DS 572 – Canadian Government and Decision-making in a Strategic Context

Canadian Forces College 2009-10
National Security Program
DS 572 – Canadian Government and Decision-Making in a Strategic Context


Instructor: Dr. Adam Chapnick

Office: Curtis 316

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

Office Email: chapnick@cfc.dnd.ca

Texts: Course reader and required texts to be provided by CFC. Students are expected to complete the required readings in advance of every class. The supplementary readings should be read carefully by seminar presenters as well as by those for whom the material will be relevant to their written submissions in the course.

Schedule: Please consult the CFC calendar.

Course Description: This course examines contemporary political systems, comparing their formal institutions and decision making processes. It concentrates on Western, liberal democracies with market economies, examines the differing impact of history, geography, religion and ideology on how governments operate, and also considers the place of civil society in the political process. Finally, this course will assess the impact of differing domestic systems on the conduct of foreign and defence policy for Canada and Canada’s allies.

Teaching / Assessment Strategy: The 13 sessions will be three and one half hours long including a thirty minute coffee break. The format will vary slightly (largely between lecture-discussions and seminars) by session. Particularly towards the beginning of the course, sessions will be largely instructor-led in order to provide participants with the background necessary to engage the material in sufficient depth. In the mid-to-later classes, seminars will be participant-driven, based in large-part on assigned 15-minute presentations. The lecture-discussions will involve invited recognized experts and senior-level practitioners, either individually or in plenary format, whose background and practical experience will add depth and value to the course as a whole.

Grade Allocation:

15% Seminar presentation
35% Seminar participation
50% Action memorandum assignment

Grades will be allocated as follows: the seminar presentation (15%), participation in the seminar discussions (35%), and a written action memorandum assignment (50%).

Deliverables:

Seminar Presentation: In DS 572, seminar presentations provide the starting point for a discussion on the major themes and issues brought up in the assigned readings. The presentation should consist of an original argument, based on the presenter’s critical analysis of the reading that s/he finds to be the most significant and/or contentious of the assigned list. It is assumed that the presenter will use the additional readings as context for the argument. A successful presentation should stimulate a thoughtful discussion. Presenters are to prepare the equivalent of a 1000 word oral essay that should include a brief introduction, state an argument supported by specific examples from the core reading, and should end with a brief conclusion during which the main argument is reiterated.

Typically, a critical analysis will consider the following questions and issues:

* Who is the author and what bias might the author bring to the article?
* Who is the author’s intended audience and has that audience been addressed effectively?
* What is the author’s research question and where does it fit within any relevant scholarly and/or popular debate about the issue?
* What is the author’s main message(s)?
* How does the author organize the argument?
* What are the strengths and weaknesses of the argument?
* Is the article, on the whole, convincing?
* (If relevant) What are the implications of the author’s argument for Canadian foreign and public policy?

To help the class prepare for the presentation and the broader dialogue that will follow, presenters are to identify the reading upon which they plan to focus in advance and provide at least 3 analytical questions for discussion. The questions should be based on the themes of the entire selection of readings and must be submitted to the instructor by email at least 3 working days before the seminar. The instructor will edit and email the questions to the rest of the group, who are free to use them as a guide while completing the readings.
Presentations will be followed by a presenter-led discussion of approximately 60 minutes. Facilitators should reserve the final five minutes of that discussion to summarize the main points that have been brought up and relate them back to the original presentation.

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

The assignment is intended to be approximately 20-25 pages long, and will enable students to develop specific expertise on the governing and decision-making processes in Canada, the United States, and one other significant Canadian ally. That ally will be selected in consultation with the course instructor. It is anticipated that every student in the syndicate will select a different Canadian ally.

Students are to assume that Canada, the United States, and the third country have just received a request from the UN secretary general to lead a peacekeeping / stabilization team into Darfur (Students will receive an ‘official’ letter of request during the first session). With this thought in mind, students are to draft three separate action memoranda – one to each respective government – advising each one as to how to respond to the UN’s request. [note: NSP students who are not pursuing an MA will draft one memorandum instead of three] Having completed the three memoranda, students are to draft a short paper, approximately 4-6 pages long, that explains and justifies the various differences between the three memoranda (for instance, the papers might be addressed to different members of government; the background sections might highlight different domestic and international factors; the most prominent considerations for each government might be different, etc.).

