Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fellows Canada DA
Stephen Troope, Chancellor of UBC (Canada) “A Century Later, Aspiring to Global Influence”
UBC Report Dec. 6, 2007
In the latter half of the 20th century Canada emerged as one of the world’s most successful societies, noted for its
broadly shared commitment to social inclusion, its embracing of cultural diversity, its robust economy, and its strong
public finances. Yet these successes are fragile, and could be undermined in the short term by Canada’s under-
performance in social, economic, scientific and cultural innovation. Already, Canada’s performance on the measures
of social development and productivity is falling in comparison to OECD leaders.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 4
Fellows Canada DA
Atlas ‘7 Pierre, Director, The Richard G. Lugar Franciscan Center for Global Studies, Professor
of Political Science at Marian University “Canada’s Soft Power” November 24
http://indistinctunion.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/canadas-soft-power/
Canada has long been held in high esteem internationally. While many people around the world have a love-
hate relationship with the United States, Canada tends to inspire only positive feelings. This is in part because
Canada never had the burden of superpower responsibilities during the Cold War and, thanks to the
American nuclear umbrella, it was able to “free ride” on security and devote much of its resources and
attention to “non-strategic” global issues like international humanitarian law, peacekeeping, and
development in the Third World. Rather than focusing inward, Canada long ago made the deliberate choice to
pursue its values internationally, under both Tory and Liberal governments.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 5
Fellows Canada DA
Asia is the most dangerous place in the world. With Americans dying daily in Iraq; the Bush road map for Israel and
Palestine in tatters; and the ghostly visage of Osama bin Laden broadcast to the world by al-Jazeera on the second
anniversary of Sept. 11, threatening all of us with even worse horrors; it may be difficult to fathom that the greatest
threats to peace and security reside outside the Middle East. But in this league of infamy, Asia leads the first
division. The six-nation talks with North Korea, for example, have ended with nodiscernible progress and North
Korea moving at full speed to expand its nuclear arsenal. Everything that George Bush went to war to prevent in
Iraq is occurring irrefutably in North Korea: There a rogue regime has starved hundreds of thousands of its own
citizens, attacked its neighbours, built a nuclear bomb, and trafficked with terrorists. North Korea is the world's most
deadly problem. Right behind is the situation in Pakistan. The Pakistani intelligence service helped invent the
Taliban; Islamists are honeycombed within the intelligence service and the armed forces. Pakistan has also
developed nuclear weapons to protect itself in the 50-year conflict with India over Kashmir. Terrorists can either
spark outrages in India hoping to bring about Armageddon in a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, or Islamists
could promote a coup in Pakistan itself, putting a Taliban-style regime in power in Islamabad. The regime of
President Pervez Musharraf presides over one of the world's most turbulent countries, and if you thought the Taliban
in Afghanistan was a problem, what about if a similarly motivated group had its thumb on a nuclear trigger? In this
Asian cauldron of animosity, one optimistic possibility is the emergence of a peaceful, engaged China. The Middle
Kingdom has been the dominant player in Asia for 5,000 years, and in our time it has been a key ally of both North
Korea and Pakistan. We are witnessing in the early years of the 21st century a China that is systematically turning
away from the isolation and madness of the cultural revolution of Mao towards an engagement with its neighbours.
This engagement is primarily economic. China's ascension to the World Trade Organization is of the utmost
importance, but it is also strategic with China participating in the six-nation negotiations with North Korea.
Encouraging China to take a constructive role in its own region is in the interests of us all. Canada might be able to
play a small part in this engagement strategy. The National Post has recently run a foreign policy series with much
debate about the utility of "hard views" and "soft power." Of course, you need both, and we need to invest more in
both elements of power if we are to play a role in the world. With China, Canada does have some unique soft power
assets.
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India
crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the
planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched
between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in
1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The
United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The director of central
intelligence, the Defense Department, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear
worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced
delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither
country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an
inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention. The boiling witches' brew in Kashmir should
propel the United States to assertive facilitation or mediation of Kashmir negotiations. The impending July 14-16
summit in New Delhi between President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee featuring Kashmir on
the agenda does not justify complacency.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 6
Fellows Canada DA
Today in Ottawa, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS)
concluded its two-week mission to Canada. Peer review team leader, Shojiro Matsuura, and deputy team leader,
Martin Virgilio, presented the team’s high-level findings to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) President
Michael Binder. The 21-member peer review team comprised of senior regulators recruited by the IAEA from
13 member countries,spent the past two weeks comparing Canada’s nuclear regulatory practices with
international standards and equivalent good practiceselsewhere in the world.Team members interviewed
government officials, CNSC staff and licensees, visited CNSC site and regional offices, observed inspections and a
Commission Tribunal proceeding, and reviewed a variety of regulatory documents over the course of the mission.
