{"title":"Canada's Foreign Policy on Nuclear Technology Development and Proliferation","authors":"Mark Thomas Resmini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2601499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Canada has followed an ambiguous path with respect to its policy on nuclear weapons as a result of maintaining a Nuclear Division within its Foreign Affairs Department – which promotes disarmament and non-proliferation – while simultaneously, selling nuclear technology, such as that produced by Candu Energy Inc., that might be used for weapons production. There is a need to understand the rationale for this approach to Canada’s foreign policy on disarmament and non-proliferation and for why Canada continues to support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This major research paper analyzes whether a contradiction between policy and action exists, and what approach best explains the presence or absence of a contradiction. The central argument is that Canada’s foreign policy framework is based in a realist position, wherein Canada’s successive leaders have recognized the inherent risk in being geographically situated next to a hegemon. No political contradiction between Canada’s economic interests and the country’s ongoing support for the NPT was observed, predominantly due to its requirements to meet its own economic obligations in a changing world, and to ensure that its foreign policies are aligned with those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). A unique Canadian strategic vision was identified, in that, the country is able to subsume its own identity in order to support the identities of other nations as the government of Canada has seen fit. Presently, it serves Canada well to maintain its staunch position on disarmament and non-proliferation, as it can and does rely heavily on the deterrence factor of the American armament.","PeriodicalId":243835,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Law eJournal","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2601499","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Canada has followed an ambiguous path with respect to its policy on nuclear weapons as a result of maintaining a Nuclear Division within its Foreign Affairs Department – which promotes disarmament and non-proliferation – while simultaneously, selling nuclear technology, such as that produced by Candu Energy Inc., that might be used for weapons production. There is a need to understand the rationale for this approach to Canada’s foreign policy on disarmament and non-proliferation and for why Canada continues to support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This major research paper analyzes whether a contradiction between policy and action exists, and what approach best explains the presence or absence of a contradiction. The central argument is that Canada’s foreign policy framework is based in a realist position, wherein Canada’s successive leaders have recognized the inherent risk in being geographically situated next to a hegemon. No political contradiction between Canada’s economic interests and the country’s ongoing support for the NPT was observed, predominantly due to its requirements to meet its own economic obligations in a changing world, and to ensure that its foreign policies are aligned with those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). A unique Canadian strategic vision was identified, in that, the country is able to subsume its own identity in order to support the identities of other nations as the government of Canada has seen fit. Presently, it serves Canada well to maintain its staunch position on disarmament and non-proliferation, as it can and does rely heavily on the deterrence factor of the American armament.