Canada in the World: Canadian International Policy

Discussion Group

Topic : Showcasing Canadian Culture and Know-how Abroad - Now Closed

Discussion Synopsis

Foreign Affairs Reply to Summary

Discussion

Moderator - May 9, 2005 EST (#12 of 12)
The eDiscussion "Showcasing Canadian Culture and Know-how Abroad" is now closed. The debate centred around two broad questions:

- What role does Canadian culture and know-how play in our foreign policy?
- How might the government best promote Canadian talent and expertise in the world?

Thank you to all participants for their thoughtful contributions. A summary of the discussion will be posted online shortly, followed by an official response by Foreign Affairs Canada.


La discussion en ligne « Promouvoir la culture et le savoir-faire canadiens » est terminée. Le débat était centré sur deux questions :

- Quel rôle la culture et le savoir-faire canadiens jouent-ils dans notre politique étrangère?
-Comment le gouvernement pourrait-il promouvoir le mieux les artistes et experts canadiens dans le monde?

Merci aux participants pour leur contribution réfléchie. Un résumé de cette discussion sera disponible bientôt, suivi de la réponse officielle d'Affaires étrangères Canada.

Grahn Eric - May 7, 2005 EST (#11 of 12)

When I first wrote in haste, I hoped to spur discussion, as there were no submissions posted at the time. I agree with a number of the posts that highlight the importance of inter-cultural exchange, student experiences abroad, and so on. Quite rightly, this is not one-sided. We too learn from these experiences. Whilst these are important, I am quite concerned about the lack of responses seeking to push DFAIT into thinking and acting outside the current policy paradigm.

In particular, I was interested to see the degree to which the Department of Foreign Affairs could be challenged to think differently. For instance, if we are serious about promoting Canadian culture, know-how, and 'values' does this require substantially new techniques than the typical means currently used (i.e. Team Canada; funding small expos of Canadian art and culture; advertising Canada as a tourist destination; and so on)? I suggested that if DFAIT were serious then this would in part require significant inter-departmental collaboration in order to generate the money required to undertake this challenge in a serious manner (use high technology, communications and media). To do so, would require DFAIT working in a cooperative manner with other departments. By doing so together, each can more powerfully fulfill their mandates.

Secondly, I also suggested that perhaps we could work with other likeminded states to perform these tasks. Once again, this could offset the high costs that may be involved. Again, all may potentially benefit by participating. Although I suggested a global reach for a collaborative media network, this is already undertaken in other realms. For instance, DND increasingly aims to develop force structures capable of joint and combined operations--under the rubric of 'interoperability.' Perhaps, Canada can more effectively work with a small number of other states to promote our culture and know-how while they do the same. Can DFAIT learn from the notions of 'jointness' and 'interoperability' used by the military both between the services but also with our allies? Is this not applicable in non-military realms of diplomacy, culture, etc.? We all recognize that there is a revolution in military affairs, but isn't if fair to suggest that in fact we are also seeing a revolution in foreign affairs? What does this mean for DFAIT? What does it suggest we do? I was suggesting that interdepartmental and maybe even inter-state collaboration in projects is required for successfully dealing with projecting Canadian culture and know-how abroad.

I agree with many of the replies that suggest that we need more clarification on the questions provided, but the open questions ARE the point. They are meant to be open-ended and vague so that we can have a wide-ranging debate. That being said, I think that we should be careful about how we think about these issues. For instance, I am quite concerned about how the relationship between culture and values has been conceptualized.

One respondent raised the issue of whether it is more appropriate to speak of Canadian values rather than culture due to the diversity of the country. In some respects, I agree but not completely. Values are just as contestable. If we agree that Canada values democracy or human rights we quickly agree. But what is the substantive content of those terms? Which rights? When? How should we do this? I suspect that if we started to discuss these in further detail we would end up in as heated a debate about “values” as we do about “culture”!