Overall, the review team has determined that Canada has a mature and well-established nuclear regulatory
framework and that the nuclear regulator does an effective job in protecting the health, safety and security of
Canadians and the environment. “We have always believed that we are doing our job well”, said Mr.
Binder.“The review team’s findings demonstrate that the CNSC’s regulations and good practices compare
favourably with those of our international counterparts. Our challenge now is to consider the review team’s
suggestions and recommendations and move forward in implementing improvements in a timely manner.”
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 7
Fellows Canada DA
Project Ploughshares ’99 Canadian disarmament advocacy group “Canada and nuclear
weapons: recent developments”January
8 December - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy calls for revision of NATO's nuclear policies as part of
the updating of NATO's Strategic Concept document. Axworthy tells a NATO foreign ministers' meeting in
Brussels that "Now more than ever, any discussion of using Alliance nuclear capabilities -- even in retaliation
-- raises very difficult questions of means, proportionality and effectiveness that cause us significant
concerns... Over seventy percent of Canadians support NATO and Canada's membership in the Alliance but
93 percent of Canadians expect Canada and its Allies to take the lead in working to eliminate nuclear
weapons." 10 December - The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade releases its report,
Canada and the Nuclear Challenge: Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the Twenty-First Century.
(See separate analysis of the report.) Senator Roche, the Canadian Council for International Peace and Security,
Project Ploughshares, and the United Nations Association hold a press conference welcoming the report's
recommendations. Still to come - The government is obliged to table a response to the report in the House of
Commons by early May. Work on this response, continuing negotiations on the NATO Strategic Concept (scheduled
for completion at the Washington Summit in April 1999), preparations for the UN talks (also set for April) to lay the
groundwork for the year 2000 review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Canada's return to membership on the
UN Security Council will place the future of Canada's nuclear weapons policies high on the government's
policy agenda during the first few months of 1999.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 8
Fellows Canada DA
Klein ‘4 (Naomi, Canadian activist, journalist, and foreign relations author; “Canada Should
Keep its Distance From United States Foreign Policy”, June 16, 2004,
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-03.htm )
It is a privilege not to be hated for your nationality, and we should not relinquish it lightly. George Bush has denied
that privilege to his own people, and Stephen Harper would cavalierly strip it from Canadians by erasing what few
small but important differences remain between Canadian and U.S. foreign policy. The danger posed by this act is
not just about whether Canadians are safe when we travel to the Middle East. The hatred that Mr. Bush is
manufacturing there, for the United States and its coalition partners, is already following the soldiers home. I have
felt that hatred in Iraq, and trust me: We don't want to experience it here in Canada. Or don't trust me, trust the
citizens of Spain, who decided in their March elections that they are not willing to accept the blowback from George
Bush's wars, that they don't want these multiplying enemies to be their enemies too. Or the citizens of the United
Kingdom, who just battered Tony Blair's Labour Party in last week's local elections, furious at being dragged into a
war that has made them less safe. Or the citizens of Australia, who are about to send the same message to John
Howard. Or even the citizens of the United States, 55 per cent of whom now disapprove of Mr. Bush's performance
in Iraq, according to a recent Los Angles Times poll. Yet just as the rest of the world is finally saying "no more,"
Canadians are poised to elect a party that is saying "me too." The hawks in Washington like to paint Canada as a
freeloader, mooching off their expensive military protection, the continent's weak link on terrorism. The truth is that
around the world, it is blind government complicity with U.S. foreign policy, precisely the kind of complicity
advocated by Mr. Harper, that is putting civilians in the line of terror. It is the United States that is the weak link.
