Internationalism and the Canadian Public

Internationalism and the Canadian Public1

Don Munton University of Northern British ColumbiaTom Keating University of Alberta

Internationalism is central to Canadian foreign policy If not quite theof cial lsquolsquoreligionrsquorsquo it is certainly much revered by those who manageand debate that policy2 If not quite an everyday concern of themasses it is readily invoked in public discussions Canada one oftenhears is lsquolsquorenowned for internationalismrsquorsquo3

While it is popular conceptions of internationalism that largelyconcern us here and while we explore these conceptions through anal-

1 This article is a result of a joint project on lsquolsquoPublic Opinion and Foreign Policyrsquorsquofunded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada andby the Donner Canadian Foundation through a grant to the Canadian Institute ofInternational Affairs (CIIA) Public opinion data utilized here were provided byDecima Research Longwoods COMPAS and the Canadian Institute of PublicOpinion (CIPO or lsquolsquoGalluprsquorsquo org anization) The Carleton University DataArchive and University of British Columbia Data Archive provided the Gallupdata utilized here Ann Oram Laine Ruis John Willis Michael Slack DanielSavas Allar Olljum and Michael Dreidger provided research assistance withthese and other data We are grateful to Alan Morgan and Nat Stone of theDepartment of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for thoughtful commentson an early draft of this article and to Cranford Pratt Catherine Lu and anony-mous reviewers of the Journal for helpful comments on a later version

2 John Holmes suggests internationalism was lsquolsquoalmost a religionrsquorsquo for Canada dur-ing the decade after the Second World War (The Shaping of the Peace Vol 2[Toronto University of Toronto Press 1982] 119) Paul Painchaud elevates therelated concept of middlepowermanship to the lofty status of an lsquolsquoideologyrsquorsquo(lsquolsquoMiddlepowermanship as an Ideologyrsquorsquo in J King Gordon ed Canadarsquos Roleas a Middle Power [Toronto Canadian Institute of International Affairs 1966]29-35)

3 Quoted from CBC Radio Commentary July 1 1998

Don Munton International Studies Program University of Northern BritishColumbia Prince George British Columbia V2N 4Z9 MuntonunbccaTom Keating Department of Political Science University of Alberta EdmontonAlberta T6G 2H4 TomKeatingualbertaca

Canadian Journal of Political Science Revue canadienne de science politiqueXXXIV3 (Septemberseptembre 2001) 517-549copy 2001 Canadian Political Science Association (lrsquoAssociation canadienne de science politique)and et la Socieacuteteacute queacutebeacutecoise de science politique

ysis of public opinion polls the views of the elites actively engaged inCanadian external relations can be our starting point It seems gener-ally agreed that internationalism emerged as a key feature of therhetoric and perhaps the major feature of policy during the era ofPrime Minister Louis St Laurent and his secretary of state for externalaffairs and later his successor Lester Pearson As Guy Gosselinobserves lsquolsquoDe Saint-Laurent et Pearson agrave Trudeau on a observeacute uneconstante lrsquointernationalisme multilateral qui apparait comme unecaracteacuteristique principale de la politique eacutetrangegravere canadiennersquorsquo4 Itmay not haunt us as do some of its practitioners but internationalismis with us still5

Internationalism in the discourse

One need look no further for evidence of the centrality of lsquolsquointerna-tionalismrsquorsquo to the contemporary foreign policy discourse than theintense debates during 1999 over Canadarsquos participation in the NAT Obombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia Of cials defended thisinvolvement in terms of Canadarsquos international responsibilities toNATO and to the United Nations if not to the Kosovar AlbaniansCritics of the campaign charged that the bombing was a violation ofinternational norms that Canada was meekly following a wrong-headed policy of the United States and that Canadian policy repre-

4 Guy Gosselin lsquolsquoLe Canada et les Nations Uniesrsquorsquo in Paul Painchaud ed DeMackenzie King agrave Pierre Trudeau Quarante ans de diplomatie canadienne (Que-bec Les Presses de lrsquoUniversiteacute Laval 1989) 183 On the same point see BruceThordarson Trudeau and Foreign Policy (Toronto Oxford University Press1972) 3 Peyton V Lyon Behind the Headlines 29 7 8 (1970) 14 HolmesShaping of the Peace 14 Michael Tucker Canadian Foreign Policy (TorontoMcGraw-Hill Ryerson 1980) 1 David Dewitt and John Kirton Canada as aPrincipal Power (Toronto Wiley 1983) chap 2 Kim Richard Nossal The Poli-tics of Canadian Foreign Policy (Toronto Prentice-Hall all editions) Michael KHawes Principal Power Middle Power or Satellite (Toronto York ResearchProgramme in Strategic Studies 1984) 4 K J Holsti Behind the Headlines 297 8 (1970) 12 Pierre Martin and Michel Fortmann lsquolsquoCanadian Public Opinionand Peacekeeping in a Turbulent Worldrsquorsquo International Journal 50 (1995) 382388 Jean-Franccedilois Rioux and Robin Hay lsquolsquoCanadian Foreign Policy FromInternationalism to Isolationismrsquorsquo (Ottawa Norman Paterson School of Interna-tional Affairs Occasional Paper Series No 16 1997) also in International Jour-nal 54 (1998-1999) 57-75 Edna Keeble and Heather Smith (Re)De ning Tradi-tions Gender and Canadian Foreign Policy (Halifax Fernwood 1999) andCostas Melakopides Pragmatic Idealism Canadian Foreign Policy 1945-1995(Montreal McGill-Queens University Press 1998)

5 We are here of course paraphrasing what has been termed one of the most pla-giarized phrases in contemporary Canadian politics from Stephen Clarkson andChristina McCall Trudeau and Our Times Vol 1 (Toronto McClelland andStewart 1990) 9

518 Don Munton and Tom Keating

Abstract Internationalism has long been central to Canadian foreign policy Althoughoften invoked by governments and individuals and much debated it remains an ill-de ned even obscure concept This article assesses empirically how the Canadian publicregards internationalism and explores the underlying structure of internationalist atti-tudes Public opinion data from 1985 provide evidence of four dimensions of attitudesactive economic liberal-conservative and independent internationalism There is astrong consensus on the rst two types of internationalism but no such consensus behindthe others Scattered data from across the post-Second World War period seem to supportthese ndings Using such a typology of internationalism may both illuminate debates onCanadian foreign policy and advance studies of Canadian public attitudes

Reacutesumeacute Lrsquointernationalisme est depuis longtemps un concept central de la politiqueeacutetrangegravere canadienne Bien qursquoil soit souvent invoqueacute par les gouvernements et les indi-vidus et tregraves discuteacute il demeure mal deacute ni et obscur Cet article procegravede agrave une eacutevaluationempirique de la faccedilon dont le public canadien perccediloit lrsquointernationalisme et examine lastructure qui sous-tend ces attitudes Les donneacutees sur lrsquoopinion publique recueilliesdepuis 1985 tendent agrave deacutemontrer que les attitudes agrave lrsquoeacutegard de lrsquointernationalisme sont dequatre types actives eacuteconomiques libeacuterales-conservatrices indeacutependantes Si lrsquoexis-tence des deux premiers types fait lrsquoobjet drsquoun large consensus tel nrsquoest pas le cas pourles deux derniers Les donneacutees fragmentaires dont on dispose sur lrsquoeacutevolution de lrsquoopinionpublique au cours de lrsquoensemble de la peacuteriode posteacuterieure agrave la seconde guerre mondialesemblent corroborer ces constats Lrsquoutilisation drsquoune telle typologie des attitudes agravelrsquoeacutegard de lrsquointernationalisme peut eacuteclairer tant les deacutebats sur la politique eacutetrangegravere cana-dienne que les eacutetudes sur les attitudes du public canadien

sented a betrayal of the countryrsquos internationalist traditions and of itsrecord as an international peacekeeper in particular Internationalismwas thus a yardstick by which Ottawarsquos policies were attacked as wellas defended

Internationalism was under scrutiny before the Kosovo act of theBalkan tragedy Sermons have decried a general decline in and even adisappearance of internationalism in Canadian external pursuits6

Cranford Pratt nds an lsquolsquoerodingrsquorsquo internationalist spirit in Canadaparticularly amongst Ottawa of cialdom7 Canadarsquos internationalisttradition according to Kim Richard Nossal has been undermined by alsquolsquopinchpenny diplomacyrsquorsquo a lsquolsquomeanness of spiritrsquorsquo that is subvertingour tradition of lsquolsquogood international citizenshiprsquorsquo8 Canada has accord-ing to others lsquolsquoretreated from the worldrsquorsquomdashapparently wounded byself-in icted cuts in spending on both development assistance and themilitary during the 1990s Indeed the government of Jean Chreacutetien

6 We use the term lsquolsquosermonrsquorsquo in the Oxford Dictionary sense of a lsquolsquopiece of admo-nition or reproofrsquorsquo

7 Cranford Pratt ed Internationalism under Strain (Toronto University ofToronto Press 1989) esp 61

8 Talk at the University of Northern British Columbia October 1998 and KimRichard Nossal lsquolsquoPinchpenny Diplomacyrsquorsquo International Journal 54 (1998-1999)88-99 In the 1997 edition of The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy Nossal sug-gests that lsquolsquoregionalismrsquorsquo beg an to challenge internationalism in the 1990s (161)

has ledmdashif that is the right wordmdashlsquolsquothe most marked retreat fromPearsonian internationalism since the inception of the doctrinersquorsquo leav-ing Canada lsquolsquobereft of its internationalist focusrsquorsquo and lsquolsquoonly a short hopfrom isolationismrsquorsquo9 On the other hand Edna Keeble and HeatherSmith argue that internationalism continued in the 1990s but its basiccharacter changed10

Declining internationalism has been observed before Anguishedcries from proponents of internationalism actually go back decades11

The foreign policy review of Pierre Trudeaursquos government in 1970 wasroundly attacked as a repudiation of Pearsonian internationalism Onecritic found the review lsquolsquodownright hereticrsquorsquo12 Internationalism hadachieved near mythical proportions as an academic concept by the1970s and that fuelled the sermons of the era as much as if not morethan the largely bland statements of the review itself The most offen-sive line in what one critic labelled the lsquolsquoTrudeau doctrinersquorsquo (a phrasenot meant to atter) was the statement that it was risky to assumeCanada can be a lsquolsquohelpful xerrsquorsquo (itself a phrase not meant as attery)13 Such was arguably not a particularly contentious observa-tion indeed it is debatable how often Canada ever played such a rolehistorically But the helpful xerhonest broker image had consider-

9 Rioux and Hay lsquolsquoCanadian Foreign Policyrsquorsquo 24 See also Andrew CohenlsquolsquoCanada in the World The Return of the National Interestrsquorsquo Behind the Head-lines 52 (1995) 1-16

10 Keeble and Smith (Re)De ning Traditions chap 311 The sometime somewhat cynical-sounding tone here is not intended as a slight to

internationalism itself but rather as comment upon the academic tendency todebate and defend the unde ned lsquolsquoInternationalismrsquorsquo ranks as one of those uni-versally used and abused terms that has been invoked and promoted more thanconceptually clari ed

