Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
72 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the dominant power approach to Canada Foreign Policy? |
Middle Power Approach |
|
|
What are the two approaches to Middle Power Theory? |
- Positional Approach (further broken up into Geographic Position and Status Position) - Behavioural Approach |
|
|
What is the Positional Approach of Middle Power Theory broken into? |
Geographic Position and Status Position |
|
|
8 Middle Power Characteristics of the (Status/Capability) Positional Approach of Middle Power Theory |
1. States are regarded as secondary to major powers based on relative power capability 2. Credible Military Capability; resources, capabilities and position that major powers seek its support. Could not win a war against a major power, but could do a lot of damage 3. Relatively developed, wealthy with demographic and natural resources to sustain its position economically and militarily 4. High regional profile; high degree of influence in own neighbourhood. Maybe regional major powers? 5. "System-affecting" states; can have a significant impact on system through alliances of other middle powers/major powers or through international institutions and organizations 6. Capability constraints; must rationally choose where to delegate resources and action to internationally; limited region/scope, limited power against major powers (not system determining) 7. Moderate degree of susceptibility of external forces in foreign policymaking 8. More vulnerable to international threats/instability than major power |
|
|
Geographic Positional Approach (history and description) |
- Based off of German concept Mittelmächte - Definition and significance of a middle power is based on its physical location; literally in between two+ competing major powers- E.g. Canada between USSR and USA, Poland between Germany and Russia, Belgium between France and Germany |
|
|
Two approaches to the Status Position approach of middle power |
- Intuitive Approach: Based on impressionistic assessment, based on feeling and qualitative judgement - Empirical Approach: Based on objective rankings in the power hierarchy by a quantifiable, measurable relative status. Suggests upper middle powers and lower middle powers exist |
|
|
Why would Canada advocate of having a middle power category that is further divided? |
- Create upper and lower middle power categories, with Upper Middle Powers having more rights and privileges in the international system - Convincing others to view us as Upper Middle Powers |
|
|
"Status-Quo Ante" |
- To re-establish what was already there prior to a conflict (e.g. Korean War) |
|
|
How can middle powers be system-affecting states? |
- By acting in alliance with other middle powers or major powers - By acting in universal or regional international organizations |
|
|
Behavioural Approach to Middle Power classification; history, description and aim |
- Based off of Liberal Institutionalism - Defines middle power by what they do, and how they engage in diplomacy |
|
|
Liberal Institutionalism History (thinker, values) |
- Woodrow Wilson - Resolutions to conflict may be diplomatically solved in institutions to maintain peace and security for all states - Stability, Security and Order are collective goods that is in the interest of all states |
|
|
Core ideas of Liberal Institutionalist Theory (and the Behavioural Approach) (6) |
1. Peace is indivisible; security of a single state is intertwined with the security of the system. No state can be removed from the system security wise, instability in one state can plunge whole system into conflict 2. Responsibility: It is the responsibility of all states to act to maintain the peace and defuse conflict when they arise 3. Multilateralism: States must forgo the urge to act unilaterally and instead work towards common collective goals 4. Participation in international institutions; These institutions benefit the collective good, pool collective power 5. Willingness to formally commit national resources for the good of the international system 6. Commitment to international law to maintain the stability of the system |
|
|
Aspects of Middle Power Diplomacy (7) |
1. Actively seek to resolve conflict when it occurs; don't want to end up in war 2. Actively participate in institutionally-driven efforts to restore order and maintain peace 3. "Mediatory Middle-Powermanship"; use of diplomatic offices to help resolve conflicting parties 4. Peacekeeping 5. "Distributive Internationalism" 6. Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights: Democratic peace theory 7. Promotion of trade; hard to go to war with increased interdependence |
|
|
Peacekeeping vs. Peacemaking: |
Peacekeeping: Acting as a buffer between conflicting parties to allow them to cool down and negotiate. It's up to the parties to solve the conflict. Peacemaking: Using military force to get an outcome of peace |
|
|
Distributive Internationalism: |
The belief in Behavioural Approach of middle power theory that states a need to minimize asymmetries between have-states and have-not-states. Poor states may become alienated and angry, result to acts of violence, bad for the system |
|
|
Two "thoughts/streams" of why democratic peace theory works |
1. Empirically, democracies do not go to war with democracies (however, democracies still go to war against other non-democracies). 2. Democracies will not go to war because of the democratic political culture (peaceful resolutions to conflict, embedded institutionally) |
|
|
