Like-Minded Nations and Contrasting Diplomatic Styles: Australian and Canadian Approaches to Agricultural Trade
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Like-Minded Nations and Contrasting Diplomatic Styles: Australian and Canadian Approaches to Agricultural Trade Andrew Fenton Cooper Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 25, No. 2. (Jun., 1992), pp. 349-379. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0008-4239%28199206%2925%3A2%3C349%3ALNACDS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique is currently published by Canadian Political Science Association. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/cpsa.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Fri Jul 13 00:25:28 2007 Like-minded Nations and Contrasting Diplomatic Styles: Australian and Canadian Approaches to Agricultural Trade * ANDREW FENTON COOPER University of Waterloo The pairing of Australia and Canada has become a rich source of com- parative studies with respect to strategies in terms of the International Political Economy (IPE). Keohane and Nye in their theoretically stimulating work, Power rlnd Interdependence, chose Canadian-United States and Australian-United States relations as the case studies to illustrate some of their major themes concerning foreign economic pol- icy behaviour in a post-hegemonic era.l In terms of substantive policy issues, the two countries have been the focus of attention for empirically detailed studies on a wide number of topics, including foreign aid, immigration, and international cultural diplomacy .2 This matching of Australia and Canada has been largely inspired by the like-mindedness of the two countries. Transplanted Anglo-democ- racies, sharing a common political/constitutional experience, with rela- tively small populations and an abundance of natural resources, the two countries have a number of common values and goals in terms of the * The author thanks Richard Higgott, Kin Richard Nossal, T. V. Worley, Bob Young and the anonymous referees of the JOURNALfor their comments. Support for this research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 1 Robert 0. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye. Jr., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little Brown, 1977), 165-218. 2 J. P. Schlegel, "Patterns of Diplomacy: Canada and Australia in the Third World," Australian Jorrrnal of Po1itic.s and Histor?. 30 (1984), 7-18: Freda Hawkins, Criticcrl Yec~rsin I/~l/nigrcrrion:Canadrr and Alistrcrlia Cumperred (Montreal: McGill- Queen's University Press, 1989); and Robert J. Williams, "International Cultural Programmes: Canada and Australia Compared," in Andrew Fenton Cooper, ed., Canadian Clrltrrre: International Dimensions (Toronto: Canadian Institute of Inter- national Affairs, 1985). See also Annette Baker Fox, The Politics ofAttraction: Four Middle Powers and the United Stcrtes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977). Andrew Fenton Cooper, Department of Political Science, University of Waterloo, Water- loo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, XXV: 2 (June/juin 1992). Printed in Canada / Imprime au Canada 350 ANDREW FENTON COOPER international system. Most significantly, both remain strong advocates of multilateralism and a rules-based approach to international economic relations based on "general compromise and general compliance" rather than "lawlessness in which the prizes go to the powerful and the predatory."3 As Katzenstein points out, however, it is useful to distinguish between two components of strategy when discussing comparative approaches to the IPE."f Australia and Canada may be said to have similar objectives with respect to the international system, the methods through which they have attempted to pursue these objectives have differed sharply. By failing to recognize this dichotomy, much of the literature on comparative Canadian and Australian approaches with respect to foreign economic policy has missed an important factor in explaining the differences between the diplomatic behaviour of the two countries. In distinguishing between ends and means in foreign economic policy, it is important as well to locate Australia and Canada as quintes- sential middle powers. Middle-power behaviour presents an ambiguous conceptual category in international politics." On the one hand, tradi- tional middle powers such as Australia and Canada have tended to share the larger global "vision" of the post-1945 hegemon. On the other hand, nevertheless, it is apparent that these countries have retained a certain degree of diplomatic flexibility, or "opportunities for manoeuvre," vis-a-vis specific issue-areas in which they have sufficient resources or ~apabilities.~ Agricultural trade provides one interesting case study which high- lights the applicability of using a dualistic mode of analysis when exam- ining the foreign economic approaches of Australia and Canada. In terms of ends, a strong sense of similarity existed between Australia and Canada with regard to their strong support for the post-1945 agricul- turallfood order. Indeed, Australia and Canada may be described as first followers within this component of the international economic system. Followership, in this sense, means that these two countries not only "went along" in supporting the rules of that order but actively worked to 3 A. F. W. Plumptre, "Changes in the International Environment," Canada's Approach to the Next Round of GATT Negotiations (Toronto: Canadian Export Association, February 21, 1973), 3. 4 Peter J. Katzenstein, "Conclusion: Domestic Structures and Strategies," special issue, International Organization 31 (1977), 881-90. 5 See, for example, Robert W. Cox, "Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order," Interncrtional Journal 44 (1989), 823-62. Cox suggests also that "the middle power role is not a fixed universal but something that has to be rethought continually in the context of the changing state of the international system" (825). 6 Annette Baker Fox, "The Range of Choice for Middle Powers: Australiaand Canada Compared," Australian Journal of Politics crnd History 26 (1980), 193. Abstract. The pairing of Australia and Canada has become a rich source of comparative studies with respect to foreign economic policy. This matching has been largely inspired by the like-mindedness of the two countries. Yet, if Australia and Canada may be said to have similar objectives in terms of the international system, the methods through which they have attempted to pursue these objectives have differed sharply. Using international-level and domestic-level modes of analysis, this article explains the reasons for the contrasting style in the case of agricultural trade. It is demonstrated that a number of mutually reinforcing factors combine to give a tough-minded quality to Australia's approach. In contrast, because of both a greater complexity in the domestic policy-making process and the range of foreign policy options, Canada's style in the agricultural trade issue has become increasingly nuanced. Rbume. Les etudes comparant I'Australie et le Canada sont devenues une source riche d'enseignements sur la politique economique etrangere. Les similitudes entre les deux pays ont inspire ces comparaisons. Ceal dit, bien que les deux pays aient des objectifs semblables dans le systeme international, leurs mkthodes different nettement. En conside- rant tant le contexte internationale que les contextes nationaux, cet article expose les raisons qui expliquent ces styles different5 dans le cas du commerce agricole. Une combinaison de facteurs ont conduit 1'Australie a adopter une orientation plus radicale. AU contraire, le Canadaadopte des positions de plus en plus flexibles en matiere de commerce agricole, a la fois en raison de la complexite de sa politique interieure et de l'eventail de ses orientations en politique etrangkre. reinforce those rules. Still, though Australians and Canadians were like-minded in their view of what principles encompassed the "greater good," their agricultural trade diplomacies were most unlike in charac- ter. Most strikingly, there has been a marked divergence concerning the level of politicization accorded to this issue-area in the statecraft of the two countries. Canadian diplomatic efforts on agricultural trade have for the most part remained low-key and reactive in nature, with consider- able attention given to cautious, constructive, mediatorlbridge-building activities.