1 Molot, Maureen Appel, “Where Do We, Should We, or Can We Sit? A Review of Canadian Foreign Policy Literature,” International Journal of Canadian Studies 1–2(1990), 78.Google Scholar

2 Hawes, Michael K., Principal Power, Middle Power, or Satellite? (Toronto: York Research Programme in Strategic Studies, 1984), 2.Google Scholar

3 See Dewitt, David B. and Kirton, John J., Canada as a Principal Power (Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, 1983).Google Scholar

4 This terminology is Robert Cox's. See his “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” in Keohane, Robert, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

5 See Putnam, Robert D., “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42 (1988), 428–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nossal implies that a three-level conceptualization may be more appropriate: “Because foreign policy is forged in the nexus of three political environments—international, domestic, and governmental—it cannot be analyzed unless each level of politics is examined” (Nossal, Kim Richard, The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy [2nd ed.; Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1989], 5).Google Scholar

6 Smith, Steve and Smith, Michael, “The Analytical Background: Approaches to the Study of British Foreign Policy,” in Michael Smith et al., British Foreign Policy: Tradition, Change and Transformation (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988), 15.Google Scholar

7 Pratt, Cranford, “Dominant Class Theory and Canadian Foreign Policy: The Case of the Counter-Consensus,” International Journal 39 (1983–1984), 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Eayrs, James, The Art of the Possible (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961)Google Scholar. Other key contributors to the development of this literature included Denis Stairs, notably in “The Political Culture of Canadian Foreign Policy,” this Journal 15 (1982), 667–90Google Scholar; and Barry, Donald, “Interest Groups and the Foreign Policy Process,” in Pross, A. Paul, ed., Pressure Group Behaviour in Canadian Politics (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1975).Google Scholar

9 Besides those emphasized below, see the articles by Kirton, John and Dimock, Blair, “Domestic Access to Government in the Canadian Foreign Policy Process, 1968–82,”Google Scholar and by Munton, Don, “Public Opinion and the Media in Canada from Cold War to Detente to New Cold War,” both in international Journal 39 (1983–1984), 68–98, 171–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Nossal, Kim, “Analyzing the Domestic Sources of Canadian Foreign Policy,” International Journal 39 (1983–1984), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pratt, , “Dominant Class Theory and Canadian Foreign Policy.”Google Scholar

11 On the centrality of these assumptions, see Stairs, Denis, “The Political Culture of Canadian Foreign Policy”Google Scholar; see also Stairs, Denis, “Present in Moderation: Lester Pearson and the Craft of Diplomacy,” International Journal 29 (1973–1974), 143–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “The Pedagogics of John W. Holmes,” in Nossal, Kim, ed., An Acceptance of Paradox (Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1982).Google Scholar

12 Nossal, , “Analyzing the Domestic Sources of Canadian Foreign Policy,” 18–21.Google Scholar

13 Nossal, , The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy, 220.Google Scholar

14 Pratt's argument in this article is related to arguments developed in two other pieces: “Canadian Policy Towards the Third World: A Basis for an Understanding,” Studies in Political Economy 13 (1984), 27–55Google Scholar; and “Canadian Foreign Policy: Bias to Business,” International Perspectives (11–12 1982), 3–6.Google Scholar

15 For clarification on this point, and on the distinctions between Nossal's “modified statist” and Pratt's “dominant class” approaches, we are indebted to Bob Walker for making available both his comparative analysis in an unpublished paper, “Canada's Human Rights Policy: An Assessment and Explanation,” and his subsequent written exchange with Cranford Pratt.

16 Pratt, , “Analyzing the Domestic Sources of Canadian Foreign Policy,” 130–35.Google Scholar

17 See Riddell-Dixon, Elizabeth, Canada and the International Seabed (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1989)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 8; and Riddell-Dixon, Elizabeth, “Winners and Losers: Formulating Canada's Policies on International Technology Transfers,” International Journal 47 (1991–1992), 159–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Taras, David and Goldberg, David H., eds., The Domestic Battleground: Canada and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1989), esp. 3–13.Google Scholar

19 Atkinson, Michael M. and Coleman, William D., The State, Business and Industrial Change in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), esp. 185–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Skogstad, Grace, “The State, Organized Interests and Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy: The Impact of Institutions,” this Journal 25 (1992), 319–47.Google Scholar

21 While commentators on the FTA have often had clear theoretical predispositions, the intense and emotional character of this debate has generally impaired the kind of careful theoretical analysis and insights it demands. Bruce Doern and Brian Tomlin's account of the free trade story, Faith and Fear (Toronto: Stoddart, 1991)Google Scholar is a particularly balanced and thoughtful account, but is aimed at a wider audience and therefore does not focus on theoretical implications.

