Search

This paper examines the political consequences of Canada’s long-term military integration with the United States. We argue that the evolution into an integrated military ‘culture’ has led to a mindset in which the Canadian military views its interests as shared with those of the American military. In some circumstances, the Canadian military views the perceptions and desires of Canadian political leaders as a hindrance to the attaining of those interests. First, to proceed we establish a working understanding of the concept of American power. We suggest that while the United States continues to be a significant player, it is but one aspect of an increasingly globalized world that is generally (re)defined by the power and influence of the western form of hegemony that is best articulated by (but not exclusive to) the American state. As such, integration is a significant aspect of this world order; and thus of Canada/United States relations. Second, we argue that Canada has become a key component of American power. But the high degree of military integration comes with the risks of a loss of political control over the very coercive aspects of state power that are in place to protect the sovereignty of states themselves. Last, we argue that the Canadian military has redefined peace so as to, on the one hand, discredit missions of ‘peacekeeping’ as no longer relevant; and, on the other hand, so as to preserve and reinvigorate the image of the peacekeeper through the construction of the virtuous warrior engaged in the promotion of peace. This, we argue, means that while the Canadian military becomes more autonomous vis-à-vis the Canadian state, at the same time it makes the Canadian military less autonomous as it becomes an outpost of American military power. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, the idea of the green state has emerged as a way of understanding the state in the context of the international relations of the environment. By assuming the role of a public environmental trustee and responsible global environmental citizen, states can achieve changes at the international and domestic levels. However, for changes to be sustained and deep, policy needs to challenge rather than support the logic of ecologically destructive competitive capitalism and hierarchical globalization. This paper argues that Canada's historical commitment to green multilateralism makes it well-positioned to move toward the role of a green state, but that a major barrier remains Canada's continuing support of inequitable and unsustainable global relations of economic exchange based on competitiveness. Rather than forming a single coherent strategy on climate change, for example, two distinct and competing principles vie for dominance in Canadian international environmental policy: competitiveness and protection. As a result, Canada's climate change policies have been irregular and inconsistent. For example, Canada has recently departed from multilateral commitments agreed at Kyoto, while simultaneously claiming to take decisive action to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper asks whether or not the political party in power has makes a difference in terms of Canadian international environmental diplomacy and policy. While numerous international issues could be used in this paper, the focus will be on the evolution of climate change policy from 1988 to present. This time period allows us to include the Mulroney Progressive Conservative era, the Chrétien and Martin Liberal eras and the present Harper Conservative government. It will be seen that there has been a change in the diplomacy with a significant shift in tone with the arrival of the Harper Conservatives. And while the tone has changed, it is difficult to argue that the policy implementation has fundamentally changed over time. Indeed, we move from the agenda setting of the Mulroney Conservatives to the signature, ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol under the Liberals and then the Harper Conservatives, but the end result is quite similar when we consider emissions reductions as our benchmark. Environmental imperatives do not drive Canadian climate change policy, regardless of the tone of the international diplomacy. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Canada's North is the frontline in the global climate change challenge. Nowhere else in our country, or on our planet, are the early effects of climate change so plain. Nowhere else in Canada are communities and traditional ways of life so clearly at risk due to climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in December 2002 was something of a surprise for several reasons. First, in light of even greater emissions growth than anticipated when Canada signed Kyoto in 1997, compliance with Kyoto would require a very deep reduction in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions to 35% below the “business-as-usual” baseline by 2010. Second, a commitment to Kyoto could be expected to hurt Canada’s economic interests as a major fossil fuel producer and exporter. Third, Canada’s open economy, with exports accounting for 40% of GDP, was threatened by a regime that does not demand comparable emissions reductions from competitors, whether in developing countries or, more importantly, in Canada’s largest trading partner, the United States, which confirmed in 2001 that it would not ratify Kyoto. In light of these factors, it is not surprising that the federal government faced virtually unanimous opposition to ratification from the Canadian business community. Moreover, since the natural resources in question, including oil, gas, and coal, are owned by provincial governments, most provinces were also adamantly opposed to ratification, the exception being two provinces with extensive hydroelectric potential. That Canada ratified Kyoto despite these challenges represented a triumph of commitments both to environmental sustainability and multilateralism over economic interests and political institutions. However, this triumph of ideas was facilitated by an unusual set of circumstances, in particular a Prime Minister willing to pursue bold policy initiatives at the end of a long political career. That said, institutional and political obstacles reasserted themselves with respect to implementation before the ink was dry on Canada’s ratification papers. Political concessions quietly negotiated by the federal government with the business community in the lead-up to ratification have rendered it impossible for Canada to comply with Kyoto through domestic actions alone. Compliance will thus require reliance on Kyoto’s international flexibility mechanisms for a significant fraction, possibly more than half, of Canada’s reductions. Yet the notion of investing in international credits is politically unpopular in Canada. The Conservative government, elected in January 2006, has acknowledged that Canada will not comply with Kyoto, and begun quietly dismantling climate change programs put in place by their predecessors. While Canada’s surprising resolve thus has been undercut by traditional power politics, it remains to be seen whether the ideational commitment to Kyoto will be rendered entirely symbolic, or whether Canada’s continued participation in the Kyoto process will place it on a path for greater action than it might otherwise have taken, if one less aggressive than promised at the time of ratification. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is Canada lagging on climate change? Are we rejecting the green environmental internationalism of the past? The answer to these two questions is very simply: yes. At the same time, it will be argued that lagging is not new and that green environmenta ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change is causing rapid loss in Arctic seaice, raising the prospect of international shipping through the Northwest Passage within decades, perhaps even years. This poses serious security and environmental risks to both Canada and the United States, and yet the two countries are locked in a diplomatic dispute with respect to the legal status of the waterway. In this presentation, a Canadian expert on the law of the sea of the Arctic will argue that the Canadian position--that the Northwest passage constitutes Canadian internal waters subject to the full force of Canadian domestic law--serves the national interests of the United States far better than reliance on lax international legal regimes. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]