Partnerships in Military Interventions and the Canadian Public

Abstract

Do Canadians’ preferences for Canada's role in the world depend on who Canada acts with and not just what Canada does? This question is particularly important in the context of overseas military intervention, which Canada never undertakes on its own. This paper presents a survey experiment measuring how support for a hypothetical peace operation changes with the leader of the mission. Missions led by the United Nations and by Canada's European allies receive more support than American-led missions do, especially among respondents who also favour peace operations for substantive reasons. The finding suggests that the UN and the European connection are alternative ways for a mission to benefit from a preference for multilateralism. While the results confirm some tension between American-led missions and internationalism, European partnerships may offer a way of reconciling an interest in alliances with the internationalist Canadian public.

Eurosphere or Anglosphere? Canadian Public Opinion on Brexit and the Future of Transatlantic Relations

“…There are strong reasons to expect that foreign policy values and affinities also shape Canadian public opinion on Brexit. One factor whose influence has been emphasized repeatedly in Canadian studies is internationalist values (Munton and Keating, 2001; Berdahl and Raney, 2010; Gravelle et al, 2014; Paris, 2014; McLauchlin, 2017). In the context of Brexit, such values might make people skeptical of Brexit, as it entails leaving a multilateralist project.…”

“…There is also evidence that affinities toward other countries shape how Canadians think about foreign policy. In a recent survey experiment, McLauchlin (2017) points to the influence of a “partnership logic” that sees military operations led by European allies enjoying more support than those conducted with the US. It is plausible to expect that such affinities, especially attachments to Europe and/or the UK, influence people's response to Brexit—for instance, whether they evaluate it as democratic or chauvinistic, liberating or (self-)destructive.…”

Opinion publique et politique de défense du Canada à l’ombre de la compétition des grandes puissances

“…Deuxièmement, plusieurs études cherchent à examiner dans quelle mesure les facteurs sociodémographiques, comme le genre, le niveau de scolarité et le revenu, façonnent les préférences des Canadiens sur les enjeux de politique de défen se (LANDRIAULT 2016 ;FITZSIMMONS, CRAIGIE et BODET 2014 ;MCLAUCHLIN 2017 ;KEEBLE et SMITH 1999) (KEEBLE et SMITH 1997). Le fait que nous n'ayons pas davantage exploré la façon dont le genre peut structurer les opinions des Canadiens en matière de politique étrangère, et plus particulièrement, sur les enjeux de politique de défense est problématique.…”

Canada in the United Nations General Assembly from Trudeau to Trudeau

“…Imperialism is a historical category, but here we use it to examine Canada's relationships to its putative mother countries, the UK and France, and these relationships’ individual and cumulative influence on Canadian foreign policy (see, for example, McLauchlin, 2017). We are particularly interested in the arguments involving two neologisms: “the Anglosphere” and “la Francosphère.” The former stands for an imagined and semi-institutionalized grouping of English-speaking empire-states whose influence on international order has been profound (Haglund, 2005; Vucetic, 2011a, 2011b; Mycock and Wellings, 2019).…”

“…The sample is meant to capture a variety of knowledge claims concerning Canada's European connections in foreign policy: major powers and fellow G7 members (for example, Germany), as well as fellow liberal internationalist middle powers-including those standing outside the European Union (EU) (Norway) and outside NATO (Sweden). 5 Imperialism is a historical category, but here we use it to examine Canada's relationships to its putative mother countries, the UK and France, and these relationships' individual and cumulative influence on Canadian foreign policy (see, for example, McLauchlin, 2017). We are particularly interested in the arguments involving two neologisms: "the Anglosphere" and "la Francosphère."…”