The Limits of Likemindedness

Abstract

This article compares foreign policies of two countries that are often classified as gidslanden, or guiding states. Canada and Denmark have accumulated reputations as internationalists through their commitments (rhetorically and actually) to human rights, multilateral institutions, international law, and development assistance. A synonym for gidsland is likeminded, a term coined in 19705 that has come to be used broadly in academic and policy discourse to describe a group of highly industrialized, middle power countries that are marked by an intense streak of humanitarianism and idealism in their foreign policies. On both Iraq 2003 and missile defence however, Canada and Denmark made very different choices in terms of how much to commit and how closely to be involved in these politically controversial initiatives led by United States. By comparing Canadian and Danish decisions, I probe just how deep likemindedness goes and what its limitations are.To achieve this, I take an inside-out approach. Most work that compares foreign policies of likeminded countries (and those who promote likeminded countries working together) advance certain domestic characteristics as source of this distinctive type of foreign policy behaviour. I begin by considering vogue concept of culture as one domestic source of foreign policy behaviour and compare it with a second school of thought that argues ideas culturalists focus upon are important, but they are filtered through competing ideologies; these ideologies are often carried by political parties. I argue that decisions in Canada and Denmark were not result of an institutionalized consensus on national interest and that there was no firm set of guiding principles for policy makers to follow. Rather, in each country there was real conflict in decision-making process between parties and individuals to right and to left of political spectrum.CULTUREStates that practice likeminded politics are said to be norm entrepreneurs, countries that attempt to change basic assumptions and functioning of international system.1 It has been said that these cosmopolitan impulses in Canadian and Scandinavian foreign policies are rooted in domestic political This was one of Cranford Pratt's major conclusions in his work explaining humane internationalism of Canada and several northern European countries: the lively social concern with moral principles...[is] to a varying degree significant in political cultures of all four countries.2 These domestic political cultures reflect a concern with social justice, building consensus, and actively promoting societal equality. As a result, being likeminded has become a brand to either describe or explain policies of these countries that search for ways to move international relations beyond egoism, power, and national interest. Through their foreign policies, likeminded countries seek to transform international system into one based on new norms of cooperation and consensus, a respect for human rights, and greater equality among states and individuals.Increasingly, scholars are exploring how culture affects military and security dimensions of foreign policy as well, sometimes called culture. While meanings and definitions of strategic culture are very diverse, I work from simple assumption that culture is military dimension of political culture.' Strategic culture might be considered similar to grand strategy. In their exploration of latter concept, Rosecrance and Stein have argued that strategy is often product of ideas emerging out of domestic environment. As a result, nature of a domestic society will have a definite impact on type of strategy that a country develops and how it pursues it.4 For likeminded countries, domestic impact on strategic policy may be seen to have influenced preference of these countries to use their armed forces for peacekeeping activities and to engage in promotion of doctrines such as human security and responsibility to protect. …