BeforeI went to Iraq, a seasoned war correspondent who had spent a year reporting from Baghdad gave me his best
piece of security advice. "Stay away from Americans, they're bad for your health." He wasn't being anti-American
(he's an American citizen and supported the war); he was just being practical. In Iraq, that advice means you don't
want to ride in the U.S. convoys or embed with U.S. troops. You keep your distance and stay independent. At this
perilous moment in history, the same principle applies at home: Canadian security depends on our ability to
maintain meaningful sovereignty from the United States. Being inside the U.S. security fortress isn't a missile shield,
it's a missile magnet. As long as the United States continues to act as a global aggressor, the best way for us to stay
healthy is to stay as far away as from Americans as possible. With 8,890 kilometers of shared border, geographical
distance is not an option. Fortunately, political distance still is. Let's not surrender it.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 9
Fellows Canada DA
DA Solves Case
Canadian soft power allows for international conflict resolution, means that aff impacts
won’t escalate
Marriot and Carment, 2003 (Koren, Worked with the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy project as a
researcher, and David, Director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Carleton University and Associate
Professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, “Conflict Prevention in Canada: A Survey of
Canadian Conflict Prevention Professionals”, September)
The overriding theme that appeared in several of the responses was that Canada should support the work
of international and regional organizations. UNICEF stated that by using soft power, “Canada is in a
strong position to champion international laws and treaties through the UN and other regional and
international bodies”. CUSO’s response reflected similar views, stating; “Canada is respected
internationally for being a promoter of peace and human security, and should continue this role. It
should continue to work within multi-lateral frameworks, including the UN, ensuring rule of law is
adhered to in all its conflict prevention and interventions. Canada should support the reform of the UN
in order to make it a more effective international body capable of effecting positive change in today's
world. Canada should be more active in ensuring that people around the world share equitably in its
resources. Canada should promote human rights and democratic development in all its international dealings
including in trade and development.” Theresa Dunn expressed a related opinion, saying she believes Canada
is strategically placed to become a leader in conflict prevention through its role as peace builder and
often impartial agent. She went on to say that because of Canada’s size and commitment to conflict
resolution through collaboration “we are able to move internationally with knowledge and expertise”.
These views are fairly representative of a major portion of the responses received.
Namasivayam ‘1
(Soft Power at the United Nations: A Compatible Marriage between Canada and the Security Council?, Reesha
Namasivayam, M.A. Candidate, Conflict Analysis, The Norman Paterson School of International Affair, Carleton
University, April 2001, Page: 1/2)
In a January 22, 1999 speech to the National Forum in Montreal, Quebec, then Minister of Foreign Affairs
Lloyd Axworthy stressed that “greater emphasis on the security of people rather than just the security
of states is at the heart of the foreign policy that Canada is pushing during its (current) tenure on the
United Nations Security Council.”1 The vehicle through which this human security agenda would be
advanced, both in the Council and internationally, was ‘soft power’. Soft power was also the conduit
that would be utilized in order to pursue Canada’s principal objectives, delineated during the 1998
campaign for election to a two -year term as a non-permanent member, while on the Security Council.
Those goals included Council leadership and effectiveness, making the Council mo re open, transparent and
responsive and of course, human security.2 However, was the use of what Axworthy called ‘soft power’
effective in achieving Canadian goals while on the Security Council? Thus, can they even be on two opposite
sides of the same coin in the pocket of the Security Council? In theory, the Security Council comes as close
as any part of the UN in exercising hard power rather than soft power. Paul Knox has referred to the Council
as “an inherently cautious and conservative organ.”3
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 10
Fellows Canada DA
DA Solves Case
Canadian soft power solves aff impacts
Namasivayam ‘1
(Soft Power at the United Nations: A Compatible Marriage between Canada and the Security Council?, Reesha
Namasivayam, M.A. Candidate, Conflict Analysis, The Norman Paterson School of International Affair, Carleton
University, April 2001, Page: 1/2)
However, Nye’s conceptualization of soft power appears very different from that of the one referred to by Minister
Axworthy. Then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy first unveiled his human security platform
articulating the need for a stronger focus on soft power in Canadian foreign policy in an article written for
International Journal in 1997. In the article, Axworthy argued that given the dramatic changes in the post Cold War
era, such as the decline of inter-state warfare, increased transnational crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, a more humanized approach to security was required to address new security threats.15 A human
security approach he advocated would include:
Security against economic privation, an acceptable quality of life, and a guarantee of fundamental human rights…At
a minimum, human security requires that basic needs are met, but it acknowledges that sustained economic
development, human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, good governance, sustainable development
and social equity are as important to global peace as arms control and disarmament.16 Moreover, Axworthy stressed
that “lasting stability cannot be achieved until human security is guaranteed.”17
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 11
Fellows Canada DA
Another important link between altruistic and self-interested agendas is their ultimate effect on the world. The
ultimate goal of the altruistic agenda is the betterment of the lives of the world's less fortunate citizens. That
betterment is contingent upon a more secure environment for them to pursue their own agendas and coincidently
stability is an important goal of the national self-interest agenda. A clear example of the crossover of altruism and
self-interest exists with Canada's support for international law. Most Canadians inherently believe that Canada
should work to ensure that every person is treated fairly in accordance with the law. At the same time a worldwide
respect for the conventions of international law is essential to the stability of the world both inside and outside of
Canada. As a country of immigrants, including 579,600 Muslims, Canada would benefit from the perception that
justice meted out to suspected terrorists was fair and based on international law. Without a significant contribution
to the war on terror, however, Canada will have no say in the form that the justice takes. Equally, a worldwide
respect for the legitimacy and efficacy of international law would serve Canada and Canadian citizens working
abroad.
