| Summary/Abstract |
Public debate about Canada's role in the Middle East is divided between two camps. One camp contends that Canadian foreign policy should return to its Pearsonian roots, in which Canada plays the role of a dispassionate but honest broker. The other holds that Canada's foreign policy should be defined by high-minded principles. The disagreement is over norms, not interests. This paper refers to two former Prime Ministers who roughly embody the two schools of thought on Canada's foreign and defense policy in the Middle East: Lester B. Pearson and Stephen Harper. Contrary to conventional wisdom that Harper was a realist and Pearson, a Pearsonian, the paper demonstrates that Pearson pursued a realist foreign policy that advances Canada's national security interests whereas Harper was guided by a values-based neo-conservative ideology.
|