The Politics of Self‐righteousness: Canadaʹs Foreign Policy and the Human Security Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Human security ’ has become a buzzword of post‐Cold War global security governance. By subscribing to the human security leitmotif, Canada has actively participated in the construction of meaning that is attached to and associated with the term. However, it has done so primarily on a rhetorical level by appealing to the myth of Canada’s ‘golden era ’ in the 1950s and its self‐ understanding as a ‘peacekeeper’, ‘do‐gooder’, ‘honest broker ’ and ‘helpful fixer’. It is through this emotionally appealing character that the Canadian human security agenda successfully reconstructed a common national identity notwithstanding the agenda’s inconsistencies and severe cuts of its foreign policy budget. Canada’s Foreign Policy Myth Canada’s largest book retailer, Indigo, has recently been running a campaign arguing that “the world needs more Canada”. The ingredient of Canada that the world needs – and, hence, currently lacks – is in that case: books. Unsurprisingly, however, the slogan also resonates perfectly with a broader Canadian self‐perception of its role in the world1 and especially its appraisal of the so‐called ‘golden era’, the time when the Canadian diplomatic corps was regarded the finest in the world and the country was doing good all over the globe, as a peacekeeper, a generous donor, a brave soldier or an honest broker (Cohen 2003, Welsh 2005). At least, so does the official myth go. It would need too much time and space here to evaluate how close to reality this self‐image comes. Nonetheless this self‐perception nicely serves as a starting point for locating Canada’s foreign policy under Lloyd Axworthy, subsumed under the label of human security, and for placing it in the broader context of Canada’s external relations since the end of World War II. Since that time two issues have been crucial for the formulation of the country’s foreign policy, namely (a) its relationship with its Southern neighbour, and (b) the question of national unity and a common national identity (Keating 2002: 1, Stevenson 2000: 91). However, these two linkages cannot be illustrated without briefly elaborating on human security as a – at least rhetorical – new form of foreign policy (also see Bosold and von Bredow 2006).
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".