Canadian Foreign Policy a Brave New World Reaction Paper

Excerpt from Reaction Paper :

Canadian Foreign Policy

A brave new world - Canadian Foreign Policy in the New Millennium

According to Granatstein (2012) the world is really changing at a fast pace. Most of the Impact hinges on progressively on the strength of financial relations, despite the fact security matters, some of a new order, are continuing to give Canada a challenge. History in the Canadian foreign policy does show that the amount of our achievement in this world will be their aptitude as a society to efficiently put the emphasis on their new international efforts in a spirit of shared enterprise. Granatstein make the point that that is considered to be good sense, based as it is on a profound understanding of Canada's national interests, but at the same time he argues that it is a pity that most of other recent governments are choosing not to fall in line and follow after it. Instead, most Canadians he believes and too many of their leaders just sit around and chatter about their values and say, noisily, that "peacekeeping is what we do in the world-except that we don't" (Granatstein 2012).

According to Lang (2008) Canada, in his eyes is seen as a privileged position to be able influence some change and to benefit from occasions as we move toward the end of the twentieth century regarding Canada's Afghanistan Policy. He makes the argument that the Government will exercise that sway duty to defend and endorse Canada's standards and interests in the world. In regards to policy in his book he does try to tell the story of government decision-making, the influences that notify decision-making, who are the ones that are in charge of calling the shots, who counsels on them, and the infrequent absurdity that tiptoes into decision-making at the uppermost heights. He makes sure that he brings a story regarding just how Canada's government institutions are operating and how its inhabitants really ponder about the post-Cold War, post 911 world and also Canada's place in that world (Lang 2008). Basically, Afghanistan is the key case study of that organization.

Other authors have a different take where as some believe that throughout history, based on wide discussions, it is clear that Canadians really do desire to stay vigorously involved in the world, even though they identify the financial restraints that the country is facing (J. Welsh 2010). However, in response to Canadians' ambitions and to meet the tests of a developing world, the Government will follow foreign rule to attain whatever key purposes necessary (Granatstein 2012). According to J.M. Welsh (2005) people are even questioning the fact rather or not Canada even needs some sort of policy. Historically this has been a debate in the country. During the period since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, some of Canada's representatives and best-known critics on global affairs have called on this republic to make a choice. Canada, told by many other experts and politicuans, will no longer be able to walk its important "middle line" among the United States and the rest of the world. Standing apart from the U.S., and concentrating on the cultures and organizations that inhabit broader worldwide community, is a treat we can no longer have enough money. Henceforth, a lot of the exprts are making the point that foreign policy will need to be based on what previous Canadian Ambassador to the United States Allan Gotlieb calls "the paramountcy of Canada-U.S. associations," and all enterprises inspected within that framework (J. M. Welsh 2005).

For analysts like Gotlieb and Hart, the important subject that will regulate the Canada-U.S. agenda going forward is basically the security and historically that has been an issue (Hart 2003-2004). During a post 9/11 world, experts reseach is saying that Canada will have to be able to demonstrate that it postures no danger to the care of Americans by making its territory safe from extremists who find a way to jump across the border (Hart 2003-2004). The instant outcome of September 11, when the boundary was sealed, demonstrated just how susceptible Canada is to the disturbance of profitable traffic (J. M. Welsh 2005). The 49th parallel is what runs right through the center of an assembly line that is considred to be "just in time," creating the aptitude of trades to move goods and individuals across the border effortlessly an important factor for asset choices connecting Canada. If the risk of disturbance to that flow turns out to be too high, risk-averse stockholders could possibly select to go to another place (most particularly south of the border) (Massie 2010).

Others make the point that the argument does not have to go to far because of the fact that public opinion research brings for the revealation that Canada is a nation that happens to be intensely absorbed in foreign policy, whose citizens are powerfully concerned with taking an active part on the world stage and willing to obligate Canadian troops in an extensive collection of situations (J. M. Welsh 2005). As a value, Canadians -- to a greater degree than Americans -- want more expenditure on foreign expansion help, more meeting with the UN, and more participation in trade arrangements (J. Welsh 2010).

Going back to the Afghan-Canadian policy, according to Massie (2010) he counters the conservative understanding adjoining Quebec's "undue" influence on Canada's global security policy. Concentrating on the war in Afghanistan, he contends, first, that this influence is considerably overstated and, second, that if Quebec's separate attitudes have had an effect on Canada's Afghan rule, they have really donated to firming rather than hindering its legality. The article that she was so passionated about even wenta s far as putting it in three parts to make the point. The first experts thought to be intresting because it inspected the long-standing discussion adjoining Quebec's alleged "extreme" effect on Canadian foreign and defense strategy. It high- lights that blaming Quebecers for making Canada's safety policies less powerful tends to disregard the lack of public sustenance in a different place in Canada and therefore relegates the policy receptiveness concern in Canadian foreign policy.

On the other hand, Massie in their article does a little opposite by attemptig to deliver an examination of Quebec's influence on Canada's engagement in Afghanistan. They make the point that there has not been much influence of Afghanistan (Massie 2010) . Opposing to some leading critics and pundits, indication appears to display that Quebec has not had a unequal effect on Canada's Afghan policy. In other words, if Canada's post-2001 global security certainly reflects public favorites in Canada, there has been no "hijacking" by Quebecers (Massie 2010).

Other makes the debate that things are not really being done fair enough. According to Sjolander (2009) These two considerations of Canadian internationalism are not spoken on a level playing field, however. Even though it is clear that lively internationalism and open-minded internationalism in practice are not essentially, or even seemingly, in any kind of antagonism (war-fighting and charitable help could possibly both donate to the objective, for instance, of steadying Afghanistan, and both deliver foreign policy tools to the Canadian government in chase of its foreign rule purposes), the descriptions of Canada's role on the world stage that they induce are, in actual fact, quite dissimilar, and play a diverse part in the Canadian imaginary (Sjolander 2009). Most exactly, liberal internationalism has become, in an important sense, a Canadian product which reproduces the best of Canadians to themselves at home at least as much as it endorses an appearance of Canada overseas.

Reaction Paper

It is obvious in summarizing my readings that Canadian Foreign policy is an issue in Canada. It seems that many experts want to make the argument that this definition focuses on purposive act of a state, however it fails to talk about the behavior glitches that it will create for some. Some bring up the point that the he third definition of Canadian policy deals with where the state would be the guys that would attempt to resolve foreign policy as they ascend, which says, " the real steps that officials of a state takes with admiration to proceedings and circumstances overseas." From the summary the researcher was able to gather that the Foreign policy is no longer considered to be the action programs, but it is a way that individuals are demonstrating the national, takes and interrelate with other persons, groups, or bureaucrats from other states.

The researcher learned that people in Canada are deeply concerned about the foreign policy, despite the fact of what other countries might assume. The researcher find out that these are citizens that have a strong passion are powerfully concerned with making sure that they are taking part in what is going on around the world and willing to even give up their Canadian troops in an extensive array of situations. As a connotation, Canadians -- to a more certain extent than Americans actually do want more spending on foreign improvement help, more…

Sources Used in Document:

Works Cited

Granatstein, Jack. "The Foreign and Defence Poliies Canada Needs." 205-231. Canada, 2012.

Hart, Bill Dymond and Michael. "The Potemkin of Canadian Foreign Policy." Policy Options, 2003-2004: 39-45.

Lang, Eugene. "Making Afghanistan Policy -- Generals, Bureaucrats and Politicians." The Royal Canadian Military Institute 28, no. 2 (2008): 4-7.

Massie, Justin. "Hijacking a Policy? Assessing Quebec's "Undue" Influence on Canada's Aghan Policy." American Review of Canadian Studies 40, no. 2 (2010): 259-275.

Cite This Reaction Paper:

"Canadian Foreign Policy A Brave New World" (2012, October 13) Retrieved December 10, 2019, from

"Canadian Foreign Policy A Brave New World" 13 October 2012. Web.10 December. 2019. <>

"Canadian Foreign Policy A Brave New World", 13 October 2012, Accessed.10 December. 2019,