Explaining Ascendancy and Decline

Abstract

is focusing on a most important debate-its place the world and its sense of perceived decline. Andrew Cohen among others has raised serious questions about Canada's deteriorating foreign policy role. A special issue of Policy Options gave wide currency to these concerns through the contributions of a number of its authors. Allan Gotlieb, for example, criticized romanticism the formulation of contemporary Canadian foreign policy and its lack of realism.1Prime Minister Martin, his overview of Canada's international policy statement, admitted earlier deterioration of capabilities and claimed that, the 1990s, there were more cutbacks as government made tough decisions to save the country from financial calamity. As a result, he acknowledged, our international presence suffered.2Robert Greenhill, former president of Bombardier International, nicely encapsulates the argument: Canada is generally seen as an internationally engaged country with a real of accomplishment. Yet, despite certain accomplishments over the last 15 years, the overriding theme from 1989 to 2004 is that of decline-decline reputation and relevance with the United States, leadership role development, and the international significance of peacekeeping and other international security activities.3Is in decline, as diplomats, scholars, and journalists have claimed? What does in decline mean? How would one know? Is this problem unique to Canada? What are its implications for the Canadian polity and citizens? These are some of the questions that I will attempt to address this article, using history, empirical evidence drawn from broader systemic experience, and theoretical reflection to provide answers.Clearly, is not alone the dynamics it has experienced. It is one country like others. However, as for all countries, aspects of its structural situation are unique and must be examined detail. In particular, the reasons for the sudden focus on relative the first decade of the 2ist century warrant much more careful assessment.Providing the foundation for this interpretation is an understanding of the vertical dynamic of state rise and the modern state system, which has been tested and refined by intensive scholarly research for over three decades.4 This framework for analysis, called power cycle theory, asserts that states follow a cycle of relative power and role over long time periods. These individual cycles are concurrently set motion by the differing levels and rates of growth among states the system. Together, these trajectories of state rise or map the changing structure of the international system. Uniquely among contending theories, power cycle theory explains both theoretically and terms of foreign policy behaviour the so-called tides of history that have been so traumatic statecraft. Moreover, foreign policy expectations and limits are tied to these trends and shifting trends on the state power cycles.This discussion regarding Canadian is thus an outgrowth of the larger research project on the assessment of the state power cycle and foreign policy role. Major arguments of power cycle theory will be employed to illuminate the situation which finds itself today. First, a few brief definitional distinctions will be helpful.On the one hand, can be absolute, such as when a government decides to reduce the number of troops it actually fields, or the amount of money it actually spends on defence. On the other hand, can be relative, as when the size of the army is shown to be decreasing comparison to that of other governments. Yet absolute power and relative power continue to be intermixed conceptually, and confused, even by some economists and historians. Not until the latter part of the 2oth century have the concepts of absolute and relative power been fully sorted out dynamic terms. …