POLI 342 Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Arctic Council, Arctic Cooperation And Politics, World Wide Fund For Nature
11 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
POLI 342
04.06.2018
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE US
AND CANADA
(guest lecturer — Dr. Nord)
Canada/US interesting because we are two societies that
are very similar, yet disagree on a lot.
→ US tried to undermine the beginnings of the arctic
council when Canadians were trying to get things going,
fore example.
Characteristics of the relationship
•brand and complex
•awareness of each other is wide, but shallow: even
for Canadians, lack of knowledge about how American
politics work.
•frequently unexamined
•Assumption of knowledge
•Similar to relations between Nordic states, although
they focus on similarities whereas we tend to focus on
differencents
•They also assume knowledge
•Focus on shared Nordic identity
Approach to the study of the relationship
•elite interactions
•Cross border contacts
•Dimension of national foreign policy, comparative
analysis of public policy
•Mutual perceptions (and misperception)
Ex. Paradox of stereotypes with tourism: Canadians
complain about Americans dependance on stereotypes
(Moose, lakes, maple, etc.) but in our tourism
advertisements, there is main focus on these
stereotypical aspects. This is what brings in the money.
→ Lecturer’s prescription: focus on the larger picture,
urban and cultural aspects
Elite interaction does not tell you very much, they do
not do much substantial decision making in terms of the
relationships. Look more so at bureaucracy.
Nor does quantitative analysis of contact (no one
cares)
Nor does focus on the undefended border. This is
becoming more and more “defended”, metaphorically,
such as in the example of trying to move pension money
across the border.
The usual tropes and headlines are not always
informative or accurate. The oft discussed trade relations
with softwood lumber, fishing, etc., not interesting.
of 1 3
Document Summary
Canada/us interesting because we are two societies that are very similar, yet disagree on a lot. Us tried to undermine the beginnings of the arctic council when canadians were trying to get things going, fore example. Approach to the study of the relationship: elite interactions, cross border contacts, dimension of national foreign policy, comparative analysis of public policy, mutual perceptions (and misperception) Paradox of stereotypes with tourism: canadians complain about americans dependance on stereotypes (moose, lakes, maple, etc. ) but in our tourism advertisements, there is main focus on these stereotypical aspects. Lecturer"s prescription: focus on the larger picture, urban and cultural aspects. Elite interaction does not tell you very much, they do not do much substantial decision making in terms of the relationships. Nor does quantitative analysis of contact (no one cares) This is becoming more and more defended , metaphorically, such as in the example of trying to move pension money across the border.
