Transcript: Jennifer Welsh on Where Do I Belong? Exploring Citizenship | May 15, 2004

A caption reads “Jennifer Welsh. Oxford University.”

Jennifer Welsh stands behind a lectern at an auditorium. She is in her early forties, with short wavy black hair. She wears a black pencil skirt, a gray fitted jacket and a pair of pendant earrings.

The caption changes to “Where do I belong? Exploring Citizenship in the 21st Century. Hart House Lecture. March 31, 2004.”

Jennifer says IN THE MIDST
OF AN OPEN AND FLAT PLAIN, IN
SOUTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, A TWO
MILE LONG GRAVEL ROAD LEADS INTO
THE LUSH GREEN OF THE CAPELLE
VALLEY.
AND I'VE
TRAVELLED THIS ROAD MANY TIMES
IN MY LIFETIME, BECAUSE IT ALSO
MEANDERS DOWN TO THE WELSH
FAMILY COTTAGE, WHICH PERMEATES
WITH ITS WARM MEMORIES OF
BARBECUES ON THE SUNDECK,
SASKATOON BERRY PICKING
EXPEDITIONS, AND LATE NIGHT
SCRABBLE GAMES.
AND AS I'VE
WALKED ALONG THIS ROAD, WHETHER
ON MY OWN OR WITH MEMBERS OF MY
FAMILY, I'VE SEEN MANY DIFFERENT
VERSIONS OF THAT FANTASTICALLY
VAST PRAIRIE SKY.
BRIGHT BLUE WITH A BLINDING SUN,
PINK AND RED AS THE SUN SLOWLY
SETS, PITCH BLACK AND STARLIT,
AND OH YES, BUZZING WITH THE
MOSQUITOES OF LATE JUNE.
AND IT'S HERE, MORE THAN
ANYWHERE, THAT I TRULY BELONG.
YEARS OF POST SECONDARY
EDUCATION, OVERSEAS TRAVEL,
SLAVERY TO E-MAIL, CANNOT
EXTINGUISH THE STRONG ATTACHMENT
THAT I FEEL TO THAT PIECE OF
LAND.
AND THAT BOND RUNS DEEPER THAN
ME, OR MY GENERATION OF WELSHES.
MY GREAT GRANDFATHER, NORBERT
WELSH WAS ONE OF THE LAST OF THE
METIS BUFFALO HUNTERS ON THE
CANADIAN WEST, AND A
CONTEMPORARY OF LEGENDARY
FIGURES LIKE POUND MAKER AND
LUIS RIEL.
AND LONG BEFORE THE STRAIGHT
ROAD THAT LEADS TO OUR COTTAGE
WAS BUILT, LARGE HERDS OF
BUFFALO BLACKENED THAT PRAIRIE,
AND HUNTERS LIKE NORBERT, CRISS-
CROSSED THE PLAINS IN SEARCH OF
THEM.
SO UNLIKE MANY CANADIANS WHO
ANSWER THE QUESTION, “WHERE ARE
YOU FROM?” WITH REFERENCE TO
SOMEWHERE OUTSIDE OF CANADA, MY
ANCESTORS PREDATE WHAT OUR
FEDERALISTS LIKE TO CALL THE TWO
FOUNDING NATIONS.
MY GREAT, GREAT, GREAT
GRANDMOTHER, MARGARET, WAS THE
COUNTRY WIFE, AS IT WAS
EUPHEMISTICALLY KNOWN IN THOSE
DAYS, OF THE GREAT FUR TRADE
MAGNATE, GEORGE SIMPSON, AND
ACCOMPANIED HIM, SIX MONTHS
PREGNANT, AS I RECALL, ON HIS
HISTORIC CROSS CONTINENTAL CANOE
AND SNOWSHOE JOURNEY FROM THE
HUDSON'S BAY ALL THE WAY TO THE
PACIFIC IN 1828.
CANADA, YOU SEE, IS VERY MUCH IN
MY BONES.
NOW I BEGIN WITH THIS STORY OF
BELONGING, BECAUSE I BELIEVE
THAT CITIZENSHIP, DESPITE ITS
POLITICAL AND ITS LEGAL
MANIFESTATIONS, IS A PROFOUNDLY
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, AS
INDIVIDUALS, GIVE MEANING TO IN
COUNTLESS AND DIVERSE WAYS.
WE KNOW THAT THE LAST TWO
DECADES HAVE GIVEN RISE TO
RENEWED INTEREST IN THE CONCEPT
OF CITIZENSHIP, AS A RESULT OF
DEVELOPMENTS BOTH WITHIN AND
BEYOND THE NATION STATE.
AT A NATIONAL LEVEL, CITIZENSHIP
HAS FACTORED INTO DEBATES ON THE
STRESSES AND STRAINS OF OUR
WELFARE SYSTEM, THE CRACKS IN
OUR SYSTEM OF PARTICIPATORY
DEMOCRACY, AND JURISDICTIONAL
POWER STRUGGLES BETWEEN THE
PROVINCES AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
BUT MORE CENTRALLY, CITIZENSHIP
HAS BECOME INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED
WITH THE EFFORTS OF WESTERN
DEMOCRACIES TO CREATE AND
SUSTAIN MULTICULTURAL POLITIES.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT RIGHT
NOW IN EUROPE, THAT IS THE
NUMBER 1 PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE.
AND EUROPEAN STATES ARE LOOKING
TO CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES
FOR IDEAS AND MODELS.
AND INDEED, IT'S ISSUES RELATED
TO CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP, WHAT
HURDLES YOU NEED TO PASS TO
ACHIEVE IT, AND WHAT RIGHTS AND
DUTIES IT ENTAILS, THAT HAVE
MOVED FRONT AND CENTRE FOR OUR
PUBLIC POLICY MAKERS,
PARTICULARLY IN A POST 9-11
ENVIRONMENT THAT PERMEATES WITH
FEAR AND SUSPICION OF THE OTHER.
TONIGHT, THOUGH, I'M NOT GOING
TO TALK ABOUT CITIZENSHIP IN A
NATIONAL CONTEXT.
I'M GOING TO BYPASS THAT CONTEXT
AND TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES
FOR CITIZENSHIP IN A REGIONAL
AND A GLOBAL CONTEXT.
NOW THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF
CITIZENSHIP BEYOND THE NATION
STATE MAY SEEM STRANGE TO SOME
OF YOU, BUT IN FACT, IT HAS A
VERY OLD AND DISTINGUISHED
PEDIGREE.
FROM ITS FIRST APPEARANCE IN
GREEK ANTIQUITY, THE NOTION OF
THE CITIZEN HAS COVERED A BROAD
SCOPE OF MEANINGS.
AND WHILE THE ROOTS OF THE WORD
SUGGEST SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN A
CITY, OR IN GREEK TERMS, THE
POLIS, THE CITY IS MEANT TO
SIGNIFY NOT SO MUCH A PHYSICAL
SPACE, AS A SPACE OF IDEAS AND
CO-OPERATION.
AND THE IDEA OF CITIZENSHIP HAS
BEEN APPLIED TO INDIVIDUALS WHO
ARE MEMBERS OF OTHER POLITICAL
COMMUNITIES, LIKE THE ROMAN
EMPIRE, THE CHRISTIAN MEDIEVAL
CITY, AND OF COURSE OUR MODERN
TERRITORIAL NATION STATE.
NOW THERE'S TWO IMPORTANT FACETS
OF OUR CONTEMPORARY WORLD, I
THINK, THAT GIVE ADDED IMPETUS
TO THIS QUESTION OF CITIZENSHIP
BEYOND THE NATION STATE.
THE FIRST IS THE INTENSIFYING
PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION, A
PHENOMENON THAT FOR THOSE OF US
BORN AFTER THE BABY BOOM,
ESSENTIALLY DEFINES THE KIND OF
WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN.
THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL SOCIAL
DIMENSIONS OF GLOBALIZATION,
EACH IN THEIR OWN WAY, HAVE
CHALLENGED THE STATE'S MONOPOLY
ON POWER, ESPECIALLY IN AREAS
SUCH AS CONTROL OVER THE
LEGITIMATE USE OF VIOLENCE.
BUT ALTHOUGH IT'S VERY MUCH A
MODERN PHENOMENON, GLOBALIZATION
IS, IN SOME WAYS, TAKING US BACK
TO A MEDIEVAL WORLD OF
OVERLAPPING AUTHORITY AND
MULTIPLE CENTRES OF LOYALTY.
CONTROL OVER NETWORKS, VIES WITH
CONTROL OVER TERRITORY AS THE
MOST IMPORTANT DYNAMIC OF GLOBAL
POLITICS.
THE SECOND FACTOR IS THE
CREATION OF INTERNATIONAL
GUARANTEES FOR THE PROTECTION OF
INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, WHAT
MICHAEL IGNATIEFF HAS CALLED THE
RIGHTS REVOLUTION.
AND WITH THIS
PROCESS, THE NATION STATE'S
CLAIM TO BE THE SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE SUBJECT OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW, IS ERODING,
AND WE'RE SEEING INCREASING
VISIBILITY BEING GIVEN TO
INDIVIDUALS IN KEY SUB-NATIONAL
GROUPS.
THE IDEA OF HUMAN RIGHTS, FROM
THE VERY BEGINNING, HAS ASPIRED
TO UNIVERSALISM IN CONTENT AND
GLOBALISM IN REACH.
BUT THE CASE
FOR FOCUSSING ON HUMAN RIGHTS,
AND THE CONDITION OF INDIVIDUALS
IN GLOBAL POLITICS IS ALSO A
PRAGMATIC ONE.
THERE'S INCREASING EVIDENCE, AS
WE ALL KNOW, OF THE COSTS OF
HUMAN RIGHTS DENIALS.
AND THAT THEY'RE INCREASINGLY
BEING EXPORTED BEYOND THE
BORDERS OF THEIR PARTICULAR
STATE.
NOW MY TREATMENT TONIGHT OF
CITIZENSHIP, IS GOING TO DRAW ON
BOTH OF THESE PROCESSES, BUT
I'LL CONFESS THAT I'M GOING TO
ARGUE THAT THOSE UNIVERSALISING
ASPIRATIONS FACE SIGNIFICANT
OBSTACLES.
SO WHAT I WANT TO PUT FORWARD TO
YOU TO START THE CONVERSATION
TONIGHT, ARE REALLY THREE MAIN
CLAIMS.
FIRST, OPPORTUNITIES FOR GLOBAL
CITIZENSHIP, WHILE MANIFESTLY
GREATER TODAY, CONFRONT TWO
IMPORTANT BARRIERS.
THE FIRST RELATES TO THE GENERAL
PROBLEM OF EXTENDING DEMOCRACY
BEYOND NATIONAL COMMUNITIES.
THE SECOND I THINK, IS THE
EMBRYONIC NATURE OF THIS TERM
THE “INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.”

She uses air quotes for the phrase “international community.”