How to promote human rights/democracy as a middle power (3) |
1) Incentives to democratize 2) Send political scientists on how to institutionalize democracy 3) Regime-change (military force, you will now be democratic) |
|
|
Functional Specialization |
- Because of limited power capabilities of middle powers, middle powers will be able to play a constructive role and maintain peaceful world order, especially in areas of a comparative advantage - Acted on in international institutions - Make contributions (material, financial, human) to these institutions - Recognised for their specialization and warrants their place in international organizations with the role they play and resources they provide |
|
|
Two Approaches to Satellite/Dependency Status |
- Marx's Dependency Theory; core/periphery - Economic Nationalist; prescriptive/normative |
|
|
What do both streams of the satellite/dependency model agree on? (2) |
1. Canada has always been a subordinate actor to great/major powers; Canada is system-ineffectual 2. Canada is a "penetrated polity": Either following influence of GB or USA, de jure sovereignty but does not actually have effective sovereignty |
|
|
Origins of Neo-Marxist Dependency Stream |
- Originated in Latin America - A modification of Marxist/Leninist approach to explain post-colonial societies after independence - Critiques both realist models and behavioural liberal models |
|
|
General Assumptions of Neo-Marxist Dependency Stream (4) |
1. Societies do not begin "undeveloped", societies are always in a state of development, failure or distortion of development is because it was made that way externally 2. Integration into the international capitalist economy has a negative impact on colonial/post-colonial societies; it interrupts/distorts the development of these societies 3. Failure do develop is explained by the external, not the internal. Incorporation into the international capitalism made it this way, change agents distort... 4. Explaining a post-colonial society's development status must take into account imperial and neo-imperial history |
|
|
Change Agents |
A tangible or intangible thing that catalyzes societies to "Develop properly" - Neo-marxist Dependency: These things are bad, they distort development |
|
|
Imperial vs. Neo-imperial histories |
Imperial: When a society is a de jure colony. It is ruled by another state Neo-imperial: Has judicial sovereignty, but limits on its effective sovereignty. E.g. Canada/UK; Imperial History. Canada/USA; Neo-imperial history |
|
|
Marxist-Leninist Assumptions (that underscore Neo-Marxist dependency stream) |
1. State-level approach to study foreign policy. Inside --> Outside 2. The international system is capitalist. This makes states act in a power-seeking behaviour. The system is this way because the dominant states are capitalist 3. Negative conception of capitalism; class struggle, promotes exploitation. Class conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie. 4. The pattern of class struggle translates into the international system and relations between states |
|
|
Realism vs. Marxism rationale towards power-seeking behaviour |
Realism: States are power-seeking because the system is in a state of anarchy Marxism: States are power-seeking because the system is in a state of capitalism. |
|
|
Class Struggle |
There is a class that owns and a class that doesn't own. This drives progress/history forward |
|
|
Marxist/Leninist theory: Translation of the domestic class struggle to a systemic class struggle: |
- Capitalism creates a greedy need to continue to expand. Find new markets, imperialism. - Domestic crisis; satiated markets, need to expand: Overproduction and underconsumption |
|
|
Core/Periphery Dynamics |
- Capitalist core, surrounded by a large periphery. - Periphery defined by uneven development and unequal exchange - Imperial order translates to the neo-imperial order |
|
|
Neo-Colonialism: Definition, Thinker... |
Thinker: Kwame Nkrumah Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism - Juridically formal sovereign states are still informally exploited, making effective sovereignty low. - Reliant on dependent economic dynamics, where periphery still maintain dependency of core |
|
|
Canada as a Satellite of the USA (3 'penetrations'): |
Economic Penetration Cultural Penetration Political Penetration |
|
|
Canada as a Satellite of USA: Economic Penetration (6 aspects) |
1. Distorted economic development: Canada highly sensitive to USA consumer demand, highly sensitive to political-economic decisions in USA (e.g. Keystone) 2. Lack of meaningful economic diversification: Canada reliant on export of raw resources, USA consumes raw resources. This is all we produce. 3. "Branch-plant" economy: Canadian industries are subsidiaries of USA parent companies. Canada ships raw resources to USA, gets processed, sold back at mark-up 4. Canada Corporate Elite: "Comprador bourgeoisie", similar business culture to USA, are actually American... 5. Associated Dependent Development: The degree to which Canada is developed is because USA allowed us to. USA wants us to be developed 6. Consequences: Profit flows out of country, dividends flow out of country, undermines autonomous development, pits Canada core against Canada periphery |
|
|
Comprador Bourgeoisie |
An economic class that makes its money based off of foreign investment and foreign capital. In this power because of it, why would they give it up? |
|
|
Canada as a Satellite of USA: Cultural Penetration |
