Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:56:39.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partnerships in Military Interventions and the Canadian Public

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

Theodore McLauchlin
Theodore McLauchlin*
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
*
Départment de science politique, Université de Montréal, 3150, av Jean-Brillant, Montréal QC, HC3 3J7, email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do Canadians’ preferences for Canada's role in the world depend on who Canada acts with and not just what Canada does? This question is particularly important in the context of overseas military intervention, which Canada never undertakes on its own. This paper presents a survey experiment measuring how support for a hypothetical peace operation changes with the leader of the mission. Missions led by the United Nations and by Canada's European allies receive more support than American-led missions do, especially among respondents who also favour peace operations for substantive reasons. The finding suggests that the UN and the European connection are alternative ways for a mission to benefit from a preference for multilateralism. While the results confirm some tension between American-led missions and internationalism, European partnerships may offer a way of reconciling an interest in alliances with the internationalist Canadian public.

Résumé

Les préférences qu’expriment les Canadiens relatives au rôle du Canada dans le monde dépendent-elles de ceux avec qui le Canada interagit et non seulement de ce que le Canada fait? Cette question est particulièrement importante dans le contexte de l’intervention militaire outre-mer, ce que le Canada n’entreprend jamais seul. Cet article présente une expérience dans un sondage, mesurant comment l’appui à une opération de paix fictive change en fonction du chef de mission. Les missions conduites par les Nations Unies et par les alliés européens du Canada reçoivent plus d’appuis que les missions conduites par les États-Unis, surtout parmi les répondants qui sont en faveur des opérations de paix pour des raisons substantielles également. Ces constats suggèrent que l’ONU et l’ancrage européen sont deux moyens alternatifs pour qu’une mission bénéficie d’une préférence des Canadiens pour le multilatéralisme. Alors que les résultats confirment une certaine tension entre les missions menées par les États-Unis et l’internationalisme, les partenariats européens peuvent offrir une façon de concilier un intérêt porté aux alliances avec le public internationaliste au Canada.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 773 - 793
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Emanuel, and Pouliot, Vincent. 2011. “International Practices.” International Theory 3 (1): 1–36.Google Scholar
Boucher, Jean-Christophe. 2009. “Selling Afghanistan: A Discourse Analysis of Canada's Military Intervention, 2001–08.” International Journal 64 (3): 717–33.Google Scholar
Boutilier, Alex. 2016. “Liberals Pledge More Peacekeeping, No Decision Made on Mission.” Toronto Star, August 26. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/08/26/liberals-pledge-600-soldiers-450m-for-un-peacekeeping.html.Google Scholar
Brooks, Deborah and Brooks, Stephen G.. 2011. “The Pretty Prudent Partisan Theory of U.S. Foreign Policy Opinion.” Presentation, McGill University, October 5.Google Scholar
Desrosiers, Marie-Eve, and Lagassé, Philippe. 2009. “Canada and the Bureaucratic Politics of State Fragility.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 20 (4): 659–78.Google Scholar
Fitzsimmons, Scott, Craigie, Allan and Bodet, Marc-André. 2014. “Canadian Public Opinion about the Military: Assessing the Influences on Attitudes toward Defence Spending and Participation in Overseas Combat Operations.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 503–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Joseph F., Bastedo, Heather and Hove, Jennifer. 2009. “Losing Heart: Declining Support and the Political Marketing of the Afghanistan Mission.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 42 (4): 911–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granatstein, J. L. 2008. Who Killed the Canadian Military? 3rd ed. Toronto: HarperPerennialCanada.Google Scholar
Gravelle, Timothy B., Scotto, Thomas J., Reifler, Jason and Clarke, Harold D.. 2014. “Foreign Policy Beliefs and Support for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 20 (2): 111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haglund, David G. 1997. “The NATO of Its Dreams? Canada and the Co-Operative Security Alliance.” International Journal 52 (3): 464–82.Google Scholar
Halperin, Morton H. 2006. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. 2nd ed. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Jockel, Joseph T., and Sokolsky, Joel J.. 2009. “Canada and NATO: Keeping Ottawa In, Expenses Down, Criticism Out… and the Country Secure.” International Journal 64 (2): 315–36.Google Scholar