22 A workshop on “Canada, Political Economy and the World” held at York University in May–June of 1993 was conceived with precisely this potential in mind.

23 For her earliest and most comprehensive analysis of the sources of Canadian aid policy, see Freeman, Linda, “The Political Economy of Canada's Foreign Aid Programme,”Google Scholar paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal, June 1980. For published sources, see Freeman, Linda, “CIDA, Wheat and Rural Development in Tanzania,” Canadian Journal of African Studies 16 (1982), 479–504Google Scholar; and Freeman, Linda, “The Effect of the World Crisis on Canada's Involvement in Africa,” Studies in Political Economy 17(1985), 107–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Freeman, , “CIDA, Wheat and Rural Development,” 481.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., 482–83.

26 Freeman, , “The Effect of the World Crisis on Canada's Involvement in Africa”Google Scholar; also, Freeman, Linda, “Rescuing Credibility? Canadian Policy Towards South Africa, 1988,” Southern Africa Report 4 (1988), 3–8Google Scholar; and Freeman, Linda, “Canada's New Policy in Southern Africa?,” briefing paper prepared for the CCIC conference, “Taking Sides in Southern Africa,” Montreal, February 27–March 1, 1987, 6.Google Scholar

27 Pratt, Cranford, “Ethics and Foreign Policy: The Case of Canada's Development Assistance,” International Journal 43 (1988), 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Ibid., 297–300.

29 See Pratt, Cranford, “Canada: An Eroding and Limited Internationalism,” in Pratt, Cranford, ed., Internationalism under Strain (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), esp. 49–63.Google Scholar

30 Nossal, Kim, “Mixed Motives Revisited: Canada's Interest in Development Assistance,” this Journal 21 (1988), 35–56Google Scholar. The phrasing of statism and realism as natural companions comes from Pratt.

31 Nossal, , “Mixed Motives Revisited,” 45.Google Scholar

32 Ibid.

33 Measured as a percentage of GNP.

34 Nossal, , “Mixed Motives Revisited,” 50–55.Google Scholar

35 Canadian ODA has generally remained in the middle of the OECD donor “league table,” but ahead of most of its G-7 partners. This relative standing can be interpreted as the minimum required to retain Canada's international credibility and internationalist image.

36 “International Assistance Policy Update,” Department of External Affairs and International Trade, 1993. The document was extensively and critically discussed in the press. See Valpy, Michael, “The Aid that Canada Will Not Be Giving”Google Scholar and “Figuring Out How Not to Help the Poor,” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), February 4 and 5, 1993Google Scholar; and Sallot, Jeff, “The Changing Face of Foreign Aid,” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), February 13, 1993Google Scholar. It can be at best a rough test because, following its public pummelling, the report was dropped by the government. Nevertheless, it can be reasonably interpreted as reflecting some persistent tendencies in official thinking.

37 See Sallot, , “The Changing Face of Foreign Aid.”Google Scholar

38 Keenes, Ernie, “Rearranging the Deck Chairs: A Political Economy Approach to Foreign Policy Management in Canada,” Canadian Public Administration 35 (1992), 381–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar. We are indebted to an anonymous Journal reviewer for alerting us to this source and the argument it highlights.

39 For a fuller discussion of their views on the limitations of classical realism see Dewitt, and Kirton, , Canada as a Principal Power, 36–37.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., 38.

