Middle power liberal internationalism and mediation in messy places: The Canadian dilemma
| Author | Peter Jones |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702019834724 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
Scholarly Essay
Middle power liberal
internationalism and
mediation in messy
places: The Canadian
dilemma
Peter Jones
Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Abstract
Canada seeks to increase its role in mediation as part of a renewed liberal internation-
alist foreign policy. This means confronting the question of how to manage the domestic
political consequences of engaging as a mediator with those violating cherished inter-
national norms, while also upholding the view that they should be punished. Key to
all this is the concept of impartiality, particularly as it relates to the objectives of
liberal internationalist countries. This paper explores multiple meanings of the term
‘‘impartial’’ as they pertain to mediation, particularly with respect to the question of
mediations involving those who have violated international norms. The paper then
explores whether increased support for ‘‘arms length’’ mediations, such as Track Two
diplomacy, might allow for more involvement in mediation, while avoiding direct
involvement in morally fraught situations. The paper concludes that Track Two can
be useful in developing a national capacity for international mediation, and that work
can also be done to make Track Two—which is currently based largely on Western
concepts—more indigenous. However, support for Track Two does not answer the
fundamental question of how Canada, as such, can be more active as a mediator if it is
not willing to engage with actors who have committed atrocities.
Keywords
Mediation, impartiality, liberal internationalism, Track Two, diplomacy, Canada
International Journal
2019, Vol. 74(1) 119–134
!The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020702019834724
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Corresponding author:
Peter Jones, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, 120 University,
Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.
Email: peter.jones@uottawa.ca
Upon assuming office, the Trudeau government issued instructions to the new
minister of foreign affairs (re-named global affairs), that efforts be made to recap-
ture Canada’s place as an active player in international mediation, peacekeeping,
and conflict resolution.
1
The new government believed it was following a proud
tradition. Certain segments of the foreign policy elites in Canada and other coun-
tries have traditionally prided their countries on being ‘‘helpful fixers.’’ Though not
without critics, the notion of themselves as ‘‘good states’’ has acquired a powerful
constituency in these countries. This notion holds that these states, as a form of
liberal internationalist activism, pursue an expansive conception of self-interest,
defined by advancing broader conceptions of justice and peace than those served
by more traditionally realist policies.
2
At various times, niche activities, such as
peacekeeping and mediation, have been put forward as an integral part of this
liberal internationalist vocation.
3
Amongst the many attributes which help these
countries play this role is held to be their ability to act in a manner that is viewed by
those in conflict as ‘‘impartial.’’
Of course, not everyone agrees that this is a benign expression of a desire to
pursue ‘‘purposes beyond ourselves’’
4
—objectives beyond narrow self-interest,
which seek to incrementally strengthen a rules-based international order. Indeed,
a push-back has developed, which questions whether actions in this respect do not
constitute an attempt to foist upon the world a set of Eurocentric assumptions
about how the international system should be organised. In extremis, this line of
criticism charges that this is little more than a latter-day version of the kind of
1. The mandate letter of the first Trudeau-era foreign minister said that one of his priorities was to
‘‘increase Canada’s support for United Nations peace operations and its mediation, conflict-pre-
vention, and post-conflict reconstruction efforts[.]’’ Though the letter speaks of mediation in the
UN context, this has been interpreted as a call for Canada to be more involved in mediation
generally (confidential interviews with officials implementing Canadian mediation policy). For
the text of the letter, see http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-foreign-affairs-mandate-letter (accessed 9
February 2019). There has been discussion in the past of whether Canada should develop mediation
as part of its foreign policy. For more, see P. Jones, ‘‘Canada and mediation: Issues and consider-
ations,’’ Canadian Global Affairs Institute, Policy Update, January 2017, https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.-
cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/1458/attachments/original/1485392280/
Canada_and_Mediation_Issues_and_Considerations.pdf?1485392280 (accessed 9 February 2019);
P. Jones, ‘‘Canada and international conflict mediation,’’ International Negotiation 18, no. 2
(2013): 219–244; F. Storie, ‘‘A Canadian international mediation capacity,’’ CIIAN News,
summer 2006, http://www.ciian.org/assets/newsletters/CIIAN-Newsletter-Summer2006.pdf
(accessed 9 February 2019); and the special issue of the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal on
Canada and mediation: vol. 19, no. 1 (2013).
2. The ‘‘good state’’ and the debate over the idea may be found in P. Lawler, ‘‘The ‘good state’ debate
in international relations,’’ International Politics 50, no. 1 (2013): 18–37. Not everyone agrees. See
H.H. Holm, ‘‘The myth of the responsive North,’’ Journal of Peace Research 29, no. 1 (1992):
115–120.
3. See, for example, A. Chapnick, ‘‘The Canadian middle power myth,’’ International Journal 55, no. 2
(2000): 188–206; and the essays in A.F. Cooper, ed., Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold
War (London: Macmillan, 1997).
4. A concept often attributed to Hedley Bull. See S. Hoffman, ‘‘Hedley Bull and his contribution to
international relations,’’ International Affairs 62, no. 2 (1986): 179–195; and A. Burke, ‘‘The good
state, from a cosmic point of view,’’ International Politics 50, no. 1 (2013): 57–76.
120 International Journal 74(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial