Researcher: Canada May Not be the US’s All-Weather Partner in East Asia
Both the US and Canada are making an Asian ‘pivot’ but for vastly different reasons that impinge on the degree to which Canada is willing to coordinate security policies with the US, especially vis a vis China. In a newly released paper from the Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Research Fellow James Manicom writes: “Despite the simultaneous realignment of foreign policies toward Asia, there may, in fact, be little common ground between the US and Canada as the ‘Asia-Pacific Century’ unfolds’”.
In the past, Canada has played an honest broker role in South China Sea disputes such as was the case in the 1990s; and since its inception, Canada has been an active participant in the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) led by the US Pacific Command. Yet, increasingly, a number of ‘incompatibilities’ have emerged between the US and Canada. The US ‘pivot’ is designed to maintain US hegemony in the Pacific with the US transferring 60% of its military forces to the region. In his address to the Australian Parliament a year ago, President Obama stated unequivocally “reductions in US defense spending will not – I repeat, will not – come at the expense of the Asia Pacific”.
Canadians, on the other hand, are less concerned about US-defined security issues in Asia-Pacific and much more about the continuing decline in exports south of the border. Indeed, since 2009, China has displaced Canada as America’s largest trading partner. Hence, trade ‘diversification’ with bustling Asia and particularly China has become the buzz word in Ottawa since the Harper government’s amazing about-face in China policy.
Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver’s open letter to the public this year was telling: “Canada is on the edge of an historic choice: to diversify our energy markets away from our traditional trading partner in the US or to continue with the status quo…For our government, the choice is clear: we need to diversify our markets in order to create jobs and economic growth.”
With the shelving of the Keystone pipeline project by the Obama Administration and loud American criticism of Albertan oil sands as well as headways made in the US shale gas sector, it is not surprising that Canada is looking westward for stable and growing demand. As trade with and investment from Asia (China) grow, Canada may find itself constrained on a number of diplomatic fronts. In the backdrop of China’s disputes with Japan and its ASEAN neighbours over territorial claims in the East China and South China seas, one salient issue central to US foreign policy that has come to the fore is ‘freedom of navigation’ .
In contrast to sharp criticisms of North Korea and Myanmar, Canada’s silence on the issue, Mr Manicom argues, stems from her desire to foster better trade and investment relations with the Asian giant. For, despite the national furor over CNOOC’s takeover bid of Nexen and Chinese SOE investment in general, Canada needs plenty of Chinese investment to develop the oil sands. Second, though seemingly unconnected, it may also have to do with Canada’s own desire not to draw international scrutiny of its exceptional claims over the Northwest Passage (NWP). As is well known, Canada claims the NWP as internal waters whereas the US and the EU view it as an international strait through which they can freely navigate.
Third, instead of openly standing with the US and its allies, notably Japan and the Philippines, Canada may be more inclined to play a bridge-building role in the region. To do so, it would require Canada to maintain the appearance of impartiality which would be best served by an equidistant posture from both the US and China.
Given these inter-connected factors, Mr Manicom suggests Canada may not be a reliable Pacific partner for the US going forward in spite of having been a strong ally since the end of WWII. Moreover, there remains a ‘strong ‘Atlanticist impulse’ in Canada that perceives the Pacific as far-away and where Canada should not be sticking its nose into. While there is advocacy for stronger Canadian coordination with the US in Asia-Pacific, Asian security remains largely off the radar for Canadian foreign policy.
Mr Manicom thus concludes: “As Asian investment in Canada’s resource sector deepens and as Canadian exports to the region grow, Ottawa may become less willing to take sides in East Asia’s various flashpoints. This does not prevent Canada from actively supporting non-traditional security challenges in the region, nor does it prevent Canada-US cooperation in fields beyond East Asia; however, Canada may not be as willing an ally as Washington expects.”