Class Notes (807,235)
Canada (492,664)
POL312Y1 (43)

POL312 Sept 17.pdf

8 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Political Science
John Kirton

September  17,  2013   Key  words   Notes     three  ways  of  looking  at  foreign   • There  are  three  ways  to  look  at  Canadian  foreign  policy.     policy:   -­‐ PD   -­‐ peripheral  dependency   -­‐ LI   -­‐ liberal  internationalist   -­‐ NCR     -­‐ neo-­‐realism  complex?   • Canada  was  not  small  or  middle,  but  a  big  principal  power  with  a     foreign  policy  which  followed  from  that.  The  idea  that  Canada  as  a     principal  power,  seemed  like  a  heroic  and  outrageous  thought.       • A  few  years  ago,  the  PM  suggest  that  Canada  was  an  emerging  energy     super  power  in  the  world,  which  may  be  running  the  acclaim  that     Canada  might  be  a  principal  power  a  but  modest.  In  the  statement     Canada’s  relative  capability   Harper  went  on  to  identify  a  number  of  ways  in  which  Canada  was   (power)  comes  from  its  foreign   number  one  in  the  world  out  of  the  200  countries  that  exist.     policy  behavior.   • It  is  useful  to  keep  track  in  which  Canada  might  be  number  one  in  the     world.  Central  to  our  theoretical  systems  is  the  idea  that  it’s  the     basic  realist  idea,  that  a  country’s  relative  capability  (power)  is     from  which  foreign  policy  behavior  springs.       Canadian  foreign  policy  is  the   • So  if  Canada  is  number  one,  in  a  number  of  different  ways  of  things   forefront  of  public  policy   that  count  in  international  politics  that  you  may  have  a  foreign  policy     that  follows  a  pattern  that  a  rather  differently  then  what  most     Canadians  assume.       • The  primacy  of  foreign  policy  for  Canada’s  political  and  public  life.  it     is  an  empirically  based  claim  that  Canadian  foreign  policy  is  the     forefront  of  the  public  policy.  And  one  good  measure  of  that  is  to     check  if  Canadian  foreign  policy  makes  the  front  page  of  national     newspaper.       CFP  is  central  2  two  center  pieces   • Foreign  policy  story  talking  about  Canada,  the  world  outside,  and   of  CA  history:   foreign  policy  in  relation  to  the  story.  (Story  was  about  agriculture)   -­‐ CA  relations  with  the  US.     • Canadian  foreign  policy  is  central  to  the  2  historical  center  pieces  of   -­‐ National  Unity   Canada  or  Canadian  history.     -­‐ FP  is  center  of  CA  elections   • Most  Canadian  history  argue  that  the  story  revolves  around  two     great  themes:     -­‐ Canada’s  relationship  with  the  US,  which  is  inherently  a     Canadian  foreign  policy  story  if  you  think  that  US  is  in  some     way  foreign.     -­‐ National  unity.  The  professor  argues  that  foreign  policy  is     central  to  the  national  unity  for  Canada.       -­‐ Foreign  policy  is  the  center  of  Canadian  elections  and  their     outcomes.  Most  people  who  pay  attention  to  Canadian  politics     know  and  remember  the  big  4.       a. 1963:  nuclear  weapon.       b. 1988:  the  great  free  trade  election:  should  Canada  have  a  free     trade  agreement  with  the  US?     c. 1957:  the  election  that  ended  the  long  hegemony  of  the  liberal     party  in  Canada.  The  fallout  from  Suez,  that  won  Canada  the     Nobel  peace  prize.  Lester  may  have  been  a  star  aboard  but     most  Canadians  thought  otherwise,  and  they  vote  accordingly.     Particularly  in  maritime  Canada.       d. May  2011:  Stephan  Harper  won  his  majority.  Why?  Basically,     as  polling  illustrated  it  was  because  Canadians  voted  for  who     do  you  trust  with  the  Canadian  economy  during  the  global     financial  crisis?  One  of  the  themes  that  arose  during  the     elections  was  the  G20,  and  how  Stephen  Harper  had  hosted     the  G20  summit.       • Canadians  have  great  expectation  of  their  country  in  foreign  policy.       • There  are  very  few  isolationists  in  Canada  of  the  classic  American     PM  time  is  the  scarcest   sort.     resource  in  the  polity.   • Canadian  somehow  expect  their  federal  government,  to  manage  the     global  economy,  to  prevent  a  crisis  recession,  to  secure  arctic     sovereignty  close  to  home,  to  make  Afghanistan  (half  a  world  away)     a  more  well  developed  and  well  defended  democracy,  and  more     recently  to  help  the  Syrians  get  their  rights,  and  lastly  control  global     climate.       • There  is  a  broadly  shared  belief  in  the  great  expectations  of  Canada     in  the  world.       • Finally  the  scarcest  resource  in  the  polity  is  the  time  of  the  PM.       • PM’s  time:  some  is  personal  stuff.  If  you  look  at  this  time  how  much     is  domestic  and  how  much  of  it  spent  on  foreign  affairs.     • One  good  way  to  count  that  is  to  see  how  much  time  he  spends  on     the  east  bloc  going  over  foreign  affairs,  but  how  often  he  gets  on  the     plain  to  do  diplomacy  himself.       -­‐ When  he  first  got  into  office  in  2006,  on  his  36  day  in  office,  he     went  to  Afghanistan  and  added  a  trip  on  the  same  day  to     Pakistan.       -­‐ And  then  on  day  52,  Mexico  City,  and  his  summit  diplomacy     rolled  out.       -­‐ So  pretty  quickly  foreign  policy  became  pretty  important  for  the     new  PM.     -­‐ It  is  important  to  note  that  neither  the  US  or  the  UN  came  first  as     a  target  of  his  summit  diplomacy.       • The  easy  notion  that  foreign  policy  revolves  around,  do  we  like  the     US  or  do  we  like  the  UN  more,  should  we  go  to  war  against  US  in  Iraq     in  spring  2011  without  UN  resolution.  The  Syrian  question  of  the     moment.  That  is  fairly  easy  question.  Canadians  tend  to  choose  the     UN  and  not  the  US.  However  it  doesn’t  capture  much  from  the     evidence  we  have  seen  about  the  Prime  Minister  actually  does     regarding  foreign  policy.       Bias  in  CA  political  culture:   • After  his  first  year  in  office,  the  PM  did  the  year  end  tv  shows  and  he   -­‐ it  is  CA  lit   was  asked  the  question  “what  was  the  greatest  surprise  you  had   -­‐ It  is  English-­‐CA  lit   coming  in  office”  he  replied,  “how  much  time  he  had  to  spend  on   -­‐ It  is  Eastern  English-­‐CA  lit   international  affairs…”   -­‐ It  is  liberal  lit   • Are  the  three  perspectives  on  international  relations  still   -­‐ It  is  written  by  the  more   relative?  (The  professor  thinks  so.  Also  believes  that  Canada  is  a   affluent  Canadians   major  power)     -­‐ It  is  male  dominnat   • They  have  become  the  basic  architecture  to  the  latest  edition  of  the   -­‐ It  is  predominantly  white   Bratt  and  K  book.     -­‐ Written  mostly  by  Christians   • The  old  perspectives  on  CFP,  peripheral  dependency  (from  the  small   -­‐ It  is  written  by  settlers   power),  IL  (from  the  middle  power),  and  CNR  (from  the  first  power).     • There  is  a  certain  bias  in  the  Political  literature.       -­‐ It  is  Canadian  literature,  produced  by  Canadians  living  in     Canada.  That  might  seem  to  be  obvious  this,  however  if  the     subject  were  American  foreign  policy  you’ve  got  a  vast  majority     of  literature  from  all  sort  of  people  all  over  the  world.    For     example,  in  the  book  the  prof  lists  10  biggest  books  on  Canadian     foreign  policy  and  only  one  of  the  10  came  from  a  non-­‐Canadian.       -­‐ It  is  an  English-­‐Canadian  literature.  Francophone  scholars  are     not  proportionally  represented  in  the  literature  in  the  field.       -­‐ It  is  eastern  English-­Canadian  literature.  There  is  a  strong     eastern  Canadian  bias  in  the  literature.       -­‐ It  is  big  L  liberal  eastern  English  Canadian  literature.  In  part     this  is  because  much  of  the  post  war  literature  was  written  by     friends  and  colluges  of  Mike  Pearson.  Some  BigL  liberal  part     leaders  were  intellectuals  who  ideally  well  known  around  the   Some  other  bias:   world.     -­‐ first  middle  power  men  ship:     -­‐ The  literature  is  written  by,  if  not  rich  Canadians,  relativlty   basically  says  that  Canada  Is   affluent  Canadians.  They  are  also  bias  towards  the  affluent,  in   the  middle  power   terms  of  wo  is  writing  the  literature  and  indeed  what  problems   -­‐ multilateralism:     there  focusing  on.  Increasing  income  inequality  is  a  problem  in   -­‐ Canada  as  a  world’s  principal   Canada,  but  we  don’t  have  attention  to  that  as  a  real  or  desirable   plutocrat   agenda  item  in  Canadian  foreign  policy       -­‐ It  is  mostly  male  dominant.  