Analysis of Canadian Foreign Policy
Since time immemorial, Canada has maintained a rather modest position in the world, with its foreign policies being a reflection of its relationships with its allies, chiefly the U.S. Although this has been changing in the last half-decade, there have not been significant changes in its stand. The country's foreign policy has been argued to be consistent with its internal politics, which is characterized by a high level of stability achieved through compromise and a unique disinclination to rapid changes. This is one of the essays on foreign policy in which specifically Canadian foreign policy is analysed.
Introduction
Over time, Canada has managed to exert international influence through diplomacy and coordinated activities with significant partners and in particular the U.S. However, due to the fundamental tensions between the two countries resulting from power shifts has led to a substantial change in the manner in which Canada approaches foreign policy today. Considering the past half-decade, Canada's foreign policy has been dominated by a liberal-internationalist practice through which the country pursues universal values and multilateral associations. Although Canada has been seeking this as a sovereign state, its efforts have been constrained both locally and internationally by the dominance of the U.S. Although a superpower in current standards, Canada emerges as a middle-power state in the context of foreign policy based on the dependence perspective.
Nevertheless, the current progress indicates a rapid shift to neo-realism, suggesting that the country is fast becoming a sovereign power in the world focused on advancing its interest by promoting its distinctive values globally. This paper aims to provide insight into the nature of foreign policy in Canada with particular attention to the government under the leadership of Stephen Harper. To achieve its objective, the paper will consider the historical evolution of foreign policy since the 1940s. Then it will examine the key characteristics of the practice during Harper's era, and the fundamental changes experienced during his time. Finally, the findings will be applied to determine whether the approach during this era was a success or not.
Understanding the Canadian Foreign Policy Process
To a large extent, foreign policy practices in Canada have operated in agreement with those of America and Europe. In this case, Canada functions as a loyal partner amidst the dominant western allies. This trend has been observed consistently since the world wars, and presently I how it participates in the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). By playing a laid-back role, the country has positioned itself as a clam and friendly nation. Thus, both the domestic and policy developers in Canada have always shied away from overly divisive actions that are considered a significant threat to its reputation and economy. By being overly cautious, the country has been experiencing challenges in developing and strengthening its foreign policies. That is, whereas the country has been unable to square its commitment to principles of the rule of law, freedom and democracy, and its desire to protect its image, interests and promote safety. During the 40s (when the country had freshly gained its independence from the British), the country's foreign policies were still underdeveloped, and therefore Canada remained neutral. However, during the 60s through to 80s, the country began to pursue an increasingly independent course in particular regarding its international relations. By then, Canada was making an independent decision regarding wars without seeking consent from Britain. Nevertheless, the country has maintained strong ties with Britain to date, which to some extent, influences its approach and practice in foreign policy. To date, Canada's strongest international allies remain to be Britain and the U.S., although it has close ties with other countries such as Australia, France, and Israel. Such relations have been developed and maintained based on history, ideology, and strategy.
The development of Canada's foreign policy has been credited widely to Lester Pearson, who was the prime minister between 1963 and 1968. Having worked in a high profile position in the U.N. and NATO, Lester aided in establishing popular ideas of foreign policy. Most important to Canada at the time was to assert independence from its allies while promoting peacekeeping. To date, these values have been maintained and championed vigorously. In the modern-day, the country has embarked on internal systems to develop its policies. This strategy has played two leading roles; one, it has strengthened the country's stand as an independent state and two, it has helped policymakers to promote Canada's interests and values. Being a democratic state, the process of formulating foreign policies has been a consensus between the country and the civil society. While the state considers externalities that should be part of the plan, the civil society tables the preferences of the various groups in the country. Thus, Canada's external behavior and actions are informed not only by its capability and power but also by the preferences, values, and interests of its people.