It was interesting to note that one person argued that 'Canadian values generally represent some kind of adherence to international norms and standards on human rights and international law.' If this is the case, then basically we have managed to say that the rule of law is a core Canadian value. Fine, but reach deeper. It seems to me that Canada also wants to see these already accepted standards and norms expanded, changed, and enhanced. Yes, international norms and standards are important and need to be respected. But, I worry that this seemed to be the only value on offer and it was conceived of in a highly conservative manner in at least one response (barring further expressions on behalf of self-interest in the post). This sounds as if self-interest, culture, and values are divisible when they are not. Nothing could be further from reality; our interests reflect our values and our culture. Furthermore, international order and stability is important, but so is creatively trying to develop it beyond where it already is.

That being said, the respondents are right to be concerned about DFAIT thinking of Canadian culture as some form of checklist. In this respect, I think it is important to explore the relationship between culture and values more closely.

In my view, culture is much wider and more versatile that a list of values. In my view, culture often in its most innocuous expression reflects values. I'll explain in a moment. When I speak of culture, I do not necessarily want us to envision Canadian culture as something neat and tidy. Of course, it is quite heterogeneous and we want this expressed. Instantly, this harkens back to the issue of what means are capable of reflecting Canadian culture and its heterogeneity/multiculturalism. (This is one of the benefits of the global media channels because it can provide programming showing off diversity. Of course, other means may be able to do so as well.)

When most anthropologists or cultural scholars think about culture they do not just have in mind aspects of high culture, the arts, and learning any longer. Nor do they suppose that culture is some sorts of essentialist thing that is unified, incapable of allowing for diversity, or static. They mean more than that. For instance, Clifford Geertz argues that “the concept of culture I espouse”is essentially a semiotic one. Believing with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun. I take culture to be those webs”?(The Interpretation of Cultures, pp.4-5). I will not extend this into a long diatribe of quotations from scholars ranging from Arnold, William, Hall, Bourdieu, through the postmoderns on culture. Instead, what I am suggesting is that culture is a web reflects significance, meanings, symbols, and values.

All sorts of practices reflect our values. When we send peacekeepers abroad they reflect our values. They don’t just reflect this at the surface level in terms of where and when we send them. How we choose to respond also reflects our cultural values. Does a certain crisis merit the response of the full weight of the Canadian state, a few million dollars from CIDA, or silence? Our culture”indeed, our values”are reflected in how CIDA, peacekeepers, and NGOs perform during their operations. Did we not have serious questions raised about “Canada” when some Canadian peacekeepers acted deplorably in Somalia? It made us ask not only about military culture but Canadian culture and values. In other words, Canadian culture is much more present at multiple levels than we frequently have in mind throughout the web discussion. The webs are multiple and touch on other strands in frequently unexpected ways.

Obviously, not all Canadians reflect Canadian culture in the same way. Why can’t multiculturalism be part of this? Are not all of our webs connected in some way? If not, this is quite worrying for the future. Multiculturalism should not be conceived as if it is at the expense of Canadian culture, but part of Canadian culture.

Previously, we used an example from peacekeeping to reflect on culture in a more traditional manner. However, in my previous post, I recommended working to create a global Canadian presence in the media to reflect Canadian culture in a different manner. In this form, Canadian culture and values are on display in quite innocuous ways that may more readily display Canadian multiculturalism. For instance, a television show may show the way we speak to women, how we treat people of other races, and so on. This happens in small ways throughout a television show beyond the immediate message of the particular episode we are watching. We may be watching a Canadian legal drama watching a story of how the police following the rule of law try a criminal. When the case comes to trial the presiding judge is a woman, the defence lawyer is Chinese-Canadian, and so on. The devil of Canadian culture and values on display is literally in the details. This is precisely why I was interested in trying to see DFAIT work with other departments and crown corporations in this area. Of course, this could also be expressed through Canadian art, stage productions, film, etc.