The assignment cannot be completed successfully unless its author has developed a thorough understanding of the processes through which each country would determine whether to accept the invitation.

Each action memorandum will be absolutely no more than 6-pages ( 1½ -spaced) long.

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 will be provided to the students during the first session.

Although footnotes are not necessary in this exercise, to ensure academic integrity, a complete bibliography of all works consulted should be attached to the end of the assignment.

All activities, including seminar participation, will be evaluated using the criteria delineated in the relevant CFC rubrics.

Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be subject to submission for textual similarity review to Turnitin.com for the detection of plagiarism. All submitted papers will be included as source documents in the Turnitin.com reference database solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. The terms that apply to the Canadian Forces College’s use of the Turnitin.com service are described on the Turnitin.com website.

Related Courses and Activities:

This course is related to the Field Research Exercise in Ottawa.


Course Schedule:

September 16, 2009

Session 1: Canada’s Values and Interests (LE/SM)

This session introduces the distinction between values and interests in foreign policy. The lecture focuses on basic definitions, concepts, and ideas, while the seminar addresses the application of values and interests in Canadian foreign policy more specifically. Students will be made familiar with the values versus interests debate in foreign policy formation, as well as the idea that the two are related and often indivisible. This will be an important foundation when students later look at Canadian security and foreign policy comparatively.

Required

1. Steven Kendall-Holloway, Canadian Foreign Policy: Defining the National Interest (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2006), 5-18.

2. Michael Byers, Intent for a Nation (Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre, 2007), 6-16, 215-241.

3. Jennifer Welsh, At Home in the World: Canada’s Global Vision for the 21st Century (Toronto: Harper-Collins Publishers Ltd, 2005), 162-186.

4. Allan Gotlieb, “Romanticism and Realism in Canada’s Foreign Policy,” Policy Options, February 2005, 16-27.

5. Michael Hart, From Pride to Influence: Towards a New Canadian Foreign Policy (Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2008), 320-335, 409-10.

Supplementary

1. Jennifer Welsh, “Are Interests Really Value Free?” Literary Review of Canada 14, no. 9 (November 2006): 1-5.

2. Roy Rempel, Dreamland: How Canada’s Pretend Foreign Policy Has Undermined Sovereignty (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006,) 1-7, 151-175.

3. Kim Richard Nossal, “‘The World We Want?’ The Purposeful Confusion of Values, Goals, and Interests in Canadian Foreign Policy,” Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute Online Paper, 1-15.

4. Denis Stairs, “Myths, morals, and reality in Canadian foreign policy,” International Journal 58, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 239-256.


September 17/18, 2009

Session 2: Canadian Security Policy on Paper and in Practice (LE/SM)

This session is focused on some of the most significant recent Canadian government publications concerning national security, defence, and foreign policy. The lecture assesses the benefits, drawbacks, and overall significance of the policy review process. The seminar will use Canadian government publications as context to explore their impact on the security and defence policymaking processes.

Required

For reference:

1. Privy Council Office, Securing an Open Society: Canada’s National Security Policy (Ottawa: Privy Council Office, 2004), 1-52.

2. Department of National Defence, Canada’s International Policy Statement: A Role of Pride and Influence in the World: Defence (Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 2005), 1-32.

3. Department of National Defence, Canada First Defence Strategy (Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 2008), 1-21.

For Discussion

4. John Manley, et al., Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan, January 2008, 1-40.

5. Danford W. Middlemiss and Denis Stairs, “Is the Defence Establishment Driving Canada’s Foreign Policy?” in Canada Among Nations 2007: What Room for Manoeuvre? ed. Jean Daudelin and Daniel Schwanen (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2008), 66-90.