Jennifer says THAT WE LIKE TO USE, AND ITS
SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF
COSMOPOLITAN PRINCIPLES.
NEXT, I WANT TO ARGUE THAT THE
CONCEPT OF THE NORTH AMERICA
CITIZEN, WHICH WE'VE SEEN
ARISING IN THE CONTEXT OF
CONTINENTAL INTEGRATION, IS AN
INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC CONCEPT.
MY THIRD AND FINAL CLAIM IS
ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR NATION
STATE, THE NATION STATE OF
CANADA AND ITS ROLE IN GLOBAL
POLITICS.
AND WHAT I WANT TO DO TONIGHT IS
SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULDN'T THINK
OF CANADA IN THOSE TRADITIONAL
TERMS, AS A MIDDLE POWER, BUT
RATHER IN TERMS OF CITIZENSHIP.
AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE THAT
CANADA HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A
MODEL CITIZEN FOR THE 21st
CENTURY.
NOW BEFORE DEVELOPING THOSE
THREE BIG CLAIMS, LET ME TAKE A
MOMENT TO DEFINE WHAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT.
WHILE DISCUSSIONS OF CITIZENSHIP
TYPICALLY BEGIN WITH A NOD TO
THE GREEKS, MY OWN UNDERSTANDING
OF THE CONCEPT IS INDEBTED TO
THE WORK OF THE BRITISH
SOCIOLOGIST T.H. MARSHALL, WHO
WAS WRITING AT A VERY EXCITING
TIME, POST '45 BRITAIN, WHEN WE
WERE DESIGNING THE WELFARE
STATE.
AND MARSHALL DEFINED CITIZENSHIP
AS A STATUS BESTOWED ON THOSE
WHO ARE FULL MEMBERS OF A
COMMUNITY.
A STATUS BESTOWED ON THOSE WHO
ARE FULL MEMBERS OF A COMMUNITY.
SO ALTHOUGH CITIZENSHIP IS
SOMETHING THAT IS GIVEN TO
INDIVIDUALS, IT'S A
FUNDAMENTALLY SOCIAL CONCEPT.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE OUTSIDE OF
A COLLECTIVE FRAMEWORK.
AND CITIZENSHIP IS ALSO
UNDERPINNED BY AN EGALITARIAN
ETHOS.
THOSE WHO HAVE THAT STATUS ENJOY
DE JURE, IF NOT ALWAYS DE FACTO,
EQUALITY WITH RESPECT TO ITS
CORRESPONDING RIGHTS AND DUTIES.
NOW IN THE 20th CENTURY, WE'VE
SEEN CITIZEN RIGHTS EXTEND FROM
THE 18th CENTURY NARROW CONCEPT
OF EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, TO
VERY SERIOUS ENTITLEMENTS THAT
ARE ASSOCIATED WITH OUR WELFARE
STATE.
BUT EVEN THE EXPANDED LIST OF
CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS THAT WE'VE
SEEN, ONLY PROVIDES A NECESSARY
CONDITION FOR CITIZENSHIP.
WHETHER ACTUAL PARTICIPATION
TAKES PLACE, AND WHAT PARTICULAR
SHAPE IT TAKES, DEPENDS ON WHAT
CITIZENS MAKE OF THEIR RIGHTS.
AND THAT'S ALSO A MESSAGE I WANT
TO LEAVE WITH YOU TONIGHT, ABOUT
ACTING ON YOUR CITIZENSHIP
RIGHTS.
SO MY FIRST OF THE THREE CLAIMS
BEGINS AT THE BROADEST LEVEL,
WITH THE POSSIBILITIES, FOR
CITIZENSHIP ON A GLOBAL SCALE,
OR WHAT MY PREDECESSOR PICO IYER
CALLED GLOBAL SOULS.
WITH THE END OF THE COLD WAR, A
NEW SPIRIT OF OPTIMISM TOOK HOLD
ABOUT THE POTENTIAL TO TRANSCEND
BORDERS AND BUILD A TRULY GLOBAL
SOCIETY.
AND I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE
STANDING AT THE BERLIN WALL ON
THAT CHILLY NOVEMBER WEEKEND IN
1989, WATCHING JUBILANT EAST
GERMANS CLIMBING THROUGH THE AD
HOC OPENINGS THAT HAD BEEN
CHIPPED AWAY BY THEIR WESTERN
CO-NATIONALS.
FOR ME, THEIR ACTIONS WERE THE
ULTIMATE SYMBOL THAT BOUNDARIES
ARE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
CREATIONS, AND AS WITH ALL SUCH
CONSTRUCTIONS, THEY CAN BE
REDRAWN.
THESE WERE HEADY DAYS, THE EARLY
1990s, AND WITH THEM CAME GREAT
EXPECTATIONS.
FOREMOST AMONG THEM WAS THE HOPE
THAT GOVERNMENTS AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION WOULD
SET ASIDE OLD WAYS OF DOING
THINGS, AND TURN THEIR ATTENTION
TO FORGING SOLUTIONS TO PRESSING
GLOBAL PROBLEMS.
OTHERS DARED TO DREAM EVEN
HIGHER AND PAINTED A PICTURE OF
COSMOPOLITAN DEMOCRACY AND
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP.
SO DEMOCRACY WOULD FLOURISH, NOT
ONLY WITHIN NATION STATES, BUT
ALSO BEYOND THEM, SO THAT
INDIVIDUALS, WHEREVER THEY MIGHT
BE LOCATED, WOULD BE GRANTED A
VOICE AND INPUT INTO THE
DECISIONS THAT AFFECTED THEM.
NOW, 15 YEARS ON, HOW HAS THIS
VISION FARED?
WELL, ON ONE LEVEL, THAT OF
GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY, THERE IS
CAUSE FOR SOME OPTIMISM.
NETWORKED INDIVIDUALS, WORKING
ACROSS THE GLOBE, HAVE CREATED A
DIZZYINGLY RICH TAPESTRY OF
ASSOCIATIONS AND COMMUNITIES OF
INTEREST, SOME OF WHICH HAVE
SUCCEEDED IN RECASTING GLOBAL
POLITICS ON ISSUES LIKE CLIMATE
CHANGE, HIV-AIDS OR THE BAN ON
LAND MINES.
AND THESE TRANS-BORDER CIVIC
ASSOCIATION HAVE CREATED NEW
CHANNELS FOR POPULAR
PARTICIPATION, NEW MODES OF
CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC.
THEY'VE ALSO HELPED TO INCREASE
THE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL
ORGANISATIONS.
BUT WE
SHOULDN'T EXAGGERATE THE EFFECTS
OF THIS GLOBAL ACTIVISM.
GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY IS VERY
MUCH A WORK IN PROGRESS, AND IT
SUFFERS FROM PROBLEMS OF
INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION, AND
CLASS BIAS THAT TAINT ITS
COSMOPOLITAN ASPIRATIONS.
BUT MORE
SIGNIFICANT THAN THESE
CHALLENGES, WHICH ARGUABLY, WE
COULD OVERCOME, IS THE BROADER
PROBLEM OF FRAGMENTATION IN OUR
CONTEMPORARY WORLD.
ALONGSIDE THE FAMILIAR DIVISIONS
THAT WE ALL KNOW BETWEEN NATION
STATES, AND THE DEVELOPING AND
THE DEVELOPED WORLD, WE'RE
SEEING NEW KINDS OF DIVISIONS
THAT LIMIT OUR CAPACITY TO
REALISE A TRULY COSMOPOLITAN
VISION, A DIVISION BETWEEN
SKILLED AND UNSKILLED LABOUR
THAT PITS FARMERS AGAINST
INVESTMENT BANKERS, TEXTILE
WORKERS AGAINST CONSULTANTS.
A DIVISION BETWEEN THOSE WHO
HAVE THE LUXURY TO EXERCISE
THEIR RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT AND
THOSE WHO ARE DENIED THE RIGHT
OF ASYLUM.
AND A DIVISION BETWEEN THOSE WHO
LIVE IN ZONES OF PEACE, CANADA,
UNITED STATES, WESTERN EUROPE,
AND THOSE WHO LIVE IN ZONES OF
TURMOIL, SUCH AS SUB-SAHARAN
AFRICA.
SO WHERE IS THE EGALITARIANISM
THAT IS MEANT TO UNDERPIN
CITIZENSHIP, AND WHAT KIND OF
REDRESS IS AVAILABLE TO THOSE ON
THE LOSING SIDE OF THESE KINDS
OF DIVIDES.
IS GLOBALIZATION HELPING OR
HURTING THEM?
THERE'S A STRONG ARGUMENT TO BE
MADE, I THINK, THAT
GLOBALIZATION HAS EXACERBATED
THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC
ALIENATION, BECAUSE IT'S MADE
THE LOCUS OF POLITICAL
RESPONSIBILITY A MOVING TARGET.
WHEN ORDINARY CITIZENS, WHO HAVE
BEEN LEFT BEHIND, APPEAL TO
THEIR GOVERNMENTS, THEIR
POLITICIANS CLAIM, MY HANDS ARE
TIED, BY THE MARKETS, BY THE
IMF.
AND WHEN CITIZENS TRY TO
CONFRONT THESE FORCES, THEY HAVE
DIFFICULTY FINDING A SOURCE OF
ACCOUNTABILITY.
SO SURELY THEN, ONE OF THE
GREATEST TASKS, OF THOSE IN MY
GENERATION, IS TO CREATE
MECHANISMS FOR LEGITIMACY IN
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES AT THE
GLOBAL LEVEL.
BUT WE MUST NOT DELUDE
OURSELVES.
WE ARE NOT CREATING DEMOCRACY,
AND WE'RE NOT NURTURING GLOBAL
CITIZENS.
TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY,
LEGITIMACY AND DEMOCRACY ARE NOT
THE SAME THING.
THIS ISN'T BECAUSE WE LACK
IMAGINATION OR WILL, IT'S
BECAUSE DEMOCRACY'S BOUNDARIES,
I BELIEVE, ARE LIMITED.
IN MY MIND, DEMOCRACY REQUIRES
THREE THINGS, REGULAR
INSTITUTIONALISED DEBATE, THE
ABILITY TO REMOVE YOUR
GOVERNMENT WITHOUT A REVOLUTION
OR BLOODSHED, AND THE DIRECT
INVOLVEMENT OF ALL CITIZENS IN A
COMMUNITY.
SO IT'S A CIVIC, REPUBLICAN
CONCEPTION OF DEMOCRACY.
IT REQUIRES CITIZENS WHO TAKE AN
ACTIVE PART, ALONG WITH OTHERS
IN SHAPING THE FUTURE OF THEIR
SOCIETY.
IT'S NOT ABOUT A SET OF RIGHTS
ALONE, IT'S WHETHER WE ACT ON
THOSE RIGHTS.
AND ONCE WE MOVE BEYOND THE
NATION STATE, I THINK THE
CONDITIONS FOR THAT KIND OF
DELIBERATION, THAT KIND OF
EXPRESSION OF COLLECTIVE WILL,
NO LONGER EXISTS.
INDEED, IT'S CHALLENGING ENOUGH
FOR MANY NATION STATES, TO
REALISE THOSE CONDITIONS.
NOW LET ME HASTEN TO ADD, I'M
NOT COUNSELLING INACTION.
ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING
INSTITUTIONS AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL
IS GOING TO BE A HUGE CHALLENGE
FOR THOSE OF US MOVING INTO THE
FUTURE.
MORE AND MORE ISSUES ARE GOING
TO BE DEALT WITH AT A GLOBAL
LEVEL.
BUT OUR SYSTEM FOR MANAGING
THESE IS UNLIKELY TO BE
DEMOCRATIC, IN THE WAY I'VE
DESCRIBED IT.
INSTEAD, I THINK IT'S LIKELY TO
INVOLVE STRENGTHENING THE ROLE
OF LAW, IN AREAS LIKE FINANCE
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, EXPANDING
THE ACTIVITY OF INTERNATIONAL
MONITORS AND AUDITORS, AND
INCREASING THE TRANSPARENCY OF
DECISION MAKING.
BUT IN ALL THESE DIMENSIONS, THE
NATION STATE IS STILL GOING TO
PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE.
SO, IF GLOBAL DEMOCRACY FACES
LIMITS, IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE
AND LESS DEMANDING WAY FOR US TO
THINK ABOUT GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP.
WELL SOME PHILOSOPHERS WOULD
CONSTRUCT THEIR ACCOUNT OF
COSMOPOLITANISM AND GLOBAL
CITIZENSHIP AROUND OUR MORAL
OBLIGATION TO THE MOST
VULNERABLE.
SO EVEN IF WE CAN'T CREATE A
GLOBAL DEMOCRACY, WHERE ALL
INDIVIDUALS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS OF
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, WE CAN
BRING ABOUT MORAL EQUALITY.
AND A CORRESPONDING DUTY ON THE
PART OF THE WEALTHY AND THE
STRONG, TO ASSIST THE POOR AND
THE WEAK.
SO IN SHORT, HERE THE OBJECTIVE
IS LESS ABOUT CREATING A GLOBAL
POLITICAL COMMUNITY AND MORE
ABOUT A REALM OF GLOBAL CONCERN.
NOW THIS MORE MODEST VERSION OF
COSMOPOLITANISM, I THINK HAS A
LOT OF APPEAL, AND I'VE ARGUED
IN SOME OF MY OWN WORK, THAT THE
TRADITIONAL IDEA OF
NON-INTERVENTION, SO LONG A
BEDROCK OF OUR INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM, NEEDS TO BE SUSPENDED AS
A LAST RESORT IN CASES OF
SUPREME HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCY.
NEVERTHELESS, ASSERTING A MORAL
DUTY DOES NOT ENSURE THAT ACTION
WILL ALWAYS TAKE PLACE.
THE RWANDAN
GENOCIDE, WHOSE 10th ANNIVERSARY
WE MARK NEXT MONTH, IS A
POWERFUL ILLUSTRATION OF THIS
REALITY.
AS THE CASE OF RWANDA PAINFULLY
SHOWS, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS PLAY
INTO DECISIONS AS TO WHETHER WE
SHOULD ACT ON OUR MORAL AND
COSMOPOLITAN CONCERNS.
COST,
MILITARY CAPACITY, PAST
EXPERIENCE, THE LIKELIHOOD OF
SUCCESS, OR, AS MANY HAVE
ARGUED, BUREAUCRATIC FAILURE.
IN THE END, A CONCEPT OF GLOBAL
CITIZENSHIP BASED ON MORAL
CONCERN STILL LEAVES IT UP TO
THE DUTY HOLDER TO DECIDE THE
EXTENT OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO
NON-NATIONALS.
SO GIVEN THIS INHERENT PROBLEM
OF SELECTIVITY, WE NEED TO BE
VERY CAREFUL ABOUT EXAGGERATING
THE ENTITLEMENTS OF GLOBAL
CITIZENSHIP.
PROMISING MORE THAN WE ARE ABLE
TO DELIVER, AND EXAGGERATING THE
CAPACITY OF THIS SO-CALLED
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.
DURING THE PAST DECADE, THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAS
INTERVENED WITH MILITARY FORCE
TO SAVE KOSOVARS FROM ETHNIC
CLEANSING, EAST TIMORESE FROM
THE WRATH OF THE INDONESIAN
MILITIA, BUT IT HASN'T ACTED ON
BEHALF OF THOSE IN CHECHNIA OR
ZIMBABWE.
WE'VE LEFT THEM TO COMBAT
REPRESSION ON THEIR OWN.
PROCLAMATIONS BY THINK TANKS AND
FOREIGN MINISTRIES ABOUT HUMAN
SECURITY HAVE DONE NOTHING TO
CHANGE THE SITUATION OF THESE
INDIVIDUALS ON THE GROUND.
SO THIS LEADS ME TO ARTICULATE
WHAT I THINK FOR COSMOPOLITANS
IS A VERY UNCOMFORTABLE FACT.
THE INHABITANTS OF MOST
COUNTRIES, WHETHER DEMOCRATIC OR
NON DEMOCRATIC, STILL ENJOY MORE
RIGHTS AS CITIZENS OF A NATION
STATE, THAN THEY DO AS CITIZENS
OF THE WORLD.
IT IS STATES, MUCH MORE THAN THE
AMBIGUOUS INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY THAT MAKES THE REAL
EXPERIENCE OF CITIZENSHIP
POSSIBLE.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT ALL
STATES CURRENTLY DO THIS AND
FULFIL THESE FUNCTIONS.
CLEARLY SOME DO NOT, BUT OUR
PRIMARY GOAL, AS MEMBERS OF ONE
OF THE HEALTHIEST AND MOST
PROSPEROUS COUNTRIES IN THE
WORLD, SHOULD BE TO BUILD THE
CAPACITY OF WEAK STATES TO
PROTECT AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR
CITIZENS.
NOW IF THE POTENTIAL FOR GLOBAL
CITIZENSHIP REMAINS LIMITED,
WHAT ABOUT CITIZENSHIP AT A
REGIONAL LEVEL, IN A FRAMEWORK
LIKE NORTH AMERICA.
JUST PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 11th,
MEXICAN PRESIDENT VICENTE FOX
FORWARDED A SERIES OF PROPOSALS
TO BUILD ON THE PROVISIONS OF
THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE
AGREEMENT, OR NAFTA, AND
TRANSFORM OUR REGION INTO A
COMMUNITY, WHERE PEOPLE, NOT
JUST GOODS AND SERVICES, WOULD
MOVE FREELY.
IT WAS A BOLD VISION.
I WENT TO TONS OF CONFERENCES ON
THE FUTURE OF NORTH AMERICA.
AND THEN, ON THAT SUNNY MORNING
IN SEPTEMBER, AS THE JETS
CRASHED INTO THE WORLD TRADE
CENTRE AND THE PENTAGON, WE WERE
REMINDED THAT ECONOMIC FORCES
ARE NOT UNSTOPPABLE.
AND AS WE ALL KNOW, THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT RESPONDED TO
THE ATTACKS BY TIGHTENING
BORDERS AND TRANSFORMING THEM
INTO THEIR TOOL IN THE BROADER
WAR ON TERROR.
AND SO THE RHETORIC OF OPEN
BORDERS EVOLVED INTO A MUCH MORE
OMINOUS DISCOURSE ABOUT SECURITY
PERIMETERS AND HOMELAND DEFENCE.
TODAY, ALMOST THREE YEARS --
IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE, AFTER 9-
11, WE'RE ONCE AGAIN DISCUSSING
THE FUTURE OF NORTH AMERICA, BUT
WE'RE DOING IT IN A NEW CONTEXT
OF UNCERTAINTY AND HEIGHTENED
FEARS ABOUT SECURITY.
IT'S BECOME CLEAR THAT THE
SPECTRE OF FORTRESS AMERICA,
DESPITE THE APOCALYPTIC WARNINGS
OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, IS
MUCH LESS LIKELY TO MATERIALISE.
ECONOMIC INTERESTS IN ALL THREE
NAFTA COUNTRIES ARE SIMPLY TOO
FAR ADVANCED IN THE DIRECTION OF
OPENNESS AND CO-ORDINATION.
MOREOVER AS WE SAW WITH EVENTS
LIKE THE POWER BLACKOUT, I'M
SORRY I MISSED THAT, AND THE BSC
CRISIS, NOT SORRY I MISSED THAT.
THEY CAN ONLY BE SOLVED THROUGH
CONTINENTAL ACTION AND NOT
THROUGH INDEPENDENT ACTION.
AND SO AS WE SAW, AND SOME OF
YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THE BODY
LANGUAGE CHANGING AT THE SUMMIT
OF THE AMERICAS IN MONTEREY IN
JANUARY, THE UNITED STATES,
MEXICO AND CANADA HAVE EMBARKED
UPON A NEW NORTH AMERICAN
INITIATIVE DESIGNED TO EXTEND
CO-OPERATION, IN THE ECONOMIC
REALM AND TO LAUNCH NEW FORMS OF
COLLABORATION.
SO IF FORTRESS AMERICA IS AN
UNLIKELY SCENARIO, WHAT IS THE
NEXT PHASE OF NORTH AMERICA
INTEGRATION LIKELY TO PRODUCE,
AND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS
FOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
WELL IN ALL DISCUSSIONS OF
REGIONAL INTEGRATION, IT'S VERY
TEMPTING TO USE THE MODEL OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION.
IN MY VIEW, HOWEVER, THAT MODEL
IS EXTREMELY LIMITED.
THE MAIN REASON IS THE
FUNDAMENTAL ASYMMETRY OF POWER
THAT EXISTS ON OUR CONTINENT.
THE NORTH AMERICA SPACE CONTAINS
THREE STATES, ONE OF WHICH, THE
UNITED STATES, FAR OUTWEIGHS THE
OTHER TWO IN POPULATION,
MILITARY MIGHT, ECONOMIC
STRENGTH, CULTURAL POWER,
DIPLOMATIC INFLUENCE, YOU NAME
IT.
IN FACT NO NATION STATE IN
MODERN HISTORY HAS YET COME
CLOSE TO AMERICA'S CURRENT
DOMINANCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM.
IN THE NEWLY ENLARGED EUROPEAN
UNION BY CONTRAST, WHAT WE HAVE
ARE 25 STATES OF VARIOUS SIZES
AND SHAPES.
AND THE LARGEST POWER AMONG
THEM, A UNITED GERMANY, IS NO
MATCH FOR THE MIGHT AND THE
POWER OF THE UNITED STATES.
IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT GERMANY
TAKES GREAT PAINS, BECAUSE OF
ITS HISTORY AND ITS POSTWAR
POLITICAL CULTURE, TO LIMIT ITS
NATIONAL AMBITIONS.
THE CONTRAST WITH THE UNITED
STATES COULD NOT BE MORE
STRIKING.
NORTH AMERICA CONTAINS NOT JUST
ANY SUPERPOWER, BUT A SUPERPOWER
WITH A DEEP SEEDED HISTORY OF
EXCEPTIONALISM.
ASIDE FROM
POWER IS THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF
SHARED PURPOSE.
THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE
CREATION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITY AFTER THE SECOND WORLD
WAR, WAS POLITICAL.
IT WAS A DESIRE TO AVOID ANOTHER
CATASTROPHIC WAR ON THE
CONTINENT.
IN THE CASE OF NORTH AMERICA, NO
COMPARABLE GRAND PURPOSE EXISTS
HERE.
WHEN PLACED ALONGSIDE THE VERY
AMBITIOUS TONES OF EUROPE'S
TREATY OF ROME, THE PREAMBLE TO
NAFTA SOUNDS LIKE A CONTRACT
BETWEEN A NEW HOME OWNER AND A
MORTGAGE LENDER, PLEDGING THE
GOVERNMENTS OF CANADA, MEXICO
AND THE UNITED STATES TO CREATE
AND EXPANDED AND SECURE MARKET,
REDUCE DISTORTIONS TO TRADE,
ENHANCE COMPETITIVENESS, NOT A
LOT ABOUT BUILDING A UNION OF
PEOPLES.
MOREOVER, AND I THINK THIS IS
MOST IMPORTANT FOR US TO
REMEMBER, THERE ARE NO POWERFUL
CONSTITUENCIES IN THE UNITED
STATES RIGHT NOW PUSHING THEIR
LEADERSHIP TO DEVELOP A VISION
FOR NORTH AMERICA.
IN FACT, YOU COULD ARGUE, QUITE
THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
AS WE SAW IN THE RECENT
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, NAFTA IS
HATED IN THE UNITED STATES RIGHT
NOW.
IT IS THE SOURCE OF CRITICISM
FOR MANY, MANY AMERICAN
POLITICIANS, AND THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS LIKELY
TO SEE NAFTA AND THE LARGER
ISSUE OF FREE TRADE BECOME EVEN
MORE AND MORE HOTLY CONTESTED.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE IMPACT
OF INTEGRATION IN THE UNITED
STATES, PARTICULARLY IN THE
MIDWEST, IS FRAMED NOT IN
COLLECTIVE OR COMMUNITY TERMS,
BUT IN ZERO SUM TERMS, JOB
LOSSES FROM THE UNITED STATES,
AND JOBS GOING TO MEXICO.
NO SENSE OF A COMMUNITY OR
POSSIBLE GAIN.
NOW DESPITE THE PERILS OF
DRAWING ON THE EUROPEAN ANALOGY,
I THINK THERE ARE TWO VALUABLE
LESSONS THAT NORTH AMERICAN
POLICY MAKERS CAN DRAW FROM THE
STORY OF EUROPE'S CITIZENSHIP
PROVISIONS.
THE FIRST IS THAT THE EXPRESSION
OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP WHICH
EXISTS IN THE TREATIES NOW OF
THE EUROPEAN UNION, STILL RELIES
HEAVILY ON THE FRAMEWORK OF
NATION STATES.
THE DECISIVE STATUS FOR
INDIVIDUAL EUROPEANS IS NOT
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP, BUT
NATIONALITY IN ONE OF THE 25
MEMBER STATES.
EU CITIZENSHIP ONLY PROVIDES AN
EXTRA LAYER OF RIGHTS ON TOP OF
THOSE NATIONAL RIGHTS.
I THINK THE SECOND LESSON IS
THAT INTEGRATION CANNOT BE
NEATLY COMPARTMENTALISED INTO
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL
CATEGORIES.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN
UNION DEMONSTRATES THAT ONCE YOU
HAVE RULES AND INSTITUTIONS THAT
