Canada, the United States, and the Organization of American States

Abstract

Insufficient scholarly attention has been accorded Canada's relationship with the Organization of American States (OAS), notwithstanding the fact that it has been a full-fledged member for almost ten years now. Not surprisingly, then, even less attention has focused on the nature and extent of the Canada-U.S. dynamic within the hemispheric bode.(1) Furthermore, this important and complex relationship, especially within a body long considered to be dominated by the United States (even more so than the United Nations), goes to the heart of much of the literature on Canadian foreign policy. And given the importance of this bilateral relationship for Canada, not to mention its often-controversial nature and its sensitivity to most Canadians, one would have expected otherwise. This is all the more striking in light of the fact that most of the opposition to Canada's decision to join the Organization was premised on a belief that it would unnecessarily harm and complicate Canada's overall relations with its superpower neighbor. There is no doubt that the issues on the OAS policy agenda create a number of potential opportunities for sharp disagreement--as well as cooperation and collaboration--between the two countries. In fact, with difficult and integral hemispheric questions about democracy, human rights, hemispheric free trade and the environment, there is certainly no shortage of possible policy areas in which to increase bilateral tension. The thorny question of Cuba (particularly in light of the Helms-Burton law) and the early 1990s constitutional crisis in Haiti stand out as two obvious examples, which clearly had (and continue to have) negative implications for the wider Canada-U.S. relationship.(2) Having said that, there also exist a number of issues areas in which both countries tend to share a common approach and similar objectives, while perhaps disagreeing over the appropriate mix of tactics and strategy to achieve these same inter-American goals. One needs to be careful, of course, about drawing too many firm conclusions about Canadian sovereignty or national independence from any evaluation of its behavior or record of performance within the OAS. In fact, how Canada has conducted itself within the body--including a tendency to take similar positions to that of the United States--may tell us very little about Canada's political independence, or lack thereof. Similarly, when Canada has adopted an opposite or different position from that of Washington, one should not automatically assume that this is a sure sign of autonomy or foreign policy independence. Still, few can question the fact that the United States plays a central role (an understandably so) in the formulation of Canada's overall foreign policy thrust--and this is no different in the case of Canada's conduct within the OAS. What is important to remember, however, is not the inescapable presence of the United States (and thus an important foreign policy or external determinant), but how and why Canadian officials--given the centrality of the U.S. factor--arrive at their policy decisions and positions within the hemispheric body. Accordingly, this article sets out to examine the Canada-U.S. dynamic within the context of the OAS--an area of Canadian foreign policy virtually ignored by the academic community. By doing so, it attempts to make a meaningful contribution to the extant literature on Canadian-American relations by grappling with two important questions. First, what exactly is the nature and extent of interaction between officials from both countries within the OAS? Secondly, and more important, has Canada's behavior or actions within the hemispheric body reflected policy independence or subservience vis-a-vis the United States? Thus, this article seeks to build upon previous ground-breaking research by Kal J. Holsti on diplomatic culture and adds a new and interesting layer of empirical analysis by focusing on the Canada-U. …