Search results

Im Unterschied zu vielen, europäischen Staaten definiert sich die kanadische Identität nicht über eine gemeinsame, ethnische Herkunft. Vielmehr leitet sie sich bereits in ihrer Wurzel von einer jeweils eigenständigen, englischen und französischen Gründungsgeneration ab. Ferner werden inzwischen auch die Aboriginals als eines der Gründungsvölker Kanadas anerkannt. Diese Multikulturalität, zusammen mit der großen landschaftlichen und klimatischen Vielfältigkeit des Landes, hat dazu geführt, dass Kanada eine besondere Sensibilität für die Unterschiedlichkeit seiner Bevölkerungsgruppen und, damit verbunden, auch vermehrt gesellschaftliche und rechtliche Instrumente entwickelt hat, die sowohl auf der nationalen als auch auf der internationalen Ebene dazu beitragen sollen, gemeinsame Werte zu schützen, ohne eine der beteiligten Gruppen zur Aufgabe ihrer Identität zu zwingen.

Examines arguments for & against North American integration, concluding that it remains a political choice, not a given, for Canadian governments. Rejecting it does not negate the importance of the Canadian-US relationship nor implies the need for an alternative. The issue of geographic determinism is looked at, before exploring why Canadian public opinion remains reticent with respect to integration despite some strong arguments in its favor. Attention is then given to political aspects of integration as well as to the idea that there is an evolutionary logic to moving Canada toward closer integration. It is concluded that the only potentially compelling reason in favor of North American integration is economic. Reiterating that North American integration is an option & not an unavoidable fate, implications for Canadian relations with its NAFTA partners are briefly considered. J. Zendejas

Canada plays little part in Europe's Atlantic policy. Yet European and German policy makers should be aware of an emerging debate in the Northern part of North America that could affect Canada's link to Europe and with it European interests. Europeans as yet are not very conscious of the fact that reliable, like-minded, multilateralist partners with enough resources and political will to make a contribution, do not come in such numbers that Canada can be largely ignored. Because of real and acknowledged similarities between Canada and Europe on many foreign and domestic policy issues, Canada has sometimes been referred to as "a North American country with European instincts." But that does not mean that, in comparison to the US, the transatlantic cooperation between Canada and Europe is less problematic and goes on unnurtured. Years of very significant Canadian involvement in the Balkans and major contributions in Afghanistan alongside European troops have not been enough to make Europeans aware of the need to address the unique situation of Canada, for instance in NATO. The question therefore is why should either side do what it does not seem naturally inclined to do, i.e. promote a special relationship. The most obvious first step would be a better inclusion of Canada in the transatlantic dialogue. For that to happen, Canada would have to define convincingly the nature of its added value. It would also have to find within Europe a champion. As a new government in Germany is beginning to define its international role in terms of security, energy and transatlantic relations, this is an aspect that it could do well to consider. (SWP-Studie / SWP)

Canada plays little part in Europe's Atlantic policy. Yet European and German policy makers should be aware of an emerging debate in the Northern part of North America that could affect Canada's link to Europe and with it European interests. Europeans as yet are not very conscious of the fact that reliable, like-minded, multilateralist partners with enough resources and political will to make a contribution, do not come in such numbers that Canada can be largely ignored. Because of real and acknowledged similarities between Canada and Europe on many foreign and domestic policy issues, Canada has sometimes been referred to as "a North American country with European instincts." But that does not mean that, in comparison to the US, the transatlantic cooperation between Canada and Europe is less problematic and goes on unnurtured. Years of very significant Canadian involvement in the Balkans and major contributions in Afghanistan alongside European troops have not been enough to make Europeans aware of the need to address the unique situation of Canada, for instance in NATO. The question therefore is why should either side do what it does not seem naturally inclined to do, i.e. promote a special relationship. The most obvious first step would be a better inclusion of Canada in the transatlantic dialogue. For that to happen, Canada would have to define convincingly the nature of its added value. It would also have to find within Europe a champion. As a new government in Germany is beginning to define its international role in terms of security, energy and transatlantic relations, this is an aspect that it could do well to consider.

Governmental Perspectives - The North Atlantic Alliance - The Triangular Relationship - The Bilateral Dimension

'Canada plays little part in Europe's Atlantic policy. Yet European and German policy makers should be aware of an emerging debate in the Northern part of North America that could affect Canada's link to Europe and with it European interests. Europeans as yet are not very conscious of the fact that reliable, like-minded, multilateralist partners with enough resources and political will to make a contribution, do not come in such numbers that Canada can be largely ignored. Because of real and acknowledged similarities between Canada and Europe on many foreign and domestic policy issues, Canada has sometimes been referred to as 'a North American country with European instincts.' But that does not mean that, in comparison to the US, the transatlantic cooperation between Canada and Europe is less problematic and goes on unnurtured. Years of very significant Canadian involvement in the Balkans and major contributions in Afghanistan alongside European troops have not been enough to make Europeans aware of the need to address the unique situation of Canada, for instance in NATO. The question therefore is why should either side do what it does not seem naturally inclined to do, i.e. promote a special relationship. The most obvious first step would be a better inclusion of Canada in the transatlantic dialogue. For that to happen, Canada would have to define convincingly the nature of its added value. It would also have to find within Europe a champion. As a new government in Germany is beginning to define its international role in terms of security, energy and transatlantic relations, this is an aspect that it could do well to consider.' (author's abstract)|