6. Douglas Bland, “Everything Military Officers Need to Know About Defence Policy-Making in Canada,” in Canadian Strategic Forecast 2000: Advance or Retreat? Canadian Defence in the 21st Century, ed. David Rudd, Jim Hansen, and Jessica Blitt (Toronto: Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, 2000), 15-29.

Supplementary

1. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada’s International Policy Statement: A Role of Pride and Influence in the World: Diplomacy (Ottawa, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 2005), 1-45.

2. David Malone, “Foreign Policy Reviews Reconsidered,” International Journal 56, no. 4 (Autumn 2001): 555-578.


September 23, 2009

Session 3: The Law, the Charter, and Canadian Political Culture (LE/SM)

This session examines the impact of the evolutionary nature of Canadian society on the public policy process. The lecture will look specifically at contemporary issues in national security law and the reach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The seminar that follows will examine political culture more broadly in an effort to better understand how it affects the federal government’s decision-making process.

Required

For Reference

1. Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (Toronto: Thompson-Nelson, 2008), 239-268.

For Discussion

2. Nelson Wiseman, In Search of Canadian Political Culture (Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2007), 35-58, 277-79.

3. Paul Nesbitt-Larking, “Canadian Political Culture: The Problem of Americanization,” in Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues, ed. Mark Charlton and Paul Barker (Scarborough: Thompson-Nelson, 2006), 4-21.

4. Anthony A. Peacock, “Socialism as Nationalism: Why the Alleged Americanization of Canadian Political Culture is a Fraud,” in Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues, ed. Mark Charlton and Paul Barker (Scarborough: Thompson-Nelson, 2006), 22-37.

5. Nik Nanos, “Charter Values Don’t Equal Canadian Values,” Policy Options, February 2007, 50-55.

6. James Kelly, “Parliament and the Charter of Rights: An Unfinished Constitutional Revolution,” Policy Options, February 2007, 103-107.

7. James McHugh, “The Foundations of Canadian Foreign Policy: Federalism, Confederalism, International Law, and the Quebec Precedent,” in Handbook of Canadian Foreign Policy, ed. Patrick James, Nelson Michaud, and Marc J. O’Reilly (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006), 431-454.

Supplementary

1. Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] S.C.R. 217, in Canadian Constitutional Law, 3rd Ed (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd, 2003), 11-28.

2. Government of Canada, Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960.

3. Government of Canada, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982.

4. Government of Canada, Constitution Act of 1867 (British North America Act).

5. Andrew Cohen, The Unfinished Canadian (Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, 2007), 93-132.

6. Neil Nevitte and Mebs Kanji, “Canadian Political Culture and Values Change,” in Citizen Politics: Research and Theory in Canadian Political Behaviour, ed. Joanna Everitt and Brenda O’Neill (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002), 56-73.


September 29, 2009

Session 4: Foreign Aid and Canadian Humanitarianism (LE/SM)

This session is designed to improve the students’ understanding of Canada’s engagement in international development activities. The lecture will outline the basic tenets of development from a Canadian perspective. The seminar will compare contrasting Canadian approaches to international development assistance.

Required

1. Hugh Segal, et al., “Overcoming 40 Years of Failure: A New Road Map for Sub-Saharan Africa,” The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (February 2007),1-18.

2. Amela Karabegovic and Fred McMahon, “Are We Really ‘Overcoming 40 Years of Failure?’” Fraser Forum, April 2007, 21-22.

3. Pierre de Bané and Sharon Carstairs, “A Better Plan : How Canada Can Help Africa.” Policy Options, July-August 2007, 101-105.

4. Danielle Goldfarb and Stephen Tapp, “How Canada Can Improve its Development Aid: Lessons from Other Countries,” C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 232 (April 2006), 1-24.

5. Bernard Wood, “Managing Canada’s Growing Development Cooperation: Out of the Labyrinth,” in Exporting Good Governance, ed. Jennifer Welsh and Ngaire Woods (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007), 225-251.

6. OECD, “Canada (2007), Development Assistance Committee Peer Review: Main Findings and Recommendations.” http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_33873108_33873277_39509628_1_1_1_1,00.html

7. Peter Walker, “Foreign Military Resources for Disaster Relief: An NGO Perspective, Disasters 16, no. 2 (1992): 152-159.

