Canada’s feminist foreign policy and human security compared
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702020954547 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essay |
Scholarly Essay
International Journal
Canada’s feminist foreign
2020, Vol. 75(3) 367–382
! The Author(s) 2020
policy and human
Article reuse guidelines:
security compared
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020702020954547
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Heather Smith
University of Northern British Columbia
Tari Ajadi
Dalhousie University
Abstract
Canadian federal governments regularly try to craft a unique image of Canada in the
world; however, the Trudeau government’s embrace of feminist foreign policy feels
strikingly similar to the late 1990s when human security was embraced. There seems
to be a “sameness” in the promotion of a progressive values-based discourse that has
transformative potential for Canadian foreign policy. The question is, does this sense of
sameness bear out when we dig into the comparison? Drawing on speeches given by
government ministers; policy documents, such as the Feminist International Assistance
Policy (FIAP); media; and scholarship, we compare and contrast analyses of the
sources of the human security and feminist foreign policy discourses and then identify
common critiques. We also examine two significant differences. We find there is
consistent Liberal articulation of values-based discourses and policies that have
unmet transformative potential. In both cases, style and rhetoric are privileged over
transformative change.
Keywords
Human security, feminist, Canadian foreign policy, feminist foreign policy, gender
Corresponding author:
Heather Smith, University of Northern British Columbia, Global and International Studies, 3333 University
Way, Prince George, British Columbia, V2N 4Z9, Canada.
Email: heather.smith@unbc.ca
368
International Journal 75(3)
In 1996, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, stated that
“changing times have set for us a new broad agenda, which includes focusing on
the security needs of individuals—in other words, on sustainable human security.”1
On 6 June 2017, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, declared, “we are
safer and more prosperous . . . when more of the world shares Canadian values. Those
values include feminism, and the promotion of the rights of women and girls.”2 While
over 20 years apart, these two Liberal ministerial declarations, and the broader dis-
courses of human security and feminist foreign policy of which they are part, are
examples of the federal government’s articulation of the mantras which are designed
to capture our attention and foster a unique image of Canada in the world.
Canadian federal governments regularly try to craft a unique image of Canada
in the world; however, the Trudeau government’s embrace of feminist foreign
policy feels strikingly similar to the late 1990s, when human security was
embraced. There seems to be a “sameness” in the promotion of a progressive
values-based discourse that has transformative potential for Canadian foreign
policy. The question is, does this sense of sameness bear out when we dig into
the comparison? Drawing on speeches government ministers, policy documents,
such as the Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), media and scholar-
ship, we compare and contrast the human security and feminist foreign policy
discourses. We find there is consistent Liberal articulation of values-based dis-
courses and policies that have unmet transformative potential. In both cases,
style and rhetoric are privileged over transformative change.3
The following section provides brief synopses of the human security and fem-
inist foreign policy discourses, in which we draw on ministerial and federal gov-
ernment statements and texts. Here we assume government speeches and
documents are also inherently political and function to shape and articulate
identities, set policy parameters, and define boundaries of legitimacy.4 We then
1.
United Nations General Assembly, “Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs, 7th Plenary
Meeting,” A/51/PV.7, New York, 24 September 1996, https://undocs.org/en/A/51/PV.7 (accessed
15 October 2019).
2.
Global Affairs, “Address by Minister Freeland on Canada’s Foreign Policy Priorities” (speech,
Ottawa, 6 June 2017), Government of Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2017/
06/address_by_ministerfreelandoncanadasforeignpolicypriorities.html (accessed 15 October 2019).
3.
Discussions of transformative change in critical and feminist scholarship can be found in Rebecca
Tiessen and Emma Swan, ‘‘Canada’s feminist foreign policy promises: An ambitious agenda for
gender equality, human rights, peace, and security,’’ in Norman Hillmer and Philippe Lagasse, eds.,
Justin Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Policy: Canada Among Nations 2017 (Cham, Switzerland:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 950–1042 (digital edition); Karin Aggestam and Jacquie True,
“Gendering foreign policy: A comparative framework for analysis,” Foreign Policy Analysis 16,
no. 2 (2020): 1–20; Miguel de Larrinaga and Claire Turenne Sjolander, “(Re)presenting landmines
from protector to enemy: The discursive framing of a new multilateralism,” Canadian Foreign
Policy Journal 5, no. 3 (1998): 125–146; J. Marshall Beier and Ann Denholm Crosby,
“Harnessing change for continuity: The play of political and economic forces behind the Ottawa
process,” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 5, no. 3 (1998): 85–103.
