Seeing the Glass Half Full

Abstract

John W. Holmes, optimism, and making of Canadian foreign policyOptimism is an instrument of policy.John W Holmes, 1983'In an age in which Canadian foreign policy appears to be increasingly defined by pessimism, it is nice to hear voice of optimism, all more so when this voice represents some of finest traditions in practice of Canadian foreign policy. There will always be those (and there is strong vein of them here in Canada) who believe that optimism has no place in practice of foreign policy. And certainly, while hard power and military calculus will always have role in foreign policy, they are not only factors, or necessarily most important instrument, particularly for small country like Canada. Holmes understood this intimately, and his clever and narrow construction of optimism as tool of policy (and not basis of policy) contains wisdom that could enrich our present foreign policy debate.This article has three purposes. First, I use an extreme example to demonstrate that optimism can indeed be an instrument of policy. Second, I try to dissect few of conditions under which it might be both necessary and successful. Finally, I focus on present state of Canadian foreign policy and assess what role, if any, optimism may have to play.Optimism - a disposition or tendency to look on more favourable side of events or conditions and to expect most favourable outcome or the belief that good ultimately predominates over evil in - is rare in world of international affairs. In classic international relations theory, citizens depend on their government to act rationally. In an anarchical society, states live under constant threat of being undermined, overrun, or exploited. Government should, if anything, look at world through pessimistic eyes in order to imagine and prepare for worst possible scenarios.This simple view of our country and world is, of course, contestable. Canada does not exist in state of total anarchy. Indeed, in both near abroad and across Atlantic we have friends and allies who generally act favourably towards us. Collectively, we agree to constrain our behaviours in mutually acceptable ways and as result enjoy somewhat narrower and more manageable (although not nonexistent) set of existential threats. So our relations with both our NATO allies generally and United States specifically mean that we must not always adopt most pessimistic outlook when confronting problems. Indeed, our history of cooperation with these allies has cultivated trust economy where we can have better than pessimistic expectations of their behaviour towards us, and one another, man some realist theories might predict. But even within these more nuanced structures of interstate relations there must be limits to optimism. The opportunities to exploit situation, for members to free-ride, and for balance of power to shift all mean that, as general rule, choosing optimism as basis for foreign policy would be unwise.This, however, is not what Holmes maintained. Holmes's reference to optimism is as an instrument. He saw optimism not as basis for foreign policy but as mental state we individually and collectively should not abandon as we tackle difficult issues. In his definition of optimism, Holmes argued that [a]n awareness of all difficulties is essential, but an attitude of confidence is indispensable.2 Holmes was, and is, correct. Optimism has long been an important tool for foreign policy for Canada and others, and an essential one at that.Holmes uttered this dictum in October 1983 during speech about United Nations, an organization that he believed at time had been jeopardized by actions of United States generally, and President Ronald Reagan specifically. And while Holmes had special ability to convince even most cynical to consider his ideas seriously, for those not yet persuaded that optimism is an instrument of foreign policy, United Nations is poor case study. …