Canadian Foreign Policy Douglas Brown Politics 222 March 2013

Outline Canada and the Globalization debate Canada and the USA Canada and Multilateralism Foreign Policy Issues and Trends: The Chrétien/ Martin years The Harper years Future Directions

Defining Globalization Not new, but intensifying…  Internationalization  Liberalization  Universalization  Westernization What is new…?  Speed of global interactions  “Deep integration” of markets  External influence on all aspects of domestic policy

Economic globalization Increasing international trade in goods and services, increasing direct foreign investment Globally integrated production by transnational corporations Global capital market of much greater size and speed All of the above contribute to much greater private and public sector competition, in even the smallest of firms and markets

Globalization – Political and Cultural Aspects Intensifying of international governance  WTO, OECD, regional trade agreements  United Nations agencies (WHO, Climate change)  Human rights movement Global markets for cultural products/ global diffusion of cultural and social trends “Global Civil Society” and the anti-globalization movement

Canada and Globalization Strong exposure:  A trading nation  Anglo culture  North American setting Sorting out cause and effect:  Continental // global  fiscal // economic  Technology // trade

Five indictments against globalization (Brooks) 1.Increasing poverty and inequality at home 2.Bigger income gap internationally 3.Undermines local cultures 4.Undermines government capacity and will 5.Creates more precarious national economies

Answers to the critics: No.1 Increasing inequality and poverty in Canada Poverty not necessarily on the increase in Canada Income inequality may be due as much to technology change as to trade Canada has been doing much better than USA on income inequality issue

Answers to the critics: no. 2 Increases inequality and poverty abroad Brooks: Globalization not necessarily making poorer countries poorer….many have little exposure to global trade Jennifer Welsh: rich country protection of agriculture badly harms poor countries trade potential

Answers to the critics: No. 3 Undermines national cultures Brooks: Strength of local cultures should not be underestimated Note: Islamic countries’ resistance (but are recent events in Middle East/north Africa challenging that?) My question: is Canada able to resist US cultural “imperialism”? Do we care?

Answers to the critics No. 4 Undermines national government capacity and will Brooks: State capacity has not been hollowed-out --- at least not everywhere, and it depends on political orientation to the role of state. National policies (such as for taxes, social programs, environment) experience some harmonization – but not all at the “bottom”

Answers to the critics No. 5 Creates more precarious economies Brooks: global economy is vulnerable to supply chain disruptions 9/11…showed how vulnerable Canada is to US border closing global recession: no one can hide from effects, but Canada did better than most My view: Global financial governance (e.g. G-20 group) is getting better at dealing with crisis points.

Canada-US Relations and Canadian Foreign Policy The link between globalization and continentalism Dealing with asymmetry in North America

Globalization and Continentalism Canada has pursued degrees of economic nationalism since the 1870s (e.g. Macdonald’s National Policy) However, Canada’s trade with USA surpassed trade with Britain in 1921 The Canadian economy became increasingly integrated with the US during and after the Second World War

Why did Canada enter into free trade in 1988? To stop the string of protective tariffs and other US measures affecting Canada since the early 1980s To signal an end of the Trudeau era of economic nationalism To secure and expand access to the US market As a platform for global trade and investment As a policy for achieving global competitiveness

Effects of free trade Huge increase in bilateral trade and investment – 50 percent over ten years Significant adjustment in manufacturing sectors Big generator of growth in all provinces No significant policy convergence effects…but fiscal conservatism has occurred

Asymmetry in North America (1) Canada much more dependent on the US than vice-versa Canada does not count as much in US politics Canadians know much more about the USA than vice-versa Allan Gottlieb (Canada’s Ambassador to US in 1980s):  Got to go to the top– get good relations with President  Need a formal integration relationship (rules-based) to get past American indifference and ignorance

Comparing Size in North America (Population 2006; GNP 2005) USA Population 305 million GNP $ US 12,970 billion Canada 33 million 1,052 billion Mexico107 million 753 billion

Asymmetry in North America (2) USA population about 2 times as big as Canada and Mexico combined. USA economy about 7 times as big as Canada and Mexico combined. US political system therefore not inclined to share power with Canada and Mexico Means there will not be European style “pooled sovereignty” and Union-wide governance, except through the “negative integration” of NAFTA.

Bilateralism versus multilateralism Bilateralism (Canada-US relations) will always be a huge part of our foreign policy. Multilateralism (relations with the broader world) has also always been a major goal. Can we successfully do both?

Brooks’ thesis Irony that with Canada’s greater economic integration with the United States…we may well have created the political space for a more independent foreign policy.

Examples of Multilateralism Building the United Nations and its institutions (e.g. UNESCO, UNICEF) Mutual Defence through NATO G-8 and G-20 IMF, World Bank and WTO Commonwealth and Francophonie summits

Joseph Nye’s “soft power” thesis Smaller countries can be effective in deploying “soft” or intangible resources such as culture, values, moral reputation, and negotiating and mediation capacity A substitute for “hard power” – i.e. arms and money Works best in a multilateral context Canada, Sweden, Netherlands: countries seen as having a lot of soft power. Harper government puts more emphasis on “hard power” ….why?

Canada’s foreign policy under Chrétien and Martin Pursuing a “human security” agenda  International Criminal Court  Landmine Convention  Kyoto Accord  Rebuilding the United Nations  “Responsibility to protect” Bush Administration in the US was lukewarm or hostile to all of these initiatives.

Where bilateralism and multilateralism collide Chrétien government decision on not joining war on Iraq, and perceived softness on war on terror. Reluctance to agree to a North American security perimeter arrangement Increasing public antipathy by Canadians towards Bush regime Yet Liberals decide on large new mission in Afghanistan.

Harper’s approach Recognize limits to “soft power” – rebuild arms and refocus aid – with major emphasis on role in Afghanistan Restore the bilateral relationship – find more common ground with the US Continue to pursue multilateralism, but without isolating the US Canada as an “energy power”: climate change response tied to economic interests….hitting a major roadblock on Keystone pipeline? Is Harper’s approach made easier or harder with the Obama administration?

Future Directions …1 A world of uncertainties….  As the global economy recovers from the big recession, who were the winners and losers?  Has US foreign policy under Obama moved towards a softer approach?  Will China eclipse the US as a world power?  Will there be an ever-increasing reliance on international governance, or has that reached its limits?

Future Directions…2 Domestically-driven priorities….  Trade and investment (moving away form dependence on USA?)  Immigration and refugees….scoring political points or building on globalization?  Climate change and the environment…should we lead and how?  Military and diplomacy: hard power or soft?