accessible to European companies in Canada and vice versa. Many Spanish infrastructure companies have been awarded public contracts in Canada since it came into force.
Where can CETA’s functioning still be improved?
It would be good if all EU countries ratify it. I think 10 are missing (Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece, France, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia). Germany recently did so. Spain was one of the first countries to ratify.
Has it been the same for Canadian companies in Spain?
More so in the private sector. In corporate management, finance or public services. For example, BiciMad is a clear example. They are Canadian bicycles. And the same company provides this service in Barcelona and other cities in Spain.
Does Canada miss the UK inside the EU?
With the UK we have a lot in common and a very intense relationship. For many Canadian companies, the UK was the gateway to the EU. But we have to adjust to what is there.
How do you see the current situation in Gaza?
Terrorism is always indefensible, and nothing can justify Hamas’ acts of terror with the murder, maiming and kidnapping of Israeli civilians. Canada fully supports Israel’s right to defend itself, within the parameters of international law. We continue to call for the immediate release of the hostages and demand that they be treated in accordance with international law. But Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people or their legitimate aspirations. Canada supports the right of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples to live in peace, security, dignity, and freedom from fear.
We are deeply concerned about the dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. Rapid access of aid through a humanitarian corridor is essential to address the urgent needs of civilians in Gaza. International law, including humanitarian law, must be respected and civilians, journalists, humanitarian workers and medical personnel must be protected. The loss of civilian lives is deeply disturbing and our heartfelt condolences go out to all those whose families and communities have been affected. Canadians and people around the world must be steadfast in our support for the protection of civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian.
Is bilateral cooperation in the defense industry possible?
Both countries have strong industries and there are always possibilities for collaboration. I cannot give details on specific projects, but there is that will, and our NATO membership will facilitate that cooperation. On the commercial front, a few months ago my government announced the purchase of two A330 MRTTs from Airbus Spain for the Canadian Armed Forces. This is an example of how we are taking Spanish industry into account.
As a NATO member, we maintain our support for Ukraine, but it seems that start to be dissenting voices, even in the United States.
Before the invasion, Canada had the second largest population of Ukrainians outside Ukraine, behind Russia. So our support is very strong and we will be there until the end. For Europe it is also an existential question. The invasion of a sovereign country, with recognized borders, is unjustifiable. It is not known how long this war may last and whether there will be internal dynamics in any country that may limit this support. But, today, the commitment is from all NATO members and also from other countries, such as Australia, Japan or Korea, It is not simply a NATO issue. The United States has a complex political dynamic. But it approved a budget it did not have to help Ukraine.
Will sanity prevail?
I do not know. We are in unpredictable times. But let me add one detail: Canada and the United States have a very important defense relationship because we share Arctic security and who is on the other side of the Arctic?
Russia?
Exactly.
By the way, should economic or environmental interests take precedence in the Arctic?
Both are important. The Arctic for us is about 40% of our territory. Although 90% of our population is within 150 kilometers of the U.S. border, there are 200,000 Canadians living in the Arctic, half of whom are indigenous. Climate change is affecting them three times more than the global average. It is therefore very important to take care of the environment.
But we have to recognize that, at the same time, people need economic opportunities. You have to work with the people who live there to find the right balance. And not just in the Canadian Arctic but throughout the Arctic. To do that we have to work with the other countries, even if it’s quite a bit more difficult now with Russia.
China also claims a part of the Arctic even though it is not a riparian country.
Yes, it’s a bit odd, but it also has a commercial explanation. With the melting ice, the Northwest Passage can shorten distances for exports. There I see above all a commercial interest of China.
On climate change, there are countries that do not accept proposals to reduce the ‘greenhouse effect’. What can be done?
The energy transition does not come without cost. I give you the simple example of closing coal mines, on which many jobs depend. Governments also have to think about the welfare of their people. And there are also countries in the South that see the energy transition as an additional cost imposed by the North, which they accuse of benefiting from the pollution of the planet and now do not want to pay the cost.
They also argue that decarbonization will impede their growth.
Exactly. But let’s also bear in mind something that is not talked about much. To make that transition we need natural resources, mines. Those who fight for the environment also fight against mining. But we have to reconcile all that for the well-being and the future of the planet, even if it seems a contradiction.
Can multilateralism be imposed by force and ‘à la carte’, as Russia justifies itself by accusing the West, in particular the US, of a kind of ‘neo-imperialism’?
The great powers are few. We are more the middle powers. Spain and Canada have benefited greatly from the multilateral system and we know its value. A world in which the strongest is right does not work for anyone. We have to make sure that multilateralism works in the interests of the majority. The truth is that we are operating with a 1945 system. And the world has changed. At the same time there are certain structures like the UN Security Council, where five countries have a veto… and they have a veto!
The question is to change that system. But those who could change it won’t, will they?
The five with the right to veto would have to agree. And I don’t think so. For its part, Russia is using its position for its own interests, without really respecting multilateralism. The invasion of Ukraine is a contradiction but it is also an offense to the principles of the United Nations, which state that the borders of each country must be respected. Russia is completely ignoring this, in a clear violation of international law. It is not respecting multilateralism at all, it is only imposing its interests.
And at the same time it is throwing the burden of proof against the West.
That is why this war against Ukraine is not like any war. Because the aggressor is a permanent member of the Security Council that is violating the law.
How can be solved the problem of the right of veto?
I have been watching the UN debates on Security Council reform for many years. And I don’t see an easy solution. Canada is part of the group that proposes more non-permanent members and calls for a responsible use of the veto. But you can’t impose any rules about the veto on those who have it. We keep talking about it, and on, and on, and on, but we’ve been going on for many years now and I still don’t see a way out.
When we talk about feminist governments, what exactly are we talking about?
When we talk about feminist politics in Canada we are talking about changing a system of dominant and dominated. It’s not just about women and men. It’s about marginalized populations, the LGTBI community, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities. The feminist vision takes into account all of this to be much more transversal and talk, not only about rights, but also about equal treatment for all.
We started with the policy of international cooperation. We had to work specifically on promoting the role of women in decision-making. In the area of Women, Peace and Security, we promote the participation of women in peace negotiations, in UN peacekeeping forces, and it is not only about having parity in participation but also about changing the structure, the way of thinking.
Canada and Spain, among others, are going to send peacekeeping forces to Haiti. Shouldn’t this mission be accompanied by other economic, social and educational measures?
At the moment, it is a question of reinforcing the security systems. That is the reason for the mission. We have learned over the years that any solution for Haiti has to be identified by the Haitians themselves. The solution has to come from them. A solution imposed from outside is unlikely to work. I fully agree with the measures you put forward, but without security it will be very difficult to implement.