Faced with a number of global problems affecting the interests of every human being on this planet, the international
community may find that a constitutional theory based on state consent presents unacceptable obstacles to necessary
solutions. Such problems relate to the global environment, weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, and
basic human rights. If all states cannot be bound by international law that addresses these problems, truly effective
solutions will be impossible, and the entire community will remain at risk. A principle obstacle to such solutions is
the theory that states do not accept a norm, and particularly states that object to it, are not bound and remain free to
behave as if the norm does not exist. In some situations, even a single state exception may directly undermine all
potential solutions. Certainly, such an exception may encourage or even compel others to refuse to abide by it.
While these interests may conflict with the consent rule, that rule has strong support in the fundamental idea that
states are independent, sovereign, and autonomous.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 12
Fellows Canada DA
advice for other countries struggling with similar issues.83Part of the motivation, no doubt, is to increase Canada’s
influence abroad. Promoting the Canadian model is an exercise in what Joseph Nye has termed soft power, whereby
a country “may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its
values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness.”84Jennifer Welsh has written that
simply being a bilingual, federal state should be regarded as a core element of Canadian foreign policy.85 But there
is a domestic agenda at work as well. As the prestige of the Canadian model is enhanced abroad, so too is its
prestige at home. This convergence of the domestic and the international is best summed up by the phrase used by a
leading Canadian bookseller to promote Canadian literature, “The World Needs More Canada” – the marketing
pitch being that the international reputation of Canadian authors is an additional reason for Canadians to value that
work.
notify NORAD's central U.S. command post in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado. A pair of CF-18 Hornets, attached to
the Alouettes, the 425th Tactical Fighter Squadron based in Bagotville, Quebec, race into the skies and somewhere
above Victoria Island lock their radars onto the approaching Bear. One of the jets springs a fuel leak and turns back.
The other, armed with six AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles and a 20-millimeter rapid -fire cannon, intercepts the intruder
and buzzes it at close range. The young francophone pilot gets no response to his repeated demands that the
Russians confirm whether they are carrying a nuclear payload. He frantically radios his base command for
instructions and zooms in for a closer look at the bomber, narrowly avoiding the Bear's tail on the pass. The Bear's
pilot takes immediate evasive action, banking his plane steeply at the same time he finally identifies himself and his
payload in angry, almost threatening tones. For one fearful moment intruder and interceptor seem transfixed in
uncertainty, hovering above the icy barrens of Victoria Island. The Hornet pilot prepares to respond with a warning
burst from his cannon. The fuming pilot of the Bear considers activating the ejector cartridges that would thrust a
single silvery cruise into the blue, streaking along its computer programmed flight path toward a NORAD target.
Then discipline and cold sense reassert themselves. The Bear makes a shuddering 180-degree turn and heads
homeward. The Hornet lingers several minutes to track the Bear's retreat before it, too, swings back toward its base.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 16
Fellows Canada DA
Since 1991, THE NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE has been warning that Quebec will separate
from Canada abruptly via a Unilateral Declaration of Independence, igniting a three-way civil war betwen French-
Canadian regular and militia regiments, the Canadian Armed Forces, and the native peoples of Quebec. The Cree,
who hold title to two-thirds of Quebec territory, and who refuse to secede with Quebec, are vitually certain at that
time to sabotage the massive Quebec Hydro James Bay generating facility, which sits on their land, and which -
through the Eastern seaboard grid - provides light, heat and power for the whole eastern U.S. seaboard.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 18
Fellows Canada DA
A blackout will tax nuclear power safety systems and risks a catastrophic meltdown.
Consider the dangers that exist when everything is operating normally; they are only exacerbated during a blackout,
Nuclear power plants operate under enormous pressure, heat and stress, in addition to the unique interactions that
radiation causes within the plants' complex array of parts. This partially explains why so many U.S. reactors are
perpetually at risk of a serious accident, long before their initial 40-year license term has ended. From steam
generator tubes to emergency cooling pumps to reactor vessel heads (top and bottom), there is a constant supply of
crises: · The degradation and rupture of steam generator tubes at nuclear reactors has been a problem at U.S. reactors
since at least 1975, when there was a spontaneous tube rupture at the 5-yearold Point Beach reactor in Wisconsin.
