Canadian FP

Big picture: What today’s lecture is doing

Topic: Canadian foreign policy (with history + institutions + political party/faction differences)

Three parts:

  1. Short post-WWII history of Canadian foreign policy (key highlights)

  2. Link course “approaches” (realism, liberal internationalism, etc.) to Canadian parties

    • Like US: not just party, but factions within parties change foreign policy

  3. Nuts and bolts: key institutions that “do” foreign policy (UN, NATO, NORAD, Global Affairs, CSIS, etc.)

Post-WWII Canadian foreign policy: blend of Liberal Internationalism + Realism

Main point: After WWII, Canada’s foreign policy often looked like a blend of:

  • Liberal Internationalism (often tied to Liberals)

  • Realism, but in Canada a realism that often still supports multilateralism

Why the blend happened:

  • Canada’s governments since WWII were mostly Liberals + Progressive Conservatives

  • Progressive Conservatives were more moderate / “Red Tory” historically

  • So Canada often had a relatively stable “postwar consensus” in foreign policy compared to countries that swing hard.

Middle powers + why Canada’s “realism” looks more multilateral

Categories of power (in the “power and capability” way of classifying countries)

  • Hegemonic power: basically the US

  • Great powers: e.g., China (and in debate: Russia)

  • Middle powers: Canada

Why middle power status matters (this is an exam-style argument)

Canada is not powerful enough to get what it wants alone, so:

  • Even if you’re a realist, it’s rational to use institutions and alliances

  • Middle powers prefer negotiating through broader rules and institutions (ex: WTO), because:

    • negotiating one-on-one with a great power (US) puts Canada in a weak bargaining position

    • negotiating in a multilateral forum lets smaller powers coordinate and not get steamrolled

This is what the lecture called:

Middle Power Internationalism

  • A realist logic for international cooperation

  • It explains why Canadian realists are typically more pro-UN than American realists:

    • American great power realism often treats the UN as optional / constraint

    • Canadian realism often treats multilateralism as practical necessity

(Important nuance: this helps explain why Liberal Internationalism and Canadian Realism often overlap more than you’d expect.)

UN basics: international vs supranational (important definitional point)

UN is an international organization

  • It’s a “club” of states

  • It does not have independent authority over states

Contrast:

  • EU = supranational (a layer above member states)

  • UN is not that.

UN structure (General Assembly vs Security Council)

General Assembly

  • One country, one vote

  • Symbolically like a “parliament of nations”

  • Many resolutions are political statements — enforcement is limited

Security Council

  • Smaller body, focused on security decisions (including military authorizations)

  • 5 permanent members + veto:

    • US, UK, France, China, Russia

  • 10 rotating members

    • Countries apply / campaign for a seat

    • Canada has had seats historically, but has recently been rejected in bids (reasons discussed: perceptions of reduced contributions, peacekeeping decline, etc.)

Key point:

  • Security Council often gets “gummed up” by veto politics (classic example: Cold War).

Example the lecture used:

  • When George W. Bush sought UN approval for invading Iraq, it went through Security Council politics.

UN agencies + what the UN does day-to-day

The UN is not just the Security Council:

  • It has lots of agencies/programs like a giant government structure.

Examples mentioned:

  • IAEA: nuclear inspections (ex: Iran)

  • World Food Programme

  • UN Environment Programme

  • UN Development Programme

  • WHO (COVID and global public health coordination)

The lecture framed it as: the “bread and butter” of the UN is often these programs.

Peacekeeping (and why Canada cares)

What peacekeeping is

  • The UN has no permanent army

  • Troops come from member states

  • Peacekeepers go in after a ceasefire / agreement to:

    • act as a buffer

    • lower chances of accidental escalation

    • help stabilize conditions for diplomacy

Peacekeepers are intentionally visible:

  • blue berets

  • white/light blue vehicles

  • opposite of camouflage (stand out as “neutral buffer”)

Not supposed to fight… but sometimes do

  • In some missions, they are attacked while protecting humanitarian convoys

  • Example mentioned: Bosnia—snipers targeting peacekeepers/humanitarian operations → peacekeepers respond (counter-sniper).

Canada + Peacekeeping identity (Pearson / Suez)

This was described as a foreign policy “high watermark”:

  • Lester B. Pearson (then external affairs minister; later PM)

  • Won Nobel Peace Prize for inventing the first UN peacekeeping force in the 1956 Suez Crisis

  • First peacekeeping mission commanded by a Canadian general

Why it matters:

  • Canada built a national identity around “peacekeeping”

  • Canada used to be a big troop contributor; in recent decades contribution has declined

  • Peacekeeping has changed (more dangerous/more combat-adjacent now)

    • Example: Mali mission was more dangerous; Canada contributed more limited/support roles (like medical/specialized support rather than large troop deployment)

NATO

  • North Atlantic Treaty Organization

  • Cold War Western alliance

  • “Attack on one = attack on all” = Article 5

  • Only activated once historically: after 9/11

    • NATO mission in Afghanistan followed.

Lecture context:

  • Trump complaining NATO “does nothing” vs reality that Article 5 invoked for US after 9/11.

NORAD

  • North American Aerospace Defense Command

  • Canada–US joint air defense (airspace, not navy/coast)

  • Handles tracking aircraft and potential missile threats

  • Also the famous “tracks Santa” joke/reference

  • Important practical point:

    • Canadian and US jets can operate in each other’s airspace under NORAD command structure

    • Example given: 9/11—fighters scrambled; whoever was closest would respond, regardless of nationality, because it’s a joint command arrangement.

Five Eyes

  • Intelligence-sharing group: US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

  • Focus highlighted: SIGINT = signals intelligence

    • “Signals” = electronic communications

    • NSA (US) type functions

Canadian version:

  • CSE (Communications Security Establishment) = Canada’s SIGINT agency

Party history + party factions (how Canadian conservatives changed)

Progressive Conservatives (old Conservative party)

  • PC party = moderate conservatives (“Red Tories”), more centrist than current conservatives

  • Their foreign policy: realism + multilateralism (fits middle power internationalism)

Party breakup (Mulroney era aftermath)

After Mulroney:

  • Conservative coalition collapses

  • PCs reduced dramatically (two seats mentioned)

  • Three factions/parties discussed:

    • Progressive Conservatives (shrunk)

    • Reform Party → later Canadian Alliance (Western, more conservative/populist)

    • Bloc Québécois (Quebec nationalist/separatist MPs break away after failed constitutional negotiations)

Harper “unites the right”

  • Reform/Alliance + PCs reunited

  • But this was described as less “equal merger” and more:

    • the more conservative Western faction becomes dominant

  • Symbolic marker:

    • dropped the word “Progressive”

    • became Conservative Party of Canada

Key exam takeaway:

  • Foreign policy shifts aren’t only “party change”

  • They’re also “which faction is dominant inside the party”

Harper foreign policy vs older PC foreign policy vs Liberals

Iraq War example (difference in approach)

  • Liberals (Chrétien era) supported Afghanistan but not Iraq

  • Harper (as opposition leader) said Canada should support Iraq

  • This reflects:

    • stronger alignment with US Republicans

    • more neoconservative tendencies (moral clarity, taking sides)

Harper-era tendencies described

  • Stronger pro-US stance

  • Pro-Israel stance (less “neutral honest broker” approach)

    • Canada voting patterns at UN shifted (less abstaining, more aligned with US on Israel-related votes)

  • More pro-military rhetoric

    • but actual spending increases limited because libertarian tax-cut priorities often dominate

  • More skeptical of UN institutions

  • Climate retreat: pulled Canada out of key climate commitments (Kyoto noted)

  • Social conservative foreign aid shift:

    • defunding abortion-related support in foreign aid programs (via restrictions on what aid money could be used for)

Liberal era (Chrétien/Axworthy) — “Human Security Agenda” examples

Key themes:

  • shift from state security to people-centered security

  • examples:

    • International Criminal Court (ICC)

    • Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

    • Landmine ban (treat landmines like prohibited weapons because of civilian harm)

Trudeau foreign policy framing

Dominated by progressive wing of Liberals:

  • strong UN engagement

  • climate policy participation + domestic policies

  • refugee admissions (Syrian refugee intake highlighted)

  • “Progressive trade” idea (include labor/environment standards)

  • branding as Feminist Foreign Policy

    • targeted women’s wellbeing in development programs

    • pragmatic logic included (aid effectiveness often improved when delivered through/targeted to women in certain contexts)

Carney shift = “blue liberal” / business liberal + realism + multilateralism

Lecture framing:

  • Carney represents a factional shift inside Liberals:

    • from red/progressive liberalism → blue/business liberalism

  • Global conditions push this:

    • Russia, China, Trump instability, trade uncertainty

  • Realist logic:

    • diversify partners even if imperfect on human rights (UAE etc.)

    • more national interest focus than values focus

  • More explicit focus on:

    • military spending increases (talk of 2% and even stretch targets higher; also “accounting tricks” like counting coast guard etc. were mentioned)

    • pipelines/energy security being treated as more important (even if worse for climate goals)

  • Feminist foreign policy branding dropped (not necessarily every program, but the banner/priority tone reduced)

  • Aid cuts mentioned as significant (48% figure appears in your transcript — keep it as “noted in lecture,” but flag it as “verify if needed”)

Alberta separatism + interference point

  • Alberta separatism not huge in numbers, but concerns were raised about:

    • separatists meeting Trump administration members

    • and/or non-government US ideological groups potentially running influence operations

  • Key lesson:

    • foreign interference doesn’t require hacking voting machines; it can be social media influence campaigns

  • Greenland comparison mentioned: similar influence efforts happening there.

Canadian foreign policy institutions (domestic)

Global Affairs Canada

  • Canada’s “State Department” equivalent

  • runs diplomacy, negotiations, foreign service, development funding mechanisms

  • foreign aid now embedded inside Global Affairs (CIDA used to exist separately)

Ministers associated (as roles):

  • Minister of Foreign Affairs

  • Minister of International Trade

  • Minister responsible for Canada–US Relations (extra role because file is huge right now)

  • International Development (often as a junior minister/secretary role)

CSIS (Canada’s intelligence service) — defensive vs offensive distinction

CSIS = security intelligence, not foreign intelligence:

  • counterterrorism

  • counterintelligence

  • foreign interference monitoring

Analogies used:

  • CSIS = FBI (US), MI5 (UK)

  • CIA / MI6 are offensive foreign intelligence (Canada doesn’t really have an equivalent)

CSE = SIGINT (signals intelligence / electronic)

Department of National Defence

  • Minister of National Defence (political head)

  • Chief of Defence Staff (top military officer)

  • Military operations run by CDS but under civilian control through minister/government structure