- American culture is propagated an American point of view across Canada - Manipulation of Canada regulatory agencies to promote American cultural penetration through print media, electronic media, and consumer preferences |
|
|
Canada as a Satellite of USA: Political Penetration |
- Decisions made in Ottawa are highly sensitive to American reactions, based on American influence - Act as an instrument of USA foreign policy militarily and economically - Perceived by others as a satellite of USA - Where Canada does act "independently" is in areas where USA does not care |
|
|
Economic-Nationalist Stream of Satellite Status (definition, aim) |
- Prescriptive: Provides a means for a state to not become a satellite power - Normative: Being a satellite power is bad Become an autonomous independent actor |
|
|
Motivations of the Economic Nationalist Stream (3) |
- National control of strategic industries: Industries deemed vital for Canada's sovereingty and identity should be controlled by state or private Canadian ownership - Protection of infant-industries: Protect companies, sectors, industries not yet mature enough to compete against foreign rivals. - Promotion of Canadian Cultural Industries: CBC, CRTC, NFB, foreign content regulation, Can-con... |
|
|
Import Substitution Industrialization |
- Seeking a way of replacing things normally imported by Canada by Canadian produced goods |
|
|
Methods of the Economic Nationalist Stream (11) |
1. Tariffs 2. Non-tariff boundaries (e.g. quotas) 3. Regulatory environment (e.g. advertising restritions (time of day), language requirements) 4. Subsidies (e.g. tax breaks, low interest loans, government guaranteed purchases, technological advances) 5. Export restrictions and controls: Protect strategic assets 6. Capital and labour outflows, i.e. regulate banks, nationally controlled interest rates, controlled lending 7. Restrict FDI 8. Restrict activities of foreign companies 9. Regulate outflow and inflow of highly-skilled, highly educated labour (i.e. prevent brain drains 10. "Balance of Trades, Balance of Payments"; export more than you import 11. Popular appeal: "Buy Canadian" |
|
|
Determinants of Canadian Foreign Policy (3 levels) |
International Level: How the system/environment shapes how we behave internationally State Level: Look inside our state, look how derivation of our interests are determined domestically Individual Level: Look at the individuals who make decisions, matters who our PM is, our Foreign Minister... |
|
|
External determinants; Invariants (definition) |
A foreign policy determinant that remains relatively unchanged, remains relatively constant in spite of profound international, domestic or leadership changes |
|
|
External Invariants thinker |
R.J. Sutherland: Head researcher on the Operational Group of Defence Research Board |
|
|
External Invariants (2) |
1. The International System 2. Geography (in two senses, "What is the Neighbourhood" and "What is our characteristics in the neighbourhood" |
|
|
External Invariant: The International System (4 points) |
- The structure of the international system will always be the same, i.e. anarchy, struggle for power, absence of supranational authority - Always dominated by major powers - Primary threat is a falling out between major powers - Canada must rely on other major powers to offset our security dilemma |
|
|
External Invariant: Geography (what is the neighbourhood?) |
Two Views: Nordicity (Thinker: Hamelin). Our identity is a northern state, putting Russia, Finland, Denmark, Greenland, USA, etc. in our neighbourhood. Circumpolar Continentalism: Canada looks southward for its neighbourhood, i.e. our neighbourhood is USA. Unique relationship with USA. |
|
|
External Invariant: Geography (Canada's Characteristics) |
- Canadian Geography (big, three oceans, airspace, large border) - Limited Capabilities. Need to cooperate to bolster our defence - Asymmetric relation with the USA: Security interdependent, we depend a lot more on the USA than they do on us, but they still view us favourably in terms of dependence |
|
|
Sensitivity Interdependence |
One or more parties in a relationship is more sensitive to actions of others |
|
|
Security Indivisibility |
Decision makers make decisions that are mutually intertwined security-wise |
|
|
Canadian Isolation |
We share the environment with many states, but really, we're alone with the USA |
|
|
Balance of Power (essentially contested concept, three meanings) |
1. Distribution Any Distribution: At a current point at time, ask what the current distribution of power is. No preference for whether its equal Equal Distribution: Biased towards equitable distribution of power among states 2. Foreign Policy Act: Actions taken by a state to balance the power of their state with other states or imbalance power favourably for their state 3. Body of theory: Explain why states seek to balance power and what balance is the most stable |
|
|
What school/theory is Balance of Power based on? |
Realism, so it is state-centric |
|
|
What is the rationale behind Balance of Power (2 reasons) |
1. Seek to prevent the rise of a hegemon that could impose its will on any state it wishes 2. Create a deterrent to threat, a way of preventing war. Security dilemma, every state equal will promote peace though. |
|
|
Behaviours to Balance Power (3) |
1. Internal Balancing: Seek to use your resources to increase your own power 2. External Balancing: Seek to enter alliances with other like-minded states to add to your power, strong group 3. Combination of 1 and 2 |
|
|
What does Canada gain for engaging in Alliances? (6) |