Keating, Thomas. 2013. Canada and World Order: The Multilateralist Tradition in Canadian Foreign Policy. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kreps, Sarah. 2010. “Elite Consensus as a Determinant of Alliance Cohesion: Why Public Opinion Hardly Matters for NATO-Led Operations in Afghanistan.” Foreign Policy Analysis 6 (3): 191–215.Google Scholar
Lagassé, Philippe, Massie, Justin and Roussel, Stéphane. 2014. “Le néoconservatisme en politiques étrangère et de défense canadiennes.” In Le fédéralisme selon Harper. La place du Québec dans le Canada conservateur, ed. Castro-Rea, Julian and Boily, Frédéric. Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Lagassé, Philippe, and Robinson, Paul. 2008. “Reviving Realism in the Canadian Defence Debate.” Martello Papers. Kingston: Centre for International Relations, Queen's University.Google Scholar
Létourneau, Charles, and Massie, Justin. 2006. “Un symbole à bout de souffle? Le maintien de la paix dans la culture stratégique canadienne.” Études Internationales 37 (4): 547–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovegrove, Dwayne. 2010. “Sutherland in the 21st Century: Invariants in Canada's Policy Agenda since 9/11.” Canadian Military Journal 10 (3): 13–19.Google Scholar
Martin, Pierre, and Fortmann, Michel. 1995. “Canadian Public Opinion and Peacekeeping in a Turbulent World.” International Journal 50 (2): 370–400.Google Scholar
Martin, Pierre, and Fortmann, Michel. 2001. “Le soutien à l'intervention internationale dans l'opinion publique canadienne après la guerre froide.” Revue Militaire Canadienne 2 (3): 43–52.Google Scholar
Massie, Justin. 2008. “Regional Strategic Subcultures: Canadians and the Use of Force in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 14 (2): 19–48.Google Scholar
Massie, Justin. 2009. “Making Sense of Canada's ‘Irrational’ International Security Policy: A Tale of Three Strategic Cultures.” International Journal 64 (3): 625–45.Google Scholar
Massie, Justin. 2013. Francosphere: L'importance de la France dans la culture strategique du Canada. Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Massie, Justin, and Boucher, Jean-Christophe. 2013. “Militaristes et anti-impérialistes: Les Québécois face à la sécurité internationale.” Études internationales 44 (3): 359–385.Google Scholar
Massie, Justin, Boucher, Jean-Christophe and Roussel, Stéphane. 2010. “Hijacking a Policy? Assessing Quebec's ‘Undue’ Influence on Canada's Afghan Policy.” American Review of Canadian Studies 40 (2): 259–75.Google Scholar
Massie, Justin, and Roussel, Stéphane. 2008. “Au service de l'unité: Le rôle des mythes en politique étrangère canadienne.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 14 (2): 67–93.Google Scholar
Massie, Justin, and Roussel, Stéphane. 2013. “The Twilight of Internationalism? Neocontinentalism as an Emerging Dominant Idea in Canadian Foreign Policy.” In Canada in the World: Internationalism in Canadian Foreign Policy, ed. Smith, Heather A. and Sjolander, Claire Turenne. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mérand, Frédéric, and Vandemoortele, Antoine. 2009. “L'Europe dans la culture stratégique canadienne, 1949–2009.” Études Internationales 40 (2): 241–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munton, Don, and Keating, Tom. 2001. “Internationalism and the Canadian Public.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34 (3): 517–49.Google Scholar
Nossal, Kim Richard. 1998. “Pinchpenny Diplomacy: The Decline of ‘Good International Citizenship’ in Canadian Foreign Policy.” International Journal 54 (1): 88–105.Google Scholar
Nossal, Kim Richard. 2013. “The Liberal Past in the Conservative Present: Internationalism in the Harper Era.” In Canada in the World: Internationalism in Canadian Foreign Policy, ed. Smith, Heather A. and Sjolander, Claire Turenne. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paris, Roland. 2014. “Are Canadians Still Liberal Internationalists? Foreign Policy and Public Opinion in the Harper Era.” International Journal 69 (3): 274–307.Google Scholar
Sokolsky, Joel J. 2002. “Clausewitz, Canadian Style.” Canadian Military Journal 3 (3): 3–10.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., Peter Loewen, Patrick Fournier and Rubenson, Daniel. 2013. “The Impact of News Photos on Support for Military Action.” Canadian Election Study Working Paper 2013–02. Montreal: Canadian Election Study.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. “Opinion Representation and Policy Feedback: Canada in Comparative Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 531–59.Google Scholar
Von Hlatky, Stéfanie. 2013. American Allies in Times of War: The Great Asymmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weitsman, Patricia A. 2013. Waging War: Alliances, Coalitions, and Institutions of Interstate Violence. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

McLauchlin supplementary material

Appendix

Download McLauchlin supplementary material(File)
File 4.4 MB