Supplementary

1. Adam Chapnick, “Canada’s Aid Program: Still Struggling After Sixty Years,” Behind the Headlines 65, no. 3 (May 2008): 1-28.

2. Michael A. Clemens and Todd J. Moss, “Ghost of 0.7%: Origins and Relevance of the International Aid Target,” Working Paper no. 68 (Center for Global Development: 6 September 2005).


October 1, 2009

Session 5: Canadian Social Policy: (Immigration, Multiculturalism, and Diaspora Politics) (LD)

This lecture-discussion explores some of the factors that influence public policy and decision making in Canada that are often under-appreciated in discussions of national security.

Required

1. Michael Adams, Unlikely Utopia: The Surprising Triumph of Canadian Pluralism (Toronto: Viking Press, 2007), 2-21, 67-80.

2. J.L. Granatstein, “Multiculturalism and Canadian Foreign Policy,” in The World in Canada: Diaspora, Demography, and Domestic Politics, ed. David Carment and David Bercuson (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2008), 78-91.

3. Vic Satzewich, “Multiculturalism, Transnationalism, and the Highjacking of Canadian Foreign Policy: a Pseudo-problem?” International Journal 63, no. 1 (Winter 2007-08): 43-62.

4. Will Kymlicka, “Marketing Canadian pluralism in the international arena,” International Journal 59, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 829-853.

5. Statistics Canada, Canada’s Ethnocultural Mosaic, 2006 Census, 4-35.

Supplementary

1. David Foot and Daniel Stoffman. Boom, Bust & Echo: Profiting from the Demographic Shift in the 21st Century (Don Mills: Stoddart, 1998), 1-18, 257-278.

2. Hans Jung, “Can the Canadian Forces Reflect Canadian Society?” Canadian Military Journal 8, no. 3 (Autumn 2007): 27-36.

3. Rima Berns-McGown, “Redefining ‘Diaspora’: The Challenge of Connection and Inclusion,” International Journal 63, no. 1 (Winter 2007-08): 3-20.

4. Andrew Chung, “The Peculiarity of Eracism: Mixed Race and Nonbelonging in the Multicultural Nation,” in Canadas of the Mind: The Making and Unmaking of Canadian Nationalisms in the Twentieth Century, ed. Norman Hillmer and Adam Chapnick (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007), 300-310.


October 6, 2009

Session 6: Polls, Politics, and the Media (LD)

This lecture-discussion focuses on the role of polls and the media in the policy process with an emphasis on their impact on strategic decision-making. .

Required

1. Augie Fleras, Mass Media Communication in Canada (Scarborough: Thomson Nelson, 2003), 59-95.

2. Heather MacIvor, Parameters of Power: Canada’s Political Institutions, 5th ed. (Scarborough: Nelson, 2006), 507-544.

3. Paul Nesbitt-Larking, Politics, Society, and the Media: Canadian Perspectives (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2001), 309-332.

4. Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh, and Anthony Perl, Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems, 3rd ed. (Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2009), 61-75.

Supplementary

1. Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (Toronto: Thompson-Nelson, 2008), 272-291.


October 20, 2009

Session 7: How the Canadian Government Works (LD)

This lecture-discussion will allow students to combine a theoretical understanding of how the government works with insights gained from the personal experiences of individuals who have worked and do work in the government. The readings have been chosen not only to stimulate discussion but also to prepare the students for their assignment and the Ottawa field study exercise.

Required

For reference:

1. Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (Toronto: Thompson-Nelson, 2008), 505-521, 523-525, 530-536, 548-550, 563-65, 599-602.

2. Glen Milne, Making Policy: A Guide to the Federal Government’s Policy Process January 2008 ed. (Ottawa: Glen Milne, 2004).

3. Susanna Bearne, Olga Oliker, Kevin A. O’Brien, and Andrew Rathmell, National Security Decision-Making and Security Sector Reform (Cambridge, UK: RAND Corporation, 2005), 1-32. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2005/RAND_TR289.pdf

For Discussion

4. Douglas Bland, “Parliament’s Duty to Defend Canada,” Canadian Military Journal 1, no. 4 (Winter 2000-2001): 35-43.

5. Roy Rempel, The Chatterbox: An Insider’s Account of the Irrelevance of Parliament in the Making of Canadian Foreign and Defence Policy (Toronto: Breakout Education Network, 2002), 17-39, 179-203.

6. Donald J. Savoie, Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers, and Parliament (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 3-16, 171-192.

7. Paul Barker, “Limits on the Power of the Prime Minister,” in Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues (Scarborough: Thompson-Nelson, 2006), 199-213.

8. Irvin Studin, “Revisiting the Democratic Deficit: The Case for Political Party Think Tanks,” Policy Options, February 2008, 62-67.

Supplementary

1. Barry Campbell, “Politics As Usual: A Legend is Born,” “Politics as Unusual: Darkness Visible,” and “Politics as Unusual: Sanity Found,” (first published March-May 2008) all in The Walrus http://www.walrusmagazine.com

2. Donald J. Savoie, Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 71-101.

3. Mark Schacter, “Cabinet Decision-Making in Canada: Lessons and Practices,” Institute on Governance Policy Brief, no. 1 (April 1999): 1-5. http://www.iog.ca/publications/policybrief1.pdf


October 26-30, 2009

Ottawa FRE


November 3, 2009

Session 8: How the US Government Works (SM)

This seminar is designed to introduce students to the machinations of the US government. It is assumed that students will approach this topic with the Canadian process in mind to enable them to discuss the US system in a comparative manner.

Required

For Reference:

1. Karen O’Connor and Larry Sabato, American Government: Continuity and Change (New York, Longman, 2002), 216-220, 262-266, 271-276, 319-322, 336-340.

2. James E. Baker, “National Security Process,” in In the Common Defense: National Security Law for Perilous Times (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 99-125.

For Discussion

3. Alan Dobson, and Steve Marsh, US Foreign Policy Since 1945 (New York: Routledge, 2006), 1-19.

4. Ivo H. Daalder and I. M. Destler, “In The Shadow of the Oval Office: The Next National Security Advisor,” Foreign Affairs 88, no. 1 (January/February 2009): 114-129.

5. J. Anthony Holmes, “Where are the Civilians? How to Rebuild the U.S. Foreign Service,” Foreign Affairs 88, no. 1 (January/February 2009): 148-160.

6. J. Brian Atwood, M. Peter McPherson, and Andrew Natsios, “Arrested Development: Making Foreign Aid a More Effective Tool.” Foreign Affairs 87, no. 6 (Nov. / Dec. 2008): 123-132.

7. Brian Bow, “Out of Ideas? Models and Strategies for Canada-US Relations,” International Journal 62, no. 1 (winter 2006/07): 123-42.

Supplementary

1. Michael Hart, From Pride to Influence: Towards a New Canadian Foreign Policy (Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2008), 235-46.

2. Dean Rusk, “The President,” Foreign Affairs (March/April 1960).


November 5/6, 2009

Session 9: United States Security Policy on Paper (SM)

This seminar will introduce students to the key international policy and strategy statements issued by the government of the United States. As was the case in seminar 8, it is assumed that students will approach this topic with the Canadian documents in mind to enable them to discuss the US publications in a comparative manner.

Required

1. United States, Department of Defense, National Defence Strategy (June 2008), 1-23. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/2008%20National%20Defense%20Strategy.pdf

2. United States, Office of the President, National Security Strategy of the United States of America (March 2006), 1-49. http://www.bricsam.org/researchpr/girworksho/princetons/documentsr/nationalse

3. Robert M. Gates, “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age,” Foreign Affairs 88, no. 1 (January/February 2009): 28-40.