41 Michael Hawes for example argues that the “theoretical perspective actually predetermines the interpretation of goals.” See Hawes, , Principal Power, Middle Power, or Satellite?, 38–39Google Scholar. Furthermore, the ambiguity of the criteria for principalness is a problem. We are told that principal powers “have a principal role in establishing, specifying and enforcing international order.” What does this mean? Establishing, specifying and enforcing are all different activities which need to be defined and differentiated more clearly. For their discussion of principalness, see Dewitt, and Kirton, , Canada as a Principal Power, 38Google Scholar. Finally, Kim Nossal argues that “Canada lacks the most important attribute needed for great-power status: the subjective recognition of other states” (The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy, 59).Google Scholar

42 Molot, , “Where Do We, Should We, or Can We Sit?,” 82.Google Scholar

43 There have been instances where authors have discussed Canada in the international system, but these discussions are typically found in the Canada-US relations literature. See, for example, Doran, Charles F., Forgotten Partnership: U.S.-Canada Relations Today (Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1984)Google Scholar. For an excellent article applying integration theory to the Canada-US relationship see Pentland, Charles, “North American Integration and the Canadian Political System,” in Stairs, Denis and Winham, Gilbert R., eds., The Politics of Canada's Economic Relationship with the United States (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985).Google Scholar

44 Joseph Nye would of course argue that liberal theory and realist theory are not in fact irreconcilable. See Nye, Joseph S. Jr., “Neorealism and Neoliberalism,” World Politics 2 (1988), 235–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 See, for example, Nossal, , The Politics of Canadian Foreign PolicyGoogle Scholar; and Tucker, Michael, Canadian Foreign Policy: Contemporary Issues and Themes (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1980).Google Scholar

46 Nossal identifies a set of relative invariants which affect Canadian policy development: geographical location, economic structure, alignments and alliances, and capability (The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy, 20–37).Google Scholar

47 Dewitt, and Kirton, , Canada as a Principal Power, 169, 171Google Scholar. See also Nossal, , The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy, 107–17.Google Scholar

48 Dewitt, and Kirton, , Canada as a Principal Power, 180, 182.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., 193.

50 We are indebted to an anonymous Journal reviewer for suggesting this interpretation. It is developed in a footnote: Dewitt, and Kirton, , Canada as a Principal Power, 417–18, n. 74.Google Scholar

51 John Kirton continues to advance and apply the argument that Canada is a principal power. See, for example, Kirton, , “Managing Global Conflict: Canada and International Summitry,” in Molot, Maureen Appel and Tomlin, Brian W., eds., Canada among Nations: A World in Conflict 1987 (Toronto: Lorimer, 1988)Google Scholar. See also Gotlieb, A., “Canada and the Economic Summits: Power and Responsibility”Google Scholar (Toronto: Centre for International Studies, December 1987); and Haglund, David G., “Canada and the Law of the Sea,” in Painchaud, Paul, ed., From Mackenzie King to Pierre Trudeau, Forty Years of Canadian Diplomacy (Quebec: Laval University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

52 On some of the limitations of “status-ranking” in the analysis of Canadian foreign policy, see Nossal, , The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy, 57–59.Google Scholar

53 This point has been made by Bernard Wood. See his “Towards North-South Middle Power Coalitions,” in Pratt, Cranford, ed., Middle Power Internationalism (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1990), 74.Google Scholar

54 Holmes, John W., Canada: A Middle-Aged Power (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976), 6, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Denis Stairs has identified clear liberal-pluralist assumptions underpinning the thinking of both Lester Pearson and John Holmes. See Stairs, , “Present in Moderation”Google Scholar and “The Pedagogics of John W. Holmes.” Molot notes Keating's insightful identification, following Bull and Wight, of “Grotian” thinking in the “world view” of key middle power practitioner-analysts (“Where Do We, Should We, or Can We Sit?,” 80–81).Google Scholar

56 Cooper, A. F. and Higgott, R., “Middle Power Leadership in the International Order: An Issue-Specific Model for the 1990s” (Ottawa: Centre for International Trade and Investment Policy Studies Working Paper 92–01, Carleton University, 1992), 3.Google Scholar

57 For a discussion of the middle power literature, old and new, see Black, D., “Australian, Canadian, and Swedish Policies Toward Southern Africa: A Comparative Study of ‘Middle Power Internationalism’” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Dalhousie University, 1992).Google Scholar

58 Wood, Bernard, The Middle Powers and the General Interest (Ottawa: North-South Institute, 1988)Google Scholar. See also Wood, , “Towards North-South Middle Power Coalitions,”Google Scholar for a useful expansion of his central ideas. Other studies in the project include Finlayson, Jock A., Limits on Middle Power Diplomacy: The Case of CommoditiesGoogle Scholar, and Protheroe, David, The United Nations and Its Finances: A Test for Middle PowersGoogle Scholar, both from the North-South Institute.

