Diplomatic Influence

[Michael]

Here's a short article posted at the Foreign Policy blog (Walt) discussing the fact that many large nations are quite uninfluential in world politics while some rather small nations have disproportionately large influence in world politics.

Article (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/21/over_achievers_and_under_achievers#comments)

"OVER-ACHIEVERS" (in no particular order)

1. Sweden.

With a population of only 9 million, one wouldn’t expect Sweden to cast much of a shadow, despite its advanced industrial economy. Yet for its size and population, Sweden has been a significant international player. Its welfare state and other social policies have been widely-studied and a model for others, and diplomats such as Dag Hammarskjold, Folke Bernadotte, and Olof Palme were all important international voices. Sweden still devotes a higher percentage of its GDP to foreign aid than any other country, and institutions such as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute have amplified Sweden's visibility on major issues of arms control and disarmament. Awarding the Nobel Prizes probably doesn't hurt either.

2. North Korea.

With a small population (22 million), an obsolete military machine, a bankrupt ideology, and an economy that exposes its citizens to periodic famine, one wouldn’t expect North Korea to get much attention at all. Indeed, on most measures North Korea is an under-achiever (especially when compared with its neighbor to the south). But Pyongyang's leaders are past masters at commanding international attention, usually by threatening to do something undesirable (and then sometimes going ahead and doing it). North Korea is hardly an inspiring model for anyone, but it shows how sheer cussedness can enable a country to punch well above their weight.

3. Canada.

America’s northern neighbor has the world's second largest land mass but a relatively small population (only 32 million) and only modest military assets. Yet Canada has been a consistent proponent of multilateralism, ranks ninth in the world as a provider of foreign aid, and has been an enthusiastic participant in international peacekeeping missions. Indeed, Canada has lost 117 soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, the highest per capita figure of any ISAF participant.

4. Israel.

For a country whose total population is less than that of New York City, Israel generates a lot more attention than one would expect. To be sure, some of this reflects Israel’s economic success (which includes advanced hi-tech sector and a significant arms industry) not to mention its nuclear arsenal and overall military power. And then there's the occupation and the violence that it has produced over the years. Regardless of one's views on that thorny subject, it's hard to argue that Israel doesn't exert a lot of influence on the global agenda, especially given its very modest size.

5. Singapore.

For a city-state with a population of only 4.4 million, which gained independence only in 1965, Singapore's international prominence marks it as an obvious outlier, even when one allows for its advanced economy and high per capita income. In addition to its economic achievements, Singapore has been a major force behind regional cooperation in Southeast Asia, an energetic promoter of institutions such as ASEAN, and its leaders have rarely been bashful about offering their views on major international issues.

"UNDERACHIEVERS" (also in no particular order)

1. Japan.

Despite having the world's 2nd largest economy and the world's sixth largest defense budget, Japan performs a remarkably modest international role. As Richard Samuels of MIT recently pointed out in Newsweek, Japan sent warships to help defend against tSomali pirates only after China announced it was going to do so, and it has only 38 soldiers participating in UN peacekeeping missions. Increasingly, its leadership both at home and abroad seems paralyzed. Moreover, with a declining and rapidly aging population, Japan seems likely to become even less influential over time, despite its economic size and considerable national wealth.

2. India.

It is the world's most populous democracy, the dominant state in south Asia, the home country of a sizeable and successful global diaspora, and a nuclear power. Past Indian leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Indira Gandhi were major international figures. While far from being inconsequential, India has yet to exercise a global leadership role, or even to exert far-sighted and constructive influence over its immediate neighborhood. Moreover, a recent article in The Hindu deplores the deteriorating state of international studies in India, at precisely the same period when a rising China is taking the study of international relations very seriously.

3. Germany.

Now reunified, with the world's 14th largest population and either the 3rd or fifth largest economy (depending on whether one uses straight GDP figures or purchasing power parity estimates). Germany is also the world's third largest exporter. While not entirely absent on the world stage, it is hardly exercising an influence commensurate with its latent capabilities. Even when Germany does get more actively involved (as they have in Afghanistan), they operate under highly restrictive rules of engagement that substantially undercut their effectiveness. A far cry from the Germany of Otto von Bismarck, or even the creative leadership of Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt.

4. Russia.

At first, I thought about putting Russia in the other category -- a large but relatively weak state that managed to exert more influence than its overall capabilities might suggest. But on reflection, I think Russia belongs here. Despite its geographic size, oil and gas resources, and relatively well-educated work force, as well as the inherited assets of permanent Security Council membership and a large nuclear arsenal, Russia today exerts less influence on the agenda of world politics than its overall capabilities might provide. Its political system is not a model for anyone; its culture is not a magnet, and its leaders are either unable or unwilling to play a constructive role in addressing the major problems that confront the world today. Instead, Moscow mostly plays a spoiler role, which is what former great power do when they cannot find a way to lead.

5. Brazil.

Yes, I've read about the BRICS, and how countries like Brazil are going to reshape the global balance of power in the 21st century. But the world's tenth largest economy (and fifth largest population) has yet to achieve an international role of similar stature. Brazil clearly wants a more prominent international position, as exemplified by its current efforts to win a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, its extensive diplomatic presence and active participation in existing international organizations. President Lula da Silva has very high approval ratings (including the highest ratings in all of Latin America). But so far, these ambitions and capabilities have not been translated into as much direct influence as I'd expect.

So what do you think? Is the list a good one? Any choices you disagree with or think have been overlooked?

[Dominick]

As far as proportionality goes the number one excessively influential state must be Vatican City.

The author also completely ignores the influence of Germany via the EU and that's more than considerable.

[Michael]

As far as proportionality goes the number one excessively influential state must be Vatican City.
Would you care to offer an example from the 20th century of the influence of the Vatican?

Most of the 20th century provides counter evidence of this as the Catholic Church lost its official state status and official policy status in many countries.

I definitely don't consider the Vatican to be influential at the level of state actors (which is the level of what we're looking at here). If anything, the Vatican looks like an underachiever here - displaying much less influence than you might expect.

The author also completely ignores the influence of Germany via the EU and that's more than considerable.
Yes, that critique was raised in comments to the article - that Germany is very influential inside the EU.

[Donkey]

Regarding Germany... maybe they aren't such a big global player diplomatically, but I think they are massive economically. I also think they are a serious heavy hitter in Intra-European politics (could be wrong?).

Russia... now here is an interesting case. I think there is some truth in what the article says, but I think a lot of is Russia's choice. It seems they are content with their security, existential and resource, and their near-abroad.

[Dominick]

Would you care to offer an example from the 20th century of the influence of the Vatican?
Sure, even 21st century : the enormous and devastating influence on southern Africa regarding the AIDS issue.

As for the 20th :

Near total control of society in many European countries well into the 1950's
Active collaboration with fascists in WWII and just before (Spanish Civil War, Croatia, Poland, ...)
Crucial role in Solidarnosc
Involvement in post WWII financing of reactionary forces in meso-America and destruction of social theology there
Obstructionism in the UN

All this with a population of less than a 1,000 souls.


Most of the 20th century provides counter evidence of this as the Catholic Church lost its official state status and official policy status in many countries.
It has decreased and is decreasing, yes, but it's hardly nil and with such a low population almost any influence is disproportional.


I definitely don't consider the Vatican to be influential at the level of state actors (which is the level of what we're looking at here). If anything, the Vatican looks like an underachiever here - displaying much less influence than you might expect.
How's that ? Its influence should be at the level of nations such as Tokelau or Niue. Who ? Exactly.

[Michael]

Sure, even 21st century : the enormous and devastating influence on southern Africa regarding the AIDS issue.

I believe the majority of the RCC influence in Africa has been through informal channels - influencing policy makers privately rather than through official diplomatic or state-actor channels. I could be wrong here as I'm no expert on African politics, but this is my impression of the situation in Africa.

As for the 20th :
Near total control of society in many European countries well into the 1950's
Yes, and that has dropped to near zero control in most of them now.

That's a sign of a falling influence, not a rising or stable one.

Active collaboration with fascists in WWII and just before (Spanish Civil War, Croatia, Poland, ...)
The rise of fascism in Europe pre-WW2 was not due to the influence of the RCC. The RCC failed to oppose these regimes. That's not influence. The RCC (offiically speaking) neither helped nor hindered these regimes. That in itself is damning of the RCC, but not a sign of state-actor influence. Indeed, this pattern tends to show the weakness of the RCC as a state-actor in Europe.

Crucial role in Solidarnosc
Not really. They just had the fortuitous circumstance of a Polish pope at that time. If the pope at that time wasn't Polish, the issue would have been moot. Again, that shows the weakness of the papacy/RCC rather than the influence of it.

Involvement in post WWII financing of reactionary forces in meso-America and destruction of social theology there

Yes, the RCC has a truly bad track record in Central and South America - again as a shadowy supporter, not as a leader. Their ability led is almost non-existent.

Obstructionism in the UN
Obstructionism at the UN is a pretty common thing. Doesn't take much political power or moral authority to achieve that. The system is institutionally designed for small powers to exercise disproportionate influence.

All this with a population of less than a 1,000 souls.
Vatican City yes, but the RCC claims over one billion adherents world-wide. For a group with that kind of population, their influence is rather small - particularly in Europe and North America despite having a hundred million plus followers in those regions.

It has decreased and is decreasing, yes, but it's hardly nil and with such a low population almost any influence is disproportional.
For an institution claiming one billion followers, I find the RCC to be pathetically weak. They are only effective at the personal level. Their official acts as a state-actor are quite few.

That is to say, the Roman Catholic religion is indeed quite influential. The Roman Catholic Church heirarchy not so much.

How's that ? Its influence should be at the level of nations such as Tokelau or Niue. Who ? Exactly.
As noted above. Tokelau or Niue don't claim a billion followers.

In the USA alone, the RCC has more followers than the Republican party. No comparison between the two for political influence in the USA.

[Dominick]

I believe the majority of the RCC influence in Africa has been through informal channels - influencing policy makers privately rather than through official diplomatic or state-actor channels. I could be wrong here as I'm no expert on African politics, but this is my impression of the situation in Africa.

Even if it's informal, does it matter ? It's still influence and one wouldn't be exaggerating much to call it genocidal influence.


Yes, and that has dropped to near zero control in most of them now.

That's a sign of a falling influence, not a rising or stable one.
The question was :
Would you care to offer an example from the 20th century of the influence of the Vatican?
Nothing more.


The rise of fascism in Europe pre-WW2 was not due to the influence of the RCC. The RCC failed to oppose these regimes. That's not influence. The RCC (offiically speaking) neither helped nor hindered these regimes. That in itself is damning of the RCC, but not a sign of state-actor influence. Indeed, this pattern tends to show the weakness of the RCC as a state-actor in Europe.
They did a hell of a lot more than being passive. They actively collaborated, denounced hidden Jews, actively endorsed and executed "racial purity" laws in their schools, provided the Nazis with all the information from their church and baptism records, invited the sumbols of Nazism (swastika) into their churches, and even promoted voting Nazi from the pulpit.
Besides, I didn't claim they were culpable of the rise, they sure were supportive once it was there.


Not really. They just had the fortuitous circumstance of a Polish pope at that time. If the pope at that time wasn't Polish, the issue would have been moot. Again, that shows the weakness of the papacy/RCC rather than the influence of it.
Then you should have a deeper look into those Vatican policies that went under the guise of 'anti-communism'. From the Spanish Civil War to the Arena party in El Salvador, the Vatican has always supported the extreme right no matter what nationality the pope happened to be at the moment.


Yes, the RCC has a truly bad track record in Central and South America - again as a shadowy supporter, not as a leader. Their ability led is almost non-existent.
One doesn't have to lead to be influential.


Obstructionism at the UN is a pretty common thing. Doesn't take much political power or moral authority to achieve that. The system is institutionally designed for small powers to exercise disproportionate influence.
Did you say disproportionate influence ? Isn't that exactly what we're looking for here ?


Vatican City yes, but the RCC claims over one billion adherents world-wide. For a group with that kind of population, their influence is rather small - particularly in Europe and North America despite having a hundred million plus followers in those regions.

For an institution claiming one billion followers, I find the RCC to be pathetically weak. They are only effective at the personal level. Their official acts as a state-actor are quite few.

That is to say, the Roman Catholic religion is indeed quite influential. The Roman Catholic Church heirarchy not so much.
You'll have to make up your mind. Either we're talking nations or we're talking all kinds of organizations such as religious ones. The article clearly takes the concept of nations as its starting point. If the discussion is extended to all kinds of groups or organizations then thousands more are to be considered.
Maybe the RCC is different in the States but everywhere else the RCC hierarchy IS the RCC. Their power is historical and almost independent of the number of real followers they have left.


