Canada and Human Security: From the Axworthy Doctrine to Middle Power Internationalism

Abstract

Introduction One of main priorities of Canadian foreign policy in post-Cold War period has been promotion of human security. Human security, a term popularized by United Nations Development Program, refers to physical safety and material welfare of people. The human security agenda involves unilateral or multilateral governmental and non-governmental actions aimed at enhancing individual protection and well-being. In particular, agenda tackles those conditions--such as economic privation, civil strife, and political instability--that undermine quality of life of individuals. The international focus on human security is result of recognizing that fostering international peace and stability does not necessarily contribute to enhancing individual protection and welfare. In fact, human security agenda is based on premise that promotion of human security is more conducive to international peace and security than other way around. Lloyd Axworthy, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister from January 1996 to October 2000, championed human security and believed that Canada could play a central role in promoting it worldwide. In addressing prospects for human security, he noted that the road forward has many paths. What unites them is a very simple aspiration--security for all people, everywhere (2001, 2). This paper compares paths that Prime Ministers Jean Chretien and Paul Martin took to promote human security. I argue that from 1996 to 2000, Canada's approach to human security was influenced by Axworthy doctrine--a foreign policy model based on Axworthy's understanding of changes in international system and what they mean for promotion of security. Under leadership of Paul Martin (2003-2006), Canadian government moved closer to middle power internationalism, an alternative foreign policy model with a tradition dating back to early post-World War II period, which in turn changed manner Ottawa promoted human security. The human security approach informed by Axworthy doctrine was ambitious, setting its sight on a range of international endeavors all aimed at securing human well-being. Soft power and reliance on like-minded nations and non-governmental organizations were primary instruments of this approach. On other hand, human security approach guided by middle power internationalism attempted to narrow its focus, prioritizing among human security's various components. Moreover, approach placed greater emphasis on hard power, and Ottawa seemed more inclined to engaging and coordinating with great powers as a means of advancing its human security goals. As two foreign policy models, Axworthy doctrine and middle power internationalism are similar to extent that they are derived from Canada's tradition of active international involvement. In addition, both models recognize Canada's middling influence in international affairs and show a preference for working through multilateral channels. However, their differences lie in their understanding of international opportunities and constraints facing Canada as it promotes human security. The Axworthy doctrine holds that weaker states and non-state actors (global civil society) are capable of advancing agenda on their own. This has spurred belief that agenda could be pursued without securing great power cooperation through bargaining and compromising. Second, doctrine asserts that state-centered international system is being replaced by a norm-centered system where states' freedom of action and ability to maximize their self-interest are increasingly constrained by normative principles. The Axworthy doctrine, therefore, is based on notion that community of states can move beyond Hobbesian nature of international system. Finally, Axworthy doctrine contends that Canada's ability to achieve progress in human security agenda depends more on its possession of soft power than hard power assets. …