From Lip Service to Neglect: the Evolution of Canadian Foreign Policy and the Genocide in Darfur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this essay is to examine the evolution of Canada’s policy in response to the Darfur genocide since 2003. In this light, this essay will first outline Paul Martin’s policy during his prime ministership and then analyze Prime Minster Stephen Harper’s policy since his election in 2006. This examination will demonstrate that a considerable divide occurred in Canadian foreign policy during Martin’s prime ministership. Martin’s rhetoric concerning Canada’s contribution to stopping the Darfur genocide became so exaggerated that it was impossible for government action to accommodate. By contrast, although Harper’s limited action in sending financial aid and military expertise to Darfur mirrors that of his predecessor, Harper has effectively taken the air out of Martin’s inflated rhetoric. Harper’s reluctance to publicly address Canada’s response to the Darfur genocide represents a divergence from the trend in contemporary Canadian foreign policy; in other words, Harper’s rhetoric matches his government’s action. Why the drastic change? As this essay will argue, Harper’s deflated rhetoric on the Darfur genocide is the by-product of his strategy to focus his foreign policy message on missions that will achieve the most political points at home, namely, militarizing the Afghanistan war, ensuring closer ties with the United States, satisfying the Canadian Forces, and defining himself in relation to the previous and present Liberals as a decisive leader. In short, Harper has largely neglected the Darfur genocide in order to position himself as a decisive leader concerned with issues of peace and security instead of issues of development and human rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".