Governance Dilemmas in Canada North America and Beyond A Tribute To Stephen Clarkson Michele Rioux Full Chapter

Governance Dilemmas in Canada,
North America, and Beyond: A Tribute

to Stephen Clarkson Michèle Rioux
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/governance-dilemmas-in-canada-north-america-and-
beyond-a-tribute-to-stephen-clarkson-michele-rioux/
CANADA AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Governance Dilemmas in
Canada, North America,
and Beyond: A Tribute to
Stephen Clarkson
Edited by
Michèle Rioux · Alejandro Angel
Marjorie Griffin Cohen
Daniel Drache
Canada and International Affairs
Series Editors
David Carment, NPSIA, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Philippe Lagassé, NPSIA, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Yiagadeesen Samy, NPSIA, Carleton University, Norman Paterson,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Palgrave’s Canada and International Affairs is a timely and rigorous series
for showcasing scholarship by Canadian scholars of international affairs
and foreign scholars who study Canada’s place in the world. The series
will be of interest to students and academics studying and teaching Cana-
dian foreign, security, development and economic policy. By focusing on
policy matters, the series will be of use to policy makers in the public and
private sectors who want access to rigorous, timely, informed and inde-
pendent analysis. As the anchor, Canada Among Nations is the series’
most recognisable annual contribution. In addition, the series show-
cases work by scholars from Canadian universities featuring structured
analyses of Canadian foreign policy and international affairs. The series
also features work by international scholars and practitioners working in
key thematic areas that provides an international context against which
Canada’s performance can be compared and understood.
More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15905
Michèle Rioux · Alejandro Angel ·
Marjorie Griffin Cohen · Daniel Drache
Editors
Governance Dilemmas
in Canada, North
America, and Beyond:
A Tribute to Stephen
Clarkson
Editors
Michèle Rioux Alejandro Angel
UQAM Universidade Federal de Santa
Montreal, QC, Canada Catarina
Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
Marjorie Griffin Cohen
Simon Fraser University Daniel Drache
Burnaby, Canada Department of Politics
York University
Toronto, Canada
ISSN 2523-7187 ISSN 2523-7195 (electronic)

Canada and International Affairs
ISBN 978-3-030-81972-9 ISBN 978-3-030-81973-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81973-6
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
1 Stephen Clarkson: Political Economist with a Global

Vision (1937–2016) 1
Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Michèle Rioux, Daniel Drache,
and Alejandro Angel
Part I Themes
2 A Critical Appreciation of Stephen Clarkson: Looking
Back at His “Foundational Text” on Canadian
Foreign Policy 13
Andrew F. Cooper
3 A North American Quest for Progressive Policies
in an Era of Global Structural Changes 27
Michèle Rioux
Part II Challenges for Canadian Political Economy

4 Boring? Never! Clarksonian Perspectives
on Nationalism Versus Continentalism 41
Gregory J. Inwood
5 Constitutionalism by Stealth? CETA as an Exemplar
of Clarkson’s Supra National Constitutionalism 53
Robert G. Finbow
v
vi CONTENTS
6 In the Public Interest and the Uncertain Future

of the WTO: Stephen Clarkson, Political Economist 71
Daniel Drache
Part III A New North America

7 Stephen Clarkson’s Radical Critique of Canada’s
Relationship with the United States 87
André Donneur
8 When Will the Fiesta Start? Mexico–Canada Relations
in a New North America 97
Laura Macdonald
9 Will North America Survive? Embedded Liberalism
in the Post-Trump Economic Order 117
Alejandro Angel
Part IV Epilogue: A Legacy of Interesting Questions

10 Open Dialogue with Stephen Clarkson from the South
of the Continent: The Current Situation
in the Continent—Globalization, Dependency,
and Governance 139
Alberto Daniel Gago
11 Stephen Clarkson’s Great Transformation 159
Louis W. Pauly
Index 165
Notes on Contributors
Alejandro Angel is a postdoctoral researcher in the Graduate Program

in International Relations at the Universidade Federal de Santa Cata-
rina, Brazil, with a scholarship of the Programa Nacional de Pós-
Doutoramento—PNPD from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento do
Pessoal de Nível Superior—CAPES. He recently published Consolidating
Economic Governance in Latin America (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021).
Marjorie Griffin Cohen is a feminist economist who is professor emer-
itus of Political Science and Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at
Simon Fraser University. Her writing focuses on political economy and
public policy with special emphasis on Canada, women, labour, electricity
deregulation, energy, climate change, and international trade agreements.
Her work with Stephen Clarkson began with anti-free trade activity and
subsequently they co-edited a collection entitled Governing Under Stress:
Middle Powers and the Challenge of Globalization. She recently received
the Galbraith Prize in Economics and Social Justice (2016), and the
Charles Taylor Prize for Excellence in Policy Research (2020).
Andrew F. Cooper is University Research Chair, Department of Polit-
ical Science and Professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs,
University of Waterloo, Canada. Holding a D.Phil. from Oxford Univer-
sity, he has been Canada–US Fulbright Research Chair, Center on Public
Diplomacy, University of Southern California in 2009, Fulbright Scholar
in the Western Hemisphere Program, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University in
vii
viii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
2000, and the Léger Fellow, Department of Foreign Affairs and Inter-
national Trade Canada in 1993–1994. Among his books are Diplomatic
Afterlives (Polity, 2014); Celebrity Diplomacy (Paradigm, 2007); and
Canadian Foreign Policy: Old Habits and New Directions (Prentice Hall,
1997).
André Donneur Professeur et chercheur senior, associé au Département
de science politique et au Centre de l’intégration et de la mondialisation
de l’Université du Québec à Montréal, a publié de très nombreux livres et
articles sur la politique étrangère canadienne, le système international tant
global que paneuropéen, le socialisme et la social-démocratie, les forces
transnationales.
Daniel Drache is Prof. Emeritus of Political Science and Senior Research
fellow, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto.
His work focuses on the changing character of the globalization narrative,
and it’s economic, social, and cultural dimensions. He is the author of 20
books including Defiant Publics: The Unprecedented Reach of the Global
Citizen. His most recent book is One Road, Many Dreams: China’s Bold
Plan to Remake the Global Economy, co-edited with A.T. Kingsmith and
Duan Qi (Bloomsbury). Currently, he is completing a book length project
Have the Populists Won? The World Post Trump, Post Global Pandemic.
Robert G. Finbow is Professor of Political Science, Honours Coordi-
nator, and Deputy Director of the Jean Monnet European Union Centre
of Excellence at Dalhousie University. As well as being a graduate of
Dalhousie’s honours programme, he holds his M.A. from York Univer-
sity. He received his M.Sc. and doctorate from the London School of
Economics and Political Science. His current research focuses on the
socially responsible elements of trade agreements, especially labour and
social issues in NAFTA, and the EU. His focus recently has been on the
Canada-European Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA, especially the
implications for social policy and federalism).
Alberto Daniel Gago is Doctor en Ciencias Políticas y Sociales. Master
en Regional Development Planning. United Nations, The Netherlands.
Planificación Regional del Desarrollo. ILPES-CEPAL. United Nations,
Chile. Profesor e Investigador 1 de Tiempo Completo. Universidad
Nacional de San Juan y Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina.
Director Postgrado Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones Regionales
(CEIR-Mendoza) y Director Ejecutivo Centro Cuyo-Canadá—Argentina.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS ix
Gregory J. Inwood is a Full Professor in the Department of Politics

and Public Administration at Ryerson University. His research inter-
ests include the Canadian political economy, Canadian federalism, public
administration, the Canadian–American relationship, and commissions of
inquiry.
Laura Macdonald is a Full Professor in the Department of Political
Science and the Institute of Political Economy at Carleton University.
She has published numerous articles in journals and edited collections
on such issues as the role of non-governmental organizations in develop-
ment, global civil society, social policies and citizenship struggles in Latin
America, Canadian development assistance, Canada–Latin American rela-
tions and the political impact of the North American Free Trade Agree-
ment (NAFTA). Her recent work looks at transnational activism in North
America around labour rights, migration, and human rights in Mexico,
and policies to reduce crime and violence in Mexico City.
Louis W. Pauly is the J. Stefan Dupré Distinguished Professor of Polit-
ical Economy in the Department of Political Science and the Munk
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy of the University of Toronto.
His publications include Who Elected the Bankers? (Cornell University
Press), The Myth of the Global Corporation (Princeton University Press),
and Complex Sovereignty (University of Toronto Press).
Michèle Rioux is a Professor at the Department of Political Science at
the Université du Québec à Montréal. She is the Director of the Centre
d’études sur l’intégration et la mondialisation—CEIM. She recently co-
edited Vers une politique commerciale socialement responsable dans un
contexte de tensions commerciales (Presses de l’Université du Québec,
2021) and La culture à l’ère du numérique: Plateformes, normes et
politiques (Presses de l’Université de Liège, 2020).
CHAPTER 1
Stephen Clarkson: Political Economist

with a Global Vision (1937–2016)
Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Michèle Rioux, Daniel Drache,

and Alejandro Angel
Abstract Stephen Clarkson made a difference in the ways Canadians

understand both this country and its relationship to the US, Mexico, and
Europe. As a Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto
M. G. Cohen
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
e-mail: mcohen@sfu.ca
M. Rioux (B)
UQAM, Montreal, Québec, Canada
e-mail: rioux.michele@uqam.ca
D. Drache
Department of Politics, York University, Toronto, Canada
e-mail: drache@yorku.ca
A. Angel
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
e-mail: alejandro.angel@posgrad.ufsc.br
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
M. Rioux et al., Governance Dilemmas in Canada,
North America, and Beyond: A Tribute to Stephen Clarkson,
Canada and International Affairs,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81973-6_1
2 M. G. COHEN ET AL.
he devoted a great deal of energy in teaching and guiding students. He

was awarded the Order of Canada in part because of his teaching but
also for his research and writing on political economy. His biography
of Pierre Elliot Trudeau co-written with Christina Newman won the
Governor General’s Award. He was a leading expert in Canada–US rela-
tions, and was particularly prescient in understanding how the Canada US
Free Trade Agreement initiated constitutional type control in Canada. As
well, he was one of Canada’s leading experts on the Canada/US rela-
tionship and devoted much of his talented research ability to analysing
the complex and contradictory tendencies of North American integration
and the erosion of national sovereignty.
Keywords Canadian political economy · North American integration ·

Canadian public policy · Canada US Mexico free trade · Canadian
foreign policy · Neoliberalism
Stephen Clarkson died early in 2016 in Freiburg. Stephen was a Professor

in Political Science at the University of Toronto and his many books and
articles over 40 years left an indelible mark on the development of Cana-
dian political economy. Stephen contributed, in an extraordinary way,
to the public understanding of Canada and North America, Europe in
the twenty-first century, and the politics of globalization in the Western
World. He was one of Canada’s leading experts on the Canada/US rela-
tionship and devoted much of his talented research ability to analyzing
the complex and contradictory tendencies of North American integra-
tion and the erosion of Canada’s national sovereignty. In all, he authored
14 books, edited four others, and published in many leading academic
journals throughout his lifetime.
He was a gifted linguist and fluent in French, Russian, Spanish, Italian,
and German and he could present at scholarly meetings in each of these
languages and deliver an academic paper or lecture without notes. He
received many honours and awards, and was awarded the prestigious
Order of Canada for his lifetime accomplishments as a scholar and public
intellectual. Stephen was also a gifted teacher and loved that aspect of his
life. He particularly enjoyed teaching undergraduates and often managed,
through his charm and determination, to include undergraduates on
1 STEPHEN CLARKSON: POLITICAL ECONOMIST … 3
panels at conferences and seminars, even in the yearly gatherings of Cana-

dian academics where undergraduates are often not encouraged to present
papers.
He had an exceptionally productive career with a great many signifi-
cant publications that influenced public policy discussions in Canada. An
Independent Foreign Policy for Canada published in 1968 is one of his
early books that reprise many of the themes that he would return to
in subsequent publications. It is an edited collection, in which he also
wrote a chapter that foreshadowed Trudeau’s Third Option and began
his life-long research on Canada’s declining and complex role in the
global economy. Uncle Sam and Us: Globalization, Neoconservatism, and
the Canadian State (2002) provides a prescient study documenting the
transformation of Canadian state policy post NAFTA, the rise of North
American corporate power, and the increasingly toxic role of neoliberal
ideology as a separate but commanding policy space. In The Big Red
Machine (2005) Stephen investigated the disappointments, betrayals, and
leadership battles of Canada’s Liberal Party when, economically, Alberta
emerged as a contending regional power.
Before this, his earlier publication, Canada and the Reagan Chal-
lenge: Crisis in the Canadian-American Relationship (1985) was highly
regarded as one of the best contemporary studies of Canada/US rela-
tions from a critical Canadian perspective. It is one of the foundational
works of the new political economy and is valued for its trenchant analysis
of Canada’s corporate power structure and the asymmetrical relationship
between the two countries.
Many believe that his most significant and enduring contribution
was his two-volume biography of Trudeau co-written with his partner
Christina McCall-Newman, one of Canada’s important journalists. Their
two-volume magisterial study covered the career, personality, ideas, and
exercise of power of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, arguably one of the most
important prime ministers of Canada, during a two-decade long consti-
tutional war with Québec. The vibrancy of their writing is captured in
their unforgettable opening line of the first volume of their biography:
“He haunts us still.” Its impact also derived from the dozens of inter-
views of government elites and foreign policy experts in Ottawa, London,
and Washington that told the story of Trudeau’s exercise of power and
how he was able to transform modern Canada linguistically, economically,
and constitutionally. In the Clarkson/McCall tightly written account, we
relive the nail-biting excitement of Canada’s constitutional wars pitting
Trudeau’s classic liberal defence of Canadian federalism against René

