The independence of Canada from the American economic dominance and political paradigm has been a subject of contention among Canadian scholars. Political theorists have divergent position on the nature and outlook of a state. Some posit that a government should reflect the diversity in population it serves. Those of a conflicting stance affirm that a state-centric approach is imperative is propagating national success since it accord the leading group the autonomy to make deliberate decision regardless of the positions of interest groups. However, since the Canadian ruling class encompasses elite individuals from a minority capitalist cluster, the government is incapable of adequately addressing the divergent needs of its stratified population. In this regard, it is cardinal that Canada disentangles itself from the cocoons of state-centric analysis because such an endeavor is a precursor for limited conclusions on matters pertinent to the Canadian foreign policy.
The domination of the global political and economic spheres by the United States and other capitalist classes can be adduced from the 2010 attempt by the Canadian government to endorse one of its own into a position of prominence in the United Nations elections (Heller, 2012). The contestant for the non-permanent seat was compelled to step-down amid the revelation that Canada’s representative would have suffered a humiliating defeat. Although various political facades and members of the public alike hold divergent perceptions on the rationale behind Canada’s decision to drop out from the race, it is conspicuous that Canada’s post war image as an influential and sovereign entity on the global platform is splintering.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Canada has been at the pinnacle of United Nations activities and intervention on the global platforms. The indulgence of Canada on the United Nation’s activities has played a cardinal role in adequately serving the interests of the state. The intervention of Canada on international affairs allowed the state to gain benefits while warning off the ramifications of the cold war. However, the regime, under the stewardship of Steven Harper, has adopted a full turnaround action compelling the Canadian military to be actively engaged in the military endeavors of the United States (Heller, 2012). The participation of Canada in the affairs of the United States can be adduced from the indulgence of the Canadian military in the war in Iraq and active participation of the military in supporting the United States’ antiterrorism initiatives.
Typically, the Canadian dependence on capitalist groups is best demonstrated by a phenomenon that has been deemed ‘new economic political economy.’ Kari Levit demonstrates the degree of the Canadian dependence on the United States by asserting that the Post-war Canada has become a source of raw materials and markets for United States manufacturers. Although Canada is a rich sovereign state owing to its vast resources, the country has evolved into a colony that is dependent on the imperial United States, an endeavor that has undermine the Canadian manufacturing, innovation, and entrepreneurship. As a result, it is evident that the nature of the Canadian foreign policy benefits the United States more than Canada itself.
The nature of the Canadian foreign policy has been conditioned by multinational establishments such as the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Commonwealth, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The commitment of the Canadian ruling class to multilateralism has survived the vehement criticism from leaders that oppose the ideal in Canada. In a bid to further allude to the debate some scholars argues that the active participation of Canada on multinational endeavours is a sign of the commitment of the nation to a better global environment. Conversely, opponents of multilateralism posit that the commitment of Canada to global agenda is a sign of pursuit of narrow self-interest that benefit others more than Canada itself.
The core argument that has been utilized by those supporting multilaterals ideals has been the eminence of the principle in meeting a myriad of policy objectives which include a stable and peaceful global order and the intent to satisfy somewhat narrow needs. However, it is unfounded to assume that there is a conspicuous inconsistency between the pursuit of realization of milieu objective and the realization of the national agenda (Heller, 2012). Political analysts such as Denis Stairs argue that multilateralism in the context of Canada, has been perceived as the most ideal stratagem in promoting the attainment objectives of national policies. The underlying assumption is that by taking an active role in the international affairs, the Canadian government is able to actualize its national goals.
Conversely, the position of the opponents of multilateralism is that the endeavor serves the interests of capitalist states rather than the national interests of the Canadian people. Mark Neufeld supports this position by postulating that multilateralism serves the hegemony in a markedly unequal world. To be precise, the hegemony referred to by Neufeld is the United States. For instance, the participation of Canada in the United States conflicts in South Korea, Iraq, and antiterrorism efforts are designated to warrant global peace, thus, preventing economic disruptions in the global platform, which may compromise the economic wellness of the United States. Claire Sjolander and David Black concurs with Neufeld’s position. The scholars assert that the construct and the principles underpinning multilateralism has been designed for the preservation and conservation of hegemony of capital states. Therefore, the dedication of the Canadian government to the attainment of the national agenda has cripple the capacity of Canada to adequately cater for its towering domestic population. Evidently, the United States has always withdrawn herself from leagues of states if the interests of the entity does not favor the progression of their national goals. This demystifies that the United States, being a hegemony and capital state, perceived that the agendas of the national bodies ought to benefit its interests. On the contrary, Canada has never withdrawn itself from leagues of nation in the event that the agenda of the body fails to echo its domestic policy objectives. Conspicuously, capitalist nation use international bodies as an arena that permits them to progress their individual interests.