12 Foreign Policy for Canadians (Ottawa Department of External Affairs 1970)See the commentaries in Behind the Headlines 29 7 8 (1970) including thelsquolsquohereticrsquorsquo comment by Gilles Lalande (14) Louis Sabourin observed a decline inwhat he termed the lsquolsquoidealistic approachrsquorsquo after the mid-1960s (lsquolsquoLrsquoin uence desfacteurs internes sur la politique eacutetrangegravere canadiennersquorsquo Etudes internationales 1[1970] 41-63) Politicians also waded in Conservative Party Leader RobertStan eld for example criticized the 1969 NAT O cuts as re ecting lsquolsquoisolationismand continentalismrsquorsquo (quoted by Thordarson Trudeau and Foreign Policy 143)Despite the debate at the time over the actual direction of Trudeaursquos foreign pol-icy the 1970s are now often simply assumed to have been a period of declininginternationalism (see Rioux and Hay lsquolsquoCanadian Foreign Policyrsquorsquo 5-6)

13 The lsquolsquoTrudeau doctrinersquorsquo label was applied by Peyton Lyon lsquolsquoThe Trudeau Doc-trinersquorsquo International Journal 26 (1970-1971) 19-43 The phrase lsquolsquohelpful xerrsquorsquowas widely but wrongly interpreted as a Trudeauvian slap (or lsquolsquosneerrsquorsquo accord-ing to Lyon) at Lester Pearson Ironically the source of this phrase was in factPearsonrsquos son Geoffrey himself a foreign service of cer who had intended it asa comment on the relentless efforts of Secretary of State for External Affairs PaulMartin in the 1960s to mediate the Viet Nam con ict (personal communicationGeoffrey Pearson to Don Munton February 1999)


able baggage for the faithful Other observers saw the Trudeau reviewnot so much as repudiating Canadian traditions as questioning oldshibboleths One of the governmentrsquos concrete steps for example wasto increase development assistance by most standards an internation-alist measure

However gloomy its future may have seemed in the 1970s inter-nationalism came back by popular demandmdashback that is at least inrhetoric and back that is if indeed it ever went away MichaelTucker for one argued persuasively at the end of the decade thatdespite the changed rhetoric the foreign policies of the Trudeauperiod had actually maintained the internationalist tradition albeit per-haps being internationalist in a different way than earlier Liberal gov-ernments14 Thomas Hockin writing as an academic in the early1970s found no decline in internationalism per se but rather a declinein what he termed lsquolsquovoluntarismrsquorsquo15 It should be noted that bothTucker and Hockin were commenting more on what they saw as sig-ni cant Canadian deeds than on the words of the 1970 review Cer-tainly during the Trudeau years internationalism was less often of -cially invoked by name in the usual platitudinous post-prandial policyponti cations

The rhetoric changed again in the 1980s The inaugural speechfrom the throne of Brian Mulroneyrsquos Conservative gove r n m e n t in 1984recalled lsquolsquoa luminous tradition of internationalismrsquorsquo (although it refrainedfrom identifying this tradition as a Liberal one) and heralded a renewa lof what it called lsquolsquoconstructive Canadian internationalismrsquorsquo16 If thesewo r d s were less than prominent in the follow-up 1985 Department ofExternal Affa i r s green paper Competitiveness and Security the tone ofwhich was more than a tad muted the thought was still there lsquolsquoWe musttrade if we are to prosperrsquorsquo the paper noted lsquolsquoOur security interestsdemand that we play our part in western defence and in arms control anddisarmament Our values dictate that we help the poor the hungry andthe politically abusedrsquorsquo17 These were passing thoughts however andthey seemed empty to one prominent critic Cranford Pratt argued

14 Tucker Canadian Foreign Policy See also Nossal Politics of Canadian ForeignPolicy (1985) 59 and another former student of Holmes Clarence RedekoplsquolsquoTrudeau at Singaporersquorsquo in Kim Richard Nossal ed Acceptance of Paradox(Toronto Canadian Institute of International Affairs 1982) 174-95 GeoffreyPearson agrees see Seize the Day Lester B Pearson and Crisis Diplomacy(Ottawa Carleton University Press 1993) xvi

15 Thomas Hockin lsquolsquoOther Dimensions of Canadian Foreign Policy The Decline ofVoluntarism beyond North Americarsquorsquo in Thomas Hockin et al The CanadianCondominium (Toronto McClelland and Stewart 1972) 147

16 Canada House of Commons Debates 33rd Parliament 1st Session Nove m b e r 51984 7

17 Joe Clark Competitiveness and Security (Ottawa 1985) 43

Internationalism and the Canadian Public 521

that the green paper marked lsquolsquoa low point for Canadian internation-alism unmatched in the last forty years of Canadian foreign pol-icyrsquorsquo18 Other critics and they were legion focused their ire on therather anodyne argument that lsquolsquorealityrsquorsquo set lsquolsquolimitsrsquorsquo on Canadarsquoslsquolsquo a b i l i t y to actrsquorsquo (One wonders if Mulroneyrsquos secretary of state forex t e r n a l affa i r s Joe Clark might have escaped some criticism hadthe gove r n m e n t said that reality merely sets limits on Canadarsquosability to effect international solutions) Once again as in the early1970s defenders of the internationalist faith were waging war onthe heretical notion that realism might sometimes co-exist with ide-alism19

Tr a d i t i o n s especially luminous ones are not so easily forgot-ten howeve r especially by politicians looking for consensus andsupport20 Enter Independence and Internationalism the 1986 reportof the parliamentary Special Joint Committee on Canadarsquos Interna-tional Relations Despite other quarrels the members of parliamentand senators could and did agree on the merits of lsquolsquoconstructiveinternationalismrsquorsquo21 In this case the bells were tolling for all par-ties The Mulroney gove r n m e n t of cially responded not surpris-ingly warmly endorsing the recommendations on constructiveinternationalism In tabling this response in the House of Com-mons Clark proclaimed that lsquolsquoconstructive internationalism isand will remain the fundamental foreign policy orientation of thisgove r n m e n t rsquorsquo A later throne speech asserted that lsquolsquoCanadians seek

18 Pratt lsquolsquo C a n a d i a n Fo r e i g n Policy Comments on the Green Papersrsquorsquo Behindthe Headlines 42 (1985) 45

19 For the classic argument that foreign policy must combine both realism andidealism see E H Carr The Twenty Yearsrsquo Crisis 1919-39 (New YorkHarper and Row 1946)

20 Clark wo u l d soon be invo k i n g lsquolsquo i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m rsquorsquo for example to defendthe Canada-United States Arctic Cooperation Agreement which he claimedwo u l d assert Canadian sove r e i g n t y in the Arctic (Clark lsquolsquoSove r e i g n t y in anInterdependent Worldrsquorsquo remarks at Carleton Unive r s i t y October 18 1988)

21 Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons onCanadarsquos International Relations Independence and Internationalism(Ottawa June 1986) Nossal suggests incorrectly that this committee originated theterm lsquolsquoconstructive internationalismrsquorsquo (The Politics of Canadian Foreign Pol-icy 1997 158) According to Hockin the committeersquos co-chair and GeraldWright its research director they consciously borrowed the term from the1984 throne speech (Hockin and Wright to Munton Ottawa 1987) The termlsquolsquo c o n s t r u c t ive internationalismrsquorsquo was also used in 1972 by ThordarsonTrudeau and Foreign Policy 174 and in 1970 by Lyon Behind the Headlines14 Further back in Louis St Laurentrsquos famous 1948 Gray Lecture hereferred to Canadarsquos record of lsquolsquoconstructive international actionrsquorsquo (lsquolsquo T h eFo u n d a t i o n s of Canadian Policy in World Affa i r s rsquorsquo Duncan and John GrayMemorial Lecture [Toronto Unive r s i t y of Toronto Press 1947])


a con dent constructive active internationalismrsquorsquo22 Others contin-ued the rhetoric23

The return of the Liberals to Ottawarsquos halls of power in 1993arguably did little to change Canadian foreign policy Continuity wasthe watchword of the governmentrsquos bland 1995 statement Canada andthe World Although the term lsquolsquointernationalismrsquorsquo is absent the inter-nationalist theme was nonetheless clear The Liberals would look posi-tively on lsquolsquoCanadarsquos history as a champion of constructive multi-lateralism and effective international mediatorrsquorsquo24 For some therhetoric could no doubt have been strongermdashLiberal MP LloydAxworthy for one who was invoking the internationalist traditionev en before he became foreign affairs minister in 1996 In a 1992speech he had called for a lsquolsquoLiberal con dent internationalismrsquorsquo witha focus on lsquolsquoends and purposesrsquorsquo and he expended considerable ener-gies while in of ce pursuing those internationalist ends25

The foregoing discussion makes clear that political rhetoric aboutinternationalism has long been central to debates about Canadian for-eign policy and remains so today It has Maureen Molot notes a lsquolsquocon-tinuing underlying attractionrsquorsquo to practitioners as well as to analysts andyet she adds lsquolsquoit remains a signi cant analytical perspective morefor its hortatory connotations than its analytical rigorrsquorsquo26 As we shall

22 Canada House of Commons Debates December 4 1986 and October 11986 respective l y See also Joe Clark lsquolsquoCanadarsquos New Internationalismrsquorsquo inJohn Holmes and John Kirton eds Canada and the New Internationalism(Toronto Canadian Institute of International Affa i r s 1988) 11 MarkNeufeld sees a consistency across the Green Paper the subsequent jointcommittee report and the gove r n m e n t rsquos response in terms of their emphasison the modesty of Canadian capabilities (Mark Neufeld lsquolsquoHegemony andFo r e i g n Policy Analysis The Case of Canada as a Middle Powerrsquorsquo Studies inPolitical Economy 48 [1995] 7-29) In contrast we see the committee reportand the of cial response as a would-be redirection of the discourse a con-scious reaction by the gove r n m e n t to criticisms of the lack of internationalistand idealist rhetoric in the Green Paper

23 See for example Barbara MacDougall lsquolsquoCanada and the New International-ismrsquorsquo Canadian Foreign Policy 1 (1992-1993) 1-6 and John Turner lsquolsquoClosingRemarks to the Liberal Party Policy Conferencersquorsquo Vancouver February 71988 For an analysis of the actions rather than rhetoric of the Mulroneygove r n m e n t see Ulrich Fanger lsquolsquoCanadarsquos Foreign Policy in the EightiesContinentalism and Internationalismrsquorsquo Aussenpolitik 1 (1988) 86-101

24 Government of Canada Canada and the World (Ottawa 1995) 925 Lloyd Axworthy address to the Faculty of Law McGill University January 27

1992 Axworthy had been a member of the 1985-1986 Special Joint Committeechaired by Hockin and Senator Jean-Maurice Simardmdashas was another Liberaland future prime minister Jean Chreacutetien

26 Maureen Molot lsquolsquoWhere Do We Should We or Can We Sit A Review of Cana-dian Foreign Policy Literaturersquorsquo International Journal of Canadian Studies 1-2(1990) 80 Michael Hawes argues that internationalism has lsquolsquoall but dominated


show the term is often remarkably ill de ned It is so perhaps becauseinternationalism is so popular and thus so useful to politicians andof cials As a broad slogan it appeals to the maximum number ofpotential supporters and can be used to build public support and toshape the public debate lsquolsquoMiddle-power internationalismrsquorsquo Edna Keebleand Heather Smith observe was lsquolsquoa deliberate construction of post-wardiplomacyrsquorsquo as well as lsquolsquoa response to the structural reality of the coldwa r erarsquorsquo27 These are points to which we will return later

Objective

The purpose here is not to argue that internationalism as policy hasbeen maintained or that it came back or that it ever or nev er wentaw ay We seek not to trace its decline or re-emergence in Canadianactions or in of cial rhetoric but rather to take a hard look at howav erage Canadians think about internationalismmdashthat is how theyde ne and structure it Especially given the popularity of publicinvocations there has been little such effort to assess systematicallyhow the Canadian public regards internationalism28

