Canada-US Relations and Canadian Foreign Policy Douglas Brown Politics 220 April 2006

Canada-US Relations and Canadian Foreign Policy The link between globalization and continentalism Dealing with asymmetry in North America Bilateralism versus Multilateralism The “soft power” thesis

Globalization and Continentalism Canada has pursued degrees of economic nationalism since the 1870s (eg 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 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 Allan Gottlieb (Canada’s Ambassador to US in 1980s): Got to go to the top– get good relations with President 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 Need a formal integration relationship (rules-based) to get past American indifference and ignorance

Asymmetry in North America USA = more than 10 times bigger population, and about 15 times bigger economy Mexico and Canada combined still = only about one-third of US population US political system therefore not inclined to share power with Canada and Mexico Means relying on negative integration measures, rather than positive integration

Types of integration Negative integration measures = restricting what governments can do (market liberalization) Positive integration = harmonizing what governments do (harmonized regulation) Positive integration requires strong decision- making institutions, like in European Union. NAFTA and FTA: weak institutions, so mainly rely on negative integration.

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?

Examples of Multilateralism Building the United Nations and its institutions (eg UNESCO, UNICEF) Mutual Defence through NATO G-7 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, negotiating and mediation skills A substitute for “hard power” – arms and money? Works best in multilateral context Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, are countries seen as having a lot of soft power.

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

Canada’s foreign policy under Chrétien Pursuing a “human security” agenda International Criminal Court International Criminal Court Landmine Convention Landmine Convention Kyoto Accord Kyoto Accord Rebuilding the United Nations Rebuilding the United Nations US interests lukewarm or hostile (under Bush) 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

Harper’s approach? Recognize limits to “soft power” – rebuild arms and aid Restore the bilateral relationship – find more common ground with the US Continue to pursue multilateralism, but without isolating the US