Levesque’s and later with Lucien Bouchard’s la grande stratégie pour
l’indépendence. Stephen and Christine won the Governor General’s medal
for the first volume.
As a political economist and a professional political scientist, Stephen
was an outspoken public intellectual researching political behaviour and
elite self-interest. It led him increasingly to examine neoliberal globaliza-
tion as a tenacious, contradictory, polarizing force on people, markets,
communities, and governments.
In the same way that the 1980s represented an inflection point for
Canadian political economy, particularly with the end of the Trudeau era
and the mounting challenges of a liberalized economy, those years also
represented a turning point for Stephen’s scholarly focus. His pivot would
become even stronger with the advent of the Canada US Free Trade
Agreement and subsequently, NAFTA. Building on his earlier research on
Canadian political economy, he turned his attention to analyze the trans-
formation of North America and the challenge of an integrated market
between Canada and the United States and later the entire region with
the inclusion of Mexico.
After examining the liberalism of the Trudeau years, Clarkson
continued to focus on the exercise of power, ideology, and public policy
during the Conservative years of Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper.
While working on issues related to both North American free trade
agreements, he became fluent in Spanish, developed a close working rela-
tionship with many leading scholars in Mexico, and spent considerable
time in Mexico teaching and undertaking research for publications.
One large-scale project resulted in a major publication, Does North
America Exist (2008) consisting of over 500 pages. It is inventive analyt-
ically in that he examines the proposition of whether North America is
becoming a cohesive economic and political unit akin to the European
Union. The study, after careful examination, shows that because of the
dominance of the United States it is wrong to regard North American
integration as an embryonic form of European integration. Since there
is no governance equivalent to Brussels with its powerful legal and polit-
ical machinery to override members when conflicts arise between member
states and the powerful bureaucracy, he concluded that the asymmetrical
power system in North America only supported a weak form of regional
governance between the “three amigos.”
While in today’s world the regional agreements Clarkson researched

in different countries seem creatures of another age (the original
NAFTA and the Pacific Alliance—Colombia, Chile, Mexico, and Peru—
or MERCOSUR), his interest over the challenges of a fragmented world
seem prescient today. With the ascent of populist leaders in recent years,
combined with the economic crisis of the pandemic that started in
early 2020, the globe has entered a dangerous time economically and
politically.
In a book, Stephen co-authored with Matto Mildenberger, Dependent
America? How Canada and Mexico Construct U.S. Power (2011), they
turned the usual Canadian approach to the United States on its head by
examining the impact of Canada and Mexico on the US policymaking
process. This book contests the idea that US power is self-determined
and a result of the autonomous actions of its own citizens’ industrious-
ness. They demonstrate the myriad ways that the United States benefits
from Canadian and Mexican natural resources, labour, capital flows and
even more significantly, explain how both countries are trapped by their
self-inflicted dependent-country behaviour towards the United States.
Dependent America is an example of ground-breaking scholarship that
creates a framework to analyse the public policy dynamics of the entire
continent and provides an analytical and grounded historical context of
the triangular relationship between the North American partners. It also
erects a framework to better understand NAFTA 2.0 and the highly
volatile political relationships of the Trump presidency.
In all of Stephen Clarkson’s work, his expertise does not lose sight of
the knowledge that institutions are grounded in the lives of people and
communities. Throughout his work he is acutely aware that the push-
back of social movement actors in search of large-scale political change
can acquire social agency, even when the institutional universe is heavily
stacked against them. It comes as no surprise then, that for Clarkson,
the scholar and researcher has a responsibility to discover the political
space and social dynamics that exists between the fatalism of “there is no
alternative” to the powerful and seemingly unstoppable forces of markets
globally and the empowerment of citizens to act collectively and locally.
Stephen Clarkson will be missed personally and also as an intellectual
presence in Canada. This book is based on a collaborative work that took
place in Toronto in 2017, a year after Stephen’s death, at the annual
meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association at the Congress of
the Humanities and Social Sciences (CPSA). The many panels brought
together experts who work in the various areas related to Stephen’s

long career and the speakers focused on the way trade governance and
domestic policies affect public policy in the new North America in a Clark-
sonian way. The point of the papers was not to critique of his work in the
narrow sense of the term, but to trace his influence on the interdisci-
plinary evolution of Canadian political economy, relating to mega-trade
deals, the machine politics of the political parties, corporate influence,
North American integration, and the new issues arising for regional and
world politics such as the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism. While
the origins of this volume include those presentations, additional chapters
come from other scholars who have also joined our endeavour honouring
Stephen’s lasting legacy.
1.1 Plan of the Book

The organization of the book contains four sections. The first section
deals with the major Themes in Stephen’s writing and begins with a
chapter (Chapter 2) from Andrew F. Cooper, “A Critical Appreciation of
Stephen Clarkson: Looking Back at his ‘foundational text’ on Canadian
Foreign Policy,” that analyzes his contribution to the study of Canadian
foreign policy and political economy. It is an in-depth analysis of the
many, often unresolvable challenges facing a middle power country such
as Canada with limited resources and a declining presence globally. In the
second chapter (Chapter 3), Michèle Rioux, in “A North American Quest
for Progressive Policies in an Era of Global Structural Changes,” exam-
ines the asymmetrical governance of North American political economy
and the risks and costs for Canada and Mexico, the subordinate partners.
The second section deals with Stephen’s scholarship regarding Chal-
lenges for Canadian Political Economy and contains three contribu-
tions that analyze how Canada needs to navigate an increasingly
complex, unstable world economy with new policy challenges for polit-
ical economists from a public policy perspective. In the first chapter
(Chapter 4) of this section, Greg Inwood, “Boring? Never! Clarksonian
Perspectives on Nationalism versus Continentalism,” explores Stephen’s
examination of the stark choices facing Canada: whether to pursue an
autonomous path, or to embrace the continental path that might bring
some economic advantages but would reduce the country’s autonomy.
The second chapter in this section (Chapter 5), written by Robert
Finbow, “Constitutionalism by Stealth? CETA as an Exemplar of Clark-

son’s Supra National Constitutionalism,” shows how free trade continues
to change the nature of Canadian constitutionalism. The country is in
one sense a rule-maker, thanks to its participation in supranational bodies,
but, crucially, it does not have the weight of many of its partners, which
leaves it a rule taker. The existence of broad provisions on dispute reso-
lution within modern free trade agreements, many of which Canada has
enthusiastically embraced, have had a major impact on the democratic
governance of the country.
In the third chapter in this section (Chapter 6), “In the Public Interest
and the Uncertain Future of the WTO: Stephen Clarkson, Political
Economist,” Daniel Drache analyzes Stephen’s preferences for interna-
tional bodies to organize trade between countries and addresses the ways
that the World Trade Organization (WTO) currently affects Canadian
public policy. In particular, he demonstrates empirically that the dispute
resolution mechanism of the WTO has been highly advantageous for
corporations enabling them to reach behind borders with respect to
setting public health policy, the environment, and labour standards. In
short, at a moment when the multilateral trade system is under siege, the
careful analysis provided in this contribution explains the current dead-
lock in the WTO and the inability of this key multilateral institution to
develop rules and practices that are fair and transparent.
The next section, A New North America, discusses a theme to which
Stephen paid considerable attention, namely the transformation of North
America into a new neoliberal entity. The political and economic processes
leading to the constitutionalization of the North American market
informed Stephen’s perspective on the consequences of the immense
American economy on its next-door neighbours. The section begins
(Chapter 7) with André Donneur’s “La critique radicale de Stephen
Clarkson des rapports du Canada avec les États-Unis.” Using a Clarkso-
nian perspective, he examines how Ottawa has conducted its relationship
with the United States in the post-NAFTA era. Donneur makes the case
that the successive concessions offered by different Canadian governments
in trade, security, or migration do not amount to a mutual community-
building project, but are due to an asymmetric relationship propelled by
the powerful magnet of a shared geography, a frequent convergence in
policy objectives, and in similar values. This asymmetric relationship was
badly strained during Donald Trump’s administration, but it also calls for
a need for Ottawa to re-evaluate its foreign policy orientation. In addition
to the problems with US foreign policy, there is also a need to re-evaluate

the multilateral liberal order in the light of China’s ascendency.
The next chapter (Chapter 8) in this section explores the undervalued
relationship between Canada and Mexico. Laura Macdonald, “When Will
the Fiesta Start? Mexico–Canada Relations in a New North America,”
discusses how the continuous attacks on Mexico that the Trump admin-
istration launched in its first months, indirectly encouraged Ottawa to
distance itself from the growing US–Mexico conflict around border issues
and immigration instead of aiming to create a common front against a
bullying partner. However, with the beginning of the renegotiation of
NAFTA, the Justin Trudeau government reversed itself and sought to
strengthen the links between the two countries realizing that the periph-
eries had a lot to gain by working together. Despite their competing
goals and agendas, NAFTA has created, paradoxically, a framework for
the positive growth of Canada–Mexico relations that are likely to deepen
in the future. In the last chapter (Chapter 9) in this section, Alejandro
Angel, in “Will North America Survive? Embedded Liberalism in the
post-Trump Economic Order,” reflects on the future survival of NAFTA.
He concludes that a rules-based commercial arrangement is attractive
from a public policy perspective because many societal actors in the three
member-countries have an interest in making it a success and will defend
its core principles.
The last section of the book, Epilogue: Legacy of interesting ques-
tions, contains two contributions that are more personal reflections on
Stephen’s life and legacy. Honouring Clarkson’s linguistic abilities and
interest in learning Spanish, Alberto Gago in “Dialogo abierto con
Stephen Clarkson desde el Sur del Continente” (Chapter 10), looks back
on Stephen’s many contributions in Spanish. He locates his important
legacy for Latin American scholars in his contribution to dependency
theory through his understanding of the difficult challenges that periph-
eral economies face in an increasingly uncertain world. In the final
contribution (Chapter 11), Louis W. Pauly, in “Stephen Clarkson’s Great
Transformation,” examines the pivotal role Stephen’s scholarship had
on many of his colleagues and political economists in Canada. For five
decades, Stephen was at the centre of the coming-of-age of Canadian
political economy and his work remains an inspiration for the next
generation of scholars and researchers.
References
Clarkson, Stephen. 1968. An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart.
Clarkson, Stephen. 1985. Canada and the Reagan Challenge: Crisis and
Adjustment, 1981–85 New Updated ed. Toronto: J. Lorimer.
Clarkson, Stephen. 2002. Uncle Sam and Us: Globalization, Neoconservatism,
and the Canadian State. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Clarkson, Stephen. 2005. The Big Red Machine: How the Liberal Party Dominates
Canadian Politics. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Clarkson, Stephen. 2008. Does North America Exist? Governing the Continent
After Nafta and 9/11. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Clarkson, Stephen, and Christina McCall. 1990. Trudeau and Our Times Vol. 1:
The Magnificent Obsession. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Clarkson, Stephen, and Christina McCall. 1994. Trudeau and Our Times Vol. 2:
The Heroic Delusion. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Clarkson, Stephen, and Matto Mildenberger. 2011. Dependent America? How
Canada and Mexico Construct Us Power. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
PART I
Themes
CHAPTER 2
A Critical Appreciation of Stephen Clarkson:

Looking Back at His “Foundational Text”
on Canadian Foreign Policy
Andrew F. Cooper
Abstract This contribution offers a critical reflection on Stephen Clark-

son’s positioning of Canada in the world. In doing so it returns to his
foundational text, the 1968 edited collection, An Independent Foreign
Policy for Canada? The main theme is Stephen’s idiosyncratic spirit.
He remained hopeful for Canada’s future, but his analysis led him to
pessimistic conclusions. In this mix, we can see a fundamental split
between Stephen and other key individuals that advocated a revisionist
foreign policy. Specific criticisms of Stephen’s work do not detract from
his value as a scholar and a commentator. While building on his exper-
tise in political economy in comparative perspective, he honed in on the
A. F. Cooper (B)
University Research Chair, Department of Political Science and Professor, The
Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
ON, Canada
e-mail: acooper@uwaterloo.ca

