If Canada is forever doomed to play Robin to the United States' Batman, as one American diplomat suggested in a WikiLeaked diplomatic cable, 2010 was a year where Robin was given a prominent -- and combative -- storyline.

While Canada had a number of foreign policy successes -- the Winter Olympics, throwing around the country's newfound economic clout during the G8-G20 summits, the NATO-ally-pleasing extension of the Afghan mission, an improvement in Chinese-Canadian relations -- there are two notable failures in October that stand out.

"On the whole, Canada had lots of opportunity to shine, but instead of an A-plus, we came away with a D," Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, a left-leaning Ottawa-based think tank, said in an interview with CTV.ca.

In early October, after years of co-operation, the UAE abruptly blocked Defence Minister Peter MacKay and General Walt Natynczyk from even flying through their airspace and booted the Canadian military from their secret base known as "Camp Mirage."

The embarrassing setback was the end result from months of negotiations in which the UAE demanded dozens of new air routes for two of its carriers.

Government House Leader John Baird said the UAE's proposal would have cost Canada "literally tens of thousands of jobs," although he never would quite say where that figure came from.

"It seems to me a diplomatic dispute that we thought we could brush off became much larger than that," Adam Chapnick, a foreign policy expert and deputy director of education at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto, told CTV.ca. "It's quite possible we underestimated the extent to which the UAE would react to more hardball diplomatic tactics."

Chapnick calls the loss of Camp Mirage, which was the vital logistical airbase into Afghanistan, an "expensive blow."

"It's a cost we probably could have avoided," he said.

The loss of the base would become even more expensive after it was announced in November that Canada would be staying in Afghanistan until 2014, adding three more years to the total bill. Estimates put the cost of closing Camp Mirage at $300 million, provided the mission ended at the 2011 deadline.

Within days of that expensive blunder, Canada was delivered a significant -- and shocking -- rebuke from the UN General Assembly when we lost a seat on the Security Council in a secret vote to Germany (OK, fair enough) and Portugal (really? This wasn't soccer!)

In six previous tries, Canada had never lost a bid to sit on the Security Council, and Canada had nine years to get its 2010 bid together.

The government, the opposition and various experts tripped over themselves to explain how such a disaster could unfold.

The government blamed Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff for saying Canada didn't deserve a seat because of Conservative policies. Ignatieff blamed the Conservatives for thumbing their nose at the UN. Others pointed out the UAE campaigned against Canada and a trade deal with Israel may have upset some countries.

"I think it's a culmination of a lack of leadership by Canada. In my work internationally lots of people say, ‘What happened to Canada? You used to be at the forefront of a lot of issues,'" Staples said.

"By focusing on very narrow interests internationally -- which this government has done -- we largely disappeared from other key areas of discussions and the failed UN vote was the result of years of neglect on the international stage."

Chapnick says with a secret vote there may not be a definitive answer to what happened, other than "something went wrong."

"It's clear we can do better on the diplomatic level, Canada did deserve a seat on that Council based on its record, particularly when compared to Portugal," he said.

"We could be more tactical in the bluntness of our diplomacy on the world stage."

The two failures are even more diplomatically devastating considering Canada's significant contribution to Afghanistan over the past eight years. Canadian soldiers have paid the price, taking much higher casualties per capita than our allies, yet that sacrifice did not carry favour with the UAE or in the UN.

"This was supposed to increase Canada's visibility in the world and our kudos on the international stage, and I don't see any evidence of that at all," Staples said. "It shows you that international stature does not come from just being able to exert military force in a single area -- that it's multifaceted and requires attention to many other issues as well."

Success!

The Canadian-Chinese relationship has been a frosty one in the last few years, but 2010 saw that relationship continue to thaw. Following a late 2009 agreement, the first Chinese tourists arrived in Canada in August 2010 under the country's Approved Destination Status.

"We've come to realize it's more effective for us to work with China in whatever way we can, acknowledging we don't agree with things that take place in Chinese politics . . . but to think Canada can change Chinese policy is not realistic and hurts us more than the Chinese to try," Chapnick said.

Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in June resulted in both countries pledging to foster closer economic ties and China announcing it would begin accepting Canadian beef.

Canada's prompt response to the Haiti earthquake in January showed the world our military can do two things at once, and the generosity of ordinary Canadians.

In February, the government announced it would be matching the $113 million donated to Haiti by individual Canadians at that time.

While many Canadians were outraged with the cost of the G8/G20 summits in Ontario and the police crackdown, internationally the summits were seen as a success.

Canada was instrumental in leading the charge to knock down an American-German-British-French proposal for a global banking tax, certainly a feather in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's cap.

While Canadians were shocked to see Toronto police cars set on fire, black-masked bandits breaking windows and looting, and police reaction that eventually led to an internal investigation and at least one assault charge, the rest of the world shrugged it off.

"Although there were a lot of concerns here about the cost . . . Canada's reputation in terms of being able to hold a safe and secure conference was enhanced by the G8 and G20 experience," Chapnick said.

The summit also resulted in Canada's pledge of $2.85 billion over five years for maternal and child health in the developing world, although that was not without controversy after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued maternal health must include safe, legal abortions -- something the Conservative government did not want.

Does it matter?

Poll after poll indicates that the majority of Canadians oppose the Afghan war, and supported the 2011 withdrawal date. However, the decision to extend the mission another three years appears not to have affected the approval ratings of either the Conservatives or the Liberals, who also backed the extension.

"The biggest story of (the year) is Canadians genuinely don't care (about foreign policy)," Chapnick says. "We've had a number of significant events take place in foreign and defence policy, but they really don't hit Canadians' political radar for more then a brief passing, if at all."

Chapnick points out the failure to secure to a UN seat cost the government significant political capital but "after about two weeks, the entire situation fell off the political landscape."

Staples disagrees, saying Canadians still care deeply about our image internationally.

"Canadians are very proud of our international achievements," Staples said, particularly citing Canada's historical ties to peacekeeping.

He speculates that the stalemate of more than a half-decade of minority governments have made political parties cautious in making bold policy pledges.

"They are not willing for leaders (to take) positions that will galvanize people," Staples said.

Chapnick theorizes Canada's relative safety compared to the rest of the world makes it easier to ignore foreign policy.

"We naturally, like other human beings, care about what is in front of us -- and what is in front of us is the economy," he said.

"It's a nice situation to be in, but on the other hand, it can be frustrating because if we want to have a serious national conversation, we need to be engaged or at least we need to be forcing our political leaders to take the conversation more seriously than just thinking about how political points can be scored on each issue."