The Canadian Middle Power Myth

Bibliographic Data

ID4761971
AuthorsAdam Chapnick (0000-0002-6909-4995, corresponding author)
Year2000
Volume55
Issue2
Pages188
Publication date2000-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-7020 • E-ISSN: 2052-465X
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2307/40203476
OpenAlexW4230173632
LanguageEN
Citations received37

THE RHETORIC OF 'MIDDLEPOWERHOOD' has dominated Canada's external political identity since the Second World War. Middle-power status has been used to justify a voice in international organizations, leadership in international initiatives, and consultation with Canadian officials on matters of concern to the international community. Canada has used the middle power concept to further its foreign policy aims and to promote nationalism through an internationally recognized identity.For all its importance, 'middle power' is rarely defined, and limited explanations are never specific. This vagueness is deliberate and conceals a striking reality: Canada's status as a middle power is a myth. The history of middlepowerhood uncovers a tradition of Canadian rhetoric crafted to justify the attainment of disproportionate influence in international affairs.(f.1) This subtle process of nationalist self- promotion had its genesis in 1942 when diplomat Hume Wrong introduced the functional principle, and it continues to be manifest in the Canadian human security agenda today.In 1933, David Mitrany legitimized the concept of functionalism in international relations, evaluating the potential for a successful world government by dividing the world into two types of states: great and small. Recognizing that some of the smaller states were increasing in strength, and seeking to ensure successful and co-operative international governance, he proposed to acknowledge the differing capacities of the smaller powers through 'a functional structure of political authority.'(f.2)Mitrany's ideas undoubtedly influenced Hume Wrong when he wrote to Norman Robertson, the undersecretary of state for external affairs, about Canada's role and status in the direction of war and the shaping of peace during inter-allied World War II negotiations: 'the principle, I think, is that each member of the grand alliance should have a voice in the conduct of war proportionate to the general war effort. A subsidiary principle is that the influence of the various countries should be greatest in connection with those matters with which they are most directly concerned.'(f.3) Wrong's 'functional principle' was narrower than Mitrany's 'functionalism.' It stipulated that individual small-state involvement in international affairs should be based upon certain conditions: the relevance of the state's interests, the direct contribution of the state to the situation in question, and the capacity of the state to participate.(f.4) Wrong did not intend to contest the role of the great powers - their inherent right to influence over all aspects of global governance was conceded. The principle was to apply to all remaining states. There were indeed two tiers of powers in the international system. However, some of the smaller powers deserved greater relative status predetermined by three criteria: relevance, contribution, and capacity. Functional powers were small powers. The functional principle was a 'functional' means of differentiating between smaller states, based on their relative capacities at a specific time.The tenets of the functional principle helped elevate Canada's status within the international community during World War II. Canada became a leading non-great power. It had a functional voice in the shaping of international relations. Over time, however, that was not enough. With the war coming to a close, Brooke Claxton, the minister of defence, proposed to extend the principle beyond its original meaning: 'the nations of the world must come to think of representation in terms of function rather than status.'(f.5) Claxton hoped to change the power structure.Great powers had formal status that would soon be recognized in the charter of the United Nations. Regardless of the state of the French economy, the British military, or Soviet political stability, the three remained great powers. Great-power status was differentiated objectively. It hardly fluctuated, and it allowed certain states to maintain a disproportionate influence in international affairs

Ancient history · Foreign policy · International relations · Middle power · Mythology · Nationalism · Physics · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Power politics · Rhetoric · Sociology · Canadian Identity and History · Canadian Policy and Governance · Classics · History · Law · Military and Defense Studies