ARE EXPANDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF
MARKET MAKING, THERE ARE STRONG
POWERS TO DISCUSS AND PROVIDE
FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION.
IN OTHER WORDS, ONCE WE CREATE
REGION WIDE PRODUCERS, CONSUMERS
AND INVESTORS, WE OPEN THE DOOR
TO THE CREATION OF REGION WIDE
CITIZENS.
AND IN FACT ONE OF THE MAIN
PREOCCUPATIONS IN EUROPE TODAY,
IS TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THE
SO-CALLED DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT IN
THE EUROPEAN UNION.
SO CITIZENSHIP IS A SOCIAL
CONCEPT DEPENDENT ON A
COLLECTIVE FRAMEWORK.
THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION TO
ASK ABOUT NORTH AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP IS ABOUT THE DEPTH
AND BREADTH OF THAT COMMUNITY.
TO PUT IT SIMPLY DOES A NORTH
AMERICA COMMUNITY EXIST?
AND IF NOT, WHAT DOES IT MEAN
FOR THE PROSPECTS OF
CITIZENSHIP?
WELL, ACCORDING TO SOME, THE
HALLMARKS OF A COMMUNITY ARE
SIMPLY MEMBER INTERACTION, AND A
DEGREE OF INTERDEPENDENCE THAT
MAKES YOU AWARE THAT YOU HAVE
COMMON INTERESTS.
ON THIS INTERPRETATION, IT'S
EASY TO CONCEIVE OF CANADA,
MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES AS
A COMMUNITY.
I WOULD ARGUE HOWEVER THAT
INTERACTION AND INTERDEPENDENCE
ARE NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT
CONDITIONS.
A COMMUNITY ALSO DEPENDS ON
SHARED VALUES AND PURPOSES.
I BELIEVE THAT NORTH AMERICA
MORE CLOSELY RESEMBLES AN
ASSOCIATION OF STATES RATHER
THAN A COMMUNITY OF STATES.
IT'S MORE APPROPRIATELY THOUGHT
OF AS A SPACE IN WHICH ECONOMIC
INTEGRATION IS OCCURRING, BUT
THERE'S NO DEEP COMMITMENT TO
ADDRESSING REGIONAL DISPARITIES
OR SHARING BURDENS OUTSIDE THE
NORTH AMERICAN BORDER.
SO IF THIS IS THE CURRENT
REALITY, WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS
FOR THE FUTURE?
COULD A NOTION OF NORTH AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP EMERGE ALONGSIDE
DEEPER FORMS OF INTEGRATION.
WELL SOME OF YOU MAY THINK, “I
HOPE NOT.”
AND OTHERS OF YOU MAY THINK,
“THAT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA.”
AFTER ALL, AFTER 9-11, MANY
CANADIANS BEGAN TO REFER TO
THEMSELVES AS NORTH AMERICANS
AND SAID, “WE ARE ALL NORTH
AMERICANS NOW.”
NOW ONE LINE OF ENQUIRY THAT
LOOKS AT THE STATE OF VALUES
CONVERGENCE IN NORTH AMERICA
SUGGESTS THAT IT'S A REMOTE
PROSPECT TO TALK ABOUT NORTH
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
AT A SOCIETAL LEVEL, THERE IS
STILL VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE OF WE
FEELING AMONG THE PEOPLES OF
NORTH AMERICA.
RESEARCH SHOWS THAT WHILE
AMERICANS AND CANADIANS AND
MEXICANS SUPPORT INCREASED
ACCESS TO EACH OTHER'S MARKETS,
THEY MAINTAIN VERY STRONG TIES
TO THEIR OWN VALUES AND
INSTITUTIONS.
AND AS MICHAEL ADAMS'
FASCINATING STUDY HAS SHOWN,
EVEN AFTER 15 YEARS OF FREE
TRADE, THE ATTITUDES AND VALUES
OF CANADIANS AND AMERICANS ARE,
IN FACT BECOMING MORE
DISSIMILAR.
FOR THE PEOPLES OF A DIVERSE
SOCIETY LIKE CANADA, THE
IDENTIFICATION WITH A CONTINENT,
I THINK CAN FEEL AWKWARD AND
ARTIFICIAL.
UNLIKE IN EUROPE, WHERE THERE
HAS BEEN A DISCERNIBLE INCREASE
IN A CONTINENTAL IDENTITY, THE
CONCEPT OF A NORTH AMERICAN
IDENTITY HAS YET TO TAKE HOLD.
ABOVE ALL, I THINK THE IDEA OF A
NORTH AMERICAN COMMUNITY OR
NORTH AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP FACES
SERIOUS RESISTANCE IN UNITED
STATES.
IT'S TRUE, THE U.S. MILITARY HAS
RECENTLY ESTABLISHED THE NORTH
AMERICAN COMMAND STRUCTURE.
WE CALL IT
NORTHCOM, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO
MANAGE ITS DEFENSE AND SECURITY
INTERESTS FROM THE CANADIAN
ARCTIC RIGHT DOWN TO THE TIP OF
MEXICO.
BUT THIS IS ALL ABOUT PROTECTING
TERRITORY, PARTICULARLY THE U.S.
HOMELAND FROM 21st CENTURY
THREATS.
IT SHOULD NOT
BE READ AS A SUDDEN CONVERSION
BY WASHINGTON TO THE GOAL OF
FOSTERING A NORTH AMERICAN
COMMUNITY.
IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR ME
TO IMAGINE THE POLITICAL
LEADERSHIP OR CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, PARTICULARLY A
POST 9-11 UNITED STATES, WILL
DEVELOP ANYTHING RESEMBLING A
CONTINENTAL IDENTITY.
SO TODAY, THE NORTH AMERICAN
SPACE IS DEFINED PRIMARILY IN
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC TERMS,
AND THE VERY NOTION OF NORTH
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS
PROBLEMATIC.
SO, SO FAR I'VE ARGUED, FOR THE
FORESEEABLE FUTURE, GLOBAL
CITIZENSHIP AND REGIONAL
CITIZENSHIP FOR CANADIANS HAVE
LIMITATIONS.
THE NATION STATE REMAINS THE
MAIN ENGINE THROUGH WHICH WE
EXPERIENCE CITIZENSHIP.
NOW FOR SOME OF YOU, THIS
CONCLUSION MAY SEEM
DISAPPOINTING.
BUT LEG ME EMPHASISE THAT I'M
NOT TRYING TO PUT THE BRAKES ON
OUR GLOBALIZING IMPULSES OR OUR
COSMOPOLITAN DESIRES.
NOR AM I DISCOURAGING THOSE OF
US WHO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AND
THE MEANS TO ACT GLOBALLY, FROM
DOING SO.
WHAT I AM DOING, IS TAKING
CITIZENSHIP SERIOUSLY.
WHILE SOME MIGHT USE THE TERM
ECONOMIC CITIZEN TO DESCRIBE
THAT SEGMENT OF HIGHLY SKILLED
WORKERS THAT TRAVELS FREELY
WITHIN THE NORTH AMERICAN SPACE,
I BELIEVE THIS DEBASES THE
CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP.
CITIZENSHIP IS A STATUS THAT
CARRIES WITH IT IMPORTANT RIGHTS
AND DUTIES.
IT CANNOT BE PROMISED LIGHTLY,
IT CANNOT BE DEFINED MINIMALLY.
NOW NONE OF THIS IS TO NEGATE
THE REALITY OF MULTIPLE
IDENTITIES AND ASSOCIATIONS THAT
MANY OF US EXPERIENCE IN OUR
21st CENTURY LIVES.
WE ALL HAVE AN INTEREST IN
SHAPING THE WORLD IN ASSOCIATION
WITH OTHERS WITH WHOM WE
IDENTIFY.
AND THE NATURE OF OUR
IDENTIFICATIONS IS BECOMING MORE
AND MORE COMPLEX.
IN FACT, I THINK MY OWN
LIFESTYLE IS EMBLEMATIC OF THIS
RETURN TO MEDIEVAL
FRAGMENTATION, IF YOU WILL.
I AM A WOMAN, I AM METIS, I'M AN
INTELLECTUAL, I'M A WESTERN
CANADIAN, AND I LIKE TO THINK
I'M BECOMING A EUROPEAN.
BUT WHILE IDENTITIES ARE
MULTIFACETED, CITIZENSHIP IS
MOST MEANINGFUL AND BEST
REALISED WITHIN NATIONAL
DEMOCRATIC BOUNDARIES.
NOW THIS DOESN'T IMPLY THAT WE
SHOULD TURN INWARD, AND FOCUS
SOLELY ON OUR OWN POLITICAL
COMMUNITY.
AND SO MY FINAL SET OF REMARKS
TONIGHT CONCERN HOW CANADA, OUR
NATION STATE MIGHT SERVE AS A
VESSEL FOR OUR GLOBAL
ASPIRATIONS.
MY VISION IS SIMPLE BUT
AMBITIOUS, THAT CANADA WILL
BECOME A MODEL CITIZEN IN THE
COMMUNITY OF STATES IN THE 21st
CENTURY
BOTH WORDS, MODEL AND CITIZEN
ARE CRUCIAL TO MY VISION.
FIRST, THE NOTION OF A MODEL
SUGGESTS A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO
AFFECTING CHANGE.
I BELIEVE A CRUCIAL PART OF
CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY TODAY,
IS SIMPLY BEING WHAT WE ARE, A
HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL MODEL OF
LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.
OUR MODEL PRIVILEGES PLURALISM,
AS REFLECTED IN OUR FEDERAL
STRUCTURE, OUR OFFICIAL POLICY
OF BILINGUALISM, OUR IMMIGRATION
AND REFUGEE POLICY.
IT PRIZES MIXED GOVERNMENT BY
BALANCING LEGISLATIVE DECISION
MAKING WITH AN ACTIVIST COURT
AND A ROBUST HUMAN RIGHTS
CULTURE.
OUR MODEL MAKES RISK A
COLLECTIVE PROBLEM FOR SOCIETY
BY ESTABLISHING A SET OF STATE
FUNDED BENEFITS, THAT CANADIANS
CAN DRAW UPON IN THEIR TIME OF
NEED.
IT SEEKS A BALANCE IN PROVIDING
GREATER SECURITY FOR CITIZENS IN
A WORLD OF TERRORISM AND OTHER
TRANSNATIONAL THREATS, BUT
RESPECTING HARD WON CIVIL AND
POLITICAL LIBERTIES.
I KNOW ABOUT THE AUDITOR
GENERAL'S REPORT, YOU CAN ALL
JUMP ON ME IN QUESTION AND
ANSWER, BUT I REALLY HOLD TO
THAT BALANCE.
THE CANADIAN MODEL IS ALSO
EXTREMELY CIVIL, AS SEEN IN OUR
CRIME LEVELS, THE VITALITY OF
OUR CITIES, AND IN THE
REMARKABLE SUCCESS OF OUR
ARTISTS.
MOST OF ALL OUR MODEL OF
DEMOCRACY IS INTERNATIONALIST.
IT EMBRACES FREE TRADE AND
MULTI-LATERAL CO-OPERATION.
BUT IT'S ALSO CONFIDENT IN OUR
ABILITY TO SUSTAIN A UNIQUE
NATIONAL IDENTITY.
I LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT CANADIANS
ARE NO LONGER RINGING THEIR
HANDS ABOUT THEIR IDENTITY.
WE KNOW WHO WE ARE.
AND ALL THESE ASPECTS OF THE
CANADIAN MODEL ARE EXCEEDINGLY
ATTRACTIVE.
AND WHAT IS ATTRACTIVE, AS WE
KNOW, CREATES A MAGNETIC EFFECT.
IT INDUCES OTHERS TO EMULATE
WHAT WE DO AND FORGE A CLOSER
RELATIONSHIP WITH US.
BUT CANADA CAN MODEL IN ANOTHER
SENSE.
IT CAN DEMONSTRATE HOW TO
ESTABLISH THE FOUNDATIONS OF A
STRONG SOCIETY, MUCH AS A
TEACHER OR A CONSULTANT MIGHT
DO.
SO RATHER THAN TRANSPLANTING OUR
MODEL INTO OTHER COUNTRIES, OUR
FOREIGN POLICY CAN SEEK TO HELP
OTHERS HELP THEMSELVES.
TO CONTRIBUTE TO REGIME
BUILDING, RATHER THAN REGIME
CHANGE.
IN THIS TASK, CANADA'S
ULTIMATELY A COLLABORATOR, OR A
PARTNER, RATHER THAN AN
OCCUPIER.
TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, WE BECOME
A MODEL, NOT THE MODEL.
PICO IYER SAID IT BEAUTIFULLY IN
HIS LECTURE, AND I QUOTE FROM
HIM.
“CANADA OFFERS A PARTICULAR FORM
OF LIBERATION, PRECISELY BECAUSE
IT UNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF
LIMITATION.”
THE IDEA OF PARTNERSHIP IS
CAPTURED BY MY SECOND WORD,
CITIZEN, AND CITIZENSHIP.
TO ECHO T.H. MARSHALL,
CITIZENSHIP MUST BE UNDERSTOOD
IN COLLECTIVE SOCIAL TERMS.

A caption reads “Jennifer Welsh. Oxford University.”

The caption changes to “Where do I belong? Exploring Citizenship in the 21st Century.”

Jennifer says IT IMPLIES
SOLIDARITY AND A WILLINGNESS TO
GIVE AS WELL AS GET.
MY VISION FOR CANADA'S FUTURE
ENTAILS MODELLING FOR OTHER
COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, WHAT
THOSE RIGHTS AND DUTIES MIGHT
LOOK LIKE IN A GLOBAL COMMUNITY.
BUT IT ALSO
INVOLVES OTHER ASPECTS OF
CITIZENSHIP, SUCH AS TOLERATING
AND WORKING WITH OTHERS WHO ARE
DIFFERENT FROM OURSELVES.
AND EXERCISING RESTRAINT IN HOW
WE USE THE GLOBAL COMMONS.
FINALLY, I THINK CITIZENSHIP
IMPLIES TWO IMPORTANT THINGS.
THE FIRST, THAT WE WILL RARELY
ACT UNILATERALLY, AND HERE I
HAVE A STRONG MESSAGE FOR
CANADIANS, WE NEED TO STOP
WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER OUR
COUNTRY GRABS AN INTERNATIONAL
HEADLINE, WHETHER IT SOLVES THE
MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT.
THAT'S NOT THE NATURE OF MODEL
CITIZENSHIP.
WE WILL RARELY BE ACTING ALONE.
WE WILL BE ACTING IN
COLLABORATION WITH OTHERS.
WE WILL BE ADDING A PIECE TO THE
PUZZLE, AND WE NEED TO BE PROUD
AND CONTENT WITH THAT, NOT SEEK
THE HEADLINE, NOT SEEK TO BE THE
STARS ON THE INTERNATIONAL
STARS.
SO WHEN WE ENGAGE IN THIS DEBATE
ABOUT WHETHER CANADA HAS
DECLINED, LET'S NOT MEASURE IT
IN TERMS OF WHETHER WE HAVE MADE
THE HEADLINE, LET'S MEASURE IT
IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT WE'RE
ACTUALLY HAVING.
AND SECOND, CITIZENSHIP MEANS
YOU PULL YOUR WEIGHT, THAT'S
WHAT MODEL CITIZENS DO.
WE'VE HAD 15 YEARS OF THIS PEACE
DIVIDEND.
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT OUR
GLOBAL ASPIRATIONS, WE NEED TO
PULL OUR WEIGHT.
WE NEED TO BE WILLING TO PUT OUR
RESOURCES WHERE OUR PROMISES
ARE.
AND THAT'S WHERE THOSE
INTERESTING PUBLIC OPINION
POLLS, WHERE CANADIANS SAY, YES,
WE'RE FOR MORE FOREIGN AID, YES,
WE'RE FOR MORE PEACEKEEPING, BUT
THEN YOU ASK THEM WHAT WOULD YOU
BE WILLING TO TRADE OFF TO DO
THOSE THINGS.
THESE ARE HARD QUESTIONS, AND
WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT IT, WE NEED
TO REINVEST, FIRSTLY IN OUR
MILITARY, SO WE CAN PLAY THOSE
KINDS OF ROLES, BUT NOT JUST OUR
MILITARY.
I THINK THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN FAR
TOO NARROW.
IT'S NOT ABOUT TANKS AND GUNS,
IT'S ABOUT OTHER FORMS OF
RESPONDING TO SECURITY THREATS.
SO THE IDEA OF CANADA AS A MODEL
CITIZEN, OFFERS AN ALTERATIVE TO
OUR LONG STANDING SELF IMAGE AS
A MIDDLE POWER, AND IN MY VIEW,
THIS ALTERNATIVE IS VERY
WELCOME.
THE MIDDLE POWER CONCEPT, IF YOU
THINK ABOUT IT, IS RELATIONAL.
IT REQUIRES GREAT AND MINOR
POWERS TO INHABIT THOSE WEIGH
SCALES AS WELL AS MIDDLE ONES.
BUT THE GLOBAL CONTEXT HAS
CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN THE LAST
DECADE.
WE'RE SEEING THE U.S. AS THE
WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER AND THE
RISE OF OTHER STATES LIKE CHINA,
INDIA AND BRAZIL.
THE CONTEXT IN WHICH LESTER
PEARSON OPERATED, WITH THE
FOURTH LARGEST MILITARY IN THE
WORLD NO LONGER EXISTS FOR
CANADA.
WHAT ARE WE IN THE MIDDLE OF?
WE NO LONGER LIVE IN AN
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM WHERE GREAT
POWERS ARE PITTED AGAINST ONE
ANOTHER, AND SMALLER POWERS LIKE
CANADA WORK SKILFULLY TO FIND A
PATH THROUGH THE MIDDLE.
SECONDLY THE CONCEPT OF THE
MIDDLE POWER IS MOSTLY ABOUT
PROCESS.
IT LACKS REAL CONTENT.
MIDDLE POWERS HAVE BEEN DEFINED
THROUGH THEIR TACTICS, THEY
BUILD COALITIONS, THEY FORGE
CONSENSUS.
IT'S A WAY OF CONDUCTING FOREIGN
POLICY.
IT DOESN'T TELL YOU VERY MUCH
ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE
THROUGH THOSE MEANS.
YET IT SEEMS IN A POST 9-11
WORLD, PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHAT
YOU STAND FOR.
AND SO MY PROBLEM WITH OUR PRIME
MINISTER'S, OUR FORMER PRIME
MINISTER'S STAND ON THE WAR, WAS
NOT THAT WE OPPOSED IT, A
DECISION I PERSONALLY AGREED
WITH, BUT THAT THE RATIONALE WAS
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE U.N. HASN'T
BACKED IT.
IT WAS A PROCESS ISSUE.
WHY DON'T WE DIG DEEPER AND ASK
OURSELVES ABOUT WHAT THAT U.N.
SANCTION REALLY MEANT, WHAT OUR
OBJECTIVES FOR THE MIDDLE EAST
REALLY WERE, WHAT ALTERNATIVE
MEASURES WE REALLY BELIEVED
WOULD WORK IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE.
WE RELY TOO MUCH ON PROCESS AS
CANADIANS, AND WE NEED TO START
TO PUT SOME MEAT ON THE BONES.
THE FINAL PROBLEM, I THINK, IS
THAT THE MIDDLE POWER IDENTITY
IS UNINSPIRING FOR YOUNGER
CANADIANS.
AND SO MANY OF ITS
REPRESENTATIVES ARE HERE
TONIGHT.
THE FORMATIVE EXPERIENCES OF
YOUNG CANADIANS, PARTICULARLY
THEIR EXPOSURE TO GLOBAL MEDIA
AND THE BORDERLESS WORLD WIDE
WEB, HAVE MADE THEM INHERENTLY
INTERNATIONALIST.
NOW THEY PASSIONATELY BELIEVE
THAT THEY WILL DO GREAT THINGS
IN THE WORLD.
I KNOW THEY'RE RIGHT.
TO BE A MIDDLE POWER IS TO
SETTLE FOR MEDIOCRITY.
WHY CAN'T WE THINK BIGGER THAN
THAT?
IN ADVOCATING THE NOTION OF
MODEL CITIZEN VS. MIDDLE POWER,
I'M NOT LEADING US INTO A
UTOPIAN SUNSET.
POWER IS AN IMPORTANT FEATURE OF
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, I DON'T
DENY THAT.
AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE AN
IMPORTANT MEANS THAT STATES AND
ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
USE TO ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES.
AND IN THIS, CANADA IS NO
EXCEPTION.
BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT POWER
SHOULD DEFINE EVERYTHING WE DO
AND EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE IN
THE 21st CENTURY.
NOR IS THE IDEA OF A MODEL
CITIZEN, A RECIPE FOR
MULTIPLYING CANADA'S COMMITMENTS
AND ACTIVITIES ON THE GLOBAL
STAGE.
IN ORDER TO REALISE MY VISION,
CANADA MUST THINK MUCH MORE
STRATEGICALLY ABOUT ITS ROLE
INTERNATIONALLY, AND A STRATEGY
REQUIRES CHOICE, NOT BEING ALL
THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE.
NOT BEING A SERIAL JOINER WHEN
IT COMES TO INTERNATIONAL
ORGANISATIONS, BUT CHOOSING
THOSE AREAS WHERE WE WANT TO
MAKE A CONTRIBUTION, AND WHERE
WE'RE WILLING TO APPLY OUR
RESOURCES, HUMAN AS WELL AS
FINANCIAL, TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
AND I'LL GIVE YOU THREE EXAMPLES
OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IN
TERMS OF AN AGENDA WHERE WE
COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
THE FIRST IS ON ACHIEVING THE
U.N'S MILLENNIUM GOALS.
SO OFTEN IN THE PAST, IT'S BEEN
SAID, WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN TO
TACKLE THE WORLD'S GREATEST
PROBLEMS, LIKE POVERTY.
WE HAVE A PLAN, THE MILLENNIUM
GOALS ARE REAL GOALS.
THE JOB NOW IS TO GET OUT AND
MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ACHIEVED.
SECONDLY, ACTING AS A WATCHDOG
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE WAR ON TERROR.
THIS IS A VERY TRICKY BALANCE.
BUT GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE
UNITED STATES WITH THE PATRIOT
ACT, AND I'M VERY GLAD TO SEE
THAT THAT SELF CORRECTING
MECHANISM OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
IS WORKING, THAT CIVIL
LIBERTARIANS ARE ACTIVE IN THE
UNITED STATES, WE, TOO NEED TO
BE A PART OF THAT EFFORT TO BE A
WATCHDOG FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
AND LASTLY, REFORMING THE
INSTITUTIONS OF GLOBAL
GOVERNANCE.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY, WE WANT
U.N. BACKING FOR THE THINGS THAT
WE DO, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT
HOW THE U.N. OPERATES IN A 21st
CENTURY WORLD.
DOES IT NEED REFORM?
DOES ITS SECURITY COUNCIL NEED A
DIFFERENT KIND OF MEMBERSHIP?
DOES ITS SECURITY COUNCIL NEED
TO DEFINE THREATS TO
INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
DIFFERENTLY?
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS
CANADA MUST, IN COLLABORATION
WITH OTHER COUNTRIES, BEGIN TO
THINK THROUGH.
AND INDEED OTHER MECHANISMS FOR
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, TO SOLVE
PROBLEMS THAT WEREN'T THOUGHT
ABOUT BY THOSE GREAT PEACEMAKERS
OF 1945.
IN THE END,
HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT'S FORMAL
AGENDA, IS NEVER ENOUGH.
AND SO BY WAY OF CONCLUSION, I'D
LIKE TO ENCOURAGE ALL OF US TO
THINK OF OUR COUNTRY, NOT JUST
AS CANADA WITH A CAPITAL “C,”
THE CORPORATE ENTITY THAT IS
REPRESENTED BY THE FLAG AND
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, GOVERNOR
GENERAL

The caption changes to “Hart House Lecture. March 31, 2004.”

Jennifer says BUT ALSO AS
CANADIANS.
FOREIGN POLICY IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT OTHERS DO OUT THERE.
MANY OF US, IN OUR OWN WAY ARE
ALREADY CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS IT.
AND WE DON'T NEED TO WAIT FOR A
GOVERNMENT'S REVIEW OF FOREIGN
AND DEFENSE POLICY.
EVEN IF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
CONTINUES TO FACE SIGNIFICANT
LIMITS, WE AS INDIVIDUALS CAN,
AND SHOULD BUILD UPON THE
CANADIAN LEGACY FOR GLOBAL
ENGAGEMENT, AND TAKE IT ONE STEP
FURTHER.
TAKE IT WHERE LESTER PEARSON
NEVER IMAGINED.
BECAUSE WHILE CANADA IS OUR
HOME, THE WORLD IS WHERE WE
BELONG.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

The audience applauds.

A man in his late thirties wearing a black suit approaches the stand. Jennifer seats on a chair right next to it.

The man says THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
JENNIFER FOR THAT VERY INSPIRED,
INFORMATIVE AND WONDERFUL
LECTURE.
I THINK YOU'VE GIVEN US A LOT TO
THINK ABOUT ON A VARIETY OF
TOPICS RANGING FROM GLOBAL
CITIZENSHIP TO REGIONAL
INTEGRATION, TO CANADA'S PLACE
IN THE WORLD.
AND SO IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS, I
SEE ONE OVER THERE.
NISHA.

Nisha is in her mid-thirties. She wears her hair in a burgundy hat, glasses, a black turtleneck sweater, a gray jacket and a dark purse.

She says A COUPLE OF
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS BEFORE I
ASK MY QUESTION.
I THINK--
I BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY, IN THAT
WE NEED TO THINK OF OURSELVES AS
GLOBAL CITIZENS IN ORDER TO
ELIMINATE THAT FOREIGN CONCEPT
FROM FOREIGN POLICY.
BECAUSE AS LONG AS WE REMAIN
CAUGHT IN THAT PARADIGM, WE'RE
NEVER GOING TO MOVE BEYOND THIS
NOTION THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT
OURSELVES FROM THE OTHER.
THE OTHER OBSERVATION THAT I
REALLY LIKE, THAT YOU MADE, THAT
THE WAY WE DEFINE CITIZENSHIP IN
CANADA, IT'S NOT--
IT'S SO MUCH ABOUT WHERE WE CAME
FROM ANOTHER PLACE, AND HOW WE
NEGOTIATE THOSE IDENTITIES IN
CANADA.
BUT IN A POST 9-11 WORLD, I
THINK HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY
PROBLEMATIC, BECAUSE THE FOREIGN
IS NOT SEEN AS SOMEONE OUTSIDE
OF CANADA, BUT IS INCREASINGLY
SEEN AS SOMEONE WITHIN CANADA
BECAUSE WE DEFINE OUR
CITIZENSHIP IN TERMS OF WHERE WE
CAME FROM INSTEAD OF WHERE WE
ARE.
AND I WONDER HOW YOU THINK
CANADA CAN BE THIS MODEL POWER
AND OVERCOME THIS DILEMMA, HOW
CAN WE RECONCEPTUALISE
CITIZENSHIP WHEREBY THAT
FOREIGNNESS IS BOTH A PART, AND
ALSO THE PROBLEM, BUT HOW DO WE
OVERCOME THAT DILEMMA?

Jennifer says FIRST OF ALL
A CORRECTION.
NOT MODEL POWER.
I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE
FUTURE IN TERMS OF POWER, GREAT
POWER, SUPERPOWER, MIDDLE POWER.
I THINK THE REALITY OF CANADA'S
CONTRIBUTION IS GOING TO BE AS A
CITIZEN, NOT AS A POWER.
NOW THAT BEING SAID, I'M NOT
FLUFFY IN THINKING THERE ARE NO
HARD REALITIES AND RESOURCES
BEHIND IT, BUT I JUST WANT TO
MAKE A PLEA FOR GETTING AWAY
FROM THAT WAY OF CATEGORISING
WHAT IT IS THAT WE DO.
YOUR QUESTION IS A BURNING ONE.
IT IS HOW WE MANAGE TO CONTINUE
WHAT IT IS THAT MAKES US SO
INTERESTING TO OTHERS.
I CAN ONLY TELL YOU THAT I WAS
AT AN EVENT IN LONDON LAST WEEK,
WHERE SEVERAL JOURNALISTS SAID,
“WE ARE LOOKING AT YOU RIGHT
NOW, BECAUSE THE NUMBER 1 ISSUE
IN EUROPE RIGHT NOW IS
IMMIGRATION.”
BUT WHAT I FIND STRIKING ABOUT
THE WAY THAT WE HAVE GONE
THROUGH THESE FIRST THREE YEARS
OF THE WAR ON TERROR, IS THAT
THE TWO COMMUNITIES, THE
COUNTERTERRORISM COMMUNITY AND
THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY ARE
OPERATING LIKE TWO SOLITUDES,
AND WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO IS
TO BRING THEM TOGETHER TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
THAT YOU ARE RAISING, ABOUT HOW
IT IS THAT WE ACTUALLY USE THESE
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE IN CANADA,
TO HELP US UNDERSTAND BETTER, TO
HELP US REDUCE THAT SENSE OF
FOREIGN, TO HELP US TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE
THREATS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY
REAL, THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED,
AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE
KEY STEPS THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
IN THE COMING YEARS, IS THAT
THOSE TWO PUBLIC POLICY
COMMUNITIES, IF YOU WILL, COME
TOGETHER.
I-- YOUR QUESTION OF HOW DO WE
TRANSCEND THE FOREIGN, IT'S A
VERY TALL ORDER, ESPECIALLY IN A
PLACE LIKE CANADA, BECAUSE IN A
SENSE, WE ARE, DESPITE WHAT I
SAID ABOUT MYSELF IN THE
BEGINNING, WE ARE ALL COMING
FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND I
WOULDN'T WANT TO LOSE THAT
DIMENSION.
SO IT IS -- I THINK THE IDEA OF
FOREIGNER, I QUITE AGREE WITH
YOU, IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT
TO TRY TO GET BEYOND, BECAUSE IT
HAS THOSE CONNOTATIONS.

The man in the black suit says MY QUESTION WAS, TOWARD
THE END OF YOUR LECTURE YOU
TALKED A LOT ABOUT VALUES,
CANADIAN VALUES, AND WHILE I
AGREE WITH THE SET OF VALUES
THAT YOU ARTICULATED, AS I
SUSPECT MOST PEOPLE IN THE ROOM
MAY AS WELL, I'M NOT QUITE SURE
WHETHER THEY'RE NECESSARILY
SHARED THROUGHOUT THE NATION.
THEY, IN SOME WAYS, MAY BE SEEN
AS ACADEMIC VALUES OR POINTY
HEADED VALUES OR WHATEVER
ELSE -- ELITE VALUES, IS WHAT
I'M TRYING TO SAY, AND THEY'RE
NOT SHARED BY EVERYONE ELSE.
NOT EVERYONE BELIEVE IN, FOR
INSTANCE, AN ACTIVIST COURT OR A
ROBUST HUMAN RIGHTS REGIME.
SO THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR
YOU, IS WHETHER OR NOT, A, YOU
THINK THIS IS TRUE, B,
THEORETICALLY, IS THIS
PROBLEMATIC AT ALL, IS IT
PROBLEMATIC THAT THERE MAY BE
TENSION WITHIN A SOCIETY BETWEEN
ELITE AND MASS VALUES, AND
THIRDLY, ON A PRACTICAL LEVEL,
DOES IT MATTER IN THE WORLD.

Jennifer says HMM, WOW.
SO THREE VERY DIFFICULT
QUESTIONS.
THE LAST IS, YES IT DOES MATTER,
ABSOLUTELY.
THERE'S BEEN A STRANGE
PHENOMENON, I THINK THAT WE SAW
IN THE WAR IN IRAQ, WHERE WE HAD
SPENT SO MUCH OF THE 1990s
COMPLAINING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE
POLITICAL LEADERS.
NO ONE WAS BEING A LEADER LIKE
CHURCHILL WAS A LEADER.
YOU KNOW, HE
TOOK THAT HARD DECISIONS.
AND WE SWUNG THE OTHER WAY.
WE APPLAUDED WHEN TONY BLAIR AND
AZNAR TOOK THEIR COUNTRIES TO
WAR WHEN IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE
MAJORITY OF THEIR POPULATIONS
DID NOT SUPPORT WAR.
NOW I KNOW
THERE'S AN ARGUMENT WE COULD
HAVE ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS
RIGHT OR WRONG, OR WHETHER THAT
WAS GOOD LEADERSHIP, BUT IT
STRIKES ME AS STRANGE THAT
THAT'S THE PLACE WE'VE COME TO,
THAT WE SEE GOOD LEADERSHIP AS
BEING OVERRULING PUBLIC OPINION
ON SOMETHING AS CRUCIAL AS A
WAR.
SO I THINK IT ABSOLUTELY
MATTERS, THIS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ELITE VALUES AND POPULAR VALUES.
AND I THINK IT'S THEORETICALLY
IMPORTANT, TOO.
BUT AS WITH ALL OF THESE VALUES,
THEY'RE A CONVERSATION THAT'S
ONGOING.
AND I DON'T THINK THE
EXPECTATION IS THAT YOU HAVE
100 percent SIGN UP, BUT PART OF WHAT
YOU DO, IF YOU THINK ABOUT A
NATION, NOT AS SOMETHING THAT IS
BLOOD RELATED, NOT AS SOMETHING
THAT YOU ARE NATURALLY BORN
INTO, BUT SOMETHING THAT YOU
CHOOSE TO BE PART OF, YOU ARE
ESSENTIALLY CHOOSING TO BE A
PART OF A COMBINATION OF
INSTITUTIONS AND VALUES.
AND I THINK--
AND I CERTAINLY SEE THIS WITH
NEW IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA.
THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
AGREEMENT ON THOSE VERY BROAD
AND GENERAL VALUES.
I ALSO THINK, HOWEVER, AND IT'S
INTERESTING THAT YOU PICKED UP
ON MY USE OF THE TERM, THAT WE
NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT BASING
CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY ONLY ON
VALUES, THAT THERE IS ALSO A SET
OF CANADIAN INTERESTS AND THOSE
ALSO NEED TO BE THOUGHT OF AND
PROMOTED, AND IN FACT VALUES AND
INTERESTS DO WORK TOGETHER.
BUT WHEN WE SAY OUR ROLE IN THE
WORLD IS INFLUENCED OR DICTATED
BY OUR VALUES, THAT'S ONLY
PARTLY TRUE.
I THINK THERE'S A MUCH MORE
COMPLICATED MIX THAT GOES ON
THERE.

A woman in her twenties from the audience says
HELLO, MY NAME IS ANNA
JAICRAN.
I'M WORKING WITH A GROUP THAT'S
ENCOURAGING THE CANADIAN
GOVERNMENT NOT TO SIGN ON TO THE
AMERICAN MISSILE DEFENCE
PROGRAM.
AND I READ YOUR PAPER THAT YOU
WROTE ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
AMERICAN AND CANADIAN IDENTITIES
ESPECIALLY AMONG YOUNGER PEOPLE
AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAD
ANY ADVICE FOR US ON HOW TO
CAPTURE THE IMAGINATION OF
PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T ALREADY
SIGNED ON TO OUR CAMPAIGN.

Jennifer says SO THIS IS A
MARKETING QUESTION.
[laughing]
I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO ASK
ME WHAT MY OWN VIEWS ON MISSILE
DEFENCE WERE.
WHEW!
IT'S A COMPLICATED COMBINATION
OF INTERESTS AND VALUES.
I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THIS
WAS AN ISSUE THAT REALLY COULD
GALVANISE PARTICULARLY YOUNGER
CANADIANS, AND SO I'M SURPRISED
THAT YOU SAY YOU'RE HAVING
DIFFICULTY GETTING PEOPLE TO
SIGN YOUR PETITION.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME, WHEN I
LOOK AT THE MEDIA THAT IT IS A
MAJOR ISSUE THAT'S BEING
DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC
POLICY.
BUT I THINK, AS WITH ALL
QUESTIONS, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE, OR
ANOTHER PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE, IT
HAS TO BE BROUGHT DOWN TO THE
LEVEL OF, HOW DOES THIS IMPACT
YOUR LIFE?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR YOU TO
TAKE PART IN AN INITIATIVE LIKE
THIS?
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU?
TO MAKE IT VERY PERSONAL AND TO
CONNECT WITH PEOPLE.
NOT TO TREAT THIS AS SOME SORT
OF ABSTRACT ISSUE THAT WE FRAME
IN TERMS OF YOU KNOW, MISSILE
DEFENSE SHIELDS, AND STAR WARS,
BUT REALLY TO FRAME THE ISSUE IN
A WAY THAT DESCRIBES, IN A
PERSONAL WAY, WHAT THE IMPACT
COULD BE, OR OF WHAT THE IMPACT
COULD BE OF THEM SIGNING YOUR
PETITION.
GIVING THEM A SENSE OF THE
MOMENTUM THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING
TO.
BUT I THINK, AS I SAID BEFORE, I
WOULD BE SURPRISED IF IT WASN'T
A HOT ISSUE THAT YOU COULD
GALVANISE PEOPLE AROUND, BECAUSE
MY SENSE IS THAT THERE'S VERY,
VERY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS
IN CANADA.

A woman in her twenties with long curly blond hair in a black cardigan stands up.

She says MY NAME'S VERONICA
KITCHEN, I'M A PhD CANDIDATE IN
POLITICAL SCIENCE AT BROWN
UNIVERSITY.
AND I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT
YOUR DECISION, OR YOUR ARGUMENT
TO REDEFINE THE CANADIAN
IDENTITY FROM MIDDLE POWER TO
MODEL CITIZEN, FOR THIS REASON.
I THINK WE STILL LIVE IN A WORLD
WHERE POWER MATTERS.
AND WE ONLY NEED TO LOOK AT THE
STATES THAT WE STILL REFER TO AS
GREAT POWERS AND SUPERPOWERS AND
HYPER POWERS -- WELL ONE IS A
HYPER POWER, TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT HOW
A MODEL-- A COUNTRY THAT'S
ACTING AS A MODEL CITIZEN CAN
WORK WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
PERHAPS AS MODEL CITIZENS, AS
SORT OF A CORRECTIVE TO POWER IN
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM,
PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO
YOUR THIRD POINT ABOUT REFORMING
THE INSTITUTIONS OF GLOBAL
GOVERNANCE, AND THE UNITED
NATIONS.
WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE
STATES THAT HAVE THE POWER TO
CHANGE THOSE INSTITUTIONS HAVE A
VETO.
SO SHOULD WE BE WORKING WITHIN
THOSE INSTITUTIONS, OUTSIDE OF
THEM, I'M INTERESTED IN SORT OF
STRATEGIES THAT GLOBAL CITIZENS
CAN USE TO CHANGE THE
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM.

Jennifer says WELL LET ME
SAY JUST TWO THINGS IN A
PRELIMINARY WAY, BASED ON YOUR
COMMENTS, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE,
AND AS A SCHOLAR AND A TEACHER
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, I
FOCUS A LOT ON POWER, AND I'M
NOT SUGGESTING IT DOESN'T
MATTER.
WHAT I THINK CANADIANS NEED TO
DO, IS NOT DELUDE THEMSELVES
ABOUT OUR POWER.
I THINK IN THE CURRENT
DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, WE DO NOT
HAVE THE KIND OF RESOURCES TO
PLACE US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE
VIE WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM,
FRANCE, THE UNITED STATES, AND
TO THINK OF OURSELVES IN POWER
TERMS, I THINK IS TO INVITE
DISAPPOINTMENT AND FOCUS US ON
THE WRONG THINGS.
AS I SAID IN MY LECTURE, THAT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT POWER ISN'T
IMPORTANT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT MILITARY
RESOURCES AREN'T IMPORTANT.
I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE.
I BELIEVE IF
YOU WANT TO DO THINGS LIKE
INTERVENE IN KOSOVO, YOU NEED TO
HAVE MILITARY POWER.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE U.N., YOUR
QUESTION, I THINK WE'VE SEEN A
FASCINATING 18 MONTHS WHERE YOU
HAD AMERICAN COMMENTATORS SAYING
THAT THE U.N. WAS DEAD, THAT
THEY WERE--
SOME OF THEM
TOOK GREAT DELIGHT IN SAYING IT
WAS GOING TO BE DEAD OVER IRAQ,
AND YET YOU HAD THE UNITED
STATES COMING BACK TO THE UNITED
NATIONS TO GAIN A RESOLUTION TO
GIVE IT THE POWER TO OCCUPY IRAQ
AFTER THE WAR.
AND I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING
IN ALL OF THIS IS, WHY SHOULD IT
MATTER?
WHY DO WE NEED THAT U.N. STAMP
OF APPROVAL, WHY IS IT SO
IMPORTANT?
AND EVEN THE UNITED STATES HAS
CLEARLY SEEN THE IMPORTANCE OF
THAT.
AND I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH
LEGITIMACY.
NOW THAT ALSO MAKES ME WORRY
BECAUSE OF YOUR SECOND COMMENT.
THAT IF THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE
ROLE THE UNITED NATIONS IS
PLAYING, BECAUSE LET'S BE
HONEST, IT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF
MILITARY CAPABILITY, IT GETS
THAT FROM STATES,
BUREAUCRATICALLY IT'S A BIT OF A
SHAMBLES, SO REALLY WHAT IT IS,
IS IT'S A FORUM FOR
LEGITIMISING.
IT'S A VERY KIND OF INTANGIBLE
THING.
WHICH MAKES ME THINK WE HAVE TO
INVEST VERY HEAVILY IN MAKING
SURE IT RETAINS THAT LEGITIMACY.
AND PART OF THAT IS THINKING
ABOUT HOW THE SECURITY COUNCIL
IS CREATED.
REMEMBER, THE CHARTER WAS
CHANGED ONCE BEFORE, THE U.N.
WAS CHANGED ONCE BEFORE TO ALLOW
AN ENLARGEMENT FOR NON-PERMANENT
MEMBERS, AND AS WITH ALL THINGS
OF THIS NATURE, WHAT YOU ARE
ESSENTIALLY DOING IS APPEALING
TO THE POWERFUL TO SAY, YOUR
POSITION DEPENDS ON A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF LEGITIMACY.
YOU WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD YOUR
POSITION AS LONG AS OTHERS
CONSENT TO THAT.
AND THE WAY THAT YOU CAN MAKE A
SYSTEM STRONGER AND MORE STABLE
IS BY OPENING UP TO REFORM, AND
WE'VE SEEN THAT IN DOMESTIC
SOCIETIES, WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH
THE EXTENSION OF CITIZENSHIP
RIGHTS IN DOMESTIC SOCIETIES.
SO IT'S APPEALING TO THAT SENSE
THAT REFORM ACTUALLY MAKES FOR A
MORE STABLE SYSTEM IN THE LONG
RUN, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE
HAVE TO APPEAL TO.

A man in his twenties stands up. He has short straight brown hair, glasses, black suit and tie and a white shirt.

He says JENNIFER YOU MENTIONED
THAT YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THERE'S
A SORT OF COMMUNITY OF VALUES
BETWEEN CANADA AND THE U.S., IN
THE SAME STRENGTH THAT THERE IS
SAY, WITHIN THE EU, OR I GUESS
MAYBE THE ORIGINAL EU PRIOR TO
THE ENLARGEMENT.
TO WHAT DEGREE IS THAT TRUE IF
YOU REMOVE QUEBEC FROM THE
CANADIAN EQUATION.
I KNOW THAT IS VERY HYPOTHETICAL
BECAUSE SEPARATISM IS ON THE
WANE, BUT IT'S NOT DEAD, AND
THERE WAS A REALLY GREAT
DISPARITY BETWEEN VIEWS OF THE
IRAQ WAR IN QUEBEC VERSUS IN ANGLO
CANADA AND IN PARTICULAR WESTERN
CANADA AND ONTARIO.

Jennifer says I DISAGREE A
LITTLE BIT WITH YOUR PREMISE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT--
YES, QUEBEC, AND I'LL SAY IT IS
A DISTINCT SOCIETY AND IT HAS
DISTINCT VALUES, BUT WHAT'S
INTERESTING TO ME IN THE
RESEARCH THAT I LOOK AT ON
SOCIAL VALUES, IS HOW
HOMOGENEOUS CANADA IS, RELATIVE
TO THE UNITED STATES.
WHAT'S SO INTERESTING ABOUT THE
UNITED STATES TODAY, IS HOW
DIVIDED IT IS.
HOW, IF YOU ARE TO PLOT WHERE
DIFFERENT PEOPLE FIT ON
DIFFERENT VALUES, THEY'RE ALL
OVER THE MAP.
AND THEY FALL IN REGIONAL TERMS,
AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT, WHEREAS
CANADA, YOU PLOT REGIONS OF
CANADA, THEY'RE ALL WITHIN THE
SAME QUADRANT ON SOCIAL VALUES,
AND SO WE LIKE TO THINK THAT
THERE'S THIS GREAT DISPARITY IN
CANADA, BUT IN FACT, RELATIVE TO
THE UNITED STATES, IT'S
MINUSCULE.
AND ONE OF THE INTERESTING
THINGS THAT I HEARD MICHAEL
ADAMS SAY RECENTLY IS THAT STILL
THE LARGEST CONCENTRATION OF
SOCIAL LIBERALS IN THE WORLD,
EXISTS IN THE UNITED STATES.
THE LARGEST NUMBER OF THEM.
IT'S JUST THAT THEY ARE
DISPERSED AND THEY DON'T HAVE AN
IMPACT ON THEIR STRUCTURES OF
GOVERNMENT.
BUT IT'S STILL A HUGE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE.
SO WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT
DRAWING CONCLUSIONS THAT ALL
AMERICANS SUPPORTED THE WAR.
THERE'S A LOT MORE GOING ON IN
THE UNITED STATES.
BUT I THINK MY MORE FUNDAMENTAL
POINT IS TO SAY THAT I DON'T
THINK THE VALUES OF CANADIANS
ARE QUITE AS, QUEBEC VS. THE
REST OF CANADA AS YOU MIGHT HAVE
PITTED.
IF I CAN JUST CONTINUE YOUR LINE
OF QUESTIONING FOR A MOMENT, I
THINK THE OTHER INTERESTING
PIECE IN THIS IS MEXICO.
BECAUSE I THINK TO ME, IF WE'RE
SERIOUS ABOUT TALKING ABOUT
NORTH AMERICA, AND WE'RE SERIOUS
ABOUT EXPANDING ON NAFTA, THEN
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A COMMUNITY
THAT INCLUDES MEXICO, WHOSE
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE IS VERY
DIFFERENT, SOME OF WHOSE VALUES
ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
AND THAT ADDS A VERY INTERESTING
LAYER OF COMPLEXITY INTO THE
WHOLE DISCUSSION.
WE THINK JUST ABOUT THE U.S.,
BUT NORTH AMERICA TODAY, AT
LEAST IN NAFTA TERMS, INCLUDES
MEXICO.

A middle aged man with short curly brown hair and a moustache says IT USUALLY TAKES FIVE TO
TEN YEARS FOR FOREIGN POLICY AND
MAJOR INITIATIVES TO HATCH AND
TO UH, AND TO COME TO SOME
FRUITION.
I WONDER IF, IN LIGHT--
GIVEN THE PROPOSITION THAT
YOU'VE GIVEN US TONIGHT, IF I
WERE TO LOOK DOWN THE ROAD 20
YEARS FROM NOW, WHICH WOULD
BE... IN THE SORT OF MATURATION
STAGE OF CANADA GOING IN THAT
DIRECTION, SUPPOSE I PAINT THE
FOLLOWING SCENARIO.
A LOT OF WHAT YOU'VE SAID WAS
BASED ON THE FACT WE HAVE ONE
HYPER-POWER, AND THEIR
COMPETITOR DROPPED OUT OF SIGHT.
BUT 20 YEARS FROM NOW, IF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WAS TO BE
SUSTAINED IN CHINA AS IT
CURRENTLY IS, I COULD FORESEE A
SITUATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
IN FACT, HAVING A NEW CONTENDER
IN THE WORLD, CALLED CHINA,
ROMEO DELAIRE, ABOUT FOUR MONTHS
AGO, TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT
IN AFGHANISTAN, WHAT YOU'RE
SEEING RIGHT NOW IS THE FORWARD
BEGINNING OF THE DEPLOYMENT OF
NEW BASES TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR
FUTURE CONTENDER.
AND THE WEAPONISATION OF SPACE,
AND THE MISSILE DEFENSE ETCETERA, MAY
WELL BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE
MAIN CONTENDER COMING UP WITHIN
THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
AND SO MY POINT IS THIS.
THAT GIVEN THE PROPOSITION THAT
YOU WILL THEN PIT TWO MAJOR
POWERS AGAIN, ARE WE NOT GOING
TO HAVE A POSITION THERE OF A
MIDDLE POWER ONCE AGAIN, HAVING
A ROLE?

Jennifer says INTERESTING
AND CREATIVE QUESTION.
CAN I ANSWER IT IN TWO WAYS?
FIRST OF ALL I AGREE WITH YOU
THAT ONE OF THE DANGERS OF
FOCUSSING COMPLETELY ON WHAT WE
CALL U.S. HEGEMONY, AND SO MUCH
IN THE PUBLIC POLICY DISCOURSE
IN THIS COUNTRY IS REALLY
CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY IS
CANADA U.S. RELATIONS.
AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT ANYTHING
ELSE, YOU'RE KIND OF WHISTLING
IN THE DAR.
AND I DISAGREE WITH THAT FOR
PRECISELY YOUR REASONING.
I DON'T DENY IT'S OUR MOST
IMPORTANT FOREIGN RELATIONSHIP.
WE NEED TO INVEST, I WOULD ARGUE
IN KNOWING THE UNITED STATES
MUCH BETTER THAN WE KNOW IT
TODAY.
WE THINK WE DO.
CANADIANS LOVE TO SAY THAT THEY
UNDERSTAND THE UNITED STATES AND
THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T
UNDERSTAND US.
I DON'T BUY THAT.
I ACTUALLY THINK THERE'S SO MUCH
GOING ON IN THE UNITED STATES
THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND, AND I
HOPE THE AMERICAN STUDIES
PROGRAM AT THIS UNIVERSITY JUST
GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER, BECAUSE
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT.
SORRY, THAT WAS JUST A LITTLE
EDITORIAL TANGENT.
BUT ON CHINA, TO ME, PRECISELY
THIS POSSIBILITY IS WHAT MAKES
MODEL CITIZENSHIP SO IMPORTANT.
BECAUSE IF YOU THINK THAT IN
FACT 20 YEARS FROM NOW, AND I'M
NOT SAYING THIS IS TRUE, BUT
LET'S SAY YOU'RE RIGHT.
20 YEARS FROM NOW, CHINA IS A
GREAT POWER.
DON'T YOU WANT CHINA OVER THE
NEXT 20 YEARS TO HAVE BEEN
ENGAGED AS A PLAYER IN THE
UNITED NATIONS, BUILDING NEW
STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT,
LEARNING TO WORK WITHIN THOSE
INSTITUTIONS, SO THAT WHEN IT
IS, “TOP DOG,” SO TO SPEAK, IT
FACES THE SAME KINDS OF
CONSTRAINTS OF FEELS IT IS
CONSTRAINED IN THE SAME KINDS OF
WAYS.
SO FOR ME, THAT AGENDA BECOMES
MORE IMPORTANT IF YOU BELIEVE
THAT THE GREAT POWER IN THE
FUTURE MAY NOT BE THE UNITED
STATES, WHICH SHARES A LOT OF
CANADIAN VALUES.
SO I THINK THAT, TO ME, SUGGESTS
THAT AGENDA STILL HAS RESONANCE.
IN TERMS OF
WHETHER WE WILL HAVE TWO GREAT
POWERS, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT IT
WILL PLAY OUT EXACTLY IN THAT
WAY.
EVEN IF IT WERE TO, I'M NOT SURE
THAT THE SITUATION I DESCRIBED
IN 1945, WHERE CANADA MANOEUVRED
THROUGH THE COLD WAR WILL EXIST,
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE REST OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CHESSBOARD WILL
HAVE EVOLVED AS WELL.
EUROPE WILL LOOK DIFFERENT,
BRAZIL WILL LOOK DIFFERENT,
INDIA WILL LOOK DIFFERENT, AND I
THINK IT MAKES THAT OLD SCENARIO
LESS AND LESS LIKELY TO BE
RELEVANT.
BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION,
IT'S INTERESTING TO THINK THAT
FAR AHEAD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

The audience applauds.

Watch: Jennifer Welsh on Where Do I Belong? Exploring Citizenship