Canadian Foreign Policy: Defining the National Interest (review)

Steven Kendall Holloway’s new textbook, Canadian Foreign Policy: Defining the National Interest, is a welcome addition to the literature on Canada’s place in the world of value to academics as well as to students of political science and history.

The book utilizes what Holloway terms a national interest perspective to summarize the history and evolution of Canadian external relations. Breaking from far too many analysts who use terms like national interest without providing a rigorous assessment of its meaning and implications, Holloway defines five key interests that are shared by all effective states in the international system – national security, political autonomy, national unity, economic prosperity, and a principled self-image – and then introduces historical examples to illustrate how Canadian foreign policy has been consistent with each of them since before Confederation.

The analysis is theoretically informed but also written in a sufficiently accessible style to make the text viable in an introductory political science course in Canadian foreign policy. At the same time, it is comprehensive enough to justify its inclusion in an upper-level or even graduate-level course. (At the graduate level, it would likely be more helpful in a comparative manner than as a core text.)

Defining the National Interest is deliberately provocative. Holloway claims that Canada is an ordinary country whose interests are no different from those of its major allies, that the decline of the state in world affairs has been profoundly exaggerated, and that it is possible for global humanitarianism and even civic nationalism to be consistent with his national interest perspective. None of these ideas are new, but the author’s balanced and comprehensive investigation of their implications is refreshing.

Similarly, although his aim is to bring his national interest perspective into greater prominence in discussions of Canadian foreign policy, Holloway is not so arrogant as to think that his argument will convince his greatest critics. Rather than bullying his readers, then, he uses history to add context and perspective to a subject that is too often driven by politically motivated rhetoric. In spite of his firm beliefs, Holloway comes across as a moderate without a political agenda. The measured tone of this text should broaden the potential audience for the book considerably.

Historians who teach Canadian foreign policy will likely continue to rely on Norman Hillmer and Jack Granatstein’s very good Empire to Umpire, in part because Defining the National Interest is organized in a manner that eschews straight chronology. Holloway’s concern with demonstrating how his analytical framework is useful across a variety of themes prevents him from developing the consistent story-like narrative that historians (and their students) prefer. Nevertheless, Defining the National Interest’s capsule summaries of the contemporary theoretical approaches to understanding Canada’s place in the world are excellent, as are its case studies of classical peacekeeping, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, ballistic missile defence, Afghanistan, and softwood lumber. Any one of these summaries could be integrated into a history lecture without difficulty.

Moreover, the clear articulation of the meaning of national interest, while certainly contestable, provides a comprehensive basis for discussion that will be meaningful to history students, regardless of their comfort level with the language of international relations theory. This achievement in itself makes this book worth owning.

In conclusion, while Holloway’s approach and argument will not resonate with all readers, his text will provoke a discussion that needs to be had, making Defining the National Interest a valuable addition to the literature on Canadian foreign policy.