The NRC describes steam generator tubes as serving "an important safety role because they constitute one of the
primary barriers between the radioactive and non-radioactive sides of the plant . For this reason, the integrity of the
tubing is essential in minimizing the leakage of water between the two 'sides' of the plant." Steam generator tube
rupture can "cascade," wherein a break in one tube triggers ruptures in adjacent tubes. If severe, a cascade could
precipitate a nuclear meltdown at a reactor . At a 1988 conference, former NRC Commissioner Kenneth Rogers,
speaking about the effects of aging U.S. nuclear plants, said: "Degradation (of the steam generator tubes) would
decrease the safety margins so that, in essence, we have a 'loaded gun,' an accident waiting to happen ."
The intense radioactive heat within today's operating reactors is the hottest anywhere on the planet. Because
Indian Point has operated so long, its accumulated radioactive burden far exceeds that of Chernobyl. The
safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible. One or more could be wiped out with a
small aircraft, ground-based weapons, truck bombs or even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the work
force. A terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning
through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows of
horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Thousands of square miles would be saturated with the most
lethal clouds ever created, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. Infants and small
children would quickly die en masse. Pregnant women would spontaneously abort or give birth to horribly
deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Heart
attacks, stroke and multiple organ failure would kill thousands on the spot. Emphysema, hair loss, nausea,
inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinence, sterility and impotence, asthma and blindness
would afflict hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Then comes the wave of cancers, leukemias,
lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented. Evacuation would be
impossible, but thousands would die trying. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees forced
through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up are still dying from their exposure. At Indian Point, the molten
cores would burn uncontrolled for days, weeks and years. Who would volunteer for such an American task force? The immediate
damage from an Indian Point attack (or a domestic accident) would render all five boroughs of New York City an apocalyptic wasteland.
As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, natural ecosystems would be permanently
and irrevocably destroyed . Spiritually, psychologically, financially and ecologically, our nation would never
recover. This is what we missed by a mere 40 miles on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you
read this. There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse operating in the US. They generate a mere 8 percent of our total
energy. Since its deregulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption by some 15 percent. Within a year, the US could cheaply
replace virtually all the reactors with increased efficiency. Yet, as the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking the extension of the
Price-Anderson Act, a form of legal immunity that protects reactor operators from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Do
we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking reactor bombs that
could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 19
Fellows Canada DA
A projection by Jim O'Neill, head of Global Economics Research for Goldman Sachs International in London,
shows that by 2050, China's economy will be more than twice as large as that of the United States. He stresses
that the international American-based bank is not saying that's how the world will be, but it could be. Predictions are
notoriously unreliable and the further forward the predictions are, the less reliable they are. What is undeniable,
however, are the shifts in world economic power that have happened already. Eight years ago, O'Neill gained
fame in economic circles for coining the acronym "BRIC". It stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China. O'Neill
suggested that these four countries were the powerhouses of the future. In some ways, they already are. In a
presentation to the Vancouver branch of the Canadian International Council last week, O'Neill suggested that within
four years the economies of the four BRIC countries together would exceed that of the United States and that it was
those countries that were leading the world out of recession. The world economic order is changing very quickly. At
the same conference, Debra Steger, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said the economic world was "at a
really transformational point in history." World financial institutions, however, The World Bank, The International
Monetary Fund, summit meetings of rich nations, are all constructed on what used to be: a world economic order
ruled by the United States, Europe and Japan with Canada as a minor, but still significant player. According to the
Goldman Sachs 2050 projections, Canada will rank 16th in world economic output: still important, but less so
than today. Economic power and diplomatic influence, however, are not the same thing. Canada has
traditionally pulled above its weight in world affairs. The concern of ex-diplomats, former politicians and
some academics now is that as the world changes, Canada is less engaged than it used to be and is losing
influence at a crucial time. Jeremy Kinsman, one of Canada's foremost diplomats, former ambassador to Russia
and high commissioner in London, spoke to the Vancouver conference of Canada's international record of
"objectivity and helpfulness." No longer. "No one in Ottawa is trying," he said. "There are virtually no
relationships." The Harper government has increased military spending, but reduced spending on foreign affairs
and aid. "Why the double standard?" asked former Progressive Conservative prime minister Joe Clark. "Why are we
prepared to accept more of our share of the military burden than we are of the diplomatic and development