4.
For more information on discourse analysis please see Senem Aydın-Du¨zgit and Bahar Rumelili
“Discourse analysis: Strengths and shortcomings,” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2019): 285–305, available
at: http://www.allazimuth.com.
Smith and Ajadi
369
highlight five broad similarities of the sources of foreign policy and identify five
similar critiques. The critiques are important because they provide insights into the
limits of values-based foreign policy discourses and highlight obstacles to transfor-
mative change. We also compare two apparent differences in context and discourse.
In our conclusion, we reflect on the obstacles to transformative ideas, pose questions
for further investigation, and end with a hopeful reminder to embrace agency.
Parameters of human security and feminist foreign policy
The human security discourse, in the Canadian federal government context, is
often associated with the tenure of Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy,
between 1996 and 2000. As a term associated with Canadian foreign policy, human
security pre-dated Axworthy’s appointment and can be found four times in the
1995 statement on Canadian foreign policy, Canada in the World, as well as in a
statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs Andre Ouelett to the UN in 1995.5
Axworthy started with a broadly conceived vision of human security, “which
included multiple referent threats and the elevation of the individual in the con-
ception of human security.”6 Over time, the definition promoted had increasingly
more narrow terms of reference. In a 1999 concept paper titled Human Security:
Safety for People in a Changing World, human security was defined as “safety for
people from both violent and non-violent threats.”7 In 2000, another statement on
human security was released. In Freedom From Fear: Canada’s Foreign Policy for
Human Security, human security was defined as “freedom from pervasive threats
to people’s rights, safety or lives,”8 and five priorities were identified. The five
priorities were protection of civilians, peace support operations, conflict preven-
tion, governance and accountability, and public safety.9
After the departure of Axworthy in 2000, another version of Freedom From
Fear: Canada’s Foreign Policy for Human Security10 was published in 2002 under
5. Government of Canada, Canada in the World (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1995), 25, http://
gac.canadiana.ca/view/ooe.b2644952E/1?r=0&s=1 (accessed 15 October 2019) and United
Nations General Assembly, “Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andre Ouellet, 7th
Plenary Meeting,” A/50/PV.7, New York, 26 September 1995, 5, 9, https://undocs.org/en/A/50/
PV.7 (accessed 15 October 2019).
6. Heather A. Smith, “Diminishing human security: The Canadian case,” in Sandra J. MacLean,
David R. Black, Timothy M. Shaw, eds., A Decade of Human Security: Global Governance and New
Multilateralisms (Aldershot: Palgrave, 2006), 74; see also David R. Black, “Mapping the interplay
of human security practice and debates: The Canadian experience,” in Sandra J. MacLean, David
R. Black, Timothy M. Shaw, eds., A Decade of Human Security: Global Governance and New
Multilateralisms (Aldershot: Palgrave, 2006), 53–62.
7. Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Human Security: Safety for People in a Changing World
(Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1999), 5.
8. Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Freedom From Fear: Canada’s Foreign Policy for Human
Security (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2000), 3.
9. Ibid.
10. Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Freedom From Fear: Canada’s Foreign Policy for Human
Security (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2002), http://gac.canadiana.ca/view/ooe.b3688185E/1?
r=0&s=1 (accessed 15 October 2019).
370
International Journal 75(3)
the leadership of Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham, and there were some
minor funding commitments to areas such as the Foreign Affairs Human Security
Programme.11 However, with the departure of Axworthy, the human security
mantra lost its most enthusiastic supporter, and “once the Conservatives were
elected in 2006, the terminology was shelved, the funding slashed and Canada
dropped out of sight internationally as a promoter of the concept.”12
Unlike the case of human security, there has thus far...
To continue reading
Request your trial