This study hypothesizes that ave r a g e Canadians have struc-tured conceptions of internationalism Give n that practitioners andobservers have not come to an agreed-upon de nition of the term itmight be assumed that the less attuned and more distracted Cana-dian public would be eve n more confused That we shall show isnot the case We also assume that elite and public views of interna-tionalism as well as internationalist activities (or what we call pol-icy internationalism) are all inter-related and mutually reinforcingConceptions of internationalism moreove r underlie Canadian for-eign policy discourse Indeed internationalism debates go to theheart of the politics of foreign policy and to the heart of the Cana-

the study of foreign policy in Canadarsquorsquo and is still the most in uential viewamongst Canadian foreign policy analysts (Principal Power Middle Power 4)Melakopides argues curiously that academics have shunned internationalismev en while it permeated Canadarsquos policies (Pragmatic Idealism 14-15) JamesEayrs argues that the concept of Canada as a middle power remains lsquolsquoobscurersquorsquoand suggests this was deliberate on the part of users (lsquolsquoDe ning a Place forCanada in the Hierarchy of World Powerrsquorsquo International Perspectives [May-June1975] 18)

27 Keeble and Smith (Re)De ning Traditions 58 Like Molot and borrowing fromEayrs they see internationalism as an lsquolsquoobscurersquorsquo concept They also argue itsCanadian usage is a gendered construction (52-53)

28 In contrast to the Canadian literature the literature on American internationalismfocuses heavily on the matter of public support See for example Eugene Wit-tkopf Faces of Internationalism (Durham Duke University Press 1990)


dian identity whateve r that may be29 Clarifying internationalism ispotentially a contribution to understanding both

Notions of Internationalism

Whence lsquolsquointernationalismrsquorsquo Academic observers often trace it to theCanadian parliamentrsquos overwhelming approval of the Dumbarton Oaksproposals to establish the United Nations and Canadarsquos subsequentparticipation in the San Francisco conference in 194530mdashlsquolsquoas convinc-ing a display of internationalism as the most enthusiastic idealist couldwishrsquorsquo31 In fact however Canadian usage of the concept dates at leastto the pre-Second World War period The term lsquolsquointernationalistrsquorsquo wasemployed more or less synonymously with lsquolsquocollectivistrsquorsquo in refer-ence to those (like Liberal newspaper publisher J W Dafoe socialistpolitician T C Douglas and political scientist Escott Reid) who sup-ported the League of Nations and the concept of collective security(hence lsquolsquocollectivistrsquorsquo)32

The notion of internationalism became more prominent in thepostwar period and nowhere more so than in the talks and writings ofJohn Holmes A close associate of Lester Pearson in External AffairsHolmes had been an important member of the Canadian foreign policyestablishment prior to joining the Canadian Institute of InternationalAffairs and the University of Toronto in the 1960s More than any

29 A rare treatment examining Canadian public opinion on external relations aspart of Canadian identity is Mildred A Schwartz Public Opinion and Cana-dian Identity (Berkeley Unive r s i t y of California Press 1967)

30 Hawes Principal Power Middle Power 3 531 Saturday Night April 7 1945 8 quoted by F H Sow ard and Edgar McInnis

lsquolsquoForming the United Nations 1945rsquorsquo in Don Munton and John Kirton edsCanadian Foreign Policy Selected Cases (Toronto Prentice-Hall 1992) 12

32 See for example F R Scott lsquolsquoThe Permanent Bases of Canadian Foreign Pol-icyrsquorsquo Foreign Affairs 10 (July 1932) 617-31 and F H Sow ard et al Canada inWorld Affairs The Pre-War Years (Toronto Oxford University Press 1941)chap 2 Internationalism was also sought and discussed during the early post-First World War period the appropriateness of the term as applied to the activi-ties of such bodies as the Institute of Paci c Relations however has been chal-lenged See Jon Thares Davidann lsquolsquo lsquoColossal Illusionsrsquo US-Japanese Relationsin the Institute of Paci c Relations 1919-1938rsquorsquo Journal of World History 12(2001) 155-82 There are of course many varieties of lsquolsquointernationalismrsquorsquo withwhich Canadian conceptions share some elements See for example CarrTwenty Yearsrsquo Crisis 85 R Martinelli lsquolsquoAntonio Gramscirsquos InternationalismrsquorsquoWorld Marxist Review 30 (1987) 94-110 and S Anghelov et al Socialist Inter-nationalism (Moscow Progress 1982) Micheline Ishayrsquos Internationalism andits Betrayal (Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press 1995) traces theev olution of internationalist ideas from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuriesConsideration of these variants and philosophical traditions is well beyond thefocus of this article


other including Pearson he can be credited with the academic popu-larity of the internationalist perspective

Internationalism is not merely a favourite term for Holmes it is acentral and recurring theme33 The term appears in his writings notonly as a noun but also as an adjective and an adverb He uses it with avariety of modi ers attached pure internationalism active internation-alism liberal (or left) internationalism wider internationalism newand tougher internationalism soft-minded internationalism comfort-able internationalism internationalist nationalism American NewDeal internationalism and of course Canadian internationalismmdashtomention but a few Its proponents and pretenders are legion accordingto Holmesmdashcompulsive internationalists dogmatic internationalistsnationalist internationalists and Ottawa internationalists to be distin-guished from Marxist internationalistsmdashagain to name a few And theterm applies to a host of different phenomena It is a lsquolsquodirectionrsquorsquo ofCanadian foreign policy a lsquolsquocharacteristicrsquorsquo an lsquolsquoinstinctrsquorsquo and a policyin and of itself It is also for Holmes notably a lsquolsquobelief rsquorsquo of Canadians

What lsquolsquoitrsquorsquo is never becomes entirely clear howev er Holmestends to avoid formal de nitions (lsquolsquotidy-minded peoplersquorsquo he believedlsquolsquoare a menace in world affairsrsquorsquo34) The essence here is not to be foundin explicit de nition but rather to be gleaned from the nuances ForHolmes Canadarsquos internationalism consists in actions of a broad butreasonably particular kind in respecting accepting collaboratingnegotiating easing adjusting and reconciling It means being aware ofthe interests of others being prudent being pragmatic seeing realitiesavoiding vehemence and hysteria accepting paradox and contradic-tion accepting limitations on sovereignty and independence and per-haps above all being constructive avoiding absolutes and if possibledoing it all multilaterally The closest Holmes comes to an explicitde nition is lsquolsquoco-operation of nations in the common interestrsquorsquo and thecollaborative effort lsquolsquoto achieve the international agreements whichfortify the world structurersquorsquo35 This is at best a start

What Holmesrsquos internationalism is not is clearer It is most cer-tainly not isolationism and the avoidance of commitments Nor is itneutralism or continentalism36 Nor for that matter is it anti-Ameri-

33 In addition to discussions in Shaping of the Peace Vols 1 and 2 and Holmes andKirton Canada and the New Internationalism Holmes elaborates international-ism in The Better Part of Valour (Toronto McClelland and Stewart 1970) and inCanada A Middle Aged Power (Toronto McClelland and Stewart 1976)

34 Holmes The Better Part of Valour 6335 Ibid 36 236 The strong negative response to James Mini ersquos provocative book Peacemaker

or Powder-Monkey (Toronto McClelland and Stewart 1960) which proposed alsquolsquopositive neutralist internationalismrsquorsquo underscored the fact that most observers


canism It is compatible with nationalism but not a lsquolsquomorbidrsquorsquo nation-alism Also it is compatible with pursuit of the national interest what-ev er that might mean For Canada it was based not on lsquolsquowoolly-minded idealismrsquorsquo but rather on a lsquolsquohard-boiled calculation of theCanadian national interestrsquorsquo37

Holmesrsquos mission to strengthen support for internationalismamong Canadians was a long-standing and rmly footed cause But itwas by no meansmdashto mix anatomical metaphorsmdasha single-handedone To be sure internationalism as a term is much less frequently andless comfortably used by some observers of Canadian foreign policyTo take two prominent non-random examples both James Eayrs (acolleague of Holmes at Toronto before Eayrs moved to Dalhousie) andDenis Stairs (who studied with Eayrs and Holmes) seem generally toavoid the term (When Stairs did on one occasion refer to lsquolsquoPearsoninternationalistsrsquorsquo he added in agnostic fashion lsquolsquoif such there bersquorsquo38)These exceptions aside other academics have helped Holmes popular-ize internationalism They may not all agree on the meaning of theterm but some agree on some core elements A brief survey of the lit-erature will bear this out We focus for convenience on textbooks39

Three 1980s Canadian foreign policy textsmdashalmost the entirespeciesmdashfeature the notion of internationalism All of them emergedduring or on the heels of the Trudeau era when internationalism wasaccording to some at a low ebb in Canadian policy (and all three wereauthored or co-authored by a former student or colleague of Holmes)

The term riddles the general chapters of Michael Tuckerrsquos cri-tique of Trudeaursquos foreign policy40 While the number and varieties ofinternationalism here seem no less than in Holmes their meanings areif anything more obscure References to Pearsonian internationalismmix with those to functional internationalism middle-power interna-

accepted Canadarsquos alignment with the United States and NAT O as part of itsinternationalism Mini ersquos critics were legion and too numerous to cite here

37 Holmes Canada A Middle Aged Power 638 Denis Stairs lsquolsquoThe Foreign Policy of Canadarsquorsquo in J N Rosenau K W Thomp-

son and G Boyd eds World Politics An Introduction (New York Free Press1976) 197 (note 78) Despite Stairsrsquos apparent agnosticism Pratt for oneregards him as a lsquolsquoliberal internationalistrsquorsquo (Cranford Pratt lsquolsquoCompeting Perspec-tives on Canadian Development Assistance Policiesrsquorsquo International Journal 51[1996] 247)

39 We might also note that internationalism broadly de ned also occupies a promi-nent place in two recent reviews of Canadian foreign policy literature MaureenMolot (yet another student of Holmes) describes it as the lsquolsquopredominant intellec-tual lens in the postwar periodrsquorsquo Black and Smith note lsquolsquothe tradition of mid-dle power internationalismrsquorsquo in the eld (Molot lsquolsquoWhere Do Wersquorsquo David Blackand Heather Smith lsquolsquoNotable Exceptions New and Arrested Directions in Cana-dian Foreign Policy Literaturersquorsquo this Journal 26 (1993) 760-67)

40 Tucker Canadian Foreign Policy


tionalism and Trudeauvian internationalism The term itself escapesexplicit de nition beyond being described as the pursuit of collabora-tion Tucker nevertheless concludes as noted earlier that internation-alism has been a consistent element in Canadian foreign policiesincluding those of Pierre Trudeau

Internationalism takes on an even more prominent role and amore clearly formalized shape in the self-consciously conceptualwork of David Dewitt and John Kirton It is here not only a generalcharacterization of Canadian external behaviour but also an analyticalperspective Dewitt and Kirton contrast internationalism with twoother approaches to the study of Canadian foreign policy what theyterm lsquolsquoperipheral dependencersquorsquo and lsquolsquocomplex neo-realismrsquorsquo41 Theyconclude that while Canadian policy in the 1950s and perhaps the1960s is best explained by the internationalist perspective the policiesof the 1970s and 1980s are better explained by the complex neo-realistmodel

Internationalism (by which they mean internationalism as policyrather than attitudes) encompasses lsquolsquofunctionalismrsquorsquo lsquolsquomediatory mid-dlepowermanshiprsquorsquo and lsquolsquodistributive internationalismrsquorsquo42 Followingclosely the Holmesian conception Dewitt and Kirton suggest the lib-eral-internationalist lsquolsquovisionrsquorsquo inv olves lsquolsquoa constant co-operativeendeavour to enhance universal values through the steady developmentof a more institutionalized and just international orderrsquorsquo It compriseslsquolsquoactive participation in international affairsrsquorsquo and lsquolsquocommitmentrsquorsquo orthe expending of resources (We will nd empirical evidence in publicopinion for these aspects of multilateral collaboration active participa-tion and commitment)

The third text Nossalrsquos Politics of Canadian Foreign Policyoffers the most clearly developed de nition of internationalism43 Nos-sal argues that internationalism like isolationism before it had as its

41 Dewitt and Kirton Canada as a Principal Power esp chap 142 Michael Hawes argues similarly in Principal Power Middle Power that interna-

tionalism includes functionalism middlepowermanship and lsquolsquobenevolent interna-tionalismrsquorsquo or lsquolsquovoluntarismrsquorsquo The argument that lsquolsquointernationalismrsquorsquo takes prideof place in Canadian foreign policy is not unrelated to the notion that Canada notonly is but also acts as a middle power This point is made by among othersKeeble and Smith ([Re]De ning Traditions 46-47 57-58) There is a key differ-ence between these two concepts however Unlike internationalism the termmiddle power is used both as an indicator of power or status and as a characteri-zation of policy substance (lsquolsquomiddlepowermanshiprsquorsquo a term coined by Holmesand intended by him to be ironic) The meaning of middle power has been ren-dered clearer in the former usage than the latter See also Molot lsquolsquoWhere DoWersquorsquo Black and Smith lsquolsquoNotable Exceptionsrsquorsquo 745-74 and Neufeld lsquolsquoHege-mony and Foreign Policy Analysisrsquorsquo

43 Nossal The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy 1985 Later editions (1989 and1997) maintain the same conception


core objective the avoidance of war For Lester Pearson and others ofhis generation who watched helplessly as the Second World Warbroke out the lesson of the 1930s was that states like Canada couldnot sit back in isolationist splendour they had to be actively involvedin world affairs particularly in international organizations Nossal thussuggests internationalism as policy comprises four elements taking anactive inv olvement in and assuming some responsibility for the man-agement of international con ict working multilaterally toward inter-national order making commitments to international institutions andcommitting resources for the betterment of the international system asa whole44 In explicating these four aspects Nossal encapsulates muchof what his mentor Holmes and others discussed in more piecemealfashion Following Holmes but in contrast to most commentatorsNossal also sees internationalism as a key element of public views aswell as a feature of policy

Tw o more recent Canadian foreign policy texts also feature inter-nationalism as both a policy and an analytical perspective albeitaffording it less centrality than does Nossal Tom Keatingrsquos Canadaand World Order gives pride of place to multilateralism rather than tointernationalism per se45 Keating does not actually de ne internation-alism and uses the term sparingly but his conception of multilateral-ism seems related Keatingrsquos view following John Ruggie but con-trary to that of Robert Keohane is that multilateralism involves morethan merely the practice of working diplomatically in groups of threeor more states Rather it also implies lsquolsquoan interest in the substantivecontent of international orderrsquorsquo To quote Ruggie multilateralism is

44 In his lsquolsquoPinchpenny Diplomacyrsquorsquo article Nossal adopts a somewhat different setof elements of internationalism multilateralism community good internationalcitizenship and voluntarism (98-100) With the exception of the last the newconcepts are or seem to be largely encompassed within his earlier frameworkNossalrsquos sense of lsquolsquovoluntarismrsquorsquo differs somewhat from Hockinrsquos (see above) Itis more a premise of internationalism than a component While policy makersand academics conventionally include Canadian participation in militaryalliances (speci cally NAT O and NORAD) among the multilateral elements ofinternationalism along with the UN this element is not universally acceptedOrganized labour in Canada among others has tended to support a different vari-ant of internationalism increased participation in the UN and greater aid to theThird World but withdrawal from military alliances like NAT O (see WilliamDodge Behind the Headlines 29 7 8 [August 1970] 5-6 and the proposals ofRobert White former president of the Canadian Labour Congress cited in Riouxand Hay lsquolsquoCanadian Foreign Policyrsquorsquo 14)

45 Tom Keating Canada and World Order (Toronto McClelland and Stewart1993) In an earlier paper Keating developed the argument that postwar Cana-dian foreign policy has been essentially Grotian in character (lsquolsquoMaking a Virtueout of Necessity A Perspective on Canadarsquos Defence and Foreign Policiesrsquorsquounpublished paper 1986)


based on lsquolsquocertain principles of ordering relations among states[that] specify appropriate conduct for a class of actions without regardto the particularistic interests of the parties or the strategic exigenciesthat may exist in any speci c occurrencersquorsquo46 In this sense in its empha-sis on a pursuit of international order and what is good for internationalsociety in general the Ruggie-Keating conception of multilateralismseems close to the Holmes-Kirton-Nossal conception of internationalism

The other text Andrew Cooperrsquos Canadian Foreign Policy OldHabits and New Directions seems to offer a different emphasis but isarguably singing from the same Holmesian hymnal47 Like Dewitt andKirton Cooper talks about internationalism middle powers and func-tionalism Unlike Dewitt Kirton Rioux Hay and Nossal Cooperthinks internationalism re-emerged both diplomatically and conceptu-ally in the 1980s and 1990s Like some others Cooper does not actu-ally de ne internationalism but seems to equate it with multilateral-ism and to equate lsquolsquoPearsonian internationalismrsquorsquo with his favouritelsquolsquoconstructive internationalismrsquorsquo48 In contrast to others Cooper seesthe lsquolsquomiddle power frameworkrsquorsquo as the most resilient basis for assess-ing Canadian policy but argues that lsquolsquofunctionalismrsquorsquo is its lsquolsquocoreorganizing principlersquorsquo While there are close relationships among thesevarious concepts our inclination here (along with Nossal and others)is to regard functionalism as one aspect of internationalism rather thanas an independent or core concept49

The foregoing review shows there is indeed a substantial consen-sus in the academic literature (as well as in of cial statements) that

46 Ruggie quoted in Keating Canada and World Order 1247 Andrew Cooper Canadian Foreign Policy Old Habits and New Directions

(Scarborough Prentice-Hall 1997)48 Ibid for example 27 79 25 Others who similarly highlight the lsquolsquofunctionalistrsquorsquo

concept are Albert Legault and Michel Fortmann A Diplomacy of Hope (Mont-real McGill-Queenrsquos University Press 1992) 4 and Sabourin lsquolsquoBiculturalismand Canadian Foreign Policyrsquorsquo 180-82 both of whom use the term differentlyand more broadly than Cooper There is a clear distinction between the function-alist theory of David Mitrany as dev eloped in A Working Peace System (LondonRoyal Institute of International Affairs 1943) and the Canadian lsquolsquofunctionalrsquorsquoprinciple (or lsquolsquofunctionalismrsquorsquo) as originally stated by Prime Minister WilliamLyon Mackenzie King Since analysts of Canadian foreign policy themselvessometimes seem confused about this distinction (for example Hawes PrincipalPower Middle Power 5) we suspect its meaning remains at best obscure in thepublic mind

49 Lester Pearson who was not only present at the creation of the functional princi-ple (during the Second World War) but also for various Canadian attempts toimplement it in the ensuing years did not seem to think the functional idea was acornerstone of Canadian policies it was he suggested at a 1965 conference lsquolsquoarather naive conceptrsquorsquo (Lester Pearson lsquolsquoCanadarsquos Role as a Middle Powerrsquorsquo inGordon ed Canadarsquos Role as a Middle Power 202)


internationalism and related concepts have been and remain centralboth to Canadian foreign policy and to our understanding of thosepolicies Internationalism is in K J Holstirsquos terms a (and perhapsthe) foreign policy lsquolsquoorientationrsquorsquo of Canadamdashthe most general levelof policy50 While the literature reveals more than a degree of concep-tual diversity and perhaps of confusion (as do of cial statements) andwhile textbook de nitions (where provided) differ51 there is a degreeof underlying consensus

Consider Nossalrsquos elements of internationalism active inv olvementassuming responsibility for managing international con ict committingresources working multilaterally within international institutions andbu i l d i n g international order There is arguably a certain hierarchy hereAt a bare minimum internationalism comprises participation and invo l ve-ment internationally particularly within multilateral institutions It encom-passes participation with a commitment of resources towa r d a purpose (asAxworthy said)mdashthe pursuit of international order And more than that itcan invo l ve not the pursuit of particular or sel sh objective s or of just anysort of order but pursuit of a common good the good of the whole (asE H Carr would say)52 Internationalism broadly de ned has not only abehavioural element therefore but also an ethical one While the argu-ment might well be made philosophically that the ethical element isessential rather than optional that is not how internationalism has beenconve n t i o n a l l y treated heretofore in the academic literature So restrictinginternationalism might mean for example that multilateral participationin pursuit of national interests could not by de nition be internationalismFo r now and especially for the purposes of the data analysis to follow itseems preferable to adopt a more inclusive operational de nition of inter-nationalism In summary we see active participation multilateralismcommitment and pursuit of a common good as key elements of a generalinternationalism

50 K J Holsti International Politics A Framework for Analysis (Englewood CliffsPrentice-Hall 1972) 101

51 To adopt a different jargon the notion of internationalism is an lsquolsquoessentially con-tested conceptrsquorsquo as is middlepowerism (Neufeld lsquolsquoHegemony and Foreign PolicyAnalysisrsquorsquo 12)

52 Carr Twenty Years Crisis 167 This ethical element is related to what Hockin theacademic had in mind when he de ned Canadarsquos voluntarist tradition as lsquolsquothe searchfor moral opportunity in international politicsrsquorsquo (in Lewis Hertzman John Warnockand Thomas Hockin Alliances and Illusions [Edmonton Hurtig 1969] 97) Riouxand Hay similarly argue that lsquolsquobeing engaged economically in the world does not con-stitute an internationalist foreign policy This requires engagement on a broader frontlsquolsquo o n the basis of a philosophy that includes more than immediate self-interestrsquorsquo(lsquolsquoCanadian Foreign Policyrsquorsquo 20) At the same time their conclusion that international-ism declined during the 1990s is based almost entirely on the reduction of spending onaid and defence


Internationalism and the Public

Observers note that lsquolsquoscholars politicians of cials and journalistshave all emphasized the internationalist thrust of Canadian foreignpolicy since 1945rsquorsquo53 We believe that the public approaches Canadianforeign policy in similar terms As Heather Smith argues Canadianshave lsquolsquoa strong nostalgic attachmentrsquorsquo to internationalism Indeed it isfair to say lsquolsquointernationalism will continue to be a central tenet inCanadian foreign policy precisely because it gives Canadians a senseof being differentrsquorsquo54 Canadian policies could not for long be in anysubstantial way lsquolsquointernationalistrsquorsquo whatever that is taken to meanwithout there being at least diffuse support indeed even somedemand for such policies among the public And in turn pronounce-ments and policies have necessarily shaped public attitudes It is pre-sumably for these reasons that Holmes the activist campaigned forpublic understanding and support of internationalism and that Nossalthe academic discusses it in the context of societal factors affectingCanadian foreign policy

If further justi cation is needed for pursuing internationalismthrough public opinion polls and through the particular methodologi-cal route followed here Nossalrsquos discussion provides it well First hecharacterizes internationalism as one of three lsquolsquodominant ideasrsquorsquounderlying Canadian foreign policy in the twentieth century alongwith imperialism the heyday of which was the First World War andisolationism dominant during the inter-war period55 Nossal sees thesedominant ideas as latent and tends to use of cial statements and elitedebates as evidence of their existence Public opinion data can alsoreveal such latent patterns or in the terms we used above illuminatean underlying attitudinal structure Second Nossal characterizes thesedominant ideas as lsquolsquopervasiversquorsquo but not as unanimously held Suchideas ought therefore to be identi able using a variance-based tech-nique such as factor analysis (If everyone agreed there would be novariance in the data)