burdens?" At times at the two-day conference, it felt as though many academics, former politicians and diplomats
were acting like a foreign service in exile, despairing of a government that with the exception of Arctic sovereignty
and Afghanistan has turned inward. Clark and Kinsman both spoke of how Canada was losing what had become a
precious national asset: its outgoing foreign affairs policies. Kinsman complained that the reduction in money for
arts groups to travel abroad was spoiling Canada's image; Clark of a failure to lead the kind of initiatives
against land-mines and blood diamonds this country had pursued in the past. Others spoke of Canada's
dismal performance on cutting greenhouse gases; and how its failure to live up to the Kyoto protocol had
damaged our credibility. All of this cannot be laid at the door of the Harper government. What the former
politicians, diplomats and academics are saying is that the lack of international engagement of the present
government has reduced rather than improved our standing. Canada is emerging from the present economic
crisis far stronger than most. Our banking system is the envy of the world, but our influence in bringing about
change to the world financial regulatory system and to world economic institutions is not nearly as strong as it could
be. In the World Trade Organization, where Canada had for years been a voice or calm and reason, Canada's place
has been taken by Australia. As the world economic summits have moved from the influence of the old group of
rich countries, the G8, to the broader G20 group, which includes the BRIC countries, Canada's influence has
waned.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 21
Fellows Canada DA
AFF ANS
Canada soft power low—Israel support
Hamm and Bhalla ‘9 Nancy and Suresh, co-chairs of the Canada Committee of Human Rights Watch “Human
Rights Watch: Ottawa's bias in Middle East erodes Canada's credibility” July 3
http://www.rabble.ca/news/2009/07/human-rights-watch-ottawas-bias-middle-east-erodes-canadas-credibility
Our country has long been recognized as a global leader in human rights and commitment to international
law, wielding moral authority much larger than its size. But our government’s unreserved support for the
conduct of Israel’s recent military actions in Gaza has eroded Canada’s hard-won credibility and moral
standing. In its statements about the conflict, the Canadian government focused exclusively on Israel’s right to
defend itself, disregarding its serious violations of international humanitarian law. After a mortar attack that
killed close to 40 civilians near a United Nations-operated school in the Jabalya refugee camp, Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs Peter Kent was quick to react. “Hamas has a terrible responsibility for this,” he said, while admitting
that he didn’t know the details of the attack. Human Rights Watch has documented serious violations of the laws of
war on both sides.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 22
Fellows Canada DA
AFF ANS
Canada wants us to disarm- there’s zero way acquiescing hurts their leadership or soft
power AND they view it compatible with deterrence which means they’d pursue the same
policies—their link evidence is about how it historically developed not the effect of the plan
A recent advisory commission to the IAEA, chaired by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo and including
members from 17 other countries, concluded that "progress toward disarmament, or the lack of it, will deeply affect
the success of the IAEA's nonproliferation mission" and warned that many non-nuclear-weapon states are reluctant
to implement the 1997 Model Additional Protocol, phase out HEU, or enter into multilateral fuel-cycle arrangements
without further progress on nuclear disarmament. [30] Diplomats of U.S. allies, including Australia, Canada,
Germany, and Japan, have "resoundingly" stated in anonymous interviews that progress in disarmament
measures, taken to include the CTBT and FMCT, would make it easier for them to work for progress on
nonproliferation with the developing countries represented by the Nonaligned Movement. [31] The same
message was concluded from a broader survey of written material complemented with individual and group
discussions conducted by SAIC. [32] Note that Australian and Japanese officials have also indicated the importance
of the U.S. extended deterrent. This either illustrates different views co-existing within a government's
bureaucracies or shows that these countries view at least some important steps in nuclear disarmament as
compatible with maintaining a credible extended deterrent.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 23
Fellows Canada DA
AFF ANS
The US-India nuclear deal takes out both their links- Canada not only wasn’t a disarm
leader, but endorsed and pursued the negotiations
Regehr ‘9, Ernie, CIGI Fellow and co-founder of Project Ploughshares, adjunct associate
professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at Conrad Grebel University College, University of
Waterloo. “Canada-India nuclear cooperation a few steps closer”
http://www.cigionline.org/blogs/2009/3/canada-india-nuclear-cooperation-few-steps-closer
“Canada has abdicated its historic leadership role in the establishment and maintenance of the global nuclear
non-proliferation norm,” Douglas Shaw, an international affairs expert at George Washington University in
Washington, D.C., said in an e-mail. “As the first state to choose not to build an independent nuclear arsenal,
Canada's behaviour plays an essential role in defining this standard of globally responsible sovereignty.”
Shaw maintained that any India-Canada deal on peaceful nuclear co-operation erodes “both Canada's global
leadership role and the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.” Mr. Regehr said he can't fault the
Conservatives for looking out for Canada's commercial interests. “I don't blame Canada for, in the end, going with
the consensus that emerged at the Nuclear Supplier Group,” he said. “I think where Canada was a huge
disappointment is that it withdrew itself entirely from the debate . . . . It communicated volumes to other
states: Here we have a staunch non-proliferation advocate being quiet on the question.”
