Monthly Archives: October 2014

It seems quite intuitive to believe that if a state were well-endowed with natural resources it would overall be better off since it can reap the benefits of those resources. However this is not the case for certain countries that suffer from the “The Resource Curse”. The Resource Curse implies that resource rich countries generally suffer from lower growth, high violence, and worse development than their counterparts. This is especially the case if that country is a developing country. Many African countries suffer from the resource curse such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Sudan because they make poor use of the revenue they make from their resources. Instead of promoting prosperity and growth, resources have done the opposite in these countries, by undermining economic growth, fostering corruption, and often times provoking armed conflict and even civil wars, while also damaging the environment in the process.

A few questions come to my mind when thinking about the Resource Curse. How do countries like Canada, the U.S., and Norway who have an abundance of natural resources avoid the resource curse and seem to benefit greatly from their natural resources? And why is that this curse seems to have such a devastating effect in countries like Sudan?

Initially we have to analyze the institutional and structural differences between the resource winners and the resource losers. Resources do not automatically lead to poor outcomes in all circumstances. Developed countries, like Norway, U.S., and Canada have the proper and accountable institutions that are able to make use of the revenue from the resources properly. On the other hand, corruption is endemic in many of Africa’s most resource-rich countries and it tends to be rent-seeking corruption where only those at the very top reap the benefits and it does not tend to trickle down. Instead of investing the revenues gained from their natural resources and rents into proper infrastructure, social benefits, and education, these corrupt politicians usually pocket a lot of the resource revenues into their own pockets. Some officials also have special dealings with certain mining and oil companies to collect money for rents and permits to be able to mine or drill in that particular region. There is a lack of political accountability because these countries are not democratic and in another sense, since the people don’t pay taxes to the government they really can’t demand anything in return. This blend of resource abundance and poor governance is a lethal combination in resource-rich Africa.

In most cases countries that have abundant natural resources coupled with weak governance and unaccountable institutions are prone to armed violence. Sudan is a country riddled and divided with civil war. For example in Sudan oil rents are equal to more than 18% of GDP and Nigeria where oil rents make up almost 30% of GDP and both countries have had their fair share of conflict. The borders of Sudan have been redrawn to divide the country into northern and southern Sudan, with southern Sudan having about 75% of the natural resources and oil of the state according to our guest speaker Charles Okumu Lomudak. Luke Patey further argues that, “the governance at national, regional, and local levels has largely failed to manage the damaging political, and economic effects of the resource curse.”

I would argue that resources do not always have to be a curse. Africa could be quite prosperous only if it had proper institutions that practiced good governance and if the government was more transparent and accountable with its exchanges with oil and mining companies, and implemented anti-corruption legislation and ensured that its politicians did not just put the revenues from resources into their own pockets.

This blog entry was actually inspired by one of our classes this week when Professor Sinpeng asked us what is Canada’s role in the world? It really got me thinking on what actual impacts Canada had in the International community in a larger scale and how other people perceive Canadians because I know there is more to being Canadian than just friendly people up North who love hockey and poutine.

There is a significant difference between the way Canadians and Americans are perceived. Even when it comes to travelling around the world, Canadians are often received with more hospitality than our American counterparts. When backpacking Canadians are advised to put a Canadian flag on their backpacks because this little flag has a huge symbolic difference than the stars and stripes. General international opinion perceives Canada, as a diverse nation that is more neutral in the political scene and rarely is it that there is hatred shown towards Canada unlike our American neighbors. Canada is not seen as a threat or a hegemon trying to control the world and impose western values rather it is perceived as “middle power” and a leader in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. However Canadian foreign policy seems to be largely aligned for the most part with that of the United States.

The relationship between Canada and the United States is quite an interesting and unique one. We have two sovereign states, constituting the huge bulk of North America and sharing the world’s longest undefended border with each heavily dependent on the other for trade, mutual continental security, and prosperity. Is it possible for Canada to maintain an independent foreign policy despite its strong economic and political ties with the United States?

The security relations between the United States and Canada are quite typical of that between a large power and a smaller power. However the foreign policy of a small or middle power like Canada would be fundamentally different from the foreign policy of a larger superpower like the United States. According to Barry and Brat, Canada and U.S. security is quite interdependent. Since the Canada and the U.S. are in such close proximity with each other, the United States actually serves as a deterrent to external threats to Canada’s safety and therefore Canadians benefit from the fact that our neighbors have the strongest and most powerful military in the world. It is also in the best interest of the United States to ensure Canadian security because any outside security threat to Canada is also a potential threat to the US because any long range missile for example that has the capability to hit Canada also has the capability to attack the U.S. If the U.S. feels that Canada cannot defend itself, then they will act unilaterally to protect it, not just for Canada’s security but for their own as well.

Canada is not just tied with the U.S. for its protection and security; the U.S. also has a huge stronghold on Canadian economy by being the largest economic trading partner of Canada. An example of how closely linked the Canadian economy is with the United States was when the borders were temporarily closed after September 11 and Ontario suffered from a small mini-recession because Canada-US trade was halted.

So it seems like it is nearly impossible for Canadian foreign policy to be significantly different or contradictory to the United States and our policy decisions shift from Unilateralism to that of Cooperation according to Barry and Bratt. It seems like it is in the best interest of Canada to cooperate with the United States. Not only is our economy tied with our trade relations with the United States, Canada is also in multiple trade agreements and alliances with the United States such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and NATO. So in this sense Canadian foreign and economic policy has to be aligned with that of the United States.

Canadian and American defense relations have been officially solidified since the Ogdenburg Agreement signed in 1940 which was designed to provide a framework for closer continental defense cooperation between Canada and the U.S. in the wake of World War II. What ultimately further solidified the Canadian and American security and air defense cooperation was the establishment of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) in 1958 which joined the air defenses of the two countries under a single unified command structure. In 1968, Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s external affairs minister Paul Martin talked about the importance of the defense against help strategy in Canadian policy and stated, “it would tend to erode our sovereignty as well as any influence we could otherwise have on the development of air-defense polices which would have significant impact on us” (Barry 77). But on the other hand this also did not mean that Ottawa was willing to go along with all of U.S. projects at that time.

The United States and Canada’s foreign policy and security relations were also brought to the forefront during the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Canada played a huge role against the War on Terror by sending troops to Afghanistan. However Canada also showed its independent foreign policy decisions by declining to support the U.S.- led invasion of Iraq and not sending troops to Iraq at that time.

This has become a relevant issue of debate today as to whether or not Canada should send its military into Iraq to fight ISIS. The U.S. has been in war with Iraq for more than 10 years now, and Canada did not initially support the war in Iraq. However with the recent terror attacks of ISIS, Prime Minister Harper is now sending Canadian soldiers to Iraq. Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird stated that, “support for U.S. President Barack Obama’s coalition must be robust and global… this is not a test of our government, or one of our allies. This is a test of our generation.” It seems like the Harper government is defending that they are not necessarily sending troops to Iraq because our American allies have asked for our support but that it is Canada’s duty to respond to this threat. Canada should not just stand in the sidelines in the face of these atrocities committed by ISIS and Harper argued that this isn’t a political issue but a moral one.

Although Canada-U.S. relations are strongly linked and interdependent with one another it is evident, with even the recent deployment of troops in Iraq, that Canada still maintains some degree of sovereignty over our foreign policy despite U.S. interest. Canada chose not to get involved in Iraq the first time and for various other reasons our foreign policy towards Iraq has changed, independently of the US, since the Harper Government have chosen to send troops to Iraq to fight ISIS just recently.