What is the nature of this underlying structure While Nossaldoes not attempt to identify schools of thought within international-ism others have In the years leading up to the Second World Warobservers commonly analyzed the intense debate over Canadian exter-

53 Pratt Internationalism under Strain 24 emphasis added Rioux and Hay make avery similar point also omitting reference to the mass public (lsquolsquoCanadian ForeignPolicyrsquorsquo 15)

54 Heather Smith review of Cooper et al Niche Diplomacy in Canadian ForeignPolicy 6 (1998) 138 and Keeble and Smith (Re)De ning Traditions 58

55 Nossal borrows the concept of lsquolsquodominant ideasrsquorsquo from Bruce Doern and RichardPhidd Canadian Public Policy Ideas Structure and Process (Toronto Methuen1983)


nal policy in such terms Edgar Tarr for example found four direc-tions of policy (and domestic attitudes)mdashwhat he termed ImperialismIsolationism North Americanism and Collectivism56 It was Tarrrsquosview that the prime minister of the day William Lyon MackenzieKing was simultaneously pursuing all four directions to maximizedomestic support A classic analysis of the diversity of public and eliteopinions in the 1930s by J W Dafoe identi ed a similar array ofviews (without the dubious bene ts of public opinion polls or quanti-tative social science)57

A parallel conceptual effort to delineate sets of public attitudes isprovided by Cranford Pratt In one well-known article Pratt arguesthat domestic groupsrsquo views have become polarized around three alter-native foreign policy orientations58 He describes one position as aCanadian counterpart to the American new right this group opposesforeign aid expresses little or no concern over global inequities sup-ports military assistance to anti-communist regimes abroad and lsquolsquolooksuncritically to the United States to sustain the dominance of the west-ern worldrsquorsquo59 A second set of attitudes comprises a mix of some long-standing concerns about a communist threat support in principle forforeign aid and signi cant lsquolsquoresponsiveness to Canadian corporateinterests narrowly conceivedrsquorsquo including arms sales abroad Finally athird set of attitudes which Pratt refers to as the counter-consensusconsists mainly of opposition to the great powersrsquo nuclear arms race astronger commitment to ethical obligations internationally and supporton equity grounds for a new international economic order In our viewPratt is implicitly suggesting there are different types of international-ism in Canada

In later writing Pratt develops the notion of humane international-ism lsquolsquoAt its corersquorsquo he suggests humane internationalism lsquolsquois an accep-tance by the citizens of the industrialized states that they hav e ethicalobligations towards those beyond their borders and that these in turnimpose obligations upon their governmentsrsquorsquo60 While Pratt thus seeshumane internationalism as an element of public (as well as elite) atti-tudes in Canada and other countries he also clearly regards it as oneamong various internationalisms

56 E J Tarr lsquolsquoCanada in World Affairsrsquorsquo International Affairs 16 (1937) 685-8657 JW Dafoe lsquolsquoCanadian Foreign Policy Public Opinionrsquorsquo in Violet Anderson ed

World Currents and Canadarsquos Course (Toronto Nelson and Sons 1937) 144The analysis of R A MacKay and E B Rogers follows the general line of Tarrand Dafoe but identi es three different shades of isolationism (Canada LooksAbroad 265)

58 Cranford Pratt lsquolsquoDominant Class Theory and Canadian Foreign Policyrsquorsquo Interna-tional Journal 39 (1983-1984) 99-135

59 Ibid 12260 Pratt Internationalism under Strain 13 emphasis added


Having examined elite views on internationalism we turn to themass public Having surveyed the literature we less conventionallysurvey public opinion on this topic

Methodology

There is a narrow but lengthy trail of empirical evidence stretchingback to the early 1940s suggesting that Canadians support internation-alist policies One of the rst Gallup polls conducted in November1943 found almost 80 per cent of Canadians supported their countryplaying an active part in ensuring world peace at warrsquos end even if itmeant again sending troops abroad A January 1945 poll showed 90per cent favoured Canada joining lsquolsquoa world organization of nationsrsquorsquoafter the war In 1988 and 1990 75 per cent supported playing lsquolsquoanactive role in trying to promote peacersquorsquo while 65 per cent believed itlsquolsquobest for the future of Canada if we take an active part in worldaffairsrsquorsquo And in 1998 73 per cent wanted the Canadian governmentto devote about the same or more attention to international affairs61

Responses to such individual questions however while sugges-tive tell us little about how Canadians structure their beliefs on inter-nationalism We thus employ factor analysis a statistical data-reduc-tion technique designed to search for and identify sets of inter-relatedvariables The technique looks for an underlying structure de ned bythe co-variance of the variables Meaningful interpretation of thisstructure is up to the analyst Factor analysis is a common choice ofanalysts attempting to identify such psychological structures62

A few existing studies in Canada have identi ed aspects of inter-nationalism A pioneering 1962 national public opinion survey by theCanadian Peace Research Institute (CPRI) discovered two internation-alism dimensions amongst a large number of other attitudinal factorsFor a number of reasons however the CPRI results must be treated

61 These results are taken from respectively CIPO Press Releases lsquolsquoPublic thinksCanada should co-operate in maintaining world peace after warrsquorsquo November 201943 and lsquolsquoCanadians want direct vote in naming peace delegationrsquorsquo January 61945 Decima Research Survey 2316 for the Department of National Defence1988 Don Munton Changing Conceptions of Security Public Attitudes inCanada Ottawa Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security Decem-ber 1990 and COMPAS survey for Southam News April 1998 Poll results forthe Decima survey are available from the authors In the 1988 poll the rest (24 )said lsquolsquowe should try to stay out of world affairs and worry about our own affairsrsquorsquowhile in 1990 12 per cent said it would be better lsquolsquoif we stay out of world affairsrsquorsquoand 21 per cent said they were not sure (an option provided)

62 A good primer on the use of factor analysis in international studies is R J Rum-mel lsquolsquoUnderstanding Factor Analysisrsquorsquo Journal of Con ict Resolution 11 (1967)444-79


with caution63 A few other studies based on surveys of non-randomnon-national samples have found evidence of internationalism J IGow examined its presence in Quebec opinion over the 1945-1960period but did not identify speci c dimensions64 Thomas Trentonconstructed a composite lsquolsquointernationalismrsquorsquo scale from four questionsout of a 1973 survey of University of Toronto undergraduates Hede ned internationalism rather broadly as lsquolsquosome form of desire forco-operation among nations and peoples of the worldrsquorsquo Giv en thenature of the questions however the resulting scale might well havebeen labelled lsquolsquosupranationalismrsquorsquo since its focus was more on relin-quishing signi cant aspects of national sovereignty than on mere col-laboration amongst independent nation-states65 Neil Nevitte andRoger Gibbins surveyed senior undergraduates at nine Canadian uni-versities in the 1980s on international affairs Using nineteen questionsthey found three factors or dimensions of foreign policy attitudes oneof which they labelled lsquolsquointernationalismrsquorsquo66 An analysis of a series ofnational polls by Pierre Martin and Michel Formann asserts the viewthat lsquolsquoCanadians take an internationalist view of the worldrsquorsquo but doesnot actually provide survey evidence for this conclusion beyond show-ing abundant public support for peacekeeping67

To identify dimensions of internationalism we need to conduct orobtain a survey with a suf cient number of relevant questions and toexamine the inter-relationships amongst the set of attitudes The singlebest such poll we could identify was carried out by Decima Researchfor the Department of External Affairs in July 1985 following the elec-

63 Canadian Peace Research Institute In Your Opinion (Clarkson 1963) Vols 1and 2 The factor analysis performed in this study is substantively problematicbecause it mixed attitudinal and demographic variables was based on compositescales rather than individual questions and included a limited range of interna-tionalism-related questions As might be expected it also emphasized peace andsecurity issues The analysis identi ed two internationalism dimensions (or fac-tors) along with a lsquolsquoco-existencersquorsquo factor and a number of others One of the twointernationalism factors arguably would have been better labelled a lsquolsquodisarma-mentrsquorsquo factor as three of the four most important scales loading on this dimen-sion related to that issue The raw data from this survey were never archived andseem to be lost

64 J I Gow lsquolsquoLes Queacutebeacutecois la guerre et la paix 1945-60rsquorsquo this Journal 3 (1970)88-122

65 Thomas N Trenton lsquolsquoCanadian Nationalism Dogmatism and InternationalismA Case of Independencersquorsquo Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 5 (1978)104-13

66 Neil Nevitte and Roger Gibbins lsquolsquoForeign Policy Debates and Sleeping DogsAll Quiet on the Public Frontrsquorsquo Canadian Public Policy12 (1986) 403-12 Whilesome of the questions related directly to internationalism as de ned here otherswere more speci c in issue or geographic focus

67 Martin and Fortmann lsquolsquoCanadian public opinionrsquorsquo 397


tion of the Conservative government the previous September Use ofthis particular Decima survey is not meant to imply we are focusedsolely on the 1980s Rather if internationalism is and has been ascentral to Canadian foreign policy as many assert then the basicdimensions of internationalism in public attitudes circa 1985 are prob-ably somewhat similar at least to those one would nd in the 1970sand perhaps the 1960s and 1950s as well as to those of the 1990s andearly 2000smdashthe changes of the post-Cold War period notwithstand-ing We return to this point below

Whether by conscious design or not the 1985 External Affairssurvey contained a substantial number of questions relevant to thenotion of internationalism de ned broadly as above The survey askeda national sample of 1500 Canadians questions about foreign policypriorities the desirability of Canadian involvement in certain prob-lems the general importance of trade and other lsquolsquoinstruments of state-craftrsquorsquo (as a generation of foreign policy analysts used to call them)the desirability and effectiveness of Canada pursuing certain rolesinternationally and the nature and extent of Canadian in uence Thisextensive set of questions ts well Nossalrsquos de nition of dominantideas as those lsquolsquoideas attitudes and beliefs held by Canadians abouttheir countryrsquos proper place in world affairsrsquorsquo68 In general the itemswe selected from the survey for analysis following Nossal and otherswere questions of a general rather than a speci c or topical nature andquestions on policies Canada ought to pursue in principle or ones thatcarried such an implication (Excluded for example were questionsinvolving assessments of international situations perceptions of oth-ers and so on)

Internationalism in Public Attitudes

Four distinct factors emerge in the analysis of the 1985 ExternalAffairs Decima survey (see Table 1)69 The underlying structure is notoverly strong but is on par with those from other analyses of public

68 Nossal The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy 1997 139 The most signi cantomissions from the 1985 survey for the purpose of examining internationalismwere questions on peacekeeping and military institutions such as NAT O

69 Principal components analysis was used with varimax rotation and Kaiser nor-malization Determination of how many factors to extract is one of the more sub-jective elements of factor analysis Our initial analysis produced ve factors witheigenvalues greater than 10 but the fth factor was an offshoot of one of the oth-ers and added little to substantive interpretation of the results Four factors onlywere thus extracted For one of the classic statements on sorting out lsquolsquotrivialrsquorsquofactors see Raymond B Cattell lsquolsquoFactor Analysis An Introduction to its Essen-tialsrsquorsquo Biometrics 21 (1965) 190-215 The communality (h2) values for the 1985DEA-Decima data are not high but are well within the acceptable range


opinion data In accordance with factor analysis practice the factorswill be given descriptive labels re ecting the essential character of thegroupings of survey questions on each dimension The highly mathe-matical nature of factor analysis aside these labels are subjective