Players in the Foreign Policy Formulation Process
The most crucial question in terms of the Canadian foreign policy is related to the formulation process. While some authors argue that foreign policy should revolve around human security, there is an argument that it should allow the input of the various actors who are responsible and actively conduct the external affairs of a country. The actors, in this case, include individuals or institutions. This means that the process follows a harmonized approach where the policies are products of consensus between all parties. Regarding Canada, following actors are involved; Foreign affairs and international trade, The Privy Council Office (PCO), The Prime minister’s Office (PMO), The Department of National Defense (DND), and The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Canada’s Foreign Policy since the 40s
In terms of foreign policy, the country has portrayed a somewhat bipolar personality i.e., realism on one side and romanticism on the other. In the case of realism, foreign policy is explained in terms of power politics. According to Lui, 'political realism has constituted the principal tradition for the analysis of international relations'. Although there is a constant disagreement on the exact meaning of power, there is a general consensus that internal politics have a significant impact on foreign policy. The argument is that the relative size of a country, as measured by its material resources, influences its ability to set foreign agendas and boosts its ability to influence decisions in international affairs. In sum, realism posits that countries with higher powers will enjoy a relatively larger action space than weaker countries in their foreign policies. Ideally, the concept of realism presents a top-down approach with which foreign policy is explained. Realism holds that survival is the primary focus of states in international affairs, which can only be achieved through 'self-help.' Survival and self-help are influenced by the levels of socialization and competition within the global systems, which further shapes the individual country's behavior and approach towards foreign policy. Over the last few decades, Canada has emerged as a defensive realist, as evidenced by its pursuit of balancing systems. Through the years, its role within the U.N. and NATO has been that of a mediating partner. By championing the creation of power balance, the country has remained neutral and, as a result, managed to maximize its security. As a realist state, Canada has been championing its cause, which, according to Lui, is the advocacy for human rights, which is central to its foreign policy.
Romanticism, on the other hand, is portrayed by the strategic adoption of culture in foreign policy. Features of political romanticism indicate strong links to liberal cultures, which Canada has displayed over the decades. Preece notes that romanticism in Canada is evident in its peacekeeping initiatives, which have long been a central theme in its foreign policy discourse (n.p). From this perspective, Canada displays a sense of internationalism and responsibility, which brings out the idea of romanticism. However, this trend has been on the decline since the end of the cold war. Preece notes that Canada's commitment to peacekeeping has been declining to indicate a shift in foreign policy ideology. Although the international community has criticized this, the transition has proved to be beneficial to the country. In the recent past, the country has resolved multilateralism, which involves the formation of alliances, collaboration in international aid, and mediation. According to Lai, multilateralism in foreign policy requires states to follow international practices and respecting international institutions. Although countries still prefer unilateralism and bilateralism in foreign policy, seemingly multilateralism is the current global order. However, although this is the case in Canada, the approach to multilateralism has been affected by the divergent visions of the dominant political parties, the liberals and conservatives. Whereas the conservative support an ethnocentric view, the liberals are more inclusive and seem to be accommodative of Canada's 'reality.'
Canada’s Foreign Policy Under Harper’s Administration and Its Characterization
Stephen Harper was a conservative politician who served as Canada's Prime Minister between February 6, 2006, and November 4, 2015. As such, his leadership reflected the values and demands of the conservative party. Authors note that Harper's approach to foreign policy differed significantly from his predecessors, the liberals, as well as the progressive conservatives. Under his rule, the country experienced the most radical shifts since the Second World War. As a result, there was a general feeling that Harper's governorship was a deviation from Canada's norms. Although it is unclear whether Harper's approach was influenced by his personal beliefs or those of his party, there is evidence of a decisive break from the practices by other governments, both liberal and conservative. To some, Harper's government had taken a 'U-turn' concerning foreign policy. This view is about the government's shift to a 'more-principled' foreign policy. Harper's approach was to deviate from the much-popularized multilateralism and internationalism to bilateralism. This is evidenced in his decision to strengthen Canada's ties with the U.S. and reducing engagements with the U.N., which he felt was being governed by corrupt leaders. For instance, during his tenure, the deployment of troops to UN-led peacekeeping missions was reduced. Instead, more forces were engaged in US-led anti-terror initiatives, especially in Afghanistan. To some extent, Harper's decisions were being influenced by his party, whose rhetoric was to embrace national interests as being central to its foreign policy.
In reviewing Canada’s foreign policy stand, Gravelle et al., note that the country lacks an explicitly stated policy. Hence, leaders strive to achieve the goals shared commonly by the electorates. In the case of Harper, the focus was on building a strong economy to enable it to retain its dominance in the region. Although the administration supported multilateralism, it was somewhat impartial. For instance, observes that Harper's administration was quick to pull out of the U.N. initiatives. A case in point is the 2011 decision to withdraw from the U.N.'s convention to combat desertification, which suggested a formal withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. In pursuing the economy as the driving force in foreign policy, Harper's government oversaw a complete overhaul of the country's public diplomacy, security plan and international cooperation activities. To some, the focus on the economy was a limited conception that had implications for the country's foreign policy (McKetcher and Sarson, 351). Nevertheless, Harper's supporters viewed economic diplomacy as a renewed focus that reflected Canada's values. Although the emphasis on trade during this era was not a new thing, the intense focus on economic management placed by this government is undeniable.