I would like to end on a sidenote. I have little problem with Canadian responses differing according to the mandate, situation, and so on. The Canadian flag can be more or less present as a result. However, I was particularly surprised by the previous discussion on Rwanda. Of course, this was a problem for the Security Council. However, there was hardly entrenched resistance to acting in Rwanda by the Americans. At least, in the typical way we would expect in the Security Council where the veto appears to preserve Great Power interests in a geo-political sense. The Americans responded reflecting the “lesson” of Somalia and the failure of Europe in the former Yugoslavia. The Americans resisted because they knew that no other states had shown the willingness to take-up the mandate in a serious manner. I seriously doubt that the Americans would have been recalcitrant if Canada and a number of other middle powers had committed the necessary resources to deal with Rwanda. In other words, yes it was a Security Council failure, but it was also a failure of the international community as a whole including Canada. Mandates are provided by the vote of the Security Council, but the diplomacy and commitments required are already in play well before then.

In comparison, Darfur is actually much more tricky due to the potential resistance of the Chinese in the Security Council. The politics of oil in the south of Sudan makes this more complex, although I suspect that a specific resolution that provided a mandate limited by strict geographic coordinates may allay Chinese concerns. The key issue in Darfur is to find a resolution that keeps Chinese “interests” in the South separate from the Darfur region. This may be possible. Finally, I would strongly disagree with the notion that “the reason why Ottawa does not send peacekeepers into every conflict around the world has to do with the legality of doing so.” In this respect, the interventions in some parts of the former Yugoslavia have been of very questionable legality. Not all of the interventions received approval by the UN Security Council. As a result, this became a NATO operation. In principle, legality matters, but not completely. As an aside, I would also suggest that if we ever witness another war between great powers, it probably wouldn’t pass the Security Council. In some situations, an international mandate from the UN will not occur.

Hamza Abdulbasit - May 3, 2005 EST (#10 of 12)

The meaning of the initial question begs further clarification, for I would argue that the term culture is often misused when it is applied to Canada. Given the diversity of the Canadian population it is more appropriate to speak of the role of Canadian values in our foreign policy as opposed to culture. Given the above, it then becomes necessary to define what we mean when we speak of Canadian values. Roughly speaking, we can all agree that Canadian values generally represent some kind of adherence to international norms and standards on human rights and international law. These are included in Canadian foreign policy where they compliment and intersect our interests.

This formulation then lends itself to offer a reply to some of the comments received thus far, which are also expressed by the general public from time to time. Firstly, there is always the expectation that since Canada is a democratically stable country, it should or ought to participate in as many international peacekeeping missions as possible. Earlier, the example of Rwanda was brought up and Iraq was also mentioned as an arena where we have apparently failed. It is important to note that while we may have a strong desire to assist other states, the failure to assist is often a manifestation of our own values/culture and policy preferences. The reason why Ottawa does not send peacekeepers into every conflict around the world has to do with the legality of doing so. Rwanda was not a Canadian failure as much as it was a failure of the UN Security Council to act decisively. That had much to do with American efforts to refrain from committing the Security Council to action, as well as the diversion tactics used by the Rwandan representative in the Security Council. Thus, in the absence of an internationally recognized mandate, Canadian deployment in Rwanda would have violated our own commitment to international norms and laws. The same logic applies to Iraq, we were not part of the war because it was/is an illegal war. It must be noted that we ARE involved in the rebuilding efforts through our commitment to the creation of a local Iraqi security infrastructure as part of a combined NATO effort.

Thus Canadian values dictate the sort of foreign policy we have regarding the commitment of peacekeepers. We refrain from involvement in every conflict given the absence of a legally (read internationally) recognized mandate. Of course, we are often restricted financially and logistically, but those impediments are secondary to the primary role that values and interests play in policy formation. This is evident in Canada?s assistance to the African Union to help monitor the Darfur Crisis. We have committed ourselves despite being unable to send forces. This demonstrates that we do not always need to have a Canadian flag on the ground to help people, if that IS our goal. Canada should continue to explore avenues through which it can prevent Rwanda like scenario?s without sacrificing our commitment to our values (previously defined as an adherence to international law and standards where foreign policy is concerned), as such, the Responsibility to Protect offers one such solution.