Table 1

Factor Analysis of Internationalism Attitudes (Decima survey 1985)

VariablesFactor

IFactor

IIFactor

IIIFactor

IV h2

ActiveIntrsquolism

Eco-nomic

Intrsquolism

Liberal-Conser-vative

Intrsquolism

Indepen-dent

Intrsquolism

Stop human rights violations is a priority 69 48

Reduce world hunger and poverty is a priority 66 45

Maintain peace and reduce arms is a priority 60 38

Promote democracy in world is a priority 48 -22 28

Canada can in uence world events 43 -16 22

Continue emphasis on arms control etc 38 25 23

Canadarsquos in uence should be greater 30 11

Important for Canada that UN be successful 30 25 17

International trade is important for Canada 66 44

Canada will rely on exports 57 36

Canada could not prosper without trade 51 26 34

Important Canada interested in Middle East 33 46 34

Important Canada interested in Central America 36 44 35

Trade clearly affects jobs in Canada 41 22 23

Increasing trade opportunities is a priority 34 -30 22

Help poor countries in Africa 60 40

Prevent nuclear war through enough arms -58 35

Canada can in uence arms race 53 34

Use armed forces to rescue Canadians in danger -47 24

Need to produce world-class goods and services 30 -31 26 26

Canada should pursue independent policies 68 49

Close relations with US undermines in uence 36 58 46

Relationship with US cool and independent -25 15 56 40

Canada should object to human rights violations 28 41 31

Percentage of total variance () 10 9 8 6

The rst factor shows inter-relationships among a number ofquestions dealing with the priority to be given to Canadian action on awide range but not the full gamut of international issues ThoseCanadians who assigned a high priority to stopping violations ofhuman rights and helping to reduce hunger and poverty in other coun-


tries also tended to assign a high priority to promoting democracymaintaining peace between East and West and reducing arms levelsCorrespondingly those who gav e low priority to one of these issuesgenerally gav e a low priority to others Moreover respondents assign-ing high priorities to poverty hunger democracy peace and arms con-trol also tended to agree that lsquolsquoeven though economic issues are impor-tant we must continue to pay a lot of attention to other issuesrsquorsquo ratherthan to accept the notion that lsquolsquobecause wersquore in dif cult economictimes we should shift the emphasis of our foreign policy more on eco-nomic and trade issuesrsquorsquo Questions dealing with the priority forexpanding trading opportunities with other countries did not load onthis factor at all Thus there is an evident non-economic element hereThis cluster of attitudes echoes Prattrsquos notion of humane international-ism and the views of what he calls the counter-consensus

Tw o other sets of attitudes clustered on this rst factor Onegroup of questions concerned Canadarsquos in uence lsquolsquoon the course ofworld eventsrsquorsquo Those who supported giving a high priority to thehumanitarian and common interest issues noted above also tended tobelieve that Canada could and should have an in uence on worldev ents They disagreed with the statement lsquolsquoI sometimes wonderwhether there is any point in Canada continuing to talk about the needto stop the arms race We really canrsquot in uence either sidersquorsquo The sec-ond set of attitudes concerns the importance to Canada of certainregions (the Middle East and Central America) and the importance ofinternational institutions (the United Nations) in promoting peace andsecurity

This rst factor therefore deals with Canada being active l yinvo l ved in a range of international issues rather than taking a pas-sive stance internationally and whether it has and should have thecapacity to be effective Howeve r this is not a general lsquolsquoactivismrsquorsquodimension it does not include economic and trade concerns Thereis a distinct humanitarian element in many attitudes with somere ection of a more cosmopolitan element70 The factor ove r a l l howeve r deals less with the positions Canada should take (what-ev er the issue) or the precise ends to be pursued (as Axworthy wasemphasizing) and more with whether Canada should be highlyinvo l ved at all The activism element in short is stronger and moreconsistent than the humanitarian one This rst factor (Type I) thusseems to be an lsquolsquoactive internationalismrsquorsquo dimension as highlighted

70 Pratt sees elements of cosmopolitanism in his concept of lsquolsquohumane interna-tionalismrsquorsquo (Pratt Internationalism under Strain 13 Middle Power Internation-alism 9) On cosmopolitan views in general see Catherine Lu lsquolsquoThe Oneand Many Faces of Cosmopolitanismrsquorsquo Journal of Political Philosophy 8(2000) 244-67


by Nossal and Dewitt and Kirton Its opposite would be a passive quasi-isolationism71

The second factor is perhaps the clearest of the four It comprisesalmost one-third of the selected questions virtually all of which aretrade related The dominant group here believes that trade is importantto Canada that the country could not prosper without trade and willrely more in the future on exports that foreign policy should focus oneconomic and trade issues that trade clearly affects jobs that increas-ing Canadarsquos trade opportunities is a high priority and that lsquolsquoCanadarsquosstandard of living will be seriously threatenedrsquorsquo if it does not get lsquolsquoa lotbetter at producing world-class goods and servicesrsquorsquo The same groupalso regards both the Middle East and Central America as important toCanada and thinks that Canada ought to have a close relationship withthe United States In short supporters of this type of internationalism(Type II) believe in the importance if not the primacy of trade andeconomic matters Unarguably this is an lsquolsquoeconomic internationalismrsquorsquodimension72

The third factor brings together almost half of the survey ques-tions and re ects attitudes on policies Canada might adopt across arather wide range of issue-areas If the emphasis in the rst factor wason priorities the emphasis here is on substance This factor howev erunlike the others is bipolar there are negative- as well as positive-loading variables Thus there are signi cant numbers of respondentswho more or less agree that lsquolsquoif the people in poor African countriesdonrsquot start doing things to help themselves like having fewer childrenwe shouldnrsquot keep on helping them foreverrsquorsquo and who believe Canadacan in uence the arms race (To be precise they disagree with thestatement that lsquolsquoI sometimes wonder whether there is any point inCanada continuing to talk about the need to stop the arms race Wereally cannot in uence either sidersquorsquo) The same group oppose thearmed forces being used to rescue Canadians in danger in a foreigncountry and oppose the lsquolsquopeace through strengthrsquorsquo idea that lsquolsquountil bothsides agree on a program of disarmament the only way we can pre-vent a nuclear war is by making sure that both sides have enough to

71 Activism as an element of Canadian internationalism is noted by manyobservers including Geoffrey Pearson (Seize the Day xvii) Our rst factorhere is quite similar to one of the two lsquolsquointernationalismrsquorsquo factors found inthe CPRI study (see above ) and to Nevitte and Gibbinsrsquo internationalism fac-tor Isolationism is thus not the opposite or antithesis of internationalism ingeneral as various commentators have arg u e d (for example Nossal The Poli-tics of Canadian Foreign Policy 1997 143) or implied (for example Riouxand Hay lsquolsquoCanadian Foreign Policyrsquorsquo 24) Isolationism as conve n t i o n a l l yde ned is the opposite of what we term active internationalism

72 As Frederick Soward said Canadians lsquolsquomay often be isolationist politically butmust be internationalist economicallyrsquorsquo (Canada in World Affairs 1941 5)


discourage the other from attackingrsquorsquo The same people tend to givelow priority to increasing trade opportunities and to producing world-class goods and services They also tend to feel too close a relation-ship with the US lessens Canadarsquos in uence They support develop-ment assistance and mutual arms reductions but reject unilateral useof force to intervene (at least to rescue Canadians) and afford lessimportance to ef cient production and trade On the other side arethose who take an opposite tack who believe that continued aidshould be contingent on recipients lsquolsquohelping themselvesrsquorsquo that thearmed forces should be used to rescue Canadians in foreign countriesthat we should count on military strength rather than disarmament toprevent war that increased trade is important and that economic ef -ciency is key

To some extent this dimension distinguishes self-interest andcommon interest Like aspects of factor one it connotes in part Prattrsquosnotion of humane internationalism More generally though it distin-guishes views of the political left from those of the right on interna-tional questions of the era reduction versus maintenance of aid armeddeterrence versus de-emphasis on weaponry support for versus oppo-sition to the use of military force to rescue onersquos own emphasis versusde-emphasis on trade as an instrument of growth Former ReaganiteRichard Pearle might call one end of this spectrum lsquolsquohard-headedinternationalismrsquorsquo73 The label lsquolsquoliberal versus conservative internation-alismrsquorsquo is more appropriate since there are two opposing varieties ofinternationalist attitudes revealed here74 This factor coupled with theeconomic internationalism dimension might be seen as the externalmanifestation of the dualism of lsquolsquoeconomic liberalismrsquorsquo and lsquolsquoethicalliberalismrsquorsquo that Ronald Manzer nds in Canadian domestic policy75

The fourth and smallest factor comprises core questions aboutCanadarsquos relations with the United States It links three views thatbeing too close to the US undermines Canadian in uence thatlsquolsquoCanada should pursue its own independent policies even if this leadsto certain problems in our relations with the United Statesrsquorsquo and thatour relationship ought to be lsquolsquobusinesslikersquorsquo lsquolsquocoolrsquorsquo and lsquolsquoindepen-dentrsquorsquo rather than lsquolsquowarm and closersquorsquo Those in this group tend to be

73 Richard Pearle lsquolsquoIs the United States Turning Inwardrsquorsquo International Journal 54(1998-1999) 1

74 Such lsquolsquobipolarrsquorsquo dimensions as factor 3 here (where there are both positive andnegative loadings) are conventionally given labels re ecting the presence of bothlsquolsquopolesrsquorsquo

75 Ronald Manzer Public Policies and Political Development in Canada (TorontoUniversity of Toronto Press 1985) This possible link between thinking inCanada on foreign and domestic policies while not surprising is one that meritsfurther exploration


non-continentalist and to favour greater independence76 As is alwaysthe case with correlations there is a ip-side some take the oppositeview on each of these questions

Those less positive about close relations with the United States alsotend to agree that Canada should object publicly about violations ofhuman rights in other countries lsquolsquoeve n if it costs us politically or eco-nomicallyrsquorsquo This view appears here (rather than say on the third factor)because it is highly correlated with the view that Canada ought to pursuepolicies independent of the US eve n if there is a cost invo l ved Themain underlying thrust of the dimension howeve r is Canada vis-agrave-visthe United States The attitudes are not anti-American they feature abelief that Canadarsquos policies should not be dominated by its southernneighbour This Type IV internationalism might best be labelled lsquolsquoinde-pendent internationalismrsquorsquo (or alternative l y at the risk of confusionlsquolsquo n a t i o n a l i s t rsquorsquo or perhaps lsquolsquoanti-continentalistrsquorsquo internationalism)

The case for including such a dimension of internationalism hasbeen made by none other than the primary exponent of the conceptlsquolsquoWe hav e a strongly independentist school of thought among theyoung and those left-of-centrersquorsquo John Holmes observed in 1968lsquolsquoEven this attitude however is essentially internationalist It is con-cerned with loosening existing ties of alliance particularly with theUS Its aim however is not to isolate Canada but to have Canada playa more active part on a wider world scenersquorsquo77 The other side of thiscoin is the long-standing tendency of many Canadians to favourincreased ties with the United Statesmdashwhat Edgar Tarr called NorthAmericanism While some observers might see lsquolsquocontinentalismrsquorsquo asopposite to internationalism Geoffrey Pearson suggests lsquolsquoliberal inter-nationalism is not after all incompatible with the concept of closereconomic relations between the two North American neighboursrsquorsquo78

