In the early 1970s while in college, I wrote a paper which concluded that Canada’s foreign policy in the post-colonial era was largely influenced by the non-alignment movement that had emerged globally at the time. This position was particularly true given that the majority of Canada’s foreign aid was directed at newly established states such as Bangladesh and Cambodia, and several developing countries such as India and Mexico.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged as one of the most significant diplomatic initiatives of the 20th century, offering newly independent nations a third path during the height of the so-called Cold War. Founded on principles of independence, peace, and solidarity, NAM represented an alternative to the rigid bipolar world order dominated by the U.S. and Soviet Union. This movement, which began with just 25 countries in 1961, grew to encompass over 120 nations, fundamentally reshaping global diplomatic dynamics and giving voice to the developing world’s aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination. Canada however was not a formal member of the movement. The movement’s advocacy for the new international economic order in the 1970s, though ultimately unsuccessful, raised important questions about global economic inequality and the need for fairer trade arrangements. In particular, the member countries used their collective strength to democratize United Nations (UN) procedures and decision-making, something that Canada strongly endorsed.
However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the global scene rapidly changed. The NAM countries initially supported the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which in turn Canada greatly supported. However, member states such as India and Pakistan, went on to develop nuclear capabilities, greatly angering Canada who had earlier provided nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to each country. In addition, Canada’s ties to American foreign policy had increased during the Cold War and after. As a result, Canada has unfortunately failed to secure a seat on the UN’s Security Council by not receiving sufficient votes from NAM countries. It is worth noting that over the years Canada played a major role in UN peacekeeping initiatives along with other nations directed at resolving several conflicts among NAM countries themselves.
In the aftermath of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed as a military alliance between 32 member states, including Canada, the U.S. and 30 European states. Canada’s contribution to NATO forces has increased over time, making it almost impossible to have a non-aligned defence or security policy. Canada’s defence spending is expected to increase even more in the coming years.
Moreover, the NAM movement’s effectiveness in the post-Cold War era soon became limited. The rise of a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. created new challenges, while economic globalization exposed the limitations of traditional non-alignment approaches. Many NAM countries found themselves forced to choose between economic integration and political independence. In addition, China and India emerged as the second and third respective economic powers, challenging the U.S. While Canada still supports the dominance of global trading mechanisms, the recent American move to greater bilateral trading arrangements and the use of tariffs has forced Canada to seek out and strengthen trading relationships in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. U.S. isolationist policies have forced Canada to further diversity its domestic economy and its offshore trading partners.
In today’s world, Canada is more or less portrayed as a middle power seeking to maximize its autonomy while engaging with competing global powers. This approach is no longer in line with that of the pre-Cold War era and any move to non-alignment as a foreign policy. However, this does not mean that Canada cannot take an independent stance when it comes to formulating and implementing its foreign policy. There is certainly a need to be not too closely aligned with the current American administration’s isolationist approach to foreign matters.
FROLITICKS 