The dependence of the Canadian economy and political paradigm on the United States has far-reaching ramification on the economy and political stature of Canada. Wallace Clement explains the crippling consequence of dependence of Canada on the United States by stating that the Canadian corporate is hugely dominated by Americans. For instance, Canadians specialize in transport, media, and circulation-finance while branch management positions are usually occupied by Americans. The aftermath of the universal division of labor is a Canadian financial sector that is impeccably developed and an industrial sector that is lagging. In this accord, breaking away from the centric-state paradigm that has compelled Canada to tailor its foreign policies to accommodate the interests of the United States and other capitalist states, will salvage Canada from political and economic dwarfism.
Young and Henders (2012) define diplomacy as an instrument that is used in the advancement of the foreign policies of a sovereign state. In this accord, diplomacy is cardinal in dictating the attitude of a nation towards other states in a league of nations. Moreover, the concept permeates mediation between estranged nations to ensure a peaceful global platform which foster political and economic success for individual players. However, the issue of labelling a state the onset point for diplomatic interventions has always been a subject of contention. Notably, Canada and the Canadian population is multilayers and the country encapsulates a broad assortment of different identities. Although equal representation of each group constituting the Canadian population is only possible in ideal circumstances, compelling the elite and leading groups to factor the interest of minority groups, such as Canadian-Asian is paramount in propagating holistic socioeconomic progression.
The soaring eminence of other diplomacies witnessed in the recent decades can be associated with globalization efforts. Firstly, it is imperative to note that development in transportation and communication has allowed people to mingle and access areas that were once perceived as inaccessible. Other diplomacies are also vital amid the expanding market for goods and services offered by the global market. As a result, private sectors across national boundaries have recognized the importance of pushing for the promulgation and implementation of diplomatic policies that permeate fluid transmission of good across national borders. By the dawn of the 1990s the government recognized the role of non-state actors in dictating the nature of a country’s foreign policy. Typically, other diplomacies play a critical role in economic and political progression of sovereign states.
Other diplomacies are usually adopted and practiced in various platforms to warrant equality and harmonious cohesion. Specifically, other diplomacies tend to occur in setting that are occupied by both Canadians and Asians such as corporate and educational platforms. This diplomacies tend to be prevalent in social settings despite familial, ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, and political divergences. The movement of people between Canada and Asia has played a pivotal role in defining how Asians perceive Canada. In this regard, other diplomacies are crucial in ensuring that persons that are not familiar with Canadians are able to explicitly distinguish “Westerners” from Canadians.
Moreover, teachers working in Japan, Taiwan, China, and Korea act as diplomats of Canada in the respective regions that they renders their professional services. Nonetheless, the increased influx of teachers who are native English speaker asserts the dominance of the English language over minority linguistic groups. Such intervention further widen the rift between developing and developed countries in the global spectrum. Ideally, the invocation of the services of English speaking teachers on the Asian educational setup plays a crucial role in furthering the globalization agenda of capitalist nations.
As aforementioned, teachers as diplomats contribute extensively to the understanding of Canada by international communities. Principally, Canadian off-shore schools reproduce the differentiations that tend to be associated with hierarchies of languages that ultimately encroach into political affairs in regards to international relations. The growth of the off-shore school glorifies the western educational systems rather than promoting the embracing of the the local approach implemented in the Asian context. Notably, the diplomatic efforts tend to favour the objectives of the capital while compromising the efficiency of the current systems adopted in a less superior nation.
In conclusion, leagues of nations such as NATO, the UN, and Commonwealth tends to propagate ideologies that are tailored to benefit all member countries. Purportedly, the participation of member countries allows all nations in the league to benefit from the related trickle-down benefits of an expanded market base and lengthened trade areas. However, it is conspicuous that capitalist states such as the United States tend to benefit from Canadian foreign policies and unrelenting participation in international affairs. In regard to other diplomacies, the influx of Canadian teachers to the Asia educational platforms expands the dominance of the English language creating a hierarchical system which broadens the gulf between developed and developing nations. Wholesomely, Canada and minority layers in the global platform can attain political and economic progression by abandoning state-centric ideals which propagate limited conclusions.
References
Heller, H. (2012). Imperialist Canada, Todd Gordon, Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing, 2011. Historical Materialism , 20 (2), 222-231.
Young, M. M., & Henders, S. J. (2012). “Other diplomacies” and the making of Canada–Asia relations. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal , 18 (3), 375-388.
Pratt, C. (1983/1984). “Dominant Class Theory and Canadian Foreign Policy: The Case of Counter ‐ Consensus”. International Journal 39(1), 99 ‐ 135