76 Similarly Trentonrsquos lsquolsquonationalismrsquorsquo scale by design an anti-continentalist orindependence (vis-agrave-vis the United States) dimension was not correlated with hislsquolsquointernationalismrsquorsquo (or supranationalism) scale

77 Holmes The Better Part of Valour 2 emphasis added This dimension alsore ects the lsquolsquoindependence approachrsquorsquo outlined by Stephen Clarkson (lsquolsquoTheChoice to be Madersquorsquo in Stephen Clarkson ed An Independent Foreign Policy forCanada [Toronto McClelland and Stewart 1968] 253-69) Hawes suggests thedesire to nd counterweights to American in uence on Canadian foreign policyis part of the voluntarist and thus the internationalist impulse (Principal PowerMiddle Power 8) Dafoe argued in the 1930s that that the pre-Second World Warisolationists were basically North American or continentalist oriented (lsquolsquoCana-dian Foreign Policyrsquorsquo 145-46) while Rosenbaum suggests the independence urgeis lsquolsquonothing more than an old anti-colonial re exrsquorsquo in Naomi Rosenbaum lsquolsquoAnEffective Foreign Policy for Canadarsquorsquo Behind the Headlines 28 (1969) 6

78 Pearson Seize the Day xvii see also Lyon The Policy Question Nossal seesanti-Americanism as a fundamental part of lsquolsquoanother dominant ideologyrsquorsquo(nationalism) thus divorcing it from internationalism (The Politics of CanadianForeign Policy 1997 164)


A similar dimension emerged in the analysis of university studentattitudes by Nevitte and Gibbins who found what they termed anlsquolsquoAmericanismrsquorsquo factor separate from their internationalism factorThe two questions loading on the former both explicitly related to theUnited StatesmdashAmerican investment in Canada and proposed closerties While we agree with Nevitte and Gibbins that this dimension rep-resents lsquolsquoa particular set of concernsrsquorsquo we would include those atti-tudes as part of a broader conception of internationalism

Continuity or Change

Generally speaking there are clearly some fundamental commonali-ties between the present analysis and earlier studies both empiricaland conceptual These commonalities suggest a basic and perhaps pre-vailing structure to Canadian attitudes about international affairs

But is that so Do the 1985 data re ect an underlying structure thatex i s t e d prior to the mid-1980s Are the types of internationalism discov-ered here enduring ones If observers such as Smith and Nossal andPratt are correct in arguing that there has been public as well as of cialsupport for internationalism since 1945 we might expect the answer tobe af rmative 79 The present analysis howeve r cannot be replicated sys-tematically for an earlier period Survey s dating from the rst two orthree decades of the postwar period lack an equiva l e n t number of inter-nationalism-related questions When the Gallup orga n i z a t i o n bega npolling in Canada in the 1940s its regular survey s were typically shortand included at best only a few international-oriented questions Neve r-theless amidst the thousands of Gallup questions ove r these decadesmdashabout attitudes on political parties gun control and birth control abor-tion and sex education wive s and husbands topless waitresses andwo m e n as doctors and bosses mini and midi skirts employment equityadultery pove r t y Santa Claus cold remedies cigarettes and a host ofother topicsmdashthere were also some questions related in varying degreesto internationalism80 More importantly a few of the hundreds of CIPOsurvey s posed two or more such questions thus allowing correlationsbetween item responses These ndings can be summarized

79 Pratt Internationalism under Strain 19480 One of the major data processing tasks of our SSHRCC-funded research project was

to identify all questions related to foreign policy and international affa i r s on postwarGallup survey s While the raw data from the earliest Gallup polls are apparently nolonger ava i l a b l e in machine-readable form the records are more-or-less complete asof the early 1950s Where no computer data les existed we identi ed pressreleases (held in the CIPO Toronto of ce archive s ) that reported releva n t questionsThe information from both sources will be put on a Unive r s i t y of Northern BritishColumbia web site


Various polls suggest inter-relationships amongst attitudes relat-ing to active internationalism In November 1956 Canadians whothought the United Nations had justi ed its existence also favoured theUN sending a peacekeeping force to Suez and favoured it controllingnational armed forces In June 1967 and February 1985 those whobelieved that the success of the United Nations was important alsotended to feel it had done lsquolsquoa good jobrsquorsquo In July 1960 those whofavoured Canada staying in the Commonwealth also rejected Canadaassuming a neutral status In November 1973 those who saw theUnited Nations doing a good job approved the idea of Canada joininga new UN Middle East peace force Perhaps most striking those inNovember 1970 who favoured a stronger United Nations also thoughtCanadian nationalism was a good thing81

Limited evidence exists in the Gallup polls on the liberal versusconservative dimension Canadians tend to have either a positive or anegative affect toward other developed countries in general In 1955Canadians supporting the exchange of military information with theSoviet Union tended to be friendlier toward that country In March1961 those favouring immigration to Canada also supported a tradedeal with lsquolsquoRed Chinarsquorsquo In the mid-late 1960s those approving recogni-tion of China also supported Canadarsquos aid and immigration policies82

Regarding the independent internationalism dimension opposingmore American capital in Canada in January 1961 was associated withsupporting Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbakerrsquos proposalto buy more from the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Laterin the 1960s those respondents who expressed negative views aboutAmerican nancing of Canadian development also opposed more UScapital Those believing the Canadian way of life was too much in u-enced by the US disapproved American policies in Viet Nam In 1971those favouring closer relations with the USSR also supported moretrade with others rather than forming a Canada-US common marketTw o years later amidst the rst oil crisis those who favoured chargingAmericans more for oil also wanted energy exports restricted83

Just as there is some historical evidence here of similar dimen-sions to those found in 1985 there is also evidence of distinctnesswhere the analysis found separate dimensions Thus no signi cant cor-relation existed in the 1970s between attitudes toward the UN and

81 The polls cited here were respectively CIPO 254 324 494 283 362 and 34482 The polls here were in order CIPO 361 244 287 334 and 321 William

Scottrsquos analysis of cross-national Gallup results showed that evaluations of othercountries tend to be positively correlated (William A Scott lsquolsquoPsychological andSocial Correlates of International Imagesrsquorsquo in Herbert Kelman ed InternationalBehavior [New York Holt Rinehart and Winston 1965] 70-103)

83 The polls cited here were respectively CIPO 286 323 318 350 and 362


those on American capital in Canada There was also no correlation ina 1981 CIPO survey between support for military training and provid-ing development assistance84

Data for the post-1985 period are only somewhat richer Anothersurvey for the Department of External Affairs in 1987 shows that thepriorities given to poverty human rights apartheid in South Africaarms control and international peace were all inter-related85 The prior-ity afforded Canadian independence was also related to the priority forCanada-United States relations A late-1990 survey provides post-Cold War support for all four dimensions86 Regarding active interna-tionalism the priority given to NAT O the United Nations and UNpeacekeeping were all inter-related On the liberal-versus-conservativedimension the priority given to protecting human rights was closelyrelated to that for providing aid and reducing hunger and povertyThere is also clear support for the economic internationalism factor asthe need to produce world-class goods and services was related to thepriority given to trade and to prospering through trade And nallythe existence of the independent internationalism factor was supportedby a correlation between support for Canada pursuing independentpolicies (lsquolsquoeven if these lead to problems with the USrsquorsquo) and not beingtoo close to the United States

Analysis of a 1998 COMPAS survey shows that those whosupport more attention being devo t e d to international affa i r s ingeneral also favo u r more emphasis on promoting democratic valuesand human rights helping poor countries deve l o p economicallyke e p i n g weapons out of the hands of lsquolsquoviolent outlaw countriesrsquorsquoand supporting the UN87 Strengthening trade relations with theUnited States is not related to putting more emphasis on exportsnor to the above attitudes All of these results tend to corroboratethe 1985 ndings on active internationalism and independent inter-nationalism On the other hand in the COMPAS survey promotingex p o r t s is related to promoting democratic values and human rightsand to helping poor countries deve l o p This nding perhaps raisesquestions about the distinct nature of economic internationalism asfound in the 1985 data

84 The polls here were respectively CIPO 351 383 and 44785 Consumer Contact Ltd (Longwoods Research) survey 255-87 Data were made

available by the Department of External Affairs and Longwoods86 Don Munton lsquolsquoChanging Conceptions of Security Public Attitudes in Canadarsquorsquo

working paper Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security Decem-ber 1990 The wording of some of these 1990 questions was taken from the 1985Decima poll These data are available from the authors

87 These results are drawn from cross tabulations provided by COMPAS Incfrom a 1998 national study conducted on behalf of Southam News and theInternational Institute for Strategic Studies


These pre-1985 and post-1986 results are sketchy But they gen-erally corroborate the 1985 ndings and support the hypothesis thatthe structure of Canadiansrsquo internationalist attitudes is reasonablyenduring88

Consensus and Dissensus over Internationalism

To what extent is there a consensus among Canadians on the basicdimensions of internationalism discovered here Do most in fact sup-port all types of internationalism We assumed from the outset that thepublic was not unanimous on these matters But where do internation-alist attitudes fall on the range from near unanimity to utter divisionDo some dimensions show more or less consensus than others

The 1985 survey question frequencies show substantial consensuson the active internationalism dimension Most Canadians agree thatreducing world hunger and poverty and maintaining peace and reduc-ing arms should be high priorities There is slightly less agreementthat two other issuesmdashopposing human rights violations and helpingpromote democracymdashshould be high priorities but substantial agree-ment that they should be medium to high priorities A similar level ofconsensus appears on the questions comprising the economic interna-tionalism dimension Most respondents (70 or more) agree that tradeis very important to Canada that Canada could not prosper withouttrade and that Canada will rely more in the future on exports

No such consensus exists for the other two dimensions of interna-tionalism Indeed there is marked disagreement in the 1985 data oneach of the major questions comprising liberal versus conservativeinternationalism even some polarization of views The fewest respon-dents are in the middle ground considerable pluralities agree and dis-agree For example about as many disagree as agree with the state-ment that Canada should not continue helping African countries ifthey do not lsquolsquostart doing things to help themselves like having fewerbabiesrsquorsquo Disagreement also is strong over whether war can best beprevented by enough weapons and whether Canada should continuetrying to in uence the arms race This pattern supports Cranford

88 Analyzing US polls back to 1974 Eugene Wittkopf nds in Faces of Internation-alism a persistent structure of attitudes relating to internationalism albeit a dif-ferent one than ours Analysis of other polls suggests that the basic structure ofAmerican attitudes has not shifted signi cantly with the end of the Cold War SeeRonald Hinckley People Polls and Policy-Makers (New York Lexington 1992)and Hinckley and Wittkopf lsquolsquoThe Domestication of American Foreign PolicyPublic Opinion in the Cold War Erarsquorsquo paper presented to the International Stud-ies Association 1994 We emphasize that these conclusions relate to the overallstructure of attitudes not to responses to particular questions


Prattrsquos view of differing domestic attitudes on humanitarian sorts ofquestions though he may have underestimated public support for thelsquolsquocounter-consensusrsquorsquo position The picture is much the same withrespect to disagreement on independent internationalism Canadiansare about evenly divided on whether lsquolsquogetting too close to the UnitedStates undermines our in uencersquorsquo or having a close relationship withthe US increases our in uence internationally The latter view ofcourse is a key argument of the conventional lsquolsquoliberal international-istrsquorsquo or so-called lsquolsquoquiet diplomacyrsquorsquo school of Canada-US relations89

Respondents also divided over the Canada-United States relation-shipmdashfriends and allies or businesslike cool and independentApproximately 60 per cent agree that Canada should pursue indepen-dent polices lsquolsquoeven if this leads to certain problems in our relationswith the United Statesrsquorsquo