Switzerland AG 2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81973-6_2
14 A. F. COOPER
unique features of the Canadian condition. What jumps out is his concern
with history and his blend of an analysis of the structure and over time an
appreciation of big personalities, albeit not always in a positive fashion.
Keywords Stephen Clarkson · Canadian foreign policy · Special

relationship · Middle power diplomacy · NAFTA
We collectively miss Stephen Clarkson but a retrospective intellectual

understanding and appreciation of his work reveals individual differences.
Stephen was idiosyncratic, in the sense that it is difficult to typecast him
too tightly via a particular framework although the new Canadian polit-
ical economy comes closest (Cameron 2016). He remained hopeful for
Canada’s future, but his analysis led him to pessimistic conclusions. He
despaired about the limitations of Canada’s “mandarins” (especially its
diplomats) but had high expectations for both citizen based activity and
some technocratic driven policy solutions. And he appreciated “big” indi-
viduals in a manner rare for a political scientist, but was duly worried
about the nature of that personalism, especially emerging from the United
States (US) with bouts of going it alone zealousness.
To try to tease out some of these fascinating, albeit often puzzling,
features about Stephen’s thinking about Canada’s position in the world,
my contribution returns to what can be positioned as his foundational
text—his edited collection, An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada?
Published in 1968 this volume attracted attention not only from estab-
lished academics but aspirant scholars (including myself as a second-year
Political Science major). Although I didn’t know Stephen at the time,
or indeed possess much knowledge about his background (without the
advantages of Google!), I was intrigued and to some extent inspired by
his animation of this work.
Akin to many other students I knew (and I should add activists),
most of the people I knew in that era had an intense involvement in
student politics or political life whether via the New Democratic Party or
Liberal. Although of course most also retained a curiosity or even cyni-
cism whether change would be inspired or come about from behind the
walls of University of Toronto.
2 A CRITICAL APPRECIATION OF STEPHEN CLARKSON: LOOKING BACK … 15
Organizationally much of the appeal derived from An Independent

Foreign Policy spoke to Stephen’s personality. This was not a work with
one tightly controlled view. Rather it was a pluralist endeavour containing
chapters by many of the big highly argumentative academics of the
day although with a marked lack of diversity (punctuated by the pres-
ence of only a single female contributor, Pauline Jewett, a gender gap
Stephen made up later in life with an array of female collaborations).
Substantially the topics especially in the opening section remain—in a
time of accentuated stress in Canada–US relations—highly relevant: The
Myths of the Special Relationship, Quiet Diplomacy revisited, Retalia-
tion? Confronting Uncle Sam. Stephen’s own contributions in binding
the collection together are significant in locating major points of conti-
nuity and adaptation in his later (prolific) writings. Therefore, although
not as well-cited now as many of these subsequent works, it is a valuable
exercise to go through An Independent Foreign Policy as we remember
Stephen and celebrate his contribution.
2.1 Canada’s Potential

Versus Structural Limitations
At the core of Stephen’s work is what he considers the Canadian conun-
drum, the tension between Canada’s (unrealized) potential versus the
formidable structural limitations (Clarkson 1968, x). Indeed, it was this
tension that underpinned An Independent Foreign Policy. In general
mindset Stephen continued to be an optimist. Indeed, in many ways, he
was the godfather of a wave of books (many decades later) that advocated
Canada go beyond its traditionally cautious and modest habits, and go
big in terms of ambition. A primary example of this evolution is Jennifer
Welsh’s (2004) book, At Home in the World: Canada’s Global Vision for
the 21st Century. In a similar fashion to Stephen’s work, At Home in the
World is framed by the aspiration that Canada should be a model interna-
tional citizen. Another example of this type of ambitious construct comes
from Michael Byers, of the University of British Columbia, in his Intent
for a Nation: What is Canada for? (2007). The core theme of this book—
again, in a manner similar to Stephen—looks to a fully post-colonial
Canada, with a deep distrust for the status quo.
What is striking from the start in Stephen’s work is a rejection of
the positioning of Canada as a quintessential middle power, at least
concerning by the manner by which that framework has been identified
16 A. F. COOPER
and utilized by practitioners and mainstream academics. While he comes

back to the middle power notion later on in his career, he never embraces
the middle power model in terms of its familiar diplomatic toolkit.
Nor does Stephen embrace the alternative notion that Canada is
destined to be a principal or foremost power. Although this school—
led initially by James Eayrs (also at University of Toronto)—gained
some strength by the mid-1970s, Stephen kept his distance. Stephen
was extremely interested in institutions, but the institutions that grabbed
his attention were almost always exclusively economic (and in large part
continental) in nature. Unlike other University of Toronto colleagues
(notably Bill Graham and John Kirton), he did not engage deeply in the
debates about the G7/8.
What was salient to Stephen—and increasingly so after the publication
of An Independent Foreign Policy—was the substance of political economy
rather than the practice of diplomacy or geo-politics. In this shift, we can
see a fundamental split between Stephen and other key individuals that
advocated a revisionist foreign policy in the mid to the late 1960s.
It is pertinent here to also note the divergence between Stephen
and Lloyd Axworthy. Akin to Stephen, Axworthy departed from the
established tenets of the past with considerable impatience with the
static quality of Canada’s traditional middle power diplomacy. Explicitly,
Axworthy wanted to liberate the middle power model from its iden-
tification with the fixed “order” driven worldview of the Pearson era.
This impatience was a long-standing condition, which may be traced
back to Axworthy’s younger days as a critical observer of Pearson’s
“worth[y]” but “grey and oh so solid” diplomacy. As neatly captured,
for instance, in a series of newspaper articles that Axworthy wrote for
the Winnipeg Free Press in September 1965, this sense of impatience
pointed—like Stephen’s—towards diplomatic activity that was more noisy
and public-oriented (Axworthy 1965).
But the divergence between Stephen and Axworthy after the late 1960s
is illuminating. Shut out of the NAFTA debates, Axworthy focus as
minister was towards a more fluid focus on ad hoc, normative driven
issue-specific coalitions of the willing. The most dynamic expressions of
this narrative come on the issues of land mines, the International Criminal
Court (ICC), and the advance of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) The
narrative of the Axworthy doctrine puts orthodox conceptions of security
and national interest on the defensive; at the same time, it is an implicit
criticism of traditional Pearsonian conception of middle power diplomacy,

as it regards this approach as being too slow and too cautious.
Stephen retained an interest in these sorts of diplomatic initiatives. In
a 2010 talk, he pointed to how the land mines and ICC initiatives were
examples to how pressure from civil society could influence government
(Clarkson 2010). Yet, this was not at the heart of his concern, as he priv-
ileged not so much specific cases of diplomatic success but the need to
address structural conditions.
Such ambition fitted into his original desire (and optimistic spirit) to
reach Canada’s unrealized potential but also to highlight his enveloping
concerns (even pessimism) that the structural constraints were simply too
great. As he suggested:
These examples give some sense of how citizens have tried to correct the
constitutional imbalance that is constraining the regulatory state, exac-
erbating global inequalities and threatening the planet’s survival as a
hospitable environment for human life. But activism is not enough. If the
market’s capacity to self-destruct is to be contained, governments must get
in step with their citizenry to give clear priority to human emancipation.
(Clarkson 2010)
Stephen’s appreciation of the structural constraints facing Canada

pushed him further into the analysis of political economy. If the An Inde-
pendent Foreign Policy volume was animated largely by the Vietnam war,
over time it was the issue of how “Continentalism” compromised the
Canadian economy and constrained the Canadian state that dominated
his work.
Others in this collection will deal with Stephen’s association with the
study of new Canadian political economy in greater depth. What I will add
is above all my appreciation not only of the depth of Stephen’s knowledge
but also the extent of his normative commitment on these issues. Even
scholars who disagreed with Stephen acknowledge the nuanced approach
that Stephen used to tease out the contours of Continentalism, and the
full implications of these conditions. As rehearsed most specifically in his
book (2008)—Does North America Exist?—Stephen revealed the highly
varied nature of those contours, with some sectors (for example, water
management and the steel industry), far more integrated than would
be expected; whereas in others (like intellectual property and financial
18 A. F. COOPER
services), bilateral relations and globalization are more powerful forces

than regional convergences (Clarkson 2008).
In terms of normative concerns where Stephen has had the most influ-
ence of later debates is his showcasing “Canada’s Secret Constitution.”
Consistently, Stephen emphasized the (undemocratic) manner by which
the North American Trade Agreement or NAFTA—along with the World
Trade Organization (WTO)—create a new mode of economic regula-
tion with such broad scope and such unusual judicial authority that it
entrenches “certain inviolate principles or norms that are above the reach
of any politician to alter.” (Clarkson 2002).
As always with Stephen, he continued to expand his intellectual hori-
zons, moving from a concentrated focus on Canada to extended studies
of the trilateral North American relationship (including Mexico) and
the comparative study of NAFTA and the European Union (EU). In
both cases, not only did he tap into some valuable themes, not least
the huge asymmetries among the three partners, and the absence of a
European-style system in North America of multi-level governance.
All of this is not to leave Stephen free of criticism (although he would
be quick to debate these issues). His focus on structural conditions has a
mercantilist air about it, with a conflation between US state and commer-
cial interests. As we see to some extent through the Nixon years, and
more robustly at the beginning of the Trump administration, however,
this connection can be broken. It is not only the asymmetry between
the United States and its North American partners that needs study, it is
also the asymmetry between different winners and losers in the United
States as well as Canada and Mexico that merits attention. Stephen put a
heavy weight on the “hollowing out” of corporate Canada, but without
the same appreciation of how corporate America has hollowed out invest-
ment and jobs in the United States, leaving space open for a populist
backlash. Stephen could argue that, “NAFTA cannot be blamed for the
growing income inequality within the US economy [- whereas] free trade
appears causally related to the various factors increasing economic dispari-
ties within Canada and Mexico” (Clarkson 1998). Nonetheless, this is not
the message drummed home with considerable success by Donald Trump
in his successful 2016 presidential campaign.
A second criticism at least for liberal internationalists is the disjunc-
tion between Stephen’s normative-oriented criticisms about NAFTA, the
WTO and indeed many other institutions and the hold of the more prag-
matic attitude of Canadian citizens (and politicians). Dealing with the
United States in terms of institutions might be bad, but dealing with

the United States without institutions is worse. The Trump attacks on
NAFTA, the WTO, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
brings this embedded attitude out. Whatever the difficulties of having
NAFTA in place—with a US imposed Chapter 11 highly prominent in
terms of policy output—are the difficulties of dealing with a unilateral
“rogue” United States without some “insurance” from increased risk of
arbitrary and unfair treatment.
And finally, there is the question of the EU model as a suitable alterna-
tive design. Stephen is highly laudatory of the EU model, both in terms
of the strength of its institutions or the sophistication of its jurisprudence.
Yet, no less than in North America, the process towards continental inte-
gration could be viewed by the peripheral countries (and many with
the EU core as well) as “fast but secretive, controversial, and divisive,
privileging business interests and excluding social partners” (Clarkson
1998).
All of this is not to detract from Stephen’s contribution. On the
contrary, in many ways what we find with the Trump phenomenon is a
reinforcement of the accuracy of many of the other themes that Stephen
concentrated on. No less than when he edited An Independent Foreign
Policy, it is the centrality of the US relationship to Canada that comes
to the fore. When there is space—for example—in the aftermath of the
Cold War, Canada could downplay this relationship as it main game. But
when things get tough, as in the Ronald Reagan years or with Trump,
the main stream dominates. So, in this sense, Stephen’s work remains a
crucial guide for understanding Canada’s position in the world.
2.2 The Deficiencies of Canadian Practice

