The thesis put forward in my most recent column was that a strong and united Canada can be one of the 21st century’s major powers. Power for power’s sake is most obviously pointless. Lack of a common set of values and the absence of a sense of mission that binds people together have contributed to the downfall of many a great empire – e.g., Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome.
When a state increases its power, its diplomatic options multiply, giving it the opportunity to pursue more foreign policy goals simultaneously. One of these goals can be the pursuit of values, norms and ideals. A united Canada – for the reasons outlined in my last column – is one that can increase its international clout and hence advance its values abroad more effectively. A united Canada also advances norms here at home, such as the drive to keep different nations peacefully united within the confines of a single country in the context of a just society.
Canada’s political discourse for the past many decades – when it comes to contrasting Canadian interests with values – has largely been centred around a discussion of Canadian values. This has been true of both Liberal and Conservative governments. The result of selecting normative rather than positive goals has been the limitation of our ability to advance those very norms.
Slightly more often discussed is the concept – elaborated above – that advancing the interests of the state increases the ability for that very state to advance its norms. However, the converse – i.e., the use of values to advance interests – is seldom discussed
Even some of the greatest admirers of realism – the school of international relations that adheres to the primacy of power and interests over institutions and norms – admit that this philosophy has its parameters. Henry Kissinger, for instance, in his famous work Diplomacy admits that an international system based upon Realpolitik remains stable only if at least one of two conditions is satisfied – one, the states in question are capable of adjusting the state of relations between them, not always possible if one takes into account existing alliances; or two, if the states are bound by a set of common values.
Otto van Bismarck, the prime minister of Prussia best known for uniting Germany in the nineteenth century – an act that ended France’s two-century-long reign as the most influential country in continental Europe – had terminated the European order designed to contain France and limit armed conflict. Despite the inherent instability of a new great power (Germany) at the centre of Europe, Bismarck managed to maintain continental peace until the end of his rule largely by appealing to the common (then, conservative) values between Germany, Austria and Russia – the “Three Emperors League”.
Similarly, there is much room for Canada to appeal to the liberal democratic values it shares with other states to advance its interests simultaneously with international peace. This goes most certainly beyond maintaining the current absence of armed conflict in Europe or between the United States and China.
For instance, Canada could partner with the United States (and eventually with the rest of NATO) when it comes to preventing mass atrocities globally, perhaps even in the form of a formalized treaty. This would require institutional and military reform, which would provide adhering states with the “Will to Intervene” against mass atrocities, a concept advanced by Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire and Concordia Professor Frank Chalk, a step beyond the less tangible Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Failure to prevent such atrocities risks leading to increasing cross-border violence, the spread of pandemics and the creation of safe havens for terrorists.
In invoking shared values – the desire to make “Never Again” a reality when it comes to genocide – Canada is in fact able to advance its fundamental interests: fighting terrorism, protecting public health, and promoting peace and state sovereignty when appropriate in order to limit perturbations in the existing economic order.
The purpose of this series of columns has been not only to make the case for national unity, but also to entice readers to begin to rethink the way they view the world and Canada’s place in it. The principal message put forward is that Canadians need to begin to think strategically. A complex and intricate balance must be found in order for Canada to maximize the advancement of both its interests and its values simultaneously. Both interests and values can be better secured if promoted together; advancing one at the expense of the other is more likely to deliver neither over the long run.
The lesson is clear: If Canadian leaders over the coming decades are able to find a more evident balance between invoking interests and values – if we finally begin to think strategically – our country can become stronger and freer at home and increase its international stature as a global force for good.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Zach Paikin
When a state increases its power, its diplomatic options multiply, giving it the opportunity to pursue more foreign policy goals simultaneously. One of these goals can be the pursuit of values, norms and ideals. A united Canada – for the reasons outlined in my last column – is one that can increase its international clout and hence advance its values abroad more effectively. A united Canada also advances norms here at home, such as the drive to keep different nations peacefully united within the confines of a single country in the context of a just society.
Canada’s political discourse for the past many decades – when it comes to contrasting Canadian interests with values – has largely been centred around a discussion of Canadian values. This has been true of both Liberal and Conservative governments. The result of selecting normative rather than positive goals has been the limitation of our ability to advance those very norms.
Slightly more often discussed is the concept – elaborated above – that advancing the interests of the state increases the ability for that very state to advance its norms. However, the converse – i.e., the use of values to advance interests – is seldom discussed
Even some of the greatest admirers of realism – the school of international relations that adheres to the primacy of power and interests over institutions and norms – admit that this philosophy has its parameters. Henry Kissinger, for instance, in his famous work Diplomacy admits that an international system based upon Realpolitik remains stable only if at least one of two conditions is satisfied – one, the states in question are capable of adjusting the state of relations between them, not always possible if one takes into account existing alliances; or two, if the states are bound by a set of common values.
Otto van Bismarck, the prime minister of Prussia best known for uniting Germany in the nineteenth century – an act that ended France’s two-century-long reign as the most influential country in continental Europe – had terminated the European order designed to contain France and limit armed conflict. Despite the inherent instability of a new great power (Germany) at the centre of Europe, Bismarck managed to maintain continental peace until the end of his rule largely by appealing to the common (then, conservative) values between Germany, Austria and Russia – the “Three Emperors League”.
Similarly, there is much room for Canada to appeal to the liberal democratic values it shares with other states to advance its interests simultaneously with international peace. This goes most certainly beyond maintaining the current absence of armed conflict in Europe or between the United States and China.
For instance, Canada could partner with the United States (and eventually with the rest of NATO) when it comes to preventing mass atrocities globally, perhaps even in the form of a formalized treaty. This would require institutional and military reform, which would provide adhering states with the “Will to Intervene” against mass atrocities, a concept advanced by Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire and Concordia Professor Frank Chalk, a step beyond the less tangible Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Failure to prevent such atrocities risks leading to increasing cross-border violence, the spread of pandemics and the creation of safe havens for terrorists.
In invoking shared values – the desire to make “Never Again” a reality when it comes to genocide – Canada is in fact able to advance its fundamental interests: fighting terrorism, protecting public health, and promoting peace and state sovereignty when appropriate in order to limit perturbations in the existing economic order.
The purpose of this series of columns has been not only to make the case for national unity, but also to entice readers to begin to rethink the way they view the world and Canada’s place in it. The principal message put forward is that Canadians need to begin to think strategically. A complex and intricate balance must be found in order for Canada to maximize the advancement of both its interests and its values simultaneously. Both interests and values can be better secured if promoted together; advancing one at the expense of the other is more likely to deliver neither over the long run.
The lesson is clear: If Canadian leaders over the coming decades are able to find a more evident balance between invoking interests and values – if we finally begin to think strategically – our country can become stronger and freer at home and increase its international stature as a global force for good.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Zach Paikin
No comments:
Post a Comment