Canada as a Liberal Middle Power in International Relations - Literature review Example

Canada as a Liberal Middle Power in International Relations After the end of the Second World War, Canada was not a major power but enjoyed international recognition and influence on international issues. Due to this position, it was classified as a middle power whose influence could be leveraged in solving international disputes (Paris, 1997). The approach adopted by the country was that of liberal internationalism which promotes the use of multilateralism, diplomacy and peaceful methods in solving conflicts. Its traditional values in foreign policy are neutrality and mediation. The country has also been instrumental in peacekeeping missions and committed to multilateral organizations (Potter, 1996). However, since the establishment of the Harper regime, there have been considerable changes in the country’s foreign policy. These changes include a more active participation in the war against terror, its alignment with the western ideologies especially regarding the Middle East and its reduced involvement in multilateralism (Boucher, 2009). A middle power in international relations is a sovereign state that is neither a superpower nor a great power but nevertheless enjoys international recognition and has an influence on international issues. The concept of middle powers arises from the division of the world into classes according to their military and economic capabilities. This division provides a state’s relative power in international relations and includes a division into great power, major power, middle power and minor power (Chapnick, 2005). A middle power ranks between a major power and a minor power and has adequate capability to stand on its own without support from other states. Middle powers are distinguished by their foreign policies, which involve the pursuit of particular types of foreign policies. These powers use their diplomatic skills in achieving international peace through policy behaviours that stabilize the global order (Jordaan, 2003). The international relations behaviour of middle powers is referred to as middle power diplomacy. This diplomacy involves the pursuit of multilateral solutions to international issues and the tendency to assume compromise positions in international disputes. In essence, middle powers are important in bridging the gap between the major powers and the minor powers and adopt a liberal internationalism approach to international relations (Holbraad, 1971). Liberal internationalism is an international relations theory that provides that liberal states should get involved with other states in the pursuit of its liberal objectives. This theory follows that the cause of conflict and instability is the undemocratic feature of international politics, especially with regard to the balance of power and foreign policy (Franceschet, 1999). This approach holds the view that the anarchy of international system and violence can be avoided through corporation. It embraces international progress, diplomacy, multilateralism, interdependence, and corporation. The focus of this theory is to promote human rights through expansion of free trade and democratic practices (Jahn, 2009). This idea was inspired by Emmanuel Kant’s concept of perpetual peace. According to Kant’s theory of perpetual peace, republic states where citizens make decisions are less likely to engage in war and, therefore, it is possible to achieve peace if all states become republics with democracy. The main element of international liberalism is ending conflicts through spreading liberal democracy, which is consistent with Kant’s concept of perpetual peace (Kant, and Kant, n.d.). Following the end of the Second World War, Canada did not have the privileges of a major power but did not want to play the role of a small power. At this time, Canada had a good army, a flourishing economy, and undamaged industries. However, after the war the country was allied to the United States and Britain and had made military contributions to the war (Gecelovsky, 2009). During conferences at the United Nations, Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie emphasized that Canada would not be forced to join wars by the major powers. Because Canada had intentional recognition and influence, the UN charter was changed so that a country is first consulted about the operations of war before being asked to contribute. In various other conferences at the United Nations, Canada and other middle powers limited the intentions of major powers to dominate all aspects of the United Nations (Neufeld, 1995). During the post-war era, there was the need for middle powers to act as intermediaries of the United Nations especially in conflicts arising out of the disengagement of colonial powers. Middle powers were less involved in world politics and economics making them ideal intermediaries. Canada was, therefore, instrumental in seeking compromises for agreements and providing peacekeeping operations when it was required (Hynek, 2005). Canada played an important role in the international system as a diplomat and a peacemaker. After the end of the Second World War, the world was held in a balancing act between the soviet socialist bloc and the Western bloc. Canada in its role as a middle power was to act as a global arbitrator between the two blocs. Although Canada enjoyed protection by NATO and the US, it pursued relations with socialist states such as China and Cuba. Canada’s practicality in pursuing such relations inspired its independence within the bipolar international setup (Potter, 996). Canada’s engagement with the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin, for example, upset the United States; however, the US continued to strengthen its ties with Canada. Canada’s peace mission to Moscow, under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, was intended to strengthen ties between the two nations. The mission was independent of US approval and could potentially affect the relationship between Canada and the US. However, Canada and the US sustained their mutually beneficial association resulting t in the signing of the free trade agreement in 1988. The relationship between Canada and the two opposing blocs defined its status as a middle power. As a result, it played a role in peacekeeping missions especially during the Suez crisis, nuclear demobilization and its commitment to the international criminal court (Chapnick, 2000). As a middle power, Canada’s foreign policy has taken the approach of liberal internationalism. Its traditional values on foreign policy have been neutrality and mediation. As such, it has historically focused on issues such as peacekeeping, human security, development and multilateralism (Pratt, 1988). Canada was involved in various peacekeeping missions such as in Korea in 1947, Palestine in 1949 and Kashmir in the same year. It was also a key player in the invention of the peacekeeping forces under the UN, especially in the Suez crisis in 1956. Canada has been committed to maintaining civilized relations among foreign nations by establishing law and order through peace efforts. Canada’s foreign policy recognizes the desire for the rule of international law (Munton, and Keating, 2001). When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, Canada opposed the imposition of sanctions by the League of Nations. It also opposed sanctions when Italy invaded Abyssinia. Canada argued against the concept of collective security and stressed that the role of the League was not punishment but conciliation and mediation. After the collapse of the League of Nations, the country actively participated in the formation of the UN (Millman, 1997). Historically Canada has made a prominent and enduring contribution to international security through peacekeeping. However, since the September 11 attacks in the United States, Canada has participated in the war against terror, which involved the deployment of troops to Afghanistan. The key members of the cabinet including Harper have visited the region in support of the troops. Apart from the participation in combat, the country also participates in the redevelopment and reconstruction in the region. Harper has encouraged the continued participation of Canada in the war against the Taliban (Boucher, 2009). Although Canada’s foreign policy has followed the concept liberal internationalism since the end of the Second World War, Stephen Harpers government has rejected many of the elements that underpin this doctrine. The most notable change in the Canadian foreign policy is its policy about Israel where it cut off diplomatic relations and financial aid to Palestine after Hamas took over (Kelly, 2011). Before Harper took office, the Canadian stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict was that of neutrality where it acted as a neutral broker between the states. When Canada contested and lost a seat in the UN Security Council, Harpers foreign policy, particularly the biased support for Israel was cited as the cause (Massie, 2009). Canada has also contributed to the Crimean issue as well as participating in campaigns against the Islamic State in Iran (MacLean, 2009). The Syrian case has been illustrative of Canada’s departure from its traditional foreign policy behaviour (Côté, Murphy and Cote 2001). It is also noteworthy that Canada’s standing in multilateral relation has significantly reduced under Harper. The country only made modest contributions to the NATO following the Ukraine crisis. It has also reduced its funding to the Commonwealth secretariat and even boycotted its meeting in Sri Lanka (Bernard, 2006). Under the Harper regime, there has also been a considerable increase in military spending in the country with an increase in naval fleets and solders. Harper declared that the Arctic waters belonged to Canada and went to the region to defend the country’s sovereignty despite US contention that the waters were in a neutral territory. This assertion of the country’s sovereignty saw the increase in funds and military personnel patrolling the northern waters (Dodds, 2010). Harpers