The  contribution  from  other  gender     has  been  increasing  over  the  past  couple  of  decades.     -­‐ It  is  predominantly  white.       -­‐ It  is  written  by  Christians.  There  is  a  Christian  bias  in  Canadian     foreign  policy  in  the  real  field  to  some  extent,  but  also  in  the     literature.         -­‐ Settlers,  particularly  the  English  and  French  settlers  have     written  the  Canadian  foreign  policy  history.  We  have  no     literature  from  the  first  nations  or  aboriginal  community  within     Canada.  And  the  little  we  got  tends  to  focus  on  specialized  issues.       -­‐ It  is  old  literature.       • There  are  some  other  bias  in  the  field.       -­‐ First  middle  powerman  ship  is  the  idea  we  will  encounter.  Most     people  think  that  it  is  a  good  thing,  normatively  desreiable,  but  it     is  often  a  cope  out.  If  you  believe  in  middle  powership,  you     basically  say  that  Canada  is  basically  a  middle  power  and  cannot     do  anything  meaningful  on  its  own.  It  has  to  round  up  the  other     middle  powers.  Come  to  a  compromise  and  a  consensus  they     have  to  sign  off.  That  is  very  much  different  from  if  you  could  act     right  away  right  on  your  own  and  make  a  difference,  then  if  you     are  captivated  by  middle  powership  and  stuff.       -­‐ Secondly,  multilaterism,  however  to  some  decree  it  is  passing     the  buck  (?).  we  are  baring  our  fair  share  of  burden.  What  is  our     responsibility,  and  if  you  believe  in  multilateral  as  a  good  on  its     own  then  we  have  bias.  You  are  not  actually  sharing  the  burden,     rather  passing  it  on  to  others.       -­‐ Third  Bias:  John  Holmes  threw  this  up  in  1970’s,  Canada  as  the     world’s  principal  Plutocrat:  Canada  is  a  pretty  rich  country.     Given  that  vast  richness,  even  when  we  give  away  a  little  bit  of     money  aboard-­‐  assistance,  is  it  proportioatre  to  the  vast  wealth     we  have?  Not  just  GDP,  but  the  vast  wealth  that  lies  behind.  One     could  even  say  that  at  home  one  of  the  great  Canadian  values  is     automatic  re-­‐distribution.  The  equalization  system  inter-­‐   provincially,  but  Canada  has  been  almost  completely  opposed  to     any  re-­‐distribution  of  wealth  internationally.  There  is  a  great     disconnect  between  what  might  be  normal  on  a  matter  at  home     seems  very  different  aboard.       • Canada’s  …?  All  of  the  emphasis  of  values  in  CFP.  We  believe  out     values  are  better  than  other  people,  but  that  other  people  would  bet     better  off  if  they  adopted  ours     -­‐ Canadian  foreign  policy  is  that  we  have  had  some  success  in     trenching  the  global  order  in  R2P,  responsibility  to  protect.  Many     people  think  that  is  a  good  thing     -­‐ We  have  values  pretty  much  at  the  forefront  of  CFP.       -­‐ Political  culture.  What  is  the  political  culture  in  Canada  and  what     is  the  political  culture  in  Canadian  foreign  policy?  Political  culture     of  Canadian  foreign  policy  law  codified  a  land  mark  article  by     Denis  Stairs,  one  of  the  figures  in  CFP.  In  1982,  in  an  article  called     Political  Culture  of  Canadian  foreign  policy,  he  said  that  either     there  was  one,  and  it  revolved  around  three  things:     a. Founding  of  UN  (this  is  a  liberal  international  interpretation     Canadian  foreign  policy)     b. Conflict  resolution  in  international  order.  another  classic     liberal  portrayal.       c. Relations  with  the  united  states.  Denis  portrays  the  Canadian     relationship  with  US  in  a  particular  way  of  the  ‘model  of     special  partnership’.  A  very  liberal  international  claim  about     the  political  culture  of  CFP  was.       Different  perspective  on  Canadian   • -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐Break-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐   values:     • Different  scholars  perspective  on  the  Canadian  values  of  CFP:   -­‐ Endurance;  Canadian  values   -­‐ The  values  debate  in  CFP.  Denis  claim  is  that  Canada’s  values   are  enduring   were  enduring.     -­‐ Different  Endurances:   -­‐ The  next  major  voice  in  the  debate  was  by  Seymour  Martin-­‐?  and   Canadian  and  American  values  
More Less

Related notes for POL312Y1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.