1. Add to our power 2. Deterrent to other states 3. Commit Canada's allied partners to come to our defence if **** hits the fan 4. Bargaining Leverage 5. Access to intelligence you could not gather on your own 6. Gain access to sophisticated technology |
|
|
Canada's Unique Security Dilemma (thinker + definition) |
Coined by Barry and Bratt - In the process of the USA augmenting Canada's security, the USA also becomes a more significant threat to Canada's security. We become more dependent, though it adds to our capacity |
|
|
How Does Canada Deal with its unique security dilemma? (Thinker + descriptions...) |
Orvik - "Defence Against Help", talked about Finlandization. - Don't do anything to piss off your super-power ally |
|
|
Finlandization |
After WWII, USSR said "Okay Finland, you can maintain sovereignty as long as you do not do anything to threaten us like join an enemy alliance, use your land for the enemy..." |
|
|
Kingston Dispensation |
FDR comes to Canada and says that "We understand your relationship with UK is tenuous, so USA will come to your aid if need be and will stop at nothing in protecting Canada" - King says "umm okay how about no, we will cooperate but Canada will stand on its own" |
|
|
Self-Help rules for solving unique security dilemma |
1. Don’t pose threat to the biggerstate 2. Don’t provoke the bigger state 3. Don’t enter hostile coalitiondirected against the bigger state 4. Don’t allow your territory tobe used as a spring board for aggressive action against bigger state 5. Demonstrate that you cansufficiently defend your own territory, but also productively prevent arrivalof other threats |
|
|
Bureaucratic Policy Model (Thinker + characteristics |
Thinker: Graham Allison - Model is not unique to Cnada - Critiques other models: Black Box MOdel, Rational Actor Model and Weberian Bureaucratic Model |
|
|
Black Box Model |
- International level of analysis, with behaviour of states determined by the anarchical structure of the system - Treats states as a back box with inputs and outputs - Assumes inputs and outputs are homogeneous for every state |
|
|
Black Box Model: Inputs (3) and Outputs (3) |
Inputs: - Absence of supranational authoirity (anarchy) - Distribution of power - Number of polar actors, polarity Outputs - Targets - Objectives - Methods of achieving objectives (power accumulation, power denial...) |
|
|
Rational Actor Model (Definition and Assumptions) |
- Opens up the black box model - Assumes 1) State-Centric 2) States are unitary actors, states speak collectively as one voice for their people 3) States have interests (security, survival) 4) States have policy options 5) Rational Algorithm for choosing policy options 6) Secondary Assumptions (7 of them, see future card) |
|
|
Rational Actor Model: Algorithm (5 steps) |
1. Identification of the issue 2. Identification of the objectives 3. Identification of the policy options 4. Going through rational cost/benefit calculation of what to find idea option 5. Find optimal outcome |
|
|
Rational Actor Model: Secondary Assumptions (7) |
1. Context Irrelevant: History, context does not matter 2. Unbiased decision makers 3. Complete information 4. Accurate information 5. Decision makers are receptive to all information 6. No time constraints 7. Can't be decision averse — make the tough decisions if needed. ALLISON TOOK ISSUE WITH THESE!!!!!!!! Why he said this model is bad |
|
|
Weberian Bureaucracy (Assumptions, 4) |
1) Apolitical bureaucrats 2) Provide unbiased advice to superiors. They may have underlying political beliefs, but this does not translate through their advice 3) Rational decision making: Go through teh algorithm of rational choice 4) Singular natural intrest that bureucrats wrok towards collectively, collegially, and cooperativley |
|
|
What makes bureaucrats powerful? (Under Allison's BPM) |
1. They have expertise/highly educated/specialists 2. They have career longevity 3. They can manipulate elective officeholders who do not have good background in their subject |
|
|
Assumptions of Bureaucratic Politics Model |
- Bureaucrats have diverse interests - Conflictual and competitive bureaucracy - Conflicts have political resolutions, where bureaucrats enhance their power, translating through the foreign policy making process |
|
|
Four characteristics of the Westminster system (and consequences) |
1. Dual executive: You have the formal head of state (crown/queen) and the head of government (PM) 2. "Fusion of power": Executive sits within the legislative branch. 3. Responsible government: Executive needs confidence of the house to live out its term. Need for party disipline 4. Cabinet Solidarity: Even if cabinet executive disagrees, they will not show it. |
|
|
Arguments against applying BPM to Canada's FP making (2) |
1. Not applicable because Wesminster system powers the PM too much 2. Not applicable because the cabinet makes decision making |
|
|
Arguments for applying BPM to Canada's FP making: |
- Even though Canada has a different system than USA, PM still is restricted in his powers, cabinet composition's make up is governed by convention. Sometimes, you get bad ministers who don't know their portfolio, and this is when bureaucrats may wield power |
|
|
PM Powers (5) |
Appointment Power: Appoints almost everyone in government Policy Power: Mandate letters, set agenda Organizational Power: Creates the ministries, dissolves ministries, amalgamates ministries and renames ministries Process Power: Power over who gets to be involved in the process of decision making Plenipotentiary Power: Canada's head diplomat, representative. |