The second question also requires some clarification. What is it that we mean by 'talent' and 'expertise' exactly? Is this reference strictly confined to some technological sector, or are we talking about students, teachers, artists, business people, and other professionals? Under any definition, we must not view the promotion of this 'talent' as one sided. Rather, we must promote the circulation of talents and ideas. Admittedly, Canadian can learn as much as they can teach. For this, it is advisable that the government work to fund more exchange programs for students and young professionals as these opportunities allow individuals to apply what they know in an international setting while learning new and valuable skills. However, for the cycle to be complete, it is important to create domestic opportunities for individuals returning from international experiences. It makes little sense to send Canadians abroad if there is no market for them once they return. In terms of promoting Canadian know-how abroad, the most obvious answer is financial commitment to this goal. There is little incentive for a foreign country to host Canadians if they must do so out of their own pocket.

Hamza Abdulbasit
MA Candidate
Department of Political Science
Wilfrid Laurier University

nicole lavergne-smith - April 23, 2005 EST (#9 of 12)
Cultural diversity is the cornerstone of Canadian identity. Canada has gone to great lengths to protect its languages, its cultures, and its minority groups. We need only to look at the many policies, conventions and the Department of National Heritage to realize the importance the Canadian government, reflecting the will of Canadian citizens, places on cultural diversity.

Canada must adhere to the goals outlined by the Multiculturalism Act; “namely, to preserve and enhance multiculturalism in Canada, to facilitate the preservation of culture and language, to fight against discrimination, to foster awareness and comprehension of cultures, and to promote institutional changes at the federal level that will reflect the multicultural dimension.”

It was written in Linguistic and Cultural Diversity In The Context of Economic Integration Of the Americas that our cultural cohesiveness is threatened by the United States, but I would argue that our culture is not and should not remain cohesive. We have a wide range of cultures and cohesiveness should not be the ultimate goal.

We cannot be one-dimensional when it comes to cultural diversity. Canadian identity is diverse and the policies and approach that Canada undertakes must be multifaceted to reflect diversity. Therefore, it is imperative to encourage the United States to understand our cultural mosaic and embrace their own diversity.

One of Canada’s biggest challenges is to find the balance between access to culture from around the world while maintaining a thriving domestic cultural industry. At this point in our history, this balance will not occur naturally and the Canadian government must create programs to ensure the vitality and vibrancy of our cultural industry’s existence by supporting our cultural industries.

Support, in this context, does not mean that we need to protect our culture. Indeed, it does not mean we have to protect our cultural artifacts either. Protectionism is a term that generates far too many negative connotations. By reinforcing the image that we need to protect our cultures, we are reinforcing the image that our culture is weak. Therefore, support requires that our cultural capital reflect the quality, character, and interests of its citizens.

While globalization is a force that cannot be denied, it can be a very positive force for a country such as Canada because it means we have more intense contact with cultures from all around the world. This reinforces the strength and legitimacy of the Canadian mosaic. However, our multicultural way of life is threatened if American culture takes a predominant position and masks the influence of other beneficial cultures.

Principally, Canada is one of the countries that adopted the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. It also signed four major copyright agreements: The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, the Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Although all of these agreements are fundamentally important for the protection of our cultures, it is necessary to co-operate and negotiate with those infringing upon Canadian culture, particularly the United States.

The United States sees culture as a point of divergence between our two countries according to a background note they published regarding Canada-US relations. In contrast, Canada did not admit there was a cultural problem in a similar report. The protection of our cultures, I would argue, is more important to Canada than security.

One element, which currently exists in our foreign policy, is the “cultural exemption clause” in the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Media Awareness Network explains: “Canada's ability to invoke the cultural exemption clause is also limited by terms in the agreement that allows the U.S. to retaliate against Canada if it moves to protect a cultural industry. Under Article 2005(2), the U.S. may take "measures of equivalent effect in response" to Canada's actions.” The United States can retaliate if a US investor is harmed.