Acquiescing the NATO on the nuclear posture takes out both links and uniqueness—
Canada is not a leader on the nuclear issue—their soft power is tanked
Middle Power Initiative ‘8 Global Security Institute “Restoring Canada's Nuclear Disarmament
Leadership” February, http://www.gsinstitute.org/mpi/archives/000338.html
The seminar considered the new report of Canada World’s Poll, principally sponsored by The Simons Foundation,
showing that 88 percent of Canadians think nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place and
would support the elimination of nuclear weapons through an enforceable agreement. Special attention was
paid to the incoherence and contradiction between Canada supporting the “unequivocal undertaking” to the
total elimination of nuclear weapons required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Canada’s
continued allegiance to NATO’s policies stating that nuclear weapons are “essential.” Concern was expressed
during the seminar that NATO’s policies for the retention of nuclear weapons are now trumping the NPT’s
legal obligations for nuclear disarmament. The government’s own website, stating that Canada’s nuclear
policy now must be consistent with NATO’s policies, calls into question whether the NPT is still the central
instrument in which Canada’s nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament policy is rooted. A strong call was
made for Canada to work with Germany and Norway in their current efforts to overhaul NATO’s outdated policies,
particularly as set out in its Strategic Concept, for retention of nuclear weapons.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 24
Fellows Canada DA
AFF ANS
NATO aquiescence takes out the DA
The Star ‘7 (Canadian Newspaper) Anthony Salloum, writer “Canada edges toward deadly
nuclear embrace” Nov. 21
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/278311
In other words, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has decided that NATO's nuclear deterrence policy reigns
supreme. At the urging of anti-nuclear organizations such as the Canadian Pugwash Group, last spring then-foreign
affairs minister Peter MacKay reported to Parliament that he had raised concerns about NATO's reliance upon
nuclear weapons at a meeting of the alliance. Then the government shifted tactics, and a few weeks later then-
defence minister Gordon O'Connor told Parliament: "We are a member of NATO and we stand by NATO's
policies. NATO, at this stage, has no policy of disarming from nuclear weapons." Not surprisingly, the old
policy supporting "the complete elimination of nuclear weapons" was changed on the foreign affairs
department website to say that Canada's policy is "consistent with our membership in NATO." But the
reason for this shift may have less to do with NATO itself than with acquiescence to the United States'
interests in keeping the door open to a renewal of nuclear weapons testing. Equally worrisome this year was
Canada's reticence to put its name behind a motion to prevent nuclear weapons testing. Last year, Canada co-
sponsored a resolution calling for a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). In October, Canada failed
to co-sponsor the resolution that stressed "the vital importance and urgency of signature and ratification,
without delay and without conditions, to achieve the earliest entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-
Test-Ban Treaty." Thankfully, the resolution passed, 166 in favour to only one opposed (United States) with four
abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria). Ultimately, Canada voted in favour, but could Canada's decision
not to co-sponsor the resolution, as it had done in the past, be related to the U.S. plan to develop new nuclear
weapons? This is a troublesome shift in Canada's policy on nuclear disarmament. One can trace its
beginnings to 2005 when the Liberals, trying to curry favour in Washington, started getting cold feet on
nuclear disarmament. In her book Holding the Bully's Coat, Linda McQuaig notes positively that, by 2005,
Canadian leadership over several years had led to 13 other countries breaking ranks with their NATO allies and
voting with Canada in support of a resolution aimed at ending the deadlock that is paralyzing the UN's Conference
on Disarmament. Consistent with its leadership, Canada announced its intention to support another
important nuclear disarmament resolution at the UN First Committee, the body responsible for
disarmament. Canada's support of the creative and inspired initiative was intended to try to break the
impasse on disarmament talks by proposing new, ad hoc committees that would bypass the deadlock. But
with hours to go, Canada pulled the plug on supporting the UN resolution, and as a result other countries
followed suit. The reason: Paul Martin's government succumbed to intense pressure from the White House.
McQuaig notes, "tragically, the moment had been lost." While Martin's failing may have been an aberration,
Stephen Harper's Conservatives may be making a more permanent policy shift.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 25
Fellows Canada DA
AFF ANS
Soft power is ineffective at preventing conflict
Blatt ‘4 Dan, “Review: Soft Power by Joseph Nye” FUTURECASTS online magazine
www.futurecasts.com Vol. 6, No. 9, 9/1/04.
http://www.futurecasts.com/book%20review%206-4.htm
The dispute between advocates of multilateralism and unilateralism is covered at some length by Nye.