As noted above. Tokelau or Niue don't claim a billion followers.
They're nations and that's what the article is about.

Speaking of the USA, that's definitely a country that would have to be considered in the top 5 of disproportionally influential countries. With 5% of the world's population playing "leader of the free world" is also disproportional.

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with having Sweden in there at all. Many nations have what Sweden has. If Sweden, then why not Norway ?
And the Nobel Prize is a private initiative.

No offense, but the same goes for Canada. Is being active in Afghanistan sufficient to be in the Top 5 ? :shrug:

[Michael]

Even if it's informal, does it matter ? It's still influence and one wouldn't be exaggerating much to call it genocidal influence.


The question was :

Nothing more.


They did a hell of a lot more than being passive. They actively collaborated, denounced hidden Jews, actively endorsed and executed "racial purity" laws in their schools, provided the Nazis with all the information from their church and baptism records, invited the sumbols of Nazism (swastika) into their churches, and even promoted voting Nazi from the pulpit.
Besides, I didn't claim they were culpable of the rise, they sure were supportive once it was there.


Then you should have a deeper look into those Vatican policies that went under the guise of 'anti-communism'. From the Spanish Civil War to the Arena party in El Salvador, the Vatican has always supported the extreme right no matter what nationality the pope happened to be at the moment.
The RCC has ALWAYS supported the status quo in power. They've been doing that for over 1000 years now. They are consistent. This may be evidence of the immorality of the RCC, but it isn't evidence of the RCC's international diplomatic influence.

One doesn't have to lead to be influential.
No, but one has to demonstrate lots of influence to be 'influential'.

Did you say disproportionate influence ? Isn't that exactly what we're looking for here ?
Yes, but only on their own. The UN Charter gives 'disproportional' influence to lots of countries. That the Vatican uses these is not a measure of Vatican power, it is a characteristic of UN power.

You'll have to make up your mind. Either we're talking nations or we're talking all kinds of organizations such as religious ones. The article clearly takes the concept of nations as its starting point. If the discussion is extended to all kinds of groups or organizations then thousands more are to be considered. Maybe the RCC is different in the States but everywhere else the RCC hierarchy IS the RCC. Their power is historical and almost independent of the number of real followers they have left.
The Vatican is the RCC and the RCC is one billon strong. They used to be very powerful and influential. However, the last 100 years has witnessed a non-stop fall in the power and influence of the RCC to the point that they are not all that powerful or influential any more. And it is particularly in the field of institutional power that they have fallen the most. They still retain a fair bit if informal and non-institutional power to influence, but that's about it.

On this basis, I see no reason to consider the RCC a major world diplomatic player. They just aren't a major institutional international player anymore (they used to be certainly).

They're nations and that's what the article is about.
They are tiny ones without any substantial political influence - particularly at the state-institutional level.

Speaking of the USA, that's definitely a country that would have to be considered in the top 5 of disproportionally influential countries. With 5% of the world's population playing "leader of the free world" is also disproportional.
Having the largest economy and the largest military in the world, the US is not disproportionately influential. The US is the most influential country in the world - nothing disproportionate there. China, Russia, France and UK are also highly influential. Nothing suprising or disporportionate about them either - they all have a long history of substantially large diplomatic influence.

The world of international diplomacy is not a democracy. Ergo, international diplomacy is not measured by raw-population numbers.

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with having Sweden in there at all. Many nations have what Sweden has. If Sweden, then why not Norway ?
And the Nobel Prize is a private initiative.

No offense, but the same goes for Canada. Is being active in Afghanistan sufficient to be in the Top 5 ? :shrug:
I agree that Sweden shouldn't be topping the list. The Swedes are certainly active on the international-diplomatic scene, but I'm not aware that they've demonstrated serious influence. They are major players in the NGO scene, but that's about it. Their weapon-sales to dictatorships tends to make Sweden suspect in diplomacy (Sweden has been a major supplier to both Iraq and Iran for the last 25 years). Sweden is also known for creatively getting around arms embargos for the purpose of selling weapons. Sweden's moral authority is weak because of this. I'm not aware of much substantial Swedish diplomatic influence lately...