4. United States, Joint Chiefs of Staff, The National Military Strategy for the United States of America (2004), 1-27 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf

Supplementary

1. United States, Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review (February 2006), 1-92.

2. United States, Department of State, National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism (February 2003), 1-30 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60172.pdf

3. United States, Department of Homeland Security, One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland: US Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2008-2013 (16 September 2008), 1-39. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/DHS_StratPlan_FINAL_spread.pdf


November 10, 2009

Session 10: The Canadian-American Relationship: Politics and Security (SM)

This seminar examines the Canada-US relationship as it relates to issues of national and international security. It also seeks to understand Canadian anti-Americanism as it affects bilateral relations.

Required

For Reference:

1. Government of Canada, Smart Border Decaration (2003) http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/anti-terrorism/actionplan-en.asp

2. Trade and Security Partnership Map: http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/rep_can_am_1/assets/pdfs/map.pdf

For Discussion:

3. Philippe Lagassé, “Canada, Strategic Defence, and Strategic Stability: A Retrospective and Look Ahead,” International Journal 63, no. 4 (Autumn 2008): 917-937.

4. Joel Sokolsky and Philippe Lagassé, “Suspenders and a Belt: Perimeter and Border Security in Canada-US Relations,” Canadian Foreign Policy 12, no. 3 (2005/06): 15-29.

5. Brian Bow, “Rethinking ‘Retaliation’ in Canada-US Relations,” in An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada? Challenges and Choices for the Future, ed. Brian Bow and Patrick Lennox (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 63-82.

6. Brian Bow, “Anti-Americanism in Canada, Before and After Iraq,” American Review of Canadian Studies 38, no. 3 (Autumn 2008): 341-359.

Supplementary

1. Colin Robertson, “CDA_USA 2.0: Intermesticity, Hidden Wiring and Public Diplomacy,” in Canada Among Nations 2007: What Room for Manoeuvre? ed. Jean Daudelin and Daniel Schwanen (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2008), 268-285.

2. Geoffrey Hale, “Managing Alternate Realities: ‘Autonomy’ vs. ‘Relevance’? Engaging US Foreign and Security Policies,” Canadian-American Public Policy no. 71 (August 2007), 1-40.

3. Peter J. Katzenstein and Robert O. Keohane, “Conclusion: Anti-Americanisms and the Polyvalence of America,” in Anti-Americanisms and World Politics, ed. Katzenstein and Keohane (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2007), 306-316.

4. Kim Richard Nossal, “Anti-Americanism in Canada,” in Anti-Americanism: History, Causes, Themes, vol. 3, Comparative Perspectives (Oxford: Greenwood Publishing, 2007), 59-76, 318-323.

5. Dan Dunsky, “Canada’s Three Solitudes,” The National Interest (Winter 2005/06). http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=10882


November 12/13, 2009

Session 11:The Canadian-American Relationship: Trade and Economics (SM)

This seminar examines the Canada-US relationship as it relates to issues of trade and economics. It therefore extends and broadens the discussion that begin in the previous seminar.

Required

1. Michael Hart, From Pride to Influence: Towards a New Canadian Foreign Policy (Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2008), 167-84.

2. Donald Barry, “Managing Canada-US Relations in the Post-9/11 Era: Do We Need a Big Idea?” in Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy, ed. Duane Bratt and Christopher J. Kukucha (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2007), 113-138.

3. David T. Jones, “Free Trade in Washington: All Politics, All the Time,” Policy Options, October 2007, 89-93.

4. Stephen Clarkson, Does North America Exist? Governing the Continent After NAFTA and 9/11 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 435-71.

5. Geoffrey Hale, In Search of Effective Border Management, volume 3 of Canadian International Council, A Changing World: Canadian Foreign Policy Priorities (February 2009), 1-33.

Supplementary

1. Michael Kergin and Bridget Matthiesen, “A New Bridge for Old Allies,” CIC Border Issues Report (November 2008), 1-16.


November 24, 2009 and November 25, 2009

Sessions 12 and 13: Student Roundtables on the Action Memoranda (SM)

The final two sessions will allow the students to educate their peers about the decision-making processes in countries other than Canada and the United States that have formed the basis of their research for this course. It is anticipated that 7 or 8 countries will be covered in the first session. In the second session, the time remaining will be devoted to a discussion of a contemporary issue in Canadian and international politics.