Multilateralism can be a prescription for paralysis and ineffectiveness, but unilateralism can create opposition
that greatly increases the costs of action. In addition, there is always a major price to pay in terms of loss of soft
power influence whenever allies are ignored or disdained. Europe is currently taking the lead in trying the
multilateral soft power approach with respect to Iranian nuclear weapons programs. This is entirely
appropriate, since Europe has significant trade ties with Iran and considerably more applicable soft power
influence than the U.S. So far, the results have been less than reassuring - but hopefully success will be
achieved in the end. Failure in this important matter would constitute a significant setback for multilateralism and
reliance on soft power. The performance of the U.N. in Darfur and the NATO allies - other than the U.S. and
British - in Afghanistan and Kosovo, unfortunately leaves much to be desired. It is indeed hard to sell reliance
on multilateralism when the pertinent agencies are so pitifully ineffective.
Abstract: Even before 2001, Canada was out of synch in its global vision. Ottawa's peacekeeping orientation
was no match for failed states and terrorism. While soft power may be an effective foreign policy approach in
this millennium, it is largely ineffective without significant hard power to back it up. And the truth is that
today Canada has little hard power. A country that cannot muster and deploy even one self-sufficient brigade
to global hot spots is not going to be taken very seriously, and is certainly not a middle power by military
measure. In concrete terms, it is certainly wise for Canada to further institutionalize its partnership with the United
States in defense of North America. Joining Northern Command would accomplish this, particularly since NORAD
is decreasing in importance. Formally joining Northern Command, just as Canada did with NORAD, would confirm
that the relationship between Canada and the United States is a model of liberal interdependency suitable for
emulation. Democracy, capitalism, and security cooperation can keep the neighboring states strong and successful
allies. Ottawa clearly benefits by working closer in defense matters with Washington it can gain significant
improvements in training, lift, logistics, and technology, not to mention respect. These benefits will enable the
country to quickly deploy a well-trained and equipped military force to global hot spots and sustain them properly.
Additionally, such cooperation demonstrates that Canada can provide valuable leadership in the Americas. But
Ottawa should understand that Washington needs competent allies -- ones that possess a modicum of hard
power.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 26
Fellows Canada DA
Wright ‘6 David, European Institute, “Canada: Soft Power Won’t Do It in Afghanistan – or Darfur” European
Affairs, Fall/Winter 2006
Would that we had a simpler world: one in which conflicts end cleanly, the UN Security Council authorizes
intervention by well meaning peacekeepers, and former antagonists step back, lay down their arms and
welcome them. And the peacekeepers are accompanied by aid workers and civil-society experts who rebuild
democratic governments and viable economies. And everyone lives happily ever after. Sadly, the world does not
work like that. Conflicts tend not to end cleanly. The choices governments must make in dealing with
international crises are very difficult, often between a bad alternative and a worse one. The risks of intervention are
huge in terms of both human life and political life. And of course there are risks of inaction, too; but those are much
harder to measure. In Canada, there is considerable debate about our current deployment of 2,300 soldiers in
southern Afghanistan. Casualties are mounting and the purpose of the mission, with its focus on security in the
dangerous Kandahar area, is being challenged. Another debate continues in Canada over the world’s failure to
take meaningful action in Darfur and what should be done about it. Let me start with some very basic questions:
1. Should force ever be used to confront leaders who are killing their own people? 2. Should democratic countries
ever use military force as part of their efforts to combat terrorism? 3. Should Canada ever be engaged militarily
abroad in the pursuit of its own interests and values? Unhesitatingly, I say yes to all these questions. But that’s the
easy part. The harder part lies in deciding on what military engagements are to be taken: Where and for how long?
With what mandate? With what mission? With what resources? In 1999, when NATO countries debated the decision
to take military action to combat then-Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, I
remember we asked one of these very basic questions: “Can a dictator be permitted to kill his own people?” NATO
answered that question by launching air strikes against Milosevic. It decided “in practice” to act, even though it
could not agree on the “theory.” The then-19 members of the alliance had differing reasons in deciding to act. There
was no unifying legal basis for their action. The UN Security Council had not explicitly authorized the use of force:
Russia would have vetoed it. Yet NATO acted – rightly and successfully, in my view. Secretary-General Kofi
Annan said at the time: “No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the
human rights and fundamental freedoms of its people.” But many were troubled by the lack of a common set of rules
to govern such actions, necessary as they may have been. After Kosovo, the UN General Assembly, spurred by
Canadian leadership on the issue, set up an International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. That
commission developed the concept of the responsibility to protect. The main theme was that “states have a
responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophes – from mass murder and rape, from
starvation – but when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader
community of states. There must be no more Rwandas.” The “responsibility-to-protect” doctrine has been widely,
although not universally, supported. And a very obvious case has been staring us in the face for over three years
– Darfur. Darfur has been called a “genocide.” An estimated 200,000 people have died. The Government of
Sudan is complicit in this tragedy. If ever there was a classic case for responsibility to protect, Darfur is it. Yet
action to date has been shamefully weak.