As for Canada, the reference to Afghanistan is highly relevant. If you've been following that issue closely, suffice it to say that if it wasn't for Canada, NATO would have withdrawn from Afghanistan four years ago. Canada has almost single-handedly carried the NATO mission in Afghanistan (politically speaking) given that political support in Europe for this mission is virtually zero. For all intents and purposes, Canada is driving that NATO policy right now. Whether you agree with the mission or not, that's a substantial level of demonstrated diplomatic influence.

Also, if you review UNSC rotational seats, you will find that Canada has been invited to sit on that Council more than any other nation besides the permanent members. That is a measure of diplomatic respect and influence that is mostly behind the scenes (Netherlands is the 2nd most common seat holder there).

And one can't overlook the fact that Canada is often used to broker EU vs US issues. Canada has also been instrumentally involved (more than any other nation) in the Northern Ireland peace process. Senior Canadian military officers are the ones who administer many of the 'ceasefires' and 'weapon turnovers' and act as the 'honest broker' third party to the dispute there. This has been going on for a couple of decades now. Again, a measure of Canada's diplomatic influence (small though it is, it is influential and respected).

I suppose Prime Minister Pearson's Noble Peace Prize for his work on the Suez Crisis is also relevant - Canada was the 'honest-broker' to that famous war-like episode between USA and UK-France. So I think Canada does belong on the list - not number one, but certainly a nation that diplomatically 'punches above its weight', given that Canada's population is roughly the same as Poland (and less than half of France, Germany, Italy or UK).

Btw, a quick review of the people the UN appoints to the Chairs of various permanent Committees also tends to show a disproportionate number of Canadians holding such senior positions. It is quite normal for Canada to always have at least one UN Chair at all times.

[Americano]

The RCC has ALWAYS supported the status quo in power. They've been doing that for over 1000 years now. They are consistent. This may be evidence of the immorality of the RCC, but it isn't evidence of the RCC's international diplomatic influence.


No, but one has to demonstrate lots of influence to be 'influential'.


Yes, but only on their own. The UN Charter gives 'disproportional' influence to lots of countries. That the Vatican uses these is not a measure of Vatican power, it is a characteristic of UN power.


The Vatican is the RCC and the RCC is one billon strong. They used to be very powerful and influential. However, the last 100 years has witnessed a non-stop fall in the power and influence of the RCC to the point that they are not all that powerful or influential any more. And it is particularly in the field of institutional power that they have fallen the most. They still retain a fair bit if informal and non-institutional power to influence, but that's about it.

On this basis, I see no reason to consider the RCC a major world diplomatic player. They just aren't a major institutional international player anymore (they used to be certainly).


They are tiny ones without any substantial political influence - particularly at the state-institutional level.


Having the largest economy and the largest military in the world, the US is not disproportionately influential. The US is the most influential country in the world - nothing disproportionate there. China, Russia, France and UK are also highly influential. Nothing suprising or disporportionate about them either - they all have a long history of substantially large diplomatic influence.

The world of international diplomacy is not a democracy. Ergo, international diplomacy is not measured by raw-population numbers.


I agree that Sweden shouldn't be topping the list. The Swedes are certainly active on the international-diplomatic scene, but I'm not aware that they've demonstrated serious influence. They are major players in the NGO scene, but that's about it. Their weapon-sales to dictatorships tends to make Sweden suspect in diplomacy (Sweden has been a major supplier to both Iraq and Iran for the last 25 years). Sweden is also known for creatively getting around arms embargos for the purpose of selling weapons. Sweden's moral authority is weak because of this. I'm not aware of much substantial Swedish diplomatic influence lately...

As for Canada, the reference to Afghanistan is highly relevant. If you've been following that issue closely, suffice it to say that if it wasn't for Canada, NATO would have withdrawn from Afghanistan four years ago. Canada has almost single-handedly carried the NATO mission in Afghanistan (politically speaking) given that political support in Europe for this mission is virtually zero. For all intents and purposes, Canada is driving that NATO policy right now. Whether you agree with the mission or not, that's a substantial level of demonstrated diplomatic influence.

Do you feel that's solely due to US pressure? I can't see Canada giving that much attention to a despicable and stupid war like Afghanistan without abnormal US pressure.

Also, if you review UNSC rotational seats, you will find that Canada has been invited to sit on that Council more than any other nation besides the permanent members. That is a measure of diplomatic respect and influence that is mostly behind