Constructing a middle power: Ideas and Canadian foreign policy

Leveraging talent: Exporting ideas in the Asian century

“…For example, Gecelovsky (2009) has convincingly shown Canada's middle-power status as dependent on ideational agenda setting. By tracing Canadian foreign policy since the Second World War, Gecelovsky (2009) finds the emergence of an epistemic community involving senior Foreign Service staff in their efforts to shape Canadian identity through the construct of government policy.…”

“…Yet while Canada has a long history as a leading trading nation, the government's foreign policy strategy has generally been grounded in middle-power politics (Lyon and Tomlin 1979;Cooper, Higgott and Nossal 1993;Evans 2009;Gecelovsky 2009). Such an approach has benefited from a policy agenda grounded in ideational strategy as explained through a constructivist lens.…”

“…As Nossal (1997) argues, such states are often identified by their responsibility, multilateralism, as well as a commitment and support for international institutions. They also tend to pursue "milieu" goals such as democracy or human rights as opposed to more tangible possessions such as the acquisition of territory (Wolfers 1962;Gecelovsky 2009). Yet some scholars have questioned the middle-power status, arguing it is little more than a myth.…”

“…By tracing Canadian foreign policy since the Second World War, Gecelovsky (2009) finds the emergence of an epistemic community involving senior Foreign Service staff in their efforts to shape Canadian identity through the construct of government policy. Not only did the construction of such foreign policy require substantial political support, it also involved an extensive PD campaign throughout Canada along with journalistic support.…”

Challenging Contemporary Notions of Middle Power Influence: Implications of the Proliferation Security Initiative for “Middle Power Theory”

“…These normative conjectures lead revisionists into problematic territory, simply because they are empirically discreditable. A number of studies convincingly refute the existence of a robust causal link between a given state’s size and its essential foreign policy interests (Thakur 1991; Ravenhill 1998; Stairs 1998; Chapnick 2000; Cooper 2002; Welsh 2004; Ungerer 2007; Gecelovsky 2009). As Ungerer summarizes, “There is little or no correlation between a country’s size or position in the international system and the conduct of its diplomacy.…”