Chrystia Freeland already has a job. Two, in fact. One as Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister, the other as its Finance Minister. She has repeatedly said she enjoys both. So why did a speech she gave in Washington D.C. a few weeks ago sound like she was applying for another one?
Delivered at the venerable Brookings Institution, the speech, entitled ‘How Democracies can shape a changed global economy’, laid out why Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine marked the end of the ‘end of history’. Replacing it, Freeland suggested, should be a reconfiguration of key global supply chains towards politically friendly and reliable countries – also known as ‘friend-shoring.’
But was the ‘Freeland Doctrine’ now Canada’s official foreign policy? It is a fair question to ask. As of late, Canada has tried emulating portions of the ‘Freeland Doctrine’. The EV supply chain push for example. But ascribing her remarks to Canada’s newfound posture alone would be giving her ambition short thrift. And, as Freeland is well aware, while ‘friend-shoring’ may resonate with global audiences, it is likely to land with a thud domestically. Increasing the cost of goods and services at a time when they are already more expensive is not a winning recipe.
Another tell-tale sign of the scale of Freeland’s ambition was the use of the word ‘we’ throughout the speech. This was not shorthand for ‘Canadians’ but rather the ‘West’ – a group of advanced, democratic, Allied economies. Her speech was about the need for global, not national, leadership.
So, why give the speech? Surely Freeland knew it would cause at least a minor stir. The timing was also curious. Just a few weeks prior, the Prime Minister made it clear he had no plans to step aside. A fight with Pierre Poilievre, his political nemesis, may simply be too hard for him to pass up. This could only have further dimmed whatever leadership aspirations Ms. Freeland might have.
But even if Prime Minister Trudeau were to call it quits, would Freeland even want to stick around? If the supply and confidence agreement lasts until the end of this mandate, the Liberal government would be closing in on ten years in power. That’s an unscientific, though scarily accurate, best-before date for governments. Before that, she would have to go toe-to-toe with her ambitious, serious, and persistent colleagues in a leadership contest. Then, if she won, Freeland would face a fragile, just-recovering economy in the lead-up to a bruising federal campaign against the strongest Conservative leader since Stephen Harper. It’s a very uncertain and tricky path to power.
Timing is everything in politics, and now may be a tempting time for Ms. Freeland to exit. By Summer 2023 she will have delivered her third budget. That alone gives Freeland the opportunity to chart Canada’s future. It’s a chance to put ‘friend-shoring’ into action. And at only 47, she can always return to politics later. So, where to next?
Global leadership roles are scarce. Leading the UN is one possibility, but there is no indication that role is open. And while NATO rumours around Freeland persist, the fit feels off. While no doubt qualified, defence and security issues have never been as close to her heart as economic ones.
The World Bank definitely fits the bill. Its mission is to help low- and middle-income countries pursue capital projects – a key component of the ‘friend-shoring’ concept. The Bank could also function as a powerful force to aid countries caught between US and China orbits. Helpfully, the World Bank’s current head, David Malpass, is a climate-denying Trump appointee. And while his five-year fixed term is not up until 2024, where there’s a will there’s a way.
Interestingly, Larry Summers recently outlined what a revitalized and renewed World Bank mandate might look like in response to today’s challenges. Along with being a former U.S. Treasury Secretary, Summers was also the Bank’s chief economist. He’s also a close friend of Chrystia Freeland. One need not squint hard to see the policy alignment between Mr. Summers’ remedies and Ms. Freeland’s worldviews.
The only person who knows for sure what the future holds is Chrystia Freeland herself. But by laying out her vision for how the world should approach the coming decades, her cover letter is there for any hiring manager to see.