In short the degree of consensus on internationalism depends onthe type of internationalism There is substantial consensus on bothactive and economic internationalism (Types I and II) but signi cantdissensus on liberal-conservative and independent internationalism(Types III and IV)90

Conclusion

The ndings lead to three conclusions not previously re ected in aca-demic discussions of Canadian internationalism let alone in foreignpolicy speeches First Canadians have an underlying structure of atti-tudes related to internationalism not random or assorted views Sec-ond this structure is complex rather than simple and multidimensionalrather than unidimensional Canadians collectively distinguish at leastfour different types of internationalism termed here active internation-alism economic internationalism liberal-conservative international-ism and independent internationalism91 Canadians cannot thereforeaccurately be classi ed simply as internationalists or alternatively asinternationalists and isolationists (The same might be said aboutCanadarsquos policies) Third while some types of internationalism arewidely supported some others are highly controversial There is a sub-

89 See Lyon The Policy Question90 Here our conclusions depart considerably from those of Nevitte and Gibbins

who found a lack of consensus on most of their items Whether or not there is aconsensus on Canadian foreign policy issues clearly depends on the questionsposed and the issues at stake

91 It ought to be emphasized that analyses of signi cantly different data sets com-prising different questions (for example with the inclusion of a signi cant num-ber of questions related to peacekeeping) could well yield a somewhat differentset of factors


stantial consensus amongst Canadians that Canada should be activelyinvolved internationally and that Canada is and must be economicallyinternationalist There is no consensus on the other two major dimen-sionsmdashwhether or not Canadian foreign policy should be orientedtoward liberal humanitarian values or more conservative ones andwhether or not it should emphasize greater independence from the USor closer ties While Canadians broadly support an active role interna-tionally they divide markedly on how internationalism ought to be pur-sued They agree in short on the merits of activity and involvementbut disagree considerably on lsquolsquoends and purposesrsquorsquo (to use LloydAxworthyrsquos words) Internationalism divides Canadians as well asbinds them

The ndings here update the typologies of Canadiansrsquo foreignpolicy attitudes offered by Edgar Tarr and J W Dafoe in the 1940sand provide some empirical support for later conceptions of interna-tionalism offered by Nossal Pratt Smith and others Nossalrsquos notionof internationalism as comprising active participation multilateralismresource commitment and pursuit of a common good seems particu-larly well re ected in the internationalisms discovered here

Consistent with the views of some observers there is some albeitlimited empirical evidence that these attitudinal dimensions haveendured Whether the mid-1980s structure of internationalist attitudeshas largely persisted or changed somewhat in the 1990s and beyondis a matter to be pursued further The contrary notion that changes inthe fundamental structure of public attitudes on internationalism occurin the shorter term is not one we would support This is of courseultimately an empirical question Particularly if the types of interna-tionalism identi ed here are longstanding they might be related tomore speci c attitudes on particular foreign policy issues both pastand present That too is a matter for further analyses92

This study also raises important questions about the role of inter-nationalism in the discourse on Canadian foreign policy and as aninstrument for constructing a societal consensus in support of speci cpolicies It will be evident on re ection that many of the prominentissues and debates in postwar Canadian foreign policy re ect varioustypes of internationalism and re ect debates among those with differ-ent perspectives Examples include not only debates in the 1990sabout Canadian involvement in NAT O bombing in the Balkans andpursuit of the international ban on landmines but also debates andarguments such as the Mulroney governmentrsquos promotion of free trade

92 See Don Munton and Tom Keating lsquolsquoContrasting Internationalism in Canada andthe United Statesrsquorsquo paper presented to the International Studies AssociationChicago 2001


and of democratic rights the 1984 Conservative election criticisms ofTrudeaursquos so-called Third Option policy the Liberal budget contro-versy of 1963 on taxation of foreign investment and Diefenbaker-eradiscussions about apartheid and American in uence in Canada aswell as the earlier muted debates over Canadarsquos role in the formationof NAT O the United Nations and the Colombo Plan

Our typology of internationalisms may do more than increaseunderstanding of Canadian public attitudes It may help clarify theconceptual confusions surrounding internationalism itself and helpilluminate policy debates For example it might explain why someobservers criticize Trudeaursquos foreign policy as anti-internationalistwhile others argue it was internationalist even strongly so The for-mer focused on the traditional element of supporting internationalinstitutions saw Trudeaursquos apparent disinterest in the UN and his cut-backs of NAT O forces as evidence of anti-internationalism The latterfocused on provision of development assistance or on independencefrom US policies saw Trudeau initiatives in both areas as evidence ofa different kind of internationalism Both groups were implicitly de n-ing internationalism in particularistic ways and failing to recognize itsmultidimensional nature The same applies to the Mulroney-era freetrade debate The pro-Canada-US Free Trade Agreement side tendedto frame their arguments in terms designed to appeal to economicinternationalists while the critics tended to appeal to independence-minded internationalists The ndings here also illuminate the late1990s debate among academics over whether Canadian international-ism was (again) in decline While Prime Minister Jean ChreacutetienrsquoslsquolsquoTeam Canadarsquorsquo trade missions are clear evidence of economic inter-nationalism and Minister of Foreign Affairs Axworthyrsquos initiative onabolishing landmines more indicative of liberal internationalism the1990s cuts to development assistance and the Canadian military re ecta less active and in part a less liberal internationalism In short Cana-dian foreign policy at any giv en time incorporates various types ofinternationalism and policy debates often revolve around clashinginternationalist conceptions

Internationalism is not a transcendent given It is an idea orrather a set of ideas conceived and communicated by politicians pun-dits and publics that both inform and justify foreign policy and serveas a point of support for and opposition to these policies As notedabove with regard to the Kosovo con ict both proponents and criticsof policies tend to invoke internationalism These invocations are ben-e cial to both groups Governments are generally on safe politicalgrounds characterizing their policies abroad as internationalist giventhe strong public consensus that exists on the basic elements of anactive and committed international involvement politically and eco-nomically Critics similarly nd it useful to attack government policies


as lacking in internationalism knowing that such arguments will alsoappeal In Canada the politics of internationalism are not an exclusivepreserve

Perhaps Canadarsquos policy internationalism has indeed beenlsquolsquonailed to the perchrsquorsquo to use Nossalrsquos words93 Perhaps the fundamen-tal character of internationalist activity has changed in recent years asKeeble and Smith suggest Either way it remains to be seen if thestructure of Canadian public views on internationalism has alsochanged or is changing

If proponents of internationalism seek to buttress this long-stand-ing tradition in Canada as John Holmes Peyton Lyon and othersattempted to do it is best they hav e a good understanding of publicthinking on the countryrsquos international orientation and obligationsGovernments and oppositions alike may have an interest in obscuringthe meaning of internationalism and are unlikely to be easily per-suaded to de ne their terms But it is also best if academics desistfrom perpetuating these confusions and desist from assuming thatinternationalism is a simple monolithic concept The public in its col-lective wisdom knows better Recognizing the complex structure ofinternationalist attitudes is a good place from which to start decon-structing the rhetoric of of cials and to continue democratizing theCanadian foreign policy process

93 Nossal lsquolsquoPinchpenny Diplomacyrsquorsquo 96


ysis of public opinion polls the views of the elites actively engaged inCanadian external relations can be our starting point It seems gener-ally agreed that internationalism emerged as a key feature of therhetoric and perhaps the major feature of policy during the era ofPrime Minister Louis St Laurent and his secretary of state for externalaffairs and later his successor Lester Pearson As Guy Gosselinobserves lsquolsquoDe Saint-Laurent et Pearson agrave Trudeau on a observeacute uneconstante lrsquointernationalisme multilateral qui apparait comme unecaracteacuteristique principale de la politique eacutetrangegravere canadiennersquorsquo4 Itmay not haunt us as do some of its practitioners but internationalismis with us still5

Internationalism in the discourse

One need look no further for evidence of the centrality of lsquolsquointerna-tionalismrsquorsquo to the contemporary foreign policy discourse than theintense debates during 1999 over Canadarsquos participation in the NAT Obombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia Of cials defended thisinvolvement in terms of Canadarsquos international responsibilities toNATO and to the United Nations if not to the Kosovar AlbaniansCritics of the campaign charged that the bombing was a violation ofinternational norms that Canada was meekly following a wrong-headed policy of the United States and that Canadian policy repre-

4 Guy Gosselin lsquolsquoLe Canada et les Nations Uniesrsquorsquo in Paul Painchaud ed DeMackenzie King agrave Pierre Trudeau Quarante ans de diplomatie canadienne (Que-bec Les Presses de lrsquoUniversiteacute Laval 1989) 183 On the same point see BruceThordarson Trudeau and Foreign Policy (Toronto Oxford University Press1972) 3 Peyton V Lyon Behind the Headlines 29 7 8 (1970) 14 HolmesShaping of the Peace 14 Michael Tucker Canadian Foreign Policy (TorontoMcGraw-Hill Ryerson 1980) 1 David Dewitt and John Kirton Canada as aPrincipal Power (Toronto Wiley 1983) chap 2 Kim Richard Nossal The Poli-tics of Canadian Foreign Policy (Toronto Prentice-Hall all editions) Michael KHawes Principal Power Middle Power or Satellite (Toronto York ResearchProgramme in Strategic Studies 1984) 4 K J Holsti Behind the Headlines 297 8 (1970) 12 Pierre Martin and Michel Fortmann lsquolsquoCanadian Public Opinionand Peacekeeping in a Turbulent Worldrsquorsquo International Journal 50 (1995) 382388 Jean-Franccedilois Rioux and Robin Hay lsquolsquoCanadian Foreign Policy FromInternationalism to Isolationismrsquorsquo (Ottawa Norman Paterson School of Interna-tional Affairs Occasional Paper Series No 16 1997) also in International Jour-nal 54 (1998-1999) 57-75 Edna Keeble and Heather Smith (Re)De ning Tradi-tions Gender and Canadian Foreign Policy (Halifax Fernwood 1999) andCostas Melakopides Pragmatic Idealism Canadian Foreign Policy 1945-1995(Montreal McGill-Queens University Press 1998)

5 We are here of course paraphrasing what has been termed one of the most pla-giarized phrases in contemporary Canadian politics from Stephen Clarkson andChristina McCall Trudeau and Our Times Vol 1 (Toronto McClelland andStewart 1990) 9












































Objective














































































Methodology























Table 1


VariablesFactor

IFactor

IIFactor

IIIFactor

IV h2

ActiveIntrsquolism

Eco-nomic

Intrsquolism


Intrsquolism

Indepen-dent

Intrsquolism






















































































Conclusion































































Objective














































































Methodology























Table 1


VariablesFactor

IFactor

IIFactor

IIIFactor

IV h2

ActiveIntrsquolism

Eco-nomic

Intrsquolism


Intrsquolism

Indepen-dent

Intrsquolism






















































































Conclusion




























































































Methodology























Table 1


VariablesFactor

IFactor

IIFactor

IIIFactor

IV h2

ActiveIntrsquolism

Eco-nomic

Intrsquolism


Intrsquolism

Indepen-dent

Intrsquolism






















































































Conclusion





































Table 1


VariablesFactor

IFactor

IIFactor

IIIFactor

IV h2

ActiveIntrsquolism

Eco-nomic

Intrsquolism


Intrsquolism

Indepen-dent

Intrsquolism






















































































Conclusion















































































Conclusion





















Internationalism and the Canadian Public

Documents

Transcript of Internationalism and the Canadian Public