Home Page News Opinion Foreign Policy Politics Policy Legislation Lobbying Hill Life & People Hill Climbers Heard On The Hill Calendar Archives Classifieds
Advertising Subscribe Reuse & Permissions
Hill Times Events Hill Times Books Hill Times Careers The Wire Report The Lobby Monitor Parliament Now
Global

One North Korea summit, two messages: Canada and the U.S. in Vancouver

By Brian Gold      

Media reports suggested differing opinions regarding inviting China amongst the co-hosts. Canada desired an invite for China in the summit while the U.S. did not. This disagreement points to the differing messages Canada and the U.S. hoped to send from the summit.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, right, and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, left, pictured last month in Ottawa, were the co-hosts for a summit last week in Vancouver on North Korea.
The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

The Vancouver summit of 20 foreign ministers on the North Korea nuclear missile crisis that met last Tuesday represented the first substantive action of a Canadian government regarding North Korea in nearly seven years. As such, it has been watched closely in terms of what concrete results it produced in terms of showing Canada has a leadership role to play.

The most discussed point of criticism has been of who did, and did not, get invited by co-hosts Canada and the U.S. The range of invitees included small countries remote from North Korea such as Colombia and Denmark, and excluded powerful neighbours Russia and China, who will play a central role in any possible diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Media reports last week suggested differing opinions regarding inviting China amongst the co-hosts. Canada desired an invite for China in the summit while the U.S. did not. This disagreement points to the differing messages Canada and the U.S. hoped to send from the summit.

Since the end of World War Two, Canada has generally followed a ‘middle power’ approach to international relations. This approach recognizes that a medium-sized power such as Canada will have the most global influence in a multilateral, rules-based international order, one where a few superpowers will not unilaterally do whatever they wish. This approach has been pursued with renewed vigour under the present government.

Reflecting this approach, Canada envisioned the summit to include itself, the U.S., South Korea, and seventeen other countries that supplied troops or aid in alliance against North Korea (and its then ally China) during the Korean War. Officially, this alliance fought from 1950 to 1953 under the flag of the United Nations, highlighting the role of multilateral institutions in countering unilateral aggression.

In this context, the simple fact that the Vancouver summit happened at all was a success for Canada’s middle power strategy. It sent a message that multilateralism, not unilateral actions or statements by one or two superpowers, was the preferred method for dealing with the present North Korean crisis, as it had been for the first one in 1950.

There was pragmatism, however, in the Canadian approach. Japan was invited even though it had not been a part of the UN alliance or even yet a member of the UN during the Korean War. Additionally, in wanting to invite China, Canada was signalling the end of Cold War divisions that had put China outside of the UN until 1971, and indeed fighting against it during the Korean War.

In blocking China’s attendance, the present American administration was clearly intending to send another message. This was made clear by statements by U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson in Vancouver that China and Russia were to blame for significant lapses in enforcement of UN sanctions placed on North Korea for its development of nuclear weapons. This amounted to a doubling down on the exclusion of China.

Limiting the invitations to a ‘Cold War’ roster, the U.S. administration’s message was that the Vancouver summit was the start of a new ‘coalition of the willing’. The term was most famously used to describe an American led coalition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but was, appropriately enough, first coined in 1994 by the U.S. for a then proposed attack against North Korea.

In sum, from a Canadian viewpoint, just the fact that the Vancouver summit occurred at all can be considered a positive multilateral message that war should not be a unilateral decision. This message however was clouded by the exclusion of China, which sent a message that old battle lines were being resurrected for a possible second Korean War.

Brian R. Gold has taught North Korean history at the University of Alberta, visited North Korea last year, and was a featured speaker at a forum on Canadian policy towards North Korea held this Monday by the University of British Columbia. 

The Hill Times 

More in News

Military activities, veterans’ support, Phoenix fix big-ticket items in $4B new spending ask

News|By Emily Haws
The Department of National Defence and other departments providing services to active and retired members of the Armed Forces are taking up a sizeable chunk of the $4-billion in extra spending the Liberals have put…

Singh will have to showcase ‘political guts,’ clear progressive message to connect with voters

New leader Jagmeet Singh will have to live up to his promise to boldly dig deeper into social democratic values or he'll risk alienating NDP grassroots as the party tries to create distance from the Liberal…

Texting, sit-downs, and lots of waiting in hotel rooms: the ins and outs of NAFTA lobbying

News|By Shruti Shekar
Dozens of industry groups are dispatching executives to every round of the NAFTA renegotiation, and using texts, emails, and phone calls to try to talk to Canada's negotiating leads about what is being discussed with…

Trudeau, Wilson-Raybould justified in speaking out after controversial Stanley verdict, marked a turning point for Canada, say MPs

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould were right to speak out after the verdict in the Gerald Stanley trial, say Liberal and NDP Parliamentarians, who believe the government and Parliament have to…

What happens if an MP’s found guilty of sexual harassment? No one’s saying

News|By Abbas Rana
All the federal political parties say they take sexual harassment “seriously,” but none will say what disciplinary action they would take against an MP found guilty of it. “We take sexual harassment allegations very seriously,…

Feds’ sweeping, new environmental assessment bill keeps power in ministers’ hands, say observers

The government’s new Impact Assessment Act includes hundreds of pages detailing changes to the environmental assessment process in Canada, but keeps ultimate power over approving natural resource projects in the hands of the federal environment…

NDP reviewing past, present harassment processes amid Stoffer, Weir allegations

The NDP isn’t currently investigating the specific harassment allegations against former NDP MP Peter Stoffer, but it says it's looking into how such complaints were, are now and will be handled, something strategist Robin Sears…

Patrick Brown gaining support since re-emerging to challenge sexual harassment allegations, says adviser, though Conservative MPs largely quiet

Patrick Brown, who in a dramatic move re-entered the Ontario leadership late Friday afternoon, is receiving strong support from all corners of the political world since publicly re-emerging to challenge the sexual harassment allegations that…

NDP elects former Hill staffer Vick as new party president

NDP members elected a new party president on the last day of the party’s 2018 policy convention, with former Hill staffer Mathieu Vick being elevated to the role after garnering roughly 83 per cent of…

WANT MORE EXCLUSIVE HILL TIMES CONTENT?

We’re offering 15% off a year-long subscription to the hill times online content.