Domestic Groups, Bureaucrats, and Bilateral Fisheries Relations
| Author | Thomas Keating |
| Published date | 01 March 1984 |
| Date | 01 March 1984 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002070208403900107 |
| Subject Matter | Domestic Sources of Canada's Foreign Policy |
THOMAS
KEATING
Domestic
groups,
bureaucrats,
and
bilateral
fisheries
relations
Confronted
with
the
near
certainty
of
its
rejection,
President
Reagan
withdrew
the
Canada-United
States
east
coast fisheries
treaty
from
the
United
States
Senate
on
6
March
1981.
The
treaty
had
been
subjected
to
extensive
criticism
from
American
fishing
interests.
Their
opposition
resulted,
in
part,
from
the
failure
of
the
American
special
negotiator
to
maintain
close
contact
with
east
coast
fishermen
during
the
negotiations.
Denied
an
opportunity
to
influence
the treaty's
provisions
while
it
was
being
drafted,
domestic
interests
in
the
United
States
used
their
access
to
senators
to
prevent
its
ratification.
Fishermen from
Maine to
Florida
engaged
in
a
variety
of
tactics
in
their
campaign
to
influence
the
Senate
including
the
hiring
of
a
Washington
lobbyist
and
the
formation
of
a
coalition
of
likeminded
interests
patriotically
labelled
the American
Defense
Committee.'
Although
this
was
not
the
first
time
that
special
interest
groups
in
the
United
States
had intervened
suc-
cessfully
to
obstruct
a
bilateral
agreement,
the
episode
called
attention
once again
to
the
significant
role
which
domestic
con-
stituents
play
in
Canadian-American
relations.
The
often
boisterous
and frequently
public
venting
of
pres-
sure
group
activity
in
the
United
States
provides
a
stark
con-
trast
to
the
manner
in
which
non-governmental
actors
have
participated
in
the
formulation
of
Canadian
fisheries
policy.
Lecturer,
Department
of
Political
Science,
Carleton
University.
For
a
discussion
of
the American
reaction
to
the
east
coast
fisheries
treaty,
see
Donald
Barry,
'The
U.S.
Senate
and
the
collapse
of
the
east
coast
fisheries
agree-
ment,'
Dalhousie
Review
62(autumn
1982),
495-503.
DOMESTIC
GROUPS AND
BILATERAL
FISHERIES RELATIONS
147
Fishing
interests
in
Canada
have
been no
less
concerned
about
bilateral fisheries
relations
than
their
American
counterparts.
Fishermen
and
processors
from
the
east
and
west
coasts
have
regularly
pressed
the
federal
government
to
control
the
fishing
activities
of
foreign nationals
in
coastal
waters.
Their
tactics
have
differed,
however,
from
those
commonly
displayed
by
American
groups.
The
activities
of
domestic
groups
in
Canada
have
been
influenced,
first
and
foremost,
by
the
structures
and
processes
of
foreign
policy
making.
Operating
within
a
parlia-
mentary
system
of
government
with
a
centralized
executive
and
an
influential administrative
branch,
the
channels
by
which
these
groups
may
gain
access
to
policy-makers
are
limited
in
number,
and,
as
a
result,
the
groups
have
adopted
techniques
designed
to
foster
their
contacts
with
central
decision-makers.
Government
officials,
for
their
part,
have
been
inclined
to
maintain relations
with
domestic
groups
and
to
manage
the
activities
of
these
non-governmental
actors
in
order
to
facilitate
their
own
policy
objectives.
The
interaction
between
Canadian
domestic
groups
and
policy-makers
and
its
effect
on
bilateral fisheries
relations
is
the
subject
of
this
study.
The
contacts
between
domestic
constitu-
ents
and
government
officials
in
Canada
have
been
extensive,
and
an
examination
of
events
in
different
historical
periods
and on
issues
affecting
both
east
and
west
coast
interests
reveals
not
only
how
non-governmental
actors
have
influenced
the
development
of
bilateral
fisheries
relations
but
also
how
the
activities
of
these
actors
have
been
affected
by
the
policy-
making
environment
within which
they
have
operated.
The
long
and
often
chequered
history
of
bilateral fisheries
relations
yields
a
rich
collection
of
data
for examining
the
activities
of
non-governmental
actors
in
the making
of
foreign
policy.
Although
not
directly applicable
to
other
issues,
the
findings
illustrate
the
manner
in
which
the institutional
and
procedural
environment
of
policy-making
has
influenced
the
scope,
modes,
and
effects
of
non-governmental
participation.
To continue reading
Request your trial