The central feature of Canada’s economic condition is its dependence on foreign markets. From the beginning, Canada depended on the export of raw natural resources such as fish, fur, timber, and wheat, and on the import of finished goods, as well as people. Over time Canada did make several attempts to gain more control over its economic destiny, including the implementation of the National Policy in 1879. The history of Canada’s economic sovereignty has been linked to its political and economic relationships to stronger partners in the United Kingdom and the United States. Most of the Canada’s international imprint is linked to their close and dynamic with the neighbour to the south.
Although international trade has taken place for centuries, globalization today is distinguished by the sheer volume and speed of economic exchanges. Technology and more open borders have facilitated this phenomenon. Canada is a partner in international trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization. Several indictments against globalization have been made by critics who have accused it of creating greater global economic inequality, undermining indigenous cultures, and decreasing state capacity. While there is some degree of truth to some claims, others are inconclusive or incorrect. In fact, for Canada, globalization has meant greater integration with and dependence on the economy of the United States. Canada’s asymmetrical relationship with the United States has created a dilemma concerning its foreign policy. To what degree can it chart its own course without compromising its relationship with the United States and thus its economic prosperity? Evidence has shown that Canada has often been able to take an opposing position on certain issues, but that there are limits to the circumstances and how far its position can diverge.
In terms of international security, Canada has a reputation of diplomacy and the middle of the road with a reliance on so-called “soft power.” Canadians view themselves as peacekeeping internationalists, pointing to Canada’s past peacekeeping missions. Recently, some analysts have argued that this image is in fact an allusion, since peacekeeping has become more dangerous and requires a greater military investment than Canada’s.