‘Are We the Isolationists?’
| Published date | 01 March 2003 |
| Author | David G. Haglund |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200305800101 |
| Date | 01 March 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
DAVID
G.
HAGLUND
'Are
we
the
isolationists?'
North
American
isolationism
in
a
comparative
context
INTRODUCTION
A
recent
report
from
the
Standing
Senate
Committee
on
National
Security
and
Defence
has
tarred
Canada with
an
unusual
brush,
one
bearing
a
trademark
more
commonly
associated
with
the
country's
southern neighbour.
The
committee
members,
seeking to
mobilize
support
for
a
significant
increase in defence
spending,
do
not
mince
words,
for
they
believe
that,
as
a
result
of
a
long
and
sorry
period
of
underfunding
of
Canada's
military, the country
has
reached
a
point
at
which
it
is
appropriate
to
ask:
'are
we
the
isolationists?'"
There
are
two
ironies in
their
cri
de
covur.
The
first
is
evident
in
the
italicization
of
the
question's
pronoun.
Normally,
it
is
the United
States
that
is
so
often
viewed
suspiciously by
those who
worry
about
an
inward
turn
in
foreign
policy
in
North
American
(I
will exclude
Mexico
from
the
discussion
here,
though
when
it
comes
to
playing
the
ostrich
in foreign
and
security policy,
if
that is
what
is
implied
by
iso-
lationism,
it
needs
no
instruction
from
either
of
its
partners
in
the
North
American
Free
Trade
Agreement) accompanied
by
a
rejection
of
the
burdens
of
multilateralism.
Note
the
senators:
'Many
citizens
-
including
Canadians
-
have
found
cause
to
worry
over
the
years
that
Sir
Edward
Peacock
Professor
of
Political Studies,
Queen's
University
Kingston. The
author
is
grateful
to
the
Social
Sciences
and
Humanities
Research
Council
of
Canada
and
the
Security
and
Defence
Forum
of
Canada'Department
of]NationalDefence
for
research
funding.
i
Government
of
Canada,
Senate
Standing
Committee
on
National Security
and
Defence,
For
an
Extra
$130
Bucks...
Update
on
Canada's
Military
Financial
Crisis:
A
Viewfrom
the
Bottom
Up,
37th
parn,
2nd
sess
(Ottawa:
November
2002),
14.
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Winter
2002-2003
David
G.
Haglund
U.S.
leaders
might
back
away
from
this team
responsibility,
bending
to
the strong strain
of
isolationism
that
has
always
run
through
American
political
thought.
It
would
be
more
useful
if
thoughtful
Canadians
started directing
their
anxiety
at
the strong strain
of
isolationism
that
has
been
running through
Canadian
politicalpractice
in
recent
years.'2
The
second
irony
inheres
in
the
senators'
remedy
for
the
problems
stemming
from
chronic
underspending on
defence:
the withdrawal
of
all
Canadian
military
personnel from
duty
overseas
effective
upon
the
completion
of
current
tours,
after
which
there
should
be
a
moratorium
on
any
further
overseas
deployments
for at
least
two
years.
The
Canadian
forces
currently
deploy
about
2900
personnel
in
a
variety
of
coalition,
North
Atlantic
Treaty
Organization
(NATO),
and United
Nations
missions
outside
North
America.
The
single
largest
commit-
ment
is
some
1600
troops
serving
as
part
of
NATO's
Stabilization
Force
(SFOR)
in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
under
the
Canadian
designation
of
'Operation
Palladium.'
The
irony
here
is
that
one
historical
hallmark
of
(North)
American isolationism
was
an
unwillingness
or
inability
(or
both)
to
make
a
commitment
to
a
security
presence
overseas,
particu-
larly in
Europe;
thus
the senators
would
perforce
implement that
which they
denounce.
The
committee
members
are
not
oblivious
of
this
second irony, but
they
believe
that
a
failure
to
retrench
and
recover
will
render
the
forces
even
less
able
to
function
as
a
factor
in
international
security
in
years
ahead.
They
liken
the
means
by
which
such
recovery can
begin
to
a
tac-
tic
popularized
by
former
heavyweight
boxing
champion
Muhammed
Ali,
the 'Rope-a-Dope,'
which
saw
the fighter
cunningly
retrench
into
the
ropes,
whence
he
would
bob
and
weave,
avoiding
the
punches
of
his hapless
and
tiring
adversary,
all
the
while
restoring
his
own
strength
for his next, usually
decisive,
sally
of
punches.
The
committee
mem-
bers
advocate
a
similar
'strategic retreat,'
acknowledging
that
in
the
past
it
would
have
been
taken
as
conclusive
proof
that
the
country had,
indeed,
gone
isolationist.
Absent from
this
controversial
and
strongly worded
report,
which
restates
an
earlier
call
by
the
committee
for
an
immediate injection
of
$4
billion
in
defence
spending
(in
addition
to
the
current
amount
of
nearly
$12
billion),
is
any
inquiry
into what,
presumably, the
new
2
Ibid
(emphasis
in
original).
3
Ibid,
19.
2
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Winter2002-2003
To continue reading
Request your trial