59 Richard Higgott and Andrew Cooper make a similar point in their analysis of the Cairns Group in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, although their emphasis is on relatively small, ad hoc, “issue-specific” North-South coalitions. See “Middle Power Leadership and Coalition Building: Australia, the Cairns Group, and the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations,” International Organization 44 (1990), 589–632.Google Scholar

60 Wood does provide a somewhat fuller investigation in “Towards North-South Middle Power Coalitions,” 87–89.Google Scholar

61 See, in particular, Pratt, ed., Internationalism under Strain; and Pratt, ed., Middle Power Internationalism.

62 This approach resembles Thomas Hockin's argument that there is a “voluntarist impulse” in Canadian political culture which has produced an idealistic strand in Canada's middle power internationalism. Cited in Hawes, Principal Power, Middle Power, or Satellite?, 5.Google Scholar

63 See Pratt, , “Middle Power Internationalism and Global Poverty,” in Pratt, ed., Middle Power Internationalism, 4–10.Google Scholar

64 See Pratt, , “Canada: An Eroding and Limited Internationalism,” 59–63.Google Scholar

65 Cox, Robert, “Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order,” International Journal 44 (1989), 823–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 Ibid., 827, 825, 826.

67 Ibid., 827.

68 Ibid.

69 See, in particular, Higgott, and Cooper, , “Middle Power Leadership in the International Order”Google Scholar and “Middlepower Leadership and Coalition Building.” This work has been revised and expanded in a book co-authored with Nossal, Kim, Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1993)Google Scholar. For purposes of this study, however, we will focus on the original formulations of their ideas.

70 Higgott, and Cooper, , “Middle Power Leadership in the International Order,” 5.Google Scholar

71 See Young, Oran, “The Politics of International Regime Formation: Managing Natural Resources and the Environment,” International Organization 43 (1989), 349–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Young, Oran, “Political Leadership and Regime Reform: The Emergence of Institutions in International Society,”Google Scholar paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., 1989.

72 Higgott, and Cooper, , “Middle Power Leadership in the International Order,” 13.Google Scholar

73 Ibid., 18–21.

74 These issues are explored in Black, “Australian, Canadian, and Swedish Policies Toward Southern Africa,” esp. chap. 9.

75 Molot's article is quite comprehensive in this respect. Her notes are a rich bibliographical source on the CFP literature.

76 Cranford Pratt, presentation on CIDA at Dalhousie University, December 6, 1991.

77 We are indebted to an anonymous Journal reviewer for this point.

78 The York University workshop on “Canada, Political Economy and the World” cited earlier was designed in part to arrest this trend by emphasizing the work of younger scholars.

79 The term is Claire Turenne Sjolander's.

80 See Cox, Robert, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory” and Production, Power and World Order (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

81 Cox, , “Social Forces, States and World Orders,” 217–21.Google Scholar

82 See, for example, Rochlin, James, “The Evolution of Canada as an Actor in Inter-American Affairs,” Millennium: A Journal of International Studies 19 (1990), 229–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neufeld, Mark and Whitworth, Sandra, “Canadian Foreign Policy and Defence Policy: A Study in Hegemony,”Google Scholar paper presented to the workshop on “Canada, Political Economy and the World,” York University, May 31, 1993Google Scholar; and Black, David and McKenna, Peter, “Canada and Structural Adjustment in the South: The Significance of the Guyana Case,”Google Scholar paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Carleton University, June 1993.

83 Strange, Susan, “Cave! hie dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis,” in Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 338–42.Google Scholar

84 Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “Power and Interdependence Revisited,” International Organization 41 (1987), 743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

85 Cutler, A. Claire and Zacher, Mark W., eds., Canadian Foreign Policy and International Economic Regimes (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1992).Google Scholar

86 See Cohn, Theodore H., “Canada and the Ongoing Impasse over Agricultural Protectionism,”Google Scholar in ibid., 62–88.

87 Cutler, and Zacher, , “Introduction,”Google Scholar in ibid., 16.

88 For an introduction to the concept of epistemic communities, see Haas, Peter M., “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization, 46 (1992), 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The same special issue of International Organization includes articles applying the notion of epistemic communities to trade in services, arms control and food aid.

89 On “turbulence” in world politics, see Rosenau, James N., Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar