Canadian Foreign Policy: Analysis and Evaluation

Canadian Forces College 2009
Canadian Foreign Policy: Analysis and Evaluation


Instructor: Dr. Adam Chapnick

Office: Curtis 316

Office phone: 416-482-6800, ext. 6853

Office hours: by appointment (chapnick@cfc.dnd.ca)

Texts: There is no core textbook for this course. Students who lack a background in the history of Canadian foreign policy are encouraged to consult Empire to Umpire by Norman Hillmer and Jack Granatstein. It is available in the IRC. Readings for each seminar meeting are listed below along with the course schedule. Students are also expected to read at least 3 newspaper / journal articles per week on contemporary Canadian foreign policy issues (articles read for other aspects of the JCSP program are acceptable) from at least 2 different sources.

Schedule: Weekly 3-hour seminar

Description:
This course is designed to introduce students to the study of Canadian foreign policy. It uses history as a lens to assess contemporary issues and struggles. While the focus will be on defence and security issues, defined broadly, other aspects of the Canadian foreign policy agenda will be considered and discussed whenever appropriate. To understand the context of the foreign policy decisions taken in Canada, this course will consider both the domestic situation and politics abroad, with specific reference to the foreign policies of Canada’s most significant allies.

Seminars will be used to discuss and analyze the issues brought up in the weekly readings, to debate and evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of student action memoranda, and to apply the lessons of history to contemporary foreign policy themes.

Through these discussions, students will have the opportunity to develop their own ideas about the nature of the Canadian state and the Canadian foreign policy tradition. Students will be challenged to think critically about the nature of Canadian conduct in the international community and to develop their own individual interpretations of Canada’s evolving place in global politics.

Requirements:
Seminar Participation (includes defence of action memorandum) 40%
Action Memorandum (due at beginning of weeks 2,3,4, or 5) 25%
Final Examination (held in class on 9 February) 35%

Course Structure:
Seminars will be divided into three parts of approximately one hour each. The first hour will be an instructor-directed discussion based on the assigned historical readings. At the beginning of the second hour, the students will receive at least one action memorandum relating to the historical topic of the day. They will be allotted no more than 15 minutes per memorandum to prepare their responses. The discussion that follows will be based on the strengths and weaknesses of the memorandum. The final hour will relate the themes of the historical discussion to contemporary Canadian foreign policy. The focus of this aspect of the seminar will change based on the issues of the day. A list of questions that students should be comfortable dealing with during the discussion of the readings and action memoranda is included with this syllabus.

Assignments:
1. Seminar Participation (40%)
Active and consistent seminar participation is crucial to getting the most out of this course and therefore a very significant proportion of your final grade is reserved for your contribution to the small group discussions. Effective participation involves coming to class prepared (having done the readings carefully) and contributing to all three phases of the discussion in a meaningful and thoughtful manner. Dominating the seminar is frowned upon, and complete silence is also highly discouraged. Those who perform best in seminar direct their opinions to the entire group and incorporate the comments of others into their contributions; this is not the time to have a one-on-one discussion with your instructor. The CFC seminar participation rubric will be used to evaluate your contribution.

Defences of the action memoranda will be 5-10 minutes long and will take place during the second hour of each seminar. A rubric (specific criteria for the defence) is included in your course organization package.

2. Action Memorandum (25%) – due in at the beginning of class, one of weeks 2-5. Students are highly encouraged to submit a draft memorandum to the instructor by 09:00 the Thursday before the assignment is due. These drafts will be returned with suggested improvements by 12:00 the following day. Students may also choose to revise their submission in light of class discussion before it is formally evaluated. Hard copy revised submissions must reach the instructor within 7 days of the original presentation.

This assignment is designed to challenge students to develop and defend practical policy options and recommendations in an academic, but yet policy-relevant historical environment. It requires clear and concise analytical and writing skills, along with an ability to construct a clear, straight-forward, and persuasive argument.

The (absolutely no more than) 6-page ( 1½ -spaced) action memorandum will be drawn largely, although not necessarily exclusively, from the course readings.

The first (cover) page will state the issue in question and list a summary of recommendations.

The remaining 5 pages will be divided into the following sections: background (1-1½ pages); options (½ page); considerations (2-2½ pages); recommendations (1 page).

An example of an action memorandum is included with this syllabus. A second example will be used in the first seminar discussion. Please use these examples as guides for appropriate formatting. A grading rubric for this assignment is included with the syllabus.

3. Final Examination (35%) – 9 February

The exam is intended to evaluate whether the students have understood the main issues and themes covered in the course, as well as to assess the students’ ability to apply the information and ideas that have been learned to form thoughtful and convincing arguments.

The 2-hour exam will be divided into 2 equally weighted sections. The first section will be comprised of an essay question focused exclusively on the assigned historical readings. The second section will require the students to draft an action memorandum to the current foreign minister related to a contemporary issue. A grading rubric for the essay is included with this syllabus. The grading rubric for the action memorandum will not change from the previous assignment.

Course Schedule:

6 January Appeasement and the Path to War

1. James Eayrs, “ ‘A Low Dishonest Decade’: Aspects of Canadian External Policy, 1931-1939,” in R. Douglas Francis and Donald B. Smith, eds, Readings in Canadian History: Post-Confederation, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990), 488-505.
2. Adrian W. Preston, “Canada and the Higher Direction of the Second World War, 1939-1945,” in B.D. Hunt and R.G. Haycock, eds, Canada’s Defence: Perspectives on Policy in the Twentieth Century (Toronto: Copp Clark, 1993), 98-102.
3. J.L. Granatstein and Robert Bothwell, “ ‘A Self-Evident National Duty’: Canadian Foreign Policy, 1935-1939,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 3,2 (January 1975): 212-233.
4. Angelika Sauer, “Goodwill and Profit: Mackenzie King and Canadian Appeasement,” in Norman Hillmer et al, eds, A Country of Limitations: Canada and the World in 1939 (Ottawa: Canadian Committee for the History of the Second World War, 1996), 247-269.

12 January The Diplomacy of Constraint and the Korean War
1. Denis Stairs, “The Diplomacy of Constraint,” in Norman Hillmer, ed., Partners Nevertheless: Canadian-American Relations in the Twentieth Century (Toronto: Copp Clark, 1989), 214-226.
2. John Price, “The ‘Cat’s Paw’: Canada and the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea,” Canadian Historical Review 85,2 (June 2004): 297-300; 321-324.
3. Robert Prince, “The Limits of Constraint,” Journal of Canadian Studies 27,4 (Winter 1992-93): 129-152.
4. Timothy Andrews Sayle, “A Pattern of Constraint: Canadian-American Relations in the Early Cold War,” International Journal 62,3 (Summer 2007): 689-705.

19 January The Suez Crisis and UN Diplomacy
1. Geoffrey A.P. Pearson, Seize the Day: Lester B. Pearson and Crisis Diplomacy (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1993), 137-55.
2. John English, The Worldly Years: The Life of Lester Pearson 1949-1972 (Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 121-45.
3. John W. Holmes, The Shaping of Peace: Canada and the Search for World Order, vol. 2, 1943-1957 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 348-70.
4. James Eayrs, “Canadian Policy and Opinion During the Suez Crisis,” International Journal 12,2 (Spring 1957): 97-108.

26 January Diplomatic Leadership and The Cuban Missile Crisis
1. Robert W. Reford, Canada and Three Crises (Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1968), 149-68.
2. Peyton V. Lyon, Canada in World Affairs, 1961-1963 (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1968), 27-64.
3. Peter C. Newman, Renegade in Power: The Diefenbaker Years (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1973), 335-40.
4. Peter Stursberg, Diefenbaker: Leadership Lost, 1962-67 (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 18-19.
5. Jocelyn Ghent-Mallet and Don Munton, “Confronting Kennedy and the Missiles in Cuba 1962,” in Don Munton and John Kirton, eds, Canadian Foreign Policy: Selected Cases (Scarborough: Prentice Hall, 1992), 78-100.

2 February Canada, the United States, and The Third Option
1. J.L. Granatstein and Robert Bothwell, Pirouette: Pierre Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), 158-62.
2. Mitchell Sharp, “Canada-U.S. Relations: Options for the Future,” in Norman Hillmer, ed., Partners Nevertheless: Canadian-American Relations in the Twentieth Century (Toronto: Copp Clark, 1989), 126-143.
3. Peyton V. Lyon, “Second Thoughts on the Second Option,” International Journal 30,4 (Autumn 1975), 646-670.
4. Robert Bothwell, “‘The Canadian Connection’: Canada and Europe,” in Norman Hillmer and Garth Stevenson, eds., Foremost Nation: Canadian Foreign Policy and a Changing World (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977), 24-36.
5. Gilbert R. Winham, “Choice and Strategy in Continental Relations,” in W. Andrew Axline et. al., eds., Continental Community? Independence and Integration in North America (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1974), 228-239.

9 February Final Examination


Appendix: questions for consideration

Questions for Consideration

The following questions will focus your thinking as you attempt to analyze the provided readings and action memoranda. Depending on the topic in question, some will be more important than others. If you at any point feel like you require additional information, please contact the instructor for suggestions for additional readings and/or to answer your questions.

1. What were the principal preoccupations in the minds of the government, both domestic and external, at the time the issue arose?
2. What international organizations or alliances, countries, and domestic bodies were principally involved? What were Canada’s special relations with, and obligations to, them? And what were their interests?
3. How much information did the Canadian government have? From what sources?
4. How was the issue initially defined and interpreted? How unexpected, important, and urgent was it?
5. What had been the Canadian attitude on this kind of issue previously? Were there new factors justifying a changed position?
6. What specifically national Canadian interests were involved?
7. What actors within the government were relevant? What interpretations and interests did each have?
8. How was the issue processed within the government? What ‘decisional channels’ or deliberative mechanisms were used?
9. What conflicts arose, of what duration and intensity? Was there a conflict of political, security, and economic interests? How were the moral considerations defined and dealt with?
10. Were there, insofar as can be presumed, differences of opinion within Cabinet?
11. Were there currents of public opinion to be considered? How did special interest groups try to influence policy? How did members of parliament become involved? What role did provincial governments play and what, if any, were the special considerations imposed by a bicultural foreign policy?
12. Is there any evidence of pressure from other governments, either acceptable diplomatic representations or threats of any kind?
13. How did the government try to fend off pressures from organizations within and outside Canada? Were there efforts to lead or mislead public opinion?
14. How, if at all, did the relevant actors, interpretations, interests, and tactics change as the issue moved toward the point of final decision?
15. What were the alternatives considered and how, and on what basis, was the decision finally made?
16. What specific action(s) did the government finally take to cope with the issue under consideration?
17. Was the decision a good one? What values and interests did it support, hinder, ignore?
18. What action should have been taken as an alternative or an addition? Was this a matter on which Canada should have taken an initiative? Alone or with others and if so whom?
19. Why did the government act as it did? That is, what actors exercised predominant power or what factors were most compelling? Specifically, to what extent was Canada’s an ‘independent decision’?
20. How could a different decision have been produced? Were the factors necessary to do so under the control or influence of Canadian policymakers?
21. Why is the government’s response to this issue of particular interest from a policy and academic standpoint?