Search

Conventional analyses of Canadian foreign policy have depicted Canada as an important middle power, with a special relationship with its American partner based on common values and privileged access to decision-making in Washington. In this paper, we arague that this conventional interpretation is now outmoded, and increasingly irrelevant, given the new shape of global power after September 11th. We evaluated contending images of U.S. preponderance and examine several issues as examples of Canada’s new position in the shadow of the U.S. hyperpower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the basis of the English school concepts of balances of power, great powers and middle powers, the paper argues that the US and China advocate competing concepts of regional order in the Asia-Pacific. The US prefers an order based on the instruments of war, whereas China gravitates towards instruments of diplomacy. Sino-US policies produce an unstable pattern of balancing marked by fluctuating alliance and partnership commitments, a low level of predictability, and considerable freedom of action. This intermediate type of order leaves middle powers such as ASEAN, Russia and South Korea with extraordinary responsibilities for preserving the balance. It is engendered by China’s efforts to postpone agreement on permanent mechanisms of regional order, pending the realization of its development potential allowing it to influence regional order on a par with the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Canada?s international role has been, for decades, well defined: as a middle power, it has played a role of influence in several international spheres. This role as a middle power has been contested for some time though, scholars seeing in it a principal power or even a satellite power. Over the last years, several scholars and observers have fuelled the debate by questioning (see: several issues of ?Canada Among Nations?) and critcizing the role Canada played (Nossal 2003, Stairs 2003a, 2003b, Ignatieff 2003, Cohen 2003, Walker 2004, Welsh 2004). The most recent International Policy Statement issued by the Canadian government even acknowledges this lack of clout (2005:3).Among the many criticisms, one comes often: Canada is aligning its policies too close to its American neighbour's. However, it is well known that Canada declined to go to Iraq, refused to be part of the ballistic missile defence initiative and that the relationship between the Prime Minister?s Office and the White House was for a time, to say the least, cool. Is Canada an autonomous international actor as these events suggest or is Canada backing the US international policies with no reserve?This study will look at specific foreign policy statements issued by the last 3 Canadian governments and will analyze them using national and international values as the independent variable. It will contribute to this key Canadian foreign policy debate. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]