Reference: Shaun Narine, Canadian Foreign Policy after Sept.

11th: Following the wrong Path(Nelson 2008)

Subject: Shaun Narine, in his analysis of Canadian Post 9/11 policy, addresses Canada’s history as a important player in the
international, while looking at Canada’s change in foreign policy, under the Harper administration, which has not only brought it
closer to the failed foreign policy of the U.S., but has also radically changed its identity as a multicultural nation, through its
involvement in the War On Terror.

Central Argument: Shaun Narine argues that Canada, under the conservative leadership of Stephen Harper, has managed to overturn
long held policies of the past Liberal Governments while relinquishing much of Canada’s international identity to a flawed ideological
commitment to the U.S.. This attempt of Canada to follow/support American policy, has in effect risked much of Canada’s
contributions to the international system and furthermore has risked its ability to continue as a thriving, multicultural and independent
nation.

Principal Arguments:
Canada’s policy contribution during the Cold War, eclipsed by the ongoing battle between the superpowers, provided the grounds for
multilateralism and international law; working to the benefit of dominant western powers while preserving a sense of relative peace.
The post-Cold War era, in many ways dawned a new era in Canadian foreign policy, in which Canada reversed its role as a middle
man to a minor actor on the global stage, through its inability to be an active participant as peacekeeper. This is further show through
its adoption of “soft power” and “human security” as key policies, which provided a cheap outlet for Canadian Foreign policy, but the
position as a moral compass, through its support for a International system of law and order and multilateralism.

Despite this attitude, the U.S. often countered this attitude by adopting a “pick and choose” policy towards international law and
organizations, depending on if it fit American interests or not. This was clear after Sept.11th, as the U.S. became increasingly agitated
in terms of policy decisions, causing a great deal of panic on Canada’s side as it saw the need to walk a fine line in terms of American-
Canadian Relations, through participation to secure its interests while protecting itself from the dangerous blowback that has
discredited U.S. policy.

Though true that much has changed in the international system with the violent change in U.S. policy, Americas floundering in Iraq
and its failure up until now, despite its military might, to pacify Iraq proves that the very ideals of internationalism, multilateralism
and the presence of international laws and organizations are key in dealing with the very threats and issues that still exist within the
contemporary global stage.

From the economic perspective, many argue that Canada must sell its right to a sovereign foreign policy to the U.S. in the name of
preserving economic relations. Despite Canada’s reliance on the U.S., both countries differ greatly in their social values and if
imposed on Canadians, it would be to their displeasure. This is further supported by the emergence of other major economic powers
within the globe, who are aching to preside over Americas economic reign, making it key that Canada look outside the NAFTA region
for answers.

Despite Canada’s attempt to walk this fine line, Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan, with its lack of funding and resources to
support its operations, has turned into a mess of massive proportions as tides are beginning to turn against coalition forces within
Afghanistan, which could result in more troop bloodshed than previously seen. Furthermore the involvement in the War On Terror,
has risked the very credibility of the Multiculturalism policy adopted by Canada, as the policy adopted by the government is one
which is deeply biased against the Muslim world and the possibly the large Muslim population of Canada.

Canada’s unequivocal support for the excessive use of force by Israel on Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon, further risk Canada’s
credibility as a just and equal nation. Through a highly discriminatory double standard policy, which has allowed Israel to use any
level of force to exterminate threats, particularly Palestinians who live within Israel, and not be held accountable for its actions despite
clearly flaunting international law. Moreover, the reasons for its adoption, which are rooted in the ideas of tradition and
ethnocentricity, seem to forget the very constituents of Canada which are multicultural and diverse in being.

This mistake, which could have been avoided with ease, has effectively risked much of Canada’s role in the International system and
the validity of its domestic policy. Yet despite this, the conservatives feel determined to stick to their commitment to the U.S. and
further exacerbate a situation which has caused unprecedented forms of damage to the international system.

Principal Concepts: Unilateralism, Multilateralism, War On Terror, Soft Power, Multiculturalism, terrorism, middle power, national
interest.

Personal Question: In the world of Politics there is often a clear distinction between Domestic and International, therefore is it not
farfetched to assume that Canada’s domestic character will be affected by an international policy as both are independent variables?
And moreover how does Narine explain the relative tolerance in Europe for Islamic constituents despite strict laws on terrorism?