Canada, a land known for its multiculturalism and friendliness, but also by Stairs for its negative foreign policy. The basis of this argument comes from his observation that Canadians have grown increasingly pompous in their handling of international affairs (1). They have fallen into a state of confusion, where they view their values as superior to those of the rest of the world (1). As a result, their American relations, along with those overseas have been negatively affected (1). This flawed foreign policy stands on the basis of three pillars: security, prosperity, and values and culture (2). While for the most part, these are not bad goals, pillar number three is where the conflict lies (2). This opens the conversation as to whether Canadians truly believe in such values that they are pushing on the international community. Stairs argues that they often do not, and moreover, when they do it is only because they have the money to support them (17). He would lead one to believe that Canada, along with all other nations, are merely self-interested with no regard for the benefit of anyone else. This is not the case.
Stairs’ argument stems from the third of the three pillars. This rule governing our actions abroad, was meant to show Canada as an intelligent and cultural nation, but has instead been used to project our values on …show more content…
Here, national attributes are not seen as factors that impact state’s behaviour internationally. Waltz’s theory states that nations can only vary in three ways in the international system; their ordering principle, the differentiation of units, and their distribution of power. The first two of these are locked, and it is only the variation of power that changes from nation to nation. This differs from classical realism as it no longer focuses human nature, but instead on the structure of the system