Canada has left this clause relatively untested. It is one thing to talk about the importance of our cultural diversity it is another to actually take action to support it. Items such as the cultural exemption clause demand time and energy that could be used to actively promote our culture instead of trying to protect it. As Rachel Pulfer points out in the Ottawa Citizen: The cultural exemption clause “allows Canadian taxpayers the privilege of subsidizing Hollywood North, to the tune of 11 per cent of a movie's total labour costs. So now we have a movie sector that actively encourages branch-plant American movie-making, churning out gaffers, grips and assistant cameramen by the thousands -- but few producers, distributors or directors to broker the deals and grow the studios that will keep these workers employed if Hollywood pulls out.”

We must market and promote Canada as something that Americans can aspire to. This will not be done without huge subsidies in our cultural industries so Canadians can have the confidence to negotiate and influence Americans directly. However, we must ensure those subsidies are benefiting the Canadian labour force and not Hollywood North. To market Canada and for Americans to understand us better it is important that we focus on other sectors.

Two countries prominently deserve our attention. Firstly Jamaica for its failure to protect their musical talent against recruitment from major worldwide music companies. Canada needs to ensure that it has quality music publishers to ensure that our artists are on equal footing with artists who sign contracts in the United States. Secondly, South Korea needs to be examined because of its incredible success in their film and music industry. As Peter Rowe points out, seven years ago they instituted a quota and it revolutionized the countries movie going habits. Many American movies are now greeted by empty cinemas. Rowe points out that every theatre in Canada currently collects a 7% levy of GST on every ticket. Rowe suggests movie theatres should keep the levy provided they play a certain amount of Canadian movies. He goes on to say that this might encourage Canadian theatres to go into the Canadian production business. This could form a potential market for Canadian films.

Admittedly, when the 1971 Canadian content regulations came into effect, music produced left something to be desired. But today, Canada has a thriving music industry, with better hairdos, that have had much success across the border. This can be duplicated in our film industry. France, Germany, Spain and Britain all have movie quotas and their films have considerable success domestically and abroad, according to Rachel Pulfer.

James Jenson - April 20, 2005 EST (#8 of 12)
Canada is one of the world's wealthiest nations in the democratic world. It is a country that believes in freedom, justice, liberty and the rule of law. Over it existence Canada has defended these beliefs on behalf of others that could no longer or were un- able to defend themselves. Canada has stood up to be counted on the international stage, in the Political arena, at the United Nations, Peace Keeping and yes in the sacrifice of lives in these areas as well as in past wars. There is no shame to hang on Canada by anyone in this world for in-action when call upon to act.

Canada is a Multi-Cultural society unlike its neighbor to the south the United States of America, which is self described as a Melting Pot society.

The concept of Canada as a Multi-Cultural society can be interpreted in different ways:

- Deceptively (as a sociological fact)

- Prescriptively (as ideology)

- From a political perspective (as policy)

- As a set of inter group dynamics (as process)

As fact, multiculturalism in Canada refers to the presence and the persistence of diverse racial and ethnic minorities who define themselves as different and who wish to remain so. Ideologically, multiculturalism consists of a relatively coherent set of ideas and ideals pertaining to the celebration of Canada's cultural mosaic. Multiculturalism at the policy level is structured around the management of diversity through formal initiatives in the federal and provincial and municipal domains. Finally, multiculturalism is the process by which racial and ethnic minorities compete with central authorities for achievement of certain goals and aspirations. Thus, Canada has been largely free of racial tension.

Canada is founded upon principals that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms equally to citizens and non citizens set out in its subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

1. Freedom of conscience and religion

2. Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the Press and other media of communication

3. Freedom of peaceful assembly

4. Freedom of association

This explains why Canadians have a different way of looking at themselves
and the world around them, especially sociologically!

Last Updated:2006-12-18

Top of Page

Important Notices