Pacify or not pacify? A comparison between Canada and Mexico

Abstract

This article explores divergent Canadian and Mexican attitudes to international peacekeeping, explained in part by differences in political cultures and the legacy of military conflict. Mexican reluctance to engage in peacekeeping is rooted in that nation’s fundamental devotion to the principles of both non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states and the right to self-determination that informs and shapes its foreign policy. Canada, by comparison, embraced peacekeeping through much of the second half of the twentieth century as an international contribution suitable to a middle power; indeed, this role became ingrained in the Canadian national imaginary and in the perceptions of Canada held by others around the world. By the mid 1990s, however, Canada had largely abandoned United Nations peacekeeping as dramatic cuts to defence spending limited capabilities and as soldiers were increasingly deployed on muscular missions overseen by either the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or coalitions of nations assembled to address specific conflicts. The article concludes by suggesting, paradoxically, that the two nations may now be converging in their approaches to support for U.N. operations. Canada has increasingly shifted its contribution to U.N. operations towards security and policing and away from the provision of armed forces personnel, effectively limiting Canada’s role in U.N. peacekeeping. Mexico, on the other hand, could begin to contribute comparable nonmilitary personnel to U.N. missions, but as a less contentious means of joining international peacekeeping efforts.