Critical
Changes in Canada's Foreign Policy under Harper Authors argue that the essential changes in foreign policies under Harper's administration were influenced to a large extent by the Reform Party that had broken away from the Conservative party in the 80s. They argue that the Reform Party not only influenced Harper's ideologies on foreign policy but also his successors'. Bratt contends that the parties Blue Book published in 1988, provide specific recommendations regarding trade, immigration, and defense. The foreign policy changes effected under Harper’s leadership have been discussed under the following headings;
Foreign affairs: concerning international relations, Harper's government achieved two key milestones that were part of his government's priorities. First, he successfully championed for foreign policy in the context of human rights, political democracy, and economic freedom. According to Bratt, Harper considered these as being central to the country's foreign policy. To further emphasize these values, Harper took a strong stand in supporting democratic allies while opposing dictatorial leadership. The second milestone was the prompt government review of Canada's participation in international institutions. Although this was a bit controversial with the country supporting some organizations (NATO and G7) and providing less support for others (UN, Common-wealth, and La Francophonie), its stand was consistent with the values it supported. Perhaps Harper's most significant foreign policy was the Arctic Sovereignty Policy that sought to re-establish Canada as the sovereign state in the region. The plan saw a radical push for defense upgrade in the area, both inland, and sea.
International trade: as noted earlier, Harper's approach was strongly influenced by the Reform Party; hence, most of its changes were based on the party's priorities. As such, the government promoted international trade by championing free trade agreements, e.g., the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and Bilateral trade agreements with South Korea and other Asian countries.
Defense: Although the country has been regarded as a laid-back state, Harper’s era was characterized by a rapid engagement of military forces. Precisely, this is evidenced in its active involvement in NATO and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the wars in Libya and Afghanistan. Bratt notes that during this era, Canada increased resource allocations to its forces that boosted its combat as well as disaster response capabilities. Furthermore, the country was more involved in international stabilization initiatives, as evidenced by its deployment of forces to missions in Libya, Afghanistan, and ISIS. However, it should be noted that the troops deployed were to the aid of allies and not towards UN-led tasks. The U.N., in a 2015 report, noted that Canada reserved only 84 police officers, nine military experts, and only 20 troops to its missions. This was indicative of Harper's opposition towards U.N. operations. Nevertheless, the government increased the military budget year-on-year.
Foreign aid: Although there was an overall decrease in foreign aid, Harper's government achieved most of the related reforms. For instance, it restructured CIDA, thus allowing the deployment of overseas aid through individuals and private organizations. Secondly, the government operationalized a recommendation to ban funding to countries that oppressed human rights, which saw the then Finance minister impose a five-year ban on foreign aid. Although this was regarded as being harsh, observes that it was a tactic by Harper’s government to “play to the base” as had other governments before him. Noteworthy, although the government was pro-development at the time, it politicized foreign aid, which saw funding for an organization supporting its policies and cessation of the financing for those that didn't.
Was The Government’s Approach to Foreign Policy a Success?
The question of whether Harper's government succeeded in promoting the country's foreign policy or not is a cause of heated debate, especially today. On one side, critics feel that the administration deviated from the country's values and beliefs and, as a result, place the country in harm's way. On the other hand, supporters feel that Harper's approach was warranted, considering that he was addressing the failures of his predecessors. This paper argues that Harper's plan was successful to some extent. The reason being that most of the policies passed during his time were based on the recommendations of the Reform Party. The Reform Party was more realists and strived to address the issue of Canada in the real world, and therefore most people agreed with its recommendations. Furthermore, Harper's firm stand in what he believed in was a success in itself. For instance, an open expression of support for allies and opposition to its foes was apparent. This is an indication that the country had an idea of its position in the world order upon which it can build its power base.
Conclusion
This paper has analyzed the Canadian foreign policy processes by focusing on the trends since it gained independence approximately half a decade ago. Specifically, it has focused on a particular era under the leadership of Stephen Harper. The country has indicated a consistent reliance on its closest ally, which is the U.S. where the policies, whether politically or economically motivated, inclined towards its relation with the superpower. As a country categorized as an intermediate power state, Canada has continuously demonstrated a significantly high level of influence in the globe. In particular, the country has made vital advances under the leadership of Harper despite the political challenges that have resulted in policy discontinuities.
