Abstract
ABSTRACTSince the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) creation in 1949, Canada has been a consistent contributor to the Alliance but has frequently been criticized as a free rider. This article asks: what fuels this perception about Canada’s commitments to NATO? To answer this question, we introduce a typology of burden-sharing commitments inspired by the conceptual literature on power (hard, soft and smart) to explain why Canada’s role within NATO may be understated or even inaccurately portrayed. This framework also offers insights into Canada’s reputation at NATO. We show Canada’s contributions to NATO are more consistent than is usually acknowledged, though contextual factors significantly impact perceptions about those commitments. We also suggest strategies through which Canada can aspire to be a “smarter” contributor to NATO. The implication of our argument is to consider the spectrum of contribution types (with our typology) to reframe the nature of Alliance commitments and burden-sharing debates.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call