government also censured Russia after the Ukraine –Crimea crisis condemning its military intervention in Ukraine and recalled its ambassador in Moscow. Harper led the other G8 countries in suspending Russia’s membership due to a violation of the Budapest agreement (Hart, 2009). Canada has been liberal internationalist, however, since the establishment of the Harper government its foreign policies have begun to take different approach. There have been significant changes regarding multilateralism, security, immigration, peacekeeping and trade. Canada’s traditional policy was not to get involved, but Harpers government has become more involved in the war in Iraq (Sjolander, 2009). His Artic policy is also a divergence from the policies adopted by previous regimes. It is worth noting that Canada’s involvement in peacekeeping has been through the UN traditionally, however, the current trend has been trough NATO or national initiatives. It has significantly reduced its engagement trough multilateral organizations as well as limiting its participation in peacekeeping (Jockel and Sokolsky, 2008). Additionally, the Canadian-US border policies have always taken the approach of openness but with the Harper regime, the border has thickened in favour of security. This is also a shift from liberal internationalism where the country pursues national economic interests as opposed to international interests. It is evident from such departures that Canada’s loyalty to its liberal middle power tradition has changed significantly under Stephen Harper (Cameron, Lawson and Tomlin, 1998). Reference list Bernard, P. (2006). Canada and Human Security: From the Axworthy Doctrine to Middle Power Internationalism. American Review of Canadian Studies, 36(2), pp. 233-261. Boucher, J. (2009). Selling Afghanistan: A Discourse Analysis of Canada's Military Intervention, 2001-08. International Journal: Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 64(3), pp. 717-733. Cameron, M., Lawson, R. and Tomlin, B. (1998). To walk without fear. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Chapnick, A. (2000). The Canadian Middle Power Myth. International Journal, 55(2), pp. 188. Chapnick, A. (2005). The middle power project. Vancouver: UBC Press. Côté, J., Murphy, B. and Cote, J. (2001). The Ugly Canadian: The Rise and Fall of a Caring Society. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, 27(1), pp. 116. Dodds, K. (2010). We are a northern country: Stephen Harper and the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record, 47(04), pp. 371-374. Franceschet, A. (1999). The Ethical Foundations of Liberal Internationalism. International Journal, 54(3), pp. 463. Gecelovsky, P. (2009). Constructing a middle power: Ideas and Canadian foreign policy. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 15(1), pp. 77-93. Hart, M. (2009). From pride to influence: Towards a new Canadian foreign policy. UBC Press. Holbraad, C. (1971). The Role of Middle Powers. Cooperation and Conflict, 6(1), pp. 77-90. Hynek, N. (2005). Canada as a Middle Power: Conceptual Limits and Promises. Central European Journal of Canadian Studies pp. 33-43. Jahn, B. (2009). Liberal internationalism: from ideology to empirical theory – and back again. Int. Theory, 1(03), pp. 409. Jockel, J. and Sokolsky, J. (2008). Canada and the war in Afghanistan: NATO's odd man out steps forward. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 6(1), pp. 100-115. Jordaan, E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon, 30(1), pp. 165-181. Kant, I., Humphrey, T. and Kant, I. (n.d.). Perpetual peace, and other essays on politics, history, and morals. Kelly, B. (2011). Changes to the Canadian Foreign Policy Agenda: From Liberal Internationalist to Neo-Realist. The Lyceum, 1(1), pp. 22-31. MacLean, G. (2009). The Future for Human Security in Canada: Evaluating 'Change' in Foreign Policy. JOHS, 5(3), pp. 58-71. Massie, J. (2009). Making Sense of Canada's "irrational" International Security Policy: A Tale of Three Strategic Cultures. International Journal: Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 64(3), pp. 625-645. Millman, B. (1997). Canada, sanctions and the Abyssinian crisis of 1935. The Historical Journal, 40(1), pp. 143-168. Munton, D. and Keating, T. (2001). Internationalism and the Canadian Public. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 34(03). Neufeld, M. (1995). Hegemony and foreign policy analysis: The case of Canada as middle power. Studies in Political Economy, pp. 48. Paris, R. (1997). Peace building and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism. International Security, 22(2), pp. 54-89. Potter, E. (1996). Niche Diplomacy as Canadian Foreign Policy. International Journal, 52(1), pp. 25. Pratt, C. (1988). Ethics and Foreign Policy: The Case of Canada's Development Assistance. International Journal, 43(2), pp. 264. Sjolander, C. (2009). A funny thing happened on the road to Kandahar: The competing faces of Canadian internationalism?. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 15(2), pp. 78-98. Read More