A second major theme that comes out of An Independent Foreign Policy
is an intense frustration with the bureaucracy “managing” Canada’s place
in the world. If the structural conditions imposed enormous constraints
on Canada’s freedom of action, these limitations were exacerbated by
a combination of “traditional elitism and secrecy” (Clarkson 1968, xi).
Such a culture immobilized big creative thinking and action.
As in later eras, Stephen was appreciative of some of the contextual
difficulties, especially the need to work under conditions of the commu-
nications revolution. But there was a deep concern whether under any
20 A. F. COOPER
circumstances Canadian mandarins had the will to do things differently

beyond a crisis management approach.
This critique was another sign of Stephen’s distance from orthodox
scholarship about Canadian foreign policy. For most academics up to
the late 1960s celebrated Canadian diplomats—and policy makers more
generally—for their skills. After all President John F. Kennedy praised the
Canadian foreign service as “probably unequalled by any other nation”
(Quoted in Cooper 1998, 35).
Stephen punctured this sense of pride and image of superiority. Not
for him the art of the possible, or mere problem solving. In many ways,
this distaste connected with his suspicion that the functional approach
in regard to institutions undersold Canada, with an onus on joining and
status enhancement as opposed to a transformative ethos.
Stephen came to see Canada as a middle power in terms of its place
in the hierarchy of nations (a semi-peripheral country) but he never
embraced middle power diplomatic techniques. In some areas, this was
by omission, as there were only brief mentions of mediation as a primary
focus of attention.
The main cause of contestation was on the primacy of quiet diplo-
macy in the Canadian repertoire. For the traditional “External Affairs”
mandarin this was the dominant practice in the tool kit. What was impor-
tant was access—and influence—in Washington, DC. Urges to criticize
the United States and US leaders should be tempered. Changes in US
policy should be anticipated before they go public in an atmosphere of
controversy. And there should never be the utilization of retaliation via
linkage of issues.
In hindsight, much of Stephen’s critique in An Independent Foreign
Policy seems quite moderate. After all he played down the revolutionary
dynamics. Arguing that Canada did “not need the mountain moving
voluntarism of Mao. simply needs a leadership that can make it clear to
the public—if not in a little Red book at least in a White Paper—what
role Canada can play and how its objectives are to be achieved” (Cooper
1998, 268).
Moreover, some of the changes pushed for by Stephen were coming
into being albeit unevenly. One of the first things the government of
Pierre Trudeau did was to start a conversation about foreign policy—a
conversation that continued in a variety of structured forms in later years.
Plus, we can see bursts of activity trying to do things differently in foreign
policy, from the Third Option to the National Energy Program (NEP)
related initiatives in the early 1980s.
Stephen was supportive of these efforts, and of course distressed when
the momentum for both (opening up the debate on Canadian foreign
policy and the implementation of robust policies) dried up first in the
Brian Mulroney years and then the Stephen Harper years. In doing so
he became a key source of memory in the championing of an open
autonomous foreign policy.
Yet as with any robust template for foreign policy there are points
of contradiction and gaps—if not in Stephen’s own thinking at least in
the way these approaches meshed with each other in practice. For the
paradox of moving towards an autonomous and robust policy template in
the early 1980s was that the actual policymaking process reverted to the
closed format that Stephen was so frustrated about in the 1960s. The only
difference was that instead of a generalist elite dominating foreign policy
it was now a centralizing cohort of technocrats inside central agencies.
The National Energy Program (NEP) shows off this problem of recon-
ciling dialogue among Canadians and the pursuit of robust policymaking.
As Stephen appreciated, the process of decision-making was secretive
not only in the context of public dialogue but bureaucratic interaction:
“remov[ed] from the normal process of interdepartmental consulta-
tion…[with DEA] ‘not informed until the last moment’” (Clarkson 1982,
79).
At the same time US retaliation showed itself to be no paper tiger.
With the US first (Reagan) administration in place, retaliatory pressures
increased, with the Pierre Trudeau Liberals shifting from the practices of
accommodation of the past to a “complacent and superior” position that
was premised on the notion that the “Californian cowboys” needed time
to learn their job (Clarkson 1982, 32).
The hard-line position of the Reagan administration was compli-
cated further by the fact that the Trudeau government had expected
some support for a global initiative on North–South relations. Not
only were these (unlikely hopes) dashed but Canada found itself under
pressure from Washington’s “institutionalized and unpredictable vulner-
ability” a doctrine of reciprocity that pushed the Trudeau government
(again to Stephen’s frustration) to seek again the “advocacy of indi-
rect means of influence” on issues such as Cruise missile testing. As
Stephen suggested—very much in the mindset of An Independent Foreign
Policy—this backtracking marked “a striking resemblance to the old
22 A. F. COOPER
quiet diplomacy approach and offers as little concrete evidence of its

effectiveness” (Clarkson 1982, 282).
Where the mantra of retaliation did creep into the Canadian agenda
was at the subnational level, a domain allowing for some considerable
fragmentation on issues of provincial responsibilities. This type of action
was of course in recent years highlighted by British Columbia Liberal
leader Christy Clark (on the eve of a provincial election that she lost)
pushed for retaliatory trade threats to pressure for a softwood deal:
“With our ban on moving thermal coal, we have got the Americans’
attention…We aren’t going to be weaklings” (Bailey and Hunter 2017).
Stephen’s main contribution to the debate about Canada’s own prac-
tice was as a catalyst for change. Arguably more than any other text, An
Independent Foreign Policy for Canada opened up the debate about how
accepted practices had run their course. Few pushed back to defend the
Department of External Affairs as the core ingredient in the making of
foreign policy. And the mantra of quiet diplomacy lost ground—acceler-
ated over time—to new and sophisticated practices of public diplomacy
and national branding (as means to cushion Canada from retaliatory
activities).
Nonetheless, Stephen set himself a high bar to pass in terms of wanting
both an open citizen based and coherent technically sound foreign policy.
As the experience of the Trudeau government showed in the early 1980s
robustness commonly combines with a revised form of elitism. What is
more, under the structural constraints that Stephen so ably depicted,
any departure in the traditional habit by legitimizing retaliation runs
risks especially in the context of an America first administration—whether
Reagan or Trump.
2.3 The Leadership Dilemma

Arguably the main point of departure of Stephen with most of his coun-
terparts studying political economy—or International Relations more
generally—is his appreciation for not only agency but the individual
agency. Although to be sure a good deal of his work focused on the struc-
tural imposed by Continentalism, space opened up over time concerning
how of major individuals influenced policymaking decisions.
Here it is not so much An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada that
acts as the foundation for this appreciation, but arguably his earlier work
on Jawaharlal Nehru (the iconic Indian Prime minister) and other “third
world” leaders focused upon in his thesis and subsequent publication on

The Soviet Theory of Development (Clarkson 1978).
As alluded to by the reference to Mao Zedong and Canadian public
policy Stephen did not show expectation in An Independent Foreign Policy
for Canada for a dynamic form of personal leadership in Canadian public
policy. Nonetheless, he clearly expected more in terms of leadership than
what was on offer by Lester Pearson in the 1960s.
To Stephen, Pearson’s instincts for quiet diplomacy (if useful at the
time of the 1956 Suez crisis) had become a weakness weighing Canadian
foreign policy down. As he writes, Pearson’s has turned an “unobtrusive”
style of diplomacy—“tactics which lead to his own international successes
in the mid 1950s into a dogma that frustrates” (Clarkson 1968, 265).
As well rehearsed in a host of later publications, Pierre Trudeau was far
more Stephen’s image of a leader. And although on many specific occa-
sions frustrated by his actions, Pierre Trudeau was the model that Stephen
used to judge other leaders right up to the time of the government of
Justin Trudeau.1
If he found Trudeau illuminating (and in many ways admirable),
Stephen became just as taken up by the personality types of American
leaders. An indication of this shift from structure to agency in studying
Continentalism is his title of Canada and the Reagan Challenge (as
opposed to the neoconservative challenge).
As a consequence of this shift Stephen became a close observer of bilat-
eral (and later trilateral) summits between North American leaders. In the
actual benefits of these summits Stephen was ambiguous. In some appear-
ances, he supported greater institutionalization: “it’s amazing actually to
think that, given all the attention spent on NAFTA, the three heads of
government don’t meet regularly. They didn’t even meet after September
11, 2001, when the borders were blockaded, which put the whole notion
of NAFTA in jeopardy” (Clarkson 2005). At the same time, though, he
was as worried as other observers that such meetings could be highly
problematic, animating a securitization of North America.
But the importance of Stephen’s bringing individual agency in is that
he was (or could have been!) well situated to consider new unanticipated
and disruptive changes at the apex of the US political system. A major
contribution of his in the 1980s was to capture the individual importance
of the Reagan challenge: “Reagan was serving notice on the world that
America’s decade of instability and indecision was over [with a) simplistic
and self-serving moralism” (Clarkson 1982, 21).
24 A. F. COOPER
While a topic never allowed to be elaborated upon, Stephen was early

on aware of the “tsunami” like implications of a Trump victory. In a
December 2015 public event in Toronto, he signalled that the Trump
revolution would go beyond that animated by Reagan or George W. Bush
“He’s off the map, even for conservatives.” Stephen stated, adding that
Trump would “create an earthquake with Canada suffering tidal wave.”2
From his editorship of An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada,
therefore, Stephen indicated his unique attributes as a scholar and a
commentator. While building on his expertise in political economy in
comparative perspective, he honed in on the Canadian (continental)
condition. Although immersed in theory of economic development, what
jumps out is his eclecticism: his concern with history and his blend of an
analysis of structure and over time an appreciation of big personalities,
albeit not always in a positive fashion.
For all of these intellectual reasons—and many more—Stephen stands
out among Canadian intellectuals. Yet if we miss him, we can still learn
from him, not the least about how to balance tough interrogation of what
is happening in everyday politics and policymaking with an (enthusiastic)
expectation that we can move beyond cautious and limiting habits.
Notes
1. See, for example, Appel (2015).
2. See, Metro (Toronto) (2015).
References
Appel, Jeremy. 2015. The Harper Doctrine in Red? Justin Trudeau’s
Foreign Policy [Web page]. Canadian Dimension, Last modified 1 June
2015. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-harper-doctrine-in-
red-justin-trudeaus-foreign-policy. Accessed 23 Nov 2020.
Axworthy, Lloyd. 1965. Canada’s Role as a Middle Power. Winnipeg Free Press,
September 8–9.
Bailey, Ian, and Justine Hunter. 2017. Clark Stands by Trade Threats to U.S. on
Eve of B.C. Election. Globe and Mail, May 7. https://www.theglobeandm
ail.com/news/british-columbia/clark-picks-fight-with-washington-ahead.
Byers, Michael. 2007. Intent for a Nation: What Is Canada for? A Relentlessly
Optimistic Manifesto for Canada’s Role in the World. Vancouver: Douglas &
McIntyre.
Cameron, Duncan. 2016. Why is Justin Trudeau Invited to the White House?”
[Web page]. Rabble, Last modified 8 March 2016. https://rabble.ca/column
ists/2016/03/why-justin-trudeau-invited-to-white-house. Accessed 23 Nov
2020.
Clarkson, Stephen. 1982. Canada and the Reagan Challenge: Crisis and
Adjustment 1981–1985. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Economic Policy.
Clarkson, Stephen. 2002. Canada’s Secret Constitution: NAFTA, WTO and
the End of Sovereignty? [Web page]. CCPA, Last modified October
2002. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/public
ations/National_Office_Pubs/clarkson_constitution.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov
2020.
after NAFTA and 9/11. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Clarkson, Stephen. 1998. Fearful Asymmetries: The Challenge of Comparing
Continental Systems in a Globalizing World. Canadian-American Public
Policy 35. Available in https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/capp/issue/view/
1168.
Clarkson, Stephen, ed. 1968. An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada?
Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Clarkson, Stephen. 2005. Presentation to the 38th Parliament, 1st
Session Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, 2 November. http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-
1/FAAE/meeting-66/evidence.
Clarkson, Stephen. 1978. The Soviet Theory of Development: India and the Third
World in Marxist-Leninist Scholarship. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Clarkson, Stephen. 2010. The Unbalanced World of Global Governance. Globe
and Mail, March 19. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-unb
alanced-world-of-global-governance/article4311549/.
Cooper, Andrew F. 1998. Canadian Foreign Policy: Old Habits and New
Directions. Scarborough: Prentice Hall.
Metro (Toronto). 2015. A President Donald Trump Would be a ‘Tsunami’ for
Canada: Prof. [Web page]. Last modified 2 December 2015. http://www.
metronews.ca/news/toronto/2015/12/08/what-president-donald-trump-
would-mean-for-canada.html. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
Welsh, Jennifer. 2004. At Home in the World: Canada’s Global Vision for the 21st
Century. Toronto: HarperPerennial.
CHAPTER 3
A North American Quest for Progressive

Policies in an Era of Global Structural Changes
Michèle Rioux
Abstract North America has been an experimental and influential model

of trade and economic integration. Clarkson studied, analyzed, and
discussed North America as a region and how it shaped and influenced
Canadian foreign policy as well as Canadian politics and society. This
chapter explores three topics that I consider central to several of his
scientific contributions. The first one is the singular importance of the
world economic system and the emergence of powerful multinational
corporations as pivotal actors in the world economy. The second is the
growth in social inequality associated with free trade agreements in North
America. The third is the transformative impact of regional economic
integration models on the dynamics of state sovereignty that also inte-
grate a comparative perspective in the political economy of regionalism
and inter-regionalism.
M. Rioux (B)
UQAM, Montreal, Québec, Canada
e-mail: rioux.michele@uqam.ca

Switzerland AG 2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81973-6_3
28 M. RIOUX
Keywords NAFTA · Multinational Corporations—MNC ·

Neoliberalism · Inter-regionalism · Integration · Constitution
North America has been an experimental and influential model of trade

and economic integration. After the second world war, regional inte-
gration in North America accelerated. It is now a region governed by
a set of rules that is depicted as a contractual private-led integration
model that is very different than the “first generation” model of regional
integration that has led to the creation and enlargement of the Euro-
pean model. From the debate surrounding Canadian sovereignty facing
massive entry of US investments to the signing of the Canada-United-
States Free Trade Agreement and later the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), Stephen Clarkson studied, analyzed and discussed
North America as a region and how it shaped and influenced Canadian
foreign policy as well as Canadian politics and society.1
In this chapter, remembering his influence on my research and, more
generally, on Canadian political economy, I will explore three topics that
I consider central to several of his scientific contributions. The first one is
the singular importance of the world economic system and the emergence
of powerful multinational corporations as pivotal actors in what Susan
Strange (1996) called the Retreat of the State that accompanied the rise
of neoliberalism. The second topic is the growth in social inequality asso-
ciated with free trade agreements in North America and their “capture”
of the public policy process. The third is related to the transformative
impact of regional economic integration models on the dynamics of state
sovereignty that also integrate a perspective on comparative international
political economy of regionalism and inter-regionalism.
3.1 The Rise of the Powerful,

the Multinationals
Stephen Clarkson has long been concerned with the massive entry of US
Multinational corporations (MNCs) in Canada. He played a leading role,
along with other experts, underlying and documenting the dangers of a
globalization process that, if left unregulated, would lead to the domina-
tion of the US capitalism in the region and the eventual loss of Canadian
3 A NORTH AMERICAN QUEST FOR PROGRESSIVE … 29
economic and political sovereignty. This was an argument made by Kari

Polanyi-Levitt (2002) in Silent Surrender: The Multinational in Canada.
The debate over the impacts of MNCs in the 1970s centred on
trade and industrial policies. The government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau
proceeded with a pack of policies and measures known as the Third
Option that sought to reduce Canada’s dependence on the US market.
Canadian policies geared on trade diversification and interventionism
were ultimately abandoned and successive governments opted for closer
integration with the United States, along with intensive deregulation and
privatization of the Canadian economy in the 1980s and 1990s. In this
context, Canada adopted a liberal approach towards foreign direct invest-
ment as MNCs were no longer associated with sovereignty loss but rather
with innovation and efficiency gains that were to translate into compet-
itiveness gains. In the 1980s, North America was a region in quest of a
more competitive and innovative regional space which led to more liberal
and strategic economic policies.
Stephen Clarkson was one of the first researchers to analyze the shift
from Keynesian economic policies to a globalized economic policy model
with minimal/neoliberal regulatory constraints. He reminded us that this
involved a process of rethinking institutions and their roles. This policy
shift in North America had great transformative effects and accelerated
regional economic integration in North America. This had significant
consequences for Canada and a range of its public policies. For Clarkson,
it led to what he considered to be a new economic “constitution” that
was institutionalized by the two free trade agreements Canada negoti-
ated in the region, the first with the United States and the second with
the United States and Mexico. According to Clarkson, those agreements
put constraints on Canadian governments and on their capacity to act
and intervene to foster the social, cultural, and economic development
of the country. In his mind, there was a clash of regional integration
and Canadian democracy (Clarkson 2002). Indeed, at the end of Uncle
Sam and Us, he concluded the big idea that further integration with the
United States would increase the standard of living in Canada should be
abandoned and that Canada should rather recommit to strengthening its
democracy (Ross 2004).
The issue of the role, rights and obligations of foreign investors is
still of great significance in world politics. It has been a topic of great
controversy in the implementation of the NAFTA as Chapter 11 created
a very controversial chapter on State-Investor Dispute Settlement. From
30 M. RIOUX
frivolous complaints to critiques arguing the unequal right of workers to

contest policies, there was the beginning of the balancing act that is still
in the making. The debates surrounding the negotiation by Canada of
the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the
European Union as well as those related to the renegotiation of NAFTA
testify of the need to recalibrate the trade diplomacy involving investors
and states. Foreign investors are powerful agents in the world economic
system; they have gained economic, political, and legal authority with
few binding obligations in terms of protecting the public interest, most
notably when it comes to labour, cultural, and privacy rights. Global-
ization has undermined national and international regulatory frameworks
and supported the emergence of new global institutional and normative
frameworks. More complex than those from the past, they deal with issues
like investment, competition, services, public procurement, intellectual
property, norms, and standards.
This structural shift from national economic space towards a global
economy has enormous implications on societies and international relah-
tions (Held et al. 1999; Cox 1996). A long-term momentous shift in
competitive strategies between global corporations for market share in
regional markets the world over has given them unprecedented leverage
to control where production is located and investments are made to
support the unprecedented growth in global value chains, one of the key
organizational principles of the global economy (Boulanger et al. 2019).
Globalization raises questions related to the revisit the meaning of law,
government, legitimacy, and sovereignty (Rodrik 2007).
This Clarksonian perspective truly resonates strongly now as the US
digital giants are posing regulatory issues for Canada and many other
countries that are trying to find ways to adjust their regulatory frame-
works to the novel realities of US economic dominance in the leading tech
sectors at the centre of the digital transformations impacting Information
and Communication Technology sectors among others. The problems
Canada faces with the regulation of digital giants that structure the future
of the Canadian economy while Canada has very few levers to regulate
them. Canadian economic players can hope for deregulation in Canada
to compete or that Canada joins the EU in its attempts to rebalance
the rules of the game by applying regulation to US big tech to regain
vanishing pans of sovereignty in the global digital age.
3.2 NAFTA, Neoliberalism

as a New Regional “Constitution”
Clarkson labelled orthodox trade policies as “economic constitutions”
shaping societies economically and politically. In Apples and Oranges:
Prospects for the Comparative Analysis of the EU and NAFTA as Conti-
nental Systems (Clarkson 2000), he developed the idea of NAFTA as
a comprehensive constitution setting the rules of state-market relations
based on the US regulation model. If trade agreements are not consti-
tutions, they have great implications not only at the border but also
behind borders as regulatory issues related to trade have developed. Trade
deals have become very intrusive legal instruments that affect policy and
regulatory systems at different levels of the political order (Rioux et al.
2020).
Clarkson saw the North American integration model as a reflection
of changes in the relationship between states and markets in the region
contrasting with integration models elsewhere. Indeed, NAFTA emerged
in the 1990s to bring new regulatory and strategic instruments deployed
at multiple and diversified levels of governance. One of the most impor-
tant objectives of the NAFTA was to improve the competitiveness of the
region; it was the “trump card of the United States” to regain influ-
ence and to force changes in the global economic governance (Rioux
and Deblock 1993). Indeed, NAFTA has spread beyond North America
having impacts on the spread of the NAFTA model. It influenced the
multilateral system and many FTAs while almost succeeding in influencing
a continental integration in the Americas with the FTAA (Free Trade Area
of the Americas) (Rioux 2007).
North American trade deals have increasingly shaped our societies and,
as Clarkson suggested, can be considered like new global trade consti-
tutions empowering multinationals and constraining governments. He
argued:
The tragic misrule in North America’s three-state space and in most of

Latin America over the last few decades has undermined the significant
achievements of the post-World War II Keynesian state which achieved
high rates of economic growth while developing publicly financed educa-
tion, health, employment, and pension policies and consequently reducing
the inequality between rich and poor. Neo-liberalism’s populist, anti-
government rhetoric has blinded public consciousness to the costs of
32 M. RIOUX
empowering market actors freed of responsibility for the destructive envi-

ronmental and social consequences of their corporate actions. (Preface in
English, Rioux et al. 2015)
Yet, NAFTA soon proved to run and of breath. One structural element
shaping governance and regulation of economic integration in North
America is the importance of Asia and more specifically of China for
the region. In this context, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) aimed
to transform and update NAFTA beyond the original three countries
involved to take into account the interregional and transpacific integra-
tion process. The negotiation of the TPP was a de facto renegotiation of
NAFTA which derailed as the United States pulled out of the agreement.
Clarkson considered that the TPP negotiations were a way to “mod-
ernize” NAFTA on the Trans-Pacific front.2 The TPP allowed the three
North American countries to negotiate new trade-related regulatory
issues with the strategic goal in mind to deal with interregional issues
and the development of new global value chains impacting on the region.
It meant that, instead of being a ménage à trois, North America was
immersed into an intense model of competition shaped by global value
chains across the Pacific (Rioux et al. 2015). These negotiations were
abandoned by the United States as President Trump decided, leaving
Canada and Mexico a new transpacific deal, the Comprehensive and
Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
It is in this context that, in 2017–18, the negotiation of a new
North American agreement occurred. Global value chains are now inte-
grated, with a strong Asian component. Many bilateral and regional trade
agreements have been negotiated by the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. The USMCA is catching up with competing agreement that have
outpaced NAFTA. But there is something new, the question of the rela-
tion between regional and multilateral trade agreements is more debated
as well as the contribution of trade negotiations to a sustainable trade
agenda that include labour and environmental norms.
3.3 From North American Integration

to Inter-Regionalism---Between
the West and the East
Clarkson liked to compare regional integration models. He compared
North America with Europe distinguishing their respective approach to
integration processes. Furthermore, as regions are increasingly negoti-
ating trade agreements with one another, he contributed to the devel-
opment of the concept of inter-regionalism to explain both the dynamics
of convergence and divergence across regional spaces.
Comparing North American regionalism with the broader European
model, he was disappointed by North America where there was a less
ambitious regional integration project based on a contractual and strategic
model, oriented on economic and competitiveness issues. In North
America, there was no plan for a gradual and incremental process leading
to a single market or to a monetary and political union. The goal is
primarily the opening of markets and the adoption of rules for markets to
boost competitiveness. Partners work to eliminate restrictive policies and
regulations rather than to build a common and supranational approach
in a multidimensional perspective; i.e. considering the public good in
economic governance as part of a wider social and political integration
process.
By contrast, nowadays, the European Union is an economic, legal,
monetary, and political reality, even though an imperfect and contested
one. It created common policies and institutions that is the most ambi-
tious integration process in the world economy. Fiscal and social policies
and the pressures linked to the 2008 economic crisis and the manage-
ment—or the lack thereof—of the migration issues in the recent past
have paved the way for new risks of institutional implosion such as it is
illustrated by Brexit.
Like Robert Pastor who, in the United States, deployed much time
and energy to define and promote the concept of the importance and
value of an emerging North American community that existed beyond
the free trade ideal, Clarkson also supported and promoted the idea that
a sense of community could and should emerge in North America. Yet,
Clarkson was pragmatic and realistic about how far he could take this
comparison. Even though, he liked the European model, he also knew
that it could not be adopted in North America. In the European case,
the economic dimension would be completed by adding very elaborate
34 M. RIOUX
supranational legal and political institutions evolving over time that imply
a strong sense of community and identity that speaks above the national
and subnational layers of governance (Clarkson 2008).
More recently, the CETA, and the Comprehensive and Progres-
sive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) represent new
phenomena of inter-regionalism that has the potential to articulate devel-
oped regional integration models. When Canada and the EU negotiate
and implement an agreement like CETA, how does this impact on the
regional integration processes underway on both sides of the Atlantic?
The same question can be asked on the impact of the CPTPP on North
America and other partners. For some, this participates in a shift towards
the emergence of a third generation of integration processes that is
interregional in nature. New words, like comprehensive and partnership,
combine to define what Deblock depicted as an “interconnection” model
that is essentially geared towards regulatory cooperation and governance.
Deblock (2016, 9) argues:
In the current decade, two trends closely related to the new issues of
globalisation have begun to emerge. First, trade negotiations increasingly
revolve around cross-border trade, digital trade and value chains. Second,
they are characterised by their interoperability. Today’s globalisation does
not so much integrate as connect. And with interconnection, the problem
of international regulatory cooperation arises. This issue is now at the
core of discussions within the OECD, APEC or new trade agreements,
according to terms and principles very different from previous negotiations.
CETA involves regulatory cooperation in many domains and certainly has

the potential of significantly changing national regulations. The aban-
doned Transatlantic Partnership (TTIP) negotiations between Europe
and the United States also involved such far reaching regulatory coop-
eration. The EU negotiator for the TTIP made no secret of it. Important
issues were the investor-state dispute mechanism, electronic commerce,
norms, and standards, including labour standards and rights. If an inter-
connection model does not imply loss of sovereignty, it will have a great
impact on many policies and regulations.
This raises several questions, including that of the democratic legit-
imacy of a new and further shifts of power and regulatory authority
between states and markets. Can this mean an intensification of the retreat
of States or a new articulation of regional, interregional, and world inte-

gration with stronger economic principles, principles that are in tune with
the challenges of sustainable development we face as a world community.
3.4 Conclusion: Pessimist,

Optimist, or Eternal Sceptic?
Building on the fundamental complex relationships between states,
markets, and North American integration, Clarkson identified the
powerful and often dangerous dynamics unleashed by globalization,
Clarkson always paid attention to power relationships and asymmetries in
the light of Canada’s relations with its continental global neighbour. Yet,
he was never pessimistic about North America, wishing for more cooper-
ation and more balanced relations between countries and between states
and markets.
Can trade deals strike new balances between states and markets? Trans-
parency, more participatory process during negotiations and enforcement,
and more balanced agreements considering the social and environmental
dimensions are key elements for the future of globalization. North
America must invent new types of cooperation and governance, regula-
tory schemes in this world of transnational and global networks. This is
the biggest challenge. In this context, Canada faces numerous challenges.
Not only regional integration has changed, but Canadian economic
productivity has also lost ground to US industries and lags further behind
the US commanding presence in new global value chains and digital trade.
Clarkson believed that Canada would find a way to provide answers to
the complex challenges of North American integration. The interaction
between globalization and social progress is becoming increasingly impor-
tant in the public debates. Many international instruments exist; however,
they remain largely ineffective to produce a fair and socially responsible
globalization process (Bird et al. 2009; Zini et al. 2021).
Canada is now promoting a new progressive and inclusive trade
agenda in North America with its trading partners around the world.
Ed Broadbent (2017) challenged the perspective and its depth in these
words:
One part of a response to growing inequality is to change the rules of

the game in international trade. The Liberal government has suggested it
wants such change. It claims to believe in “progressive trade.” However,
36 M. RIOUX
in the recent negotiations with Europe, the government signed on to a

pact, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, that pays only
lip service to labour rights.
For Canada to play a key role within the international system as well as
in the world economy, one must learn from history and understand how
to steer collective action nationally and internationally towards a better
life in North America. For Clarkson, this required understanding change
while retaining a sense of history.
Whatever label one uses to describe the centrality of the past in limiting the
options available in the present which determine the shape of the future,
it is important to keep it in mind since, because world power relations
are in such a constant flux, so much analysis has focused on immediate
happenings that “change” is typically presented with little attention being
paid to the historic roots of the reality experiencing change. (Preface in
English, Rioux et al. 2015)
North American economic integration will continue to be a contested

work in progress (Gagné and Rioux Forthcoming). Perhaps, this is what
Stephen Clarkson would agree on, with the hope for the best and avoid-
ance of the worst of regional and interregional relations and how they
affect most vulnerable people and communities.
Notes
1. Stephen Clarkson was a very good speaker, an innovative researcher, a
respected professor and a human being with a fantastic personality. His
influence will be long lasting.
2. At a Montreal conference, “NAFTA at 20”, CEIM, UQAM, Maison du
développement durable.
References
Bird, Frederick, Thomas Vance, and Peter Woolstencroft. 2009. Fairness in
International Trade and Investment: North American Perspectives. Journal of
Business Ethics 84: 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0206-x.
Boulanger, Eric, Michèle Rioux, and Eric Mottet, eds. 2019. Mondialisation
et connectivité: Les enjeux du commerce, de l’investissement et du travail au
XXIéme siècle. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Broadbent, Ed. 2017. Let’s Make Human Rights Central to a New NAFTA. The
Globe & Mail, May 5th.
Clarkson, Stephen. 2000. Apples and Oranges: Prospects for the Comparative
Analysis of the EU and NAFTA as Continental Systems. In EUI Working
Papers, edited by Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies—European
University Institute, Florence.
After NAFTA and 9/11. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Clarkson, Stephen. 2002. Uncle Sam and Us: Globalization, Neoconser-
vatism, and the Canadian State. Toronto/Washington: Toronto University
Press/Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Cox, Robert. 1996. A Perspective on Globalization. In Globalization: Critical
Perspectives, ed. J. Mittelman. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Deblock, Christian. 2016. From Regionalism to Cross-Regionalism. Great
Insights 5 (6): 8–9.
Gagné, Gilbert, and Michèle Rioux, eds. Forthcoming. NAFTA 2.0. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Held, David, Anthony G. McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton.
1999. Global Transformations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Polanyi-Levitt, Kari. 2002. Silent Surrender: The Multiunational Corporation
in Canada, 1970. Montréal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Original edition.
Rioux, Michèle, ed. 2007. Building the Americas. Bruxelles: Bruylant.
Rioux, Michèle, and Christian Deblock. 1993. NAFTA: The Trump Card of the
United States? Studies in Political Economy 41 (1): 7–44. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19187033.1993.11675403.
Rioux, Michèle, Christian Deblock, and Laurent Viau. 2015. L’Aléna conjugué
au passé, au présent et au futur. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Rioux, Michèle, Christian Deblock, and Guy-Philippe. Wells. 2020. CETA, an
Innovative Agreement with Many Unsettled Trajectories. Open Journal of
Political Science 10: 50–60. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2020.101005.
Rioux, Michèle, Mathieu Ares, and Ping Huang. 2015. Beyond NAFTA with
Three Countries: The Impact of Global Value Chains on an Outdated Trade
Agreement. Open Journal of Political Science 5 (4): 264–276. https://doi.
org/10.4236/ojps.2015.54028.
Rodrik, Dani. 2007. One Economics Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions,
and Economic Growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ross, Douglas A. 2004. Review: Uncle Sam and Us: Globalization, Neocon-
servatism, and the Canadian State. International Journal 59 (4): 983–985.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002070200405900425.
38 M. RIOUX
Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the
World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zini, Sylvain, Eric Boulanger, and Michèle Rioux, eds. 2021. Vers une poli-
tique commerciale socialement responsable dans un contexte de grandes tensions.
Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
KORPI
Niin, kyllä meidän täytyy auttaa häntä… vaikka miten…
1:NEN TYÖMIES
Ja mestari hänet väkisin pakotti, kun pois oli heti uhannut ajaa,
ellei lupaa tulla…
KAARLO keskeyttää kiihtyneenä.
Sanoiko hän niin?
1:NEN TYÖMIES
Sanoi. Etkö sinä sitä kuullut?
KAARLO nousee huolestuneena.
En, en… Minun täytyy heti lähteä hänen jälkeensä — ei niin, en

voikaan lähteä kun täytyy heti lähteä kokoukseen…
KORPI synkistyen.
Niin, se alkaa ihan heti… ja tässä on mennyt aika aivan suotta…

Pitäisi edes vähän keskustella siitä, mitä me nyt teemme. Mitä te
ajattelette…?
(Kaikki muuttuvat synkiksi ja äänettömiksi.)
2:NEN TYÖMIES
Niin kyllä nyt synkältä näyttää.

(Äänettömyys.)
KORPI masentuneesti.
Kyllä se pahin isku oli, kun ei enää saa edes leivänpuolikasta

velaksi — siitä asti on kaikki mennyt hullusti. Kyllä ne tiesivät, ettei
kellään enää rahaa ollut — että nälkä silloin paraiten pehmittää…
KAARLO
Niin, kyllä nyt on nälkää kärsitty… — (Kiukkuisesti.) — Itse piru

lienee senkin keinon patruunan korvaan kuiskannut!
EMIL samoin.
Ei piru vaan hänen innokkain asiamiehensä — meidän

piiskurimestarimme! Aino oli eilen kuullut sen kehuvan, että jos
patruuna olisi kieltänyt sen heti alussa niinkuin hän ehdotti, olisi
lakko aikoja sitten loppunut. Mutta kauppias oli sanonut, että hänellä
on vanhaa varastoa, joka täytyy ensin saada menemään…
KAARLO katkerasti naurahtaen.
Niin, eihän korppi korpin silmää puhkaise! Kyllä ne saaliista

sopivat.
KORPI
Kyllä ne sopivat ja sentähden pitäisi meidänkin yksimielisesti

ponnistaa kaikki voimamme… Niin, toverit, mitä mieltä te nyt olette
lakosta?
(Pitkä äänettömyys. Miehet nojautuvat käsiensä varaan; eräs
sylkäsee, toinen huokaa raskaasti.)
KAARLO odottaa kuumeisella jännityksellä miesten vastausta;

nähdessään heidän toivottomuutensa, alkaa hän äkkiä puhtia
sisäisen tuskan valtaamana.
Ei toverit! Kyllä pitäisi vielä kestää, koettaa jotenkin…

Pääkaupungin yhdistykseltä ei ole vielä tullut vastausta, mutta kyllä
huomenna viimeistään pitäisi tulla; minä kirjoitin juuri toissapäivänä
uuden kirjeen, jossa selitin tilamme ja pyysin apua. (Ajattelee hetken,
hypähtää seisomaan huudahtaen innostunenna.) Voi mikä hölmö
minä olen!
ÄÄNIÄ
— Miten niin?
— Kuinka niin?
KAARLO
Ajatelkaas, kun en ole lainkaan muistanut, että minulla on vielä

kallishintainen revolveri! Siitähän saadaan vähän jauhoja Haloselle
ja muille pahinta hätää kärsiville! Heti aamulla vien sen
kauppiaalle…
KORPI hiljaa.
Sinä olet muutenkin jo antanut kaikki — rahasi, vaatteesikin…
KAARLO keskeyttää leikillisesti ja rohkaisevasti.

Mitä se merkitsee! Eihän minulla ole lasta eikä lammasta! Ja
vaikkei nuori mies nyt liikaa herkuttelekaan — niin on se vain
terveellistä ruuansulatukselle! — (Vakavasti.) — Mutta kyllä nyt olisi
kovin ikävää lopettaa — silloinhan olisi kaikki mennyt hukkaan…
Koetetaan vielä, toverit…
KORPI myöskin innostuen.
Niin toverit Kaarlo puhuu totta! Jos me vain voisimme kestää vielä
pienen ajan — niin me voittaisimme! Viikkoa kauempaa ei patruuna
missään tapauksessa voi seisottaa tehdasta. Eikö siis puhuta
kokouksessa siihen suuntaan, että jatketaan lakkoa — kärsitään
vielä edes pieni aika…
KAARLO odottaa jännittyneenä; sitten masentuu toisten

toivottomasta äänettömyydestä.
1:NEN TYÖMIES hiljaa.
Voisihan tuota koettaa…
2:NEN TYÖMIES huokaisten.
Niin, niin…
KORPI katsahtaa miehiin, ja hänenkin mielensä masentuu; sitten

vilkasee seinäkelloon ja sanoo alakuloisesti.
Kello onkin jo kohta kuusi; täytynee kai sitten lähteä…
(Lähtevät äänettöminä ja synkkinä.)
EMIL on pidättänyt Kaarloa, ja kun toiset ovat poistuneet, kysyy

hän hiljaa, pidätetyllä vihalla.
Missä ne mahtavat olla kortteeria — nuo rikkurit?
KAARLO
En tiedä, mitä sitten?
EMIL
Minä olen tässä päättänyt koota joitakin miehiä ja ajaa ne pois —

miten tahansa… Tuletko mukaan?
KAARLO epäröiden.
Ei Emil, kyllä sinun isäsi sittenkin on oikeassa siinä, että

tuollaisesta toiminnasta ei ole hyötyä…
EMIL yhä enemmän kiihtyen.
Hyötyä! Mutta minä en välitä hyödystä — en mistään! Koko elämä

on niin kauhistavan kurjaa, ettei se maksa viittä penniä! Ja sen
sanon, että noiden rikkurien täytyy mennä täältä — jollei muuten, niin
jalat edellä… Tuollaisten lurjusten ei ole väliä, jotka julkeavat tulla
riistämään viimeisen leipäpalasen nälkää kärsiviltä lapsilta!
KAARLO sydämellisesti mutta lujasti.
Emil — sinä et saa ryhtyä mihinkään tuollaiseen! Sinun täytyy

ajatella myöskin omaisiasi ja ennenkaikkea suurta asiaamme…
EMIL
Minä en enää ajattele mitään — en mitään! Kaikki on kuitenkin

turhaa! Olisi sentään hauska tietää, mistä lähtien sinäkin olet alkanut
pelätä…?
KAARLO keskeyttää painavasti.
Sinä kyllä tiedät, etten pelkää, mutta järkeni sanoo, että se olisi
vahingollista. — Jos noille rikkureille tapahtuisi jotain, niin saisi
patruuna tekosyyn pyytää tänne vaikka sotaväkeä. Tiedätkö, minäkin
ajattelin sellaista, mutta kun äsken näin nuo rikkurit, huomasin etten
ollut ennen ymmärtänyt tuota asiaa. Ne olivat varmasti jonkun
kaupungin työttömiä. Siellä oli useita, jotka varmasti olivat kärsineet
nälkää viime päivät. Kun he ovat vielä tietämättömiä, niin ei ole ihme
jos heidät saadaan lähtemään minne tahansa. Ja tuskinpa heille on
selitettykään mihin joutuvat; tarkoitan siis, että siinä on syyttömiä
joukossa.
EMIL masentuneena.
En ymmärrä, mutta kamalalta tuntuu seistä ihan toimetonna —

antaa niiden alottaa työt. — (Voimattomalla raivolla.) — Pitäisi panna
dynamiittia tehtaan kellariin ja antaa mennä kaikki ilmaan!
KAARLO
Älä puhu järjettömiä!
LIISA mutisten.
LIISA tulee; sanoo vihaisena ja levottomana.
Mitä sinä oikein puhut, Emil? Ensin käyt ihmisen kimppuun ja

sitten puhut tuollaisia kauheita…
EMIL kärsimättömästi.
No nyt se alkaa taas — tavallinen tarina! osaan sen jo ulkoa enkä
viitsi kuunnella…
KAARLO hillityllä kiihkolla.
Kuulkaa, sanokaa nyt, missä on Anni? Missä hän viipyy näin

kauan?
LIISA alkaa hengittää raskaasti ja sammaltaa tolkuttomasti.
Minähän jo sanoin. Miksi sitä enää kysyt…
KAARLO hiljaa läpitunkevasti.
Te valehtelitte minulle? Miksi? Minä kävin Väänäsellä. Sanokaa

nyt minulle totuus, minun täytyy saada tietää totuus. Missä on Anni?
LIISA ähkyy kuin tukehtumaisillaan.
Minä, minä en tienä sitä .. - niin, minä en tienä.
KAARLO katsoo häntä hetken ja sähähtää raivosasti.
Valhe! Toinen valhe! Mitä tämä merkitsee? Miksi valehtelitte?

Missä on
Anni? Onko hän sairas? Sanokaa edes se.
LIISA mutisten.
Ei hän sairas ole…
KAARLO painavasti.
Te tiedätte sen — ja siis senkin missä hän on. Miksi ette sano sitä
minulle? Ettekö ymmärrä miten levoton olen? En voi olla missään…
Kuinka te voitte valehdella minulle, olla sanomatta.
LIISA huudahtaa tuskallisesti.
Älä Kaarlo! Älä Jumalan tähden… syytä… Mene nyt, kyllä saat
pian tietää — hän lähti asialle — kyllä hän heti tulee… Mene nyt
Kaarlo.
KAARLO tuijottaa häntä hetken hurjan epätoivon valtaamana;

sitten syöksähtää ulos.
LIISA parahtaen.
Jumala! Mitä tämä on? Hänet on turmeltu ja minä, minä olen

syyllinen. —
Hän on ehkä… Voi, jospa hän on hukuttanut itsensä, niinkuin
Vaaralan
Sannikin… Jumala armahda… minua syntistä.
(Heittäytyy vaatekasalle ja purskahtaa katkeraan itkuun. —

Kyökistä kuuluu lasten ääniä: "Äiti tulkaa!" — Mutta Liisa ei kuule —
hänen ruumiinsa värisee ja vavahtelee kuin suonenvedossa.)
(Silloin avautuu ovi ja Anni astuu sisään kuin unissakävijä,

lysähtää hervottomasti lattialle istumaan ja tuijottaa eteensä
aivankuin näkemättä Liisaa.)
LIISA huomaa hänet ja kysyy käheästi.
Mitä, mitä… mitä lapsi raukka?

ANNI koleasti, tolkuttomasti.
Niin, mitä, mitä nyt?
LIISA nousee, lähenee Annia, änkyttäen kauhean tuskan ja

katumuksen vallassa.
Lapseni, lapseni… Pieni tyttöseni! Mitä nyt… on?
ANNI heittäytyy suulleen ja vaikeroi sydäntäsärkevästi, käsiään

väännellen.
Äiti, äiti — kun nyt saisi vain pian kuolla, kuolla — pian kuolla…
Esirippu,
Toinen näytös.
Toinen kuvaelma.
Sama paikka kuin edellisessä näytöksessä.
Anni kävelee väsyneesti miltei horjuen kamarin lattialla. Välillä hän

nääntyneenä istahtaa vaatekasalle — ja nousee taas kävelemään.
Hänen harteillaan on repaleinen miehen takki, mutta hän värisee
siitä huolimatta ja hänen kalpeilla kasvoillaan kuvastuu kiduttava
tuska ja epätoivo. Kyökistä kuuluu epäselvästi lasten ääniä,
yskimistä ja valitusta.
Hän seisahtuu hetkeksi, kietoo takin tiukemmin ympärilleen ja

kuuntelee. — Kyökistä kuuluu epämääräisiä lasten ääniä:
"Äiti, äiti….Kuulkaa äiti!" ja Liisan "Sst!" Pienokaisen vaikerrus on
vaiennut — vain vaivoin kuuluu hennon rinnan nääntynyt, läähättävä
ääni.
LIISA tulee kyökistä väännellen käsiään ja mutisee hiljaa, kuin

itsekseen.
Voi Jumala, Jumala… Mitä minä teen… mitä minä teen? Aune…
pikku
Aune…
ANNI säpsähtäen.
Mitä, onko… onko Aune kuollut…?
LIISA
Ei — mutta hän kuolee… Hän on niin kovin heikko. Nytkin makaa

taas siinä omituisessa horrostilassa.
(Kyökistä kuuluu taasen pyytäviä lasten ääniä: "Äiti! Antakaa

minulle jotain. Antakaa edes jotain ruokaa…")
LIISA menee ovelle ja puhuu tuskastuneella äänellä.
Olkaa nyt hiljaa! Ette saa herättää Aune parkaa… Nukkukaa nyt
vain kiltisti lapsiparat… Huomenna äiti hommaa teille jotain
syötävää…
ANNI kuin itsekseen.
Aune kuolee… silloin kaikki olisi ollut turhaa. Ja nyt hän jo saisi
huomenna maitoa.
(Alkaa taas kävellä.)
LIISA istahtaa pöydän ääreen; puhuu kuin itsekseen.
Täytyy istahtaa hiukan, kun Aune on vähän levossa. Kovin kauan

ne siellä kokouksessa viipyvät. Kun nyt saisi tietää, mitä siellä…
ANNI tolkuttomasti matkien.
Niin, kunhan viipyisivät, että tietäisi… että ymmärtäisi.
(Liisa katsoo häntä ymmärtämättä.)
ANTTI tulee ovelle; tyytymättömällä hiukan epäluuloisella äänellä.
Mitä varten täällä padassa on kuumaa vettä? Keittääkö äiti

jotakin?
Onko äiti saanut perunia jostakin?
LIISA hermostuneena.
Hiljaa Antti! Etkö sinä vaikene! Herätät vielä pienemmätkin. Ja

etkö sinä näe, että siinä on — vain kuumaa vettä… Mene nyt
nukkumaan. — (Poika menee, Liisa nousee ja lausuu tuskan
valtaamana.) — Voi, kun ne lapsukaiset nyt vihdoinkin nukkuisivat…
(Lähtee väsynein askelin pojan jälkeen.)
(Kyökkiin kuuluu taas lasten hiljaista nyyhkytystä, joka vaikenee

vähitellen. Anni istahtaa pöydän ääreen ja antaa päänsä vaipua
käsiensä varaan. Pitkään aikaan ei kuulu muuta kuin pakkasen
terävä paukahdus.)
LIISA tulee uudestaan sisään; pysähtyy tuijottavin katsein ja alkaa
hiljaa, tuskallisesti:
Anni… minä en ymmärrä enää… Aune parka hengittää niin

kummallisesti — en uskalla enää katsoa… (Ristien kätensä.) —
Herra Jumala, auta, auta meitä! Kun ne nyt lakon lopettaisivat siellä
kokouksessa, niin saisi vielä apua… lääkkeitä, maitoa… — (Painaa
kasvat käsiinsä, nyyhkyttäen tukahtuneesti. Anni seisahtuu ja katsoo
häntä omituisen tylsästi kuin käsittämättä mitään.)
LIISA
Ja isä vaan ei anna lopettaa lakkoa vieläkään. — (Vaikeroiden.) —

Hän on niin järkähtämätön ja kova… Ja pikku Aune parka kuolee
sen tähden.
ANNI havahtuen.
Äiti, mitä te sanotte? — (Värisevällä äänellä.) — Ettekö te muista,

ettei isä ole itse kahteen vuorokauteen maistanut mitään… edes
leivänmurua…?
LIISA hätkähtää; ojentaa Annia kohden kätensä kuin rukoillen ja

änkyttää tuskallisesti katuen.
Anni kulta, ethän usko, että niin ajattelin… minä en ymmärrä enää
mitään, en muista mitään… Sinä et tiedä, miten minuun koski, kun
eilen saatiin se leipä lainaksi… eikä isä ottanut sitä pientäkään
osaansa, vaikka pyysin… — (Värähtäen.) — Teki niin pahaa, kun
hän hymyili ja käski minun vain syödä, jotta Aune saisi vähänkin
maitoa… Ja sentään minä, katsos Anni… en muista, en ymmärrä…
Kaikki on minulle niin kovin sekavaa… sekavaa…
ANNI hyväillen äitinsä päätä.
Niin juuri, äitiparka — kaikki on nyt sekavaa…
LIISA kuin itsekseen.
Ja sittenkään ei isä kertaakaan ole valittanut omasta puolestaan…

Aina ajattelee vain toisia, kaikkia — koko työväenluokkaa… Ei
koskaan itseään! — Huomaamattaan innostuen. — Sellainen on isä!
ANNI samoin.
Niin — isä on oikea mies!
LIISA alkaa yskiä terävästi; kun se lopulta laukoo, pyyhkäsee hän

silmiään ja istahtaa nääntyneenä. Äänettömyys.
(Ulkona paukahtaa taas pakkanen. Liisa katsahtaa jäiseen

ikkunaan, hänen ruumistaan puistattaa ja hän koettaa kietoa vanhaa
shaaliaan paremmin ympärilleen.)
LIISA
Täällä on vielä kylmempi kuin kyökissä. — (Levottomasti.) —

Kylmä sekin on… mitenkä ne lapset taas tämänkin yön
tarkenevat…? — (Nousee ja poistuu väsynein askelin.)
ANNI
Ottakaa tämä takki lasten päälle.
LIISA ovella.
Pidä nyt vaan itse… ettet vilustu.

ANNI
Kyllä se siellä paremmin tarvitaan.
(Antaa takin Liisalle ja istahtaa yksin pöydän ääreen. Äkkiä

ponnahtaa kuin iskun satuttamana, hypähtää seisoalleen kasvot
vääristyneinä ja alkaa kävellä.)
LIISA hetken kuluttua; mutisee hätäisellä, käheällä äänellä.
Kun ne nyt tulisivat kokouksesta, että saisi edes tietää…

Kaikkivaltias Jumala, toimita sinä, että lakko loppuisi! Että minun
pieni tyttöseni saisi apua, että hän eläisi, eläisi…! Herra
Jumala… Jumala!
(Tuo tukehtunut ääni katkeaa, niinkuin näkymätön, voimakas

koura olisi tarttunut hänen kurkkuunsa.)
ANNI näyttää kovin kiihtyneeltä ja katkeralta; hän seisahtuu ja

aukaisee jo suunsa sanoakseen jotakin, mutta pudistaakin päätänsä
ja vaikenee.
LIISA kuin itsekseen.
Mutta jos se sinun tahtosi on, niin en…
ANNI katkerasti.
Mutta itsehän te äitiparka äsken sanoitte, että Aune on

kuolemaisillaan sentähden, kun ei ole saanut maitoa! Ja eikö siihen
ole syynä patruuna, joka saa satojatuhansia, ja kuitenkin tahtoo
alentaa palkat niin, ettemme voi elää? Kuinka te siis voitte ajatella,
että jumala tahtoisi kiduttaa Aune-paran hitaasti kuoliaaksi — kun
kerran patruuna on syyllinen! Te syytätte sillä jumalaa!
LIISA katsoo Annia kuin sekopäinen ja ähkyy oudolla, hätäisellä

äänellä.
Lapsi… lapsi… ole vaiti, vaiti, vaiti! Sinä sekoitat minut! Mitä…
kuinka…? Puhutko, puhutko sinä totta…? Onko se totta…?
ANNI kuin havahtuen, kiihkeästi.
On, on… nyt minä vasta huomaan, ymmärrän, mitä isä on

puhunut! Jos jumala kerran on rakkauden jumala, kaikkitietävä ja
kaikkivoipa, niin hän ei sallisi tällaisen vääryyden vallitsevan, hän ei
antaisi pienen, viattoman Aunen kuolla nälkään! — Olisiko hän
määrännyt lukemattomat pienokaiset kärsimään ja nääntymään
nälkään… Ei, ei! Voi äiti, en osaa sitä oikein sanoa — mutta nyt
tiedän, tunnen, ettei jumalaa ole, koska maailmassa on vain
vääryyttä, eikä kukaan auta…
LIISA kokonaan hämmentyen.
Ei, se ei voi olla niinkuin sinä sanot! Ei — jumalan kädestä minä

olen ottanut kaikki kärsimykset, vaivat, köyhyyden… — (Tarttuen
päähänsä.) — Olisi liian kauheata ajatella, että toiset ihmiset olisivat
siihen syypäitä. Minä tulisin hulluksi… Ei, ei, se on vihollisen kavalaa
kuisketta, viettelystä. Pastori puhui juuri viime sunnuntaina tästä
asiasta…
ANNI kuohahtaen.
Pastori, pastori! Onhan isä monta kertaa selittänyt, miksi

tuollatavoin sanotaan — ja uskotteko te enemmän pastoria kuin
isää? Luuletteko, että isä tahtoisi viedä meitä harhaan? Ja kyllä isä
sen ymmärtää yhtähyvin kuin meidän juoppo pastorikin…
LIISA tukkii korviansa; keskeyttää tuskallisesti.
Anni, Anni, ole vaiti, vaiti! Sinä et ymmärrä… isän on vihollinen jo

saanut valtaansa — ja nyt se uhkaa sinutkin viedä… Ethän ole
koskaan ennen noin puhunut…?
ANNI
En ole ennen ymmärtänyt… Koettakaa tekin, äiti, ajatella, niin

järkenne…
LIISA keskeyttää kiivaasti.
Ei, ei! Minä en tahdo… en tahdo! Sanassakin sanotaan, että

maailmallinen järki on meidän pahin vihollisemme… saatanan
kavaluutta… Minä huomasin sen äsken. Ei, ei! Meidän täytyy aina
rukoilla, että jumala masentaisi järkemme että hän antaisi voimaa
kärsimään ja nöyrästi ottamaan kaiken vastaan hänen tahdostaan.
Hän on hyvyydessään kyllä kerran kaikki palkitseva.
ANNI vavahtaa kuin olisi koskenut johonkin saastaiseen ja kysyy

hitaasti.
Mutta pitääkö minun sellainenkin vastaanottaa jumalan tahdosta?
LIISA kuin ajattelematta.
Kun ei kerran tapahdu mitään hänen tahdottaan, niin ei kai

sekään. Ehkä Jumalalla on siinäkin joku tarkoitus, jota emme voi
käsittää ja jonka hän vihdoin kääntää hyväksi… Se juuri antaa
voimaa kestämään…
ANNI hypähtää seisaalleen silmät salamoiden ja koko hänen

olemuksessaan kuohahtaa vaivoin hillitty katkeruus ja suuttumus.
Rakastatteko te jumalaa? Sanokaa nyt äiti, rakastatteko te

jumalaa vai lapsianne?
LIISA hämmentyen.
Tietysti rakastan jumalaa ja lapsiani…
ANNI tarttuu äitinsä käsiin, katsoen tätä läpitunkevasti ja hänen

sa»ansa putoilevat kuin nuijaniskut.
Valhe! Jos äiti voi rakastaa sellaista olentoa, jonka tahdosta hänen
pieni lapsensa kuolee nälkään ja toinen häväistään hirveällä tavalla
— niin ei hän silloin niitä lapsia hiluistakaan rakasta. Sanokaa nyt
suoraan, kumpaa te rakastatte?
LIISA ähkyen tuskallisesti.
Voi Anni, Anni, mitä sinä…?
ANNI raskaasti syyttäen.
Äiti, teidän täytyy kerran katsoa sydämeenne ja huomata mitä

jumalisuutenne on! Minusta tuntui ihan kamalalta, kuu te lohdutitte
itseänne sillä että minulle on tehty näin jumalan tahdosta! Ajatelkaa,
mitä minulle on tehty. Katsokaa sormenjälkiä kaulassani, katsokaa
revityitä vaatteitani ja, ja… ettekö ymmärrä, että elämäni on
loppunut… Voi äiti, enkö sentään ole sama, jota olette pienenä
palleroisena pidellyt sylissänne? Rakastatteko te häntä, jos samalla
rakastatte sitä, joka on määrännyt teidän lapsellenne näin kamalan
kohtalon?
LIISA voihkien tukehtuneesti.
Anni… vaikene, vaikene jumalan tähden!
ANNI armottomasti.
Minä olen aina vaiennut, mutta nyt en välitä mistään! Minä tahdon
nyt sanoa. Te ette ole koskaan tahtonut edes ajatella, jotta saisitte
pitää uskonne. Mutta se ei ole uskoa, vaan ulkokultaisuutta. Silloin
on niin hyvä heittää kaikki jumalan syyksi! Ajatelkaa vaan itseänne,
äiti. Kun pikku Armas sairastui ja kuoli, sanoitte te sen tapahtuneen
jumalan tahdosta — ja kuitenkin hän sairastui siitä, kun kylmettyi
kirkkomatkalla teidän varomattomuutenne tähden! Nyt, kun Aune on
kuolemaisillaan, ei patruuna ole vähääkään syypää, vaan jumala. Ja
maailman inhoittavin rikoskin on teidän mielestänne jumalan
määräämä, vaikka…
LIISA ojentaa rukoillen kätensä ja pälyilee kauhistunein katsein

ympärilleen kuin vangittu eläin; sitten toistelee tolkuttomasti.
Se on totta, totta… sinä puhut totta, Anni! Mitä, mitä minun pitää
tehdä? Herra jumala, minä olen suuri syntinen, auta minua! Anni,
tyttöseni… pieni lapsoseni… voitko vielä antaa anteeksi…?
ANNI heltyen.
Voi äiti, enhän minä… On vain niin kamalaa ajatella, että jumala
olisi niin määrännyt… Tarkoitan vain, että te edes tässä asiassa
ajattelisitte, kuka on syyllinen…
LIISA syvästi katuen.
Niin Anni — minä olen syyllinen! Minä olen ollut kuin sokea — nyt
vasta huomaan, että olen kurjin ihmisistä, että minun täytyy alottaa
kokonaan uutta elämää. Minä olen kyllä suullani tunnustanut, mutta
en ole ajatellut… Sekin on totta mitä sanot pikku Armaasta. Ja sitten
vielä tämä viimeinen. Voi Anni, minä koetin uskoa sen jumalan
tahdoksi, peittääkseni oman rikokseni, tukehuttaakseni omantuntoni
äänen…
ANNI hämmästyen.
Mitä äiti — mitä te tarkoitatte?
LIISA masentuneena, katuvasti.
Niin lapsi parka… minä olen syyllinen sinun elämäsi turmioon.

Sinä et olisi mennyt, jos minä…
ANNI keskeyttäen.
Mutta ettehän te kehoittanut minua menemään.
LIISA
En kylläkään, mutta en myöskään jyrkästi kieltänyt… Jos sen

olisin tehnyt, et sinä olisi mennyt… Mutta kun se siinä kirjeessä
lupasi huolehtia, ettei Aunen tarvitse puutetta kärsiä, niin…
ANNI tuskallisesti.
Älä nyt äiti, ei se sinun syysi ollut! Olisihan minun kuitenkin

täytynyt mennä, kun se uhkasi toimittaa Kaarlon heti huomispäivänä
Siperiaan… Ja kun luulin sen ihmiseksi, että kun oikein puhun, niin…
(Ääni katkeaa kuin tukehtuen.)
LIISA peittää kasvot käsiinsä ja nyyhkyttää tukahtuneesti.
Niin — siinä se suurin rikokseni onkin… Sillä minä aavistin, olin

miltei varma, ettet onnistu, kun luulit mestarin luopuvan
vainotoimenpiteistään, kun oikein selität meidän surkean tilamme…
Mutta sitten tuli mieleeni: jos se kuitenkin myöntyisi, niin saataisi heti
Aunelle maitoa ja kaikki tulisi hyväksi… Heti taas ymmärsin, ettei se
kuule rukouksia, ja ken joutuu sen kynsiin siellä tyhjässä tehtaassa,
niin sille käy huonosti… Ja sitten, sitten…
ANNI väristen.
Mitä äiti… mitä sitten…?
LIISA käheästi, katkonaisesti.
Niin, sitten tuli mieleeni: kyllä jumala häntä suojelee… Ja jos jotain
tapahtuu, niin se on silloin jumalan tahto, eikä sille voi mitään… Voi
minua… vaikka minä hämärästi tunsin, ettei jumala sekaannu
tuollaiseen asiaan, jolleivät ihmiset estä… niin koetin uskoa toista,
ajatella, että kaikki on jumalan kädessä… Niin kammottavan musta
minun sydämeni on… Voi minua kurjaa, mitä minä teen… mihin
menen…?
ANNI
Älkää nyt äiti… ei sitä voi enää auttaa… — (Kumartuu nyyhkyttäen

käsiensä varaan.)

Governance Dilemmas in Canada North America and Beyond A Tribute To Stephen Clarkson Michele Rioux Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Governance Dilemmas in Canada North America and Beyond A Tribute To Stephen Clarkson Michele Rioux Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Governance Dilemmas in Canada,

North America, and Beyond: A Tribute

More information about this series at

ISSN 2523-7187 ISSN 2523-7195 (electronic)

1 Stephen Clarkson: Political Economist with a Global

Part II Challenges for Canadian Political Economy

6 In the Public Interest and the Uncertain Future

Part III A New North America

Part IV Epilogue: A Legacy of Interesting Questions

Alejandro Angel is a postdoctoral researcher in the Graduate Program

Gregory J. Inwood is a Full Professor in the Department of Politics

Stephen Clarkson: Political Economist

Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Michèle Rioux, Daniel Drache,

Abstract Stephen Clarkson made a difference in the ways Canadians

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

he devoted a great deal of energy in teaching and guiding students. He

Keywords Canadian political economy · North American integration ·

Stephen Clarkson died early in 2016 in Freiburg. Stephen was a Professor

panels at conferences and seminars, even in the yearly gatherings of Cana-

Trudeau’s classic liberal defence of Canadian federalism against René

While in today’s world the regional agreements Clarkson researched

together experts who work in the various areas related to Stephen’s

1.1 Plan of the Book

Finbow, “Constitutionalism by Stealth? CETA as an Exemplar of Clark-

to the problems with US foreign policy, there is also a need to re-evaluate

A Critical Appreciation of Stephen Clarkson:

Abstract This contribution offers a critical reflection on Stephen Clark-

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 13

Keywords Stephen Clarkson · Canadian foreign policy · Special

We collectively miss Stephen Clarkson but a retrospective intellectual

Organizationally much of the appeal derived from An Independent

2.1 Canada’s Potential

and utilized by practitioners and mainstream academics. While he comes

criticism of traditional Pearsonian conception of middle power diplomacy,

Stephen’s appreciation of the structural constraints facing Canada

services), bilateral relations and globalization are more powerful forces

United States in terms of institutions might be bad, but dealing with

2.2 The Deficiencies of Canadian Practice

circumstances Canadian mandarins had the will to do things differently

quiet diplomacy approach and offers as little concrete evidence of its

2.3 The Leadership Dilemma

world” leaders focused upon in his thesis and subsequent publication on

While a topic never allowed to be elaborated upon, Stephen was early

A North American Quest for Progressive

Abstract North America has been an experimental and influential model

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 27

Keywords NAFTA · Multinational Corporations—MNC ·

North America has been an experimental and influential model of trade

3.1 The Rise of the Powerful,

economic and political sovereignty. This was an argument made by Kari

frivolous complaints to critiques arguing the unequal right of workers to

3.2 NAFTA, Neoliberalism

The tragic misrule in North America’s three-state space and in most of

empowering market actors freed of responsibility for the destructive envi-

3.3 From North American Integration

CETA involves regulatory cooperation in many domains and certainly has

of States or a new articulation of regional, interregional, and world inte-

3.4 Conclusion: Pessimist,

One part of a response to growing inequality is to change the rules of

in the recent negotiations with Europe, the government signed on to a

North American economic integration will continue to be a contested

Niin, kyllä meidän täytyy auttaa häntä… vaikka miten…

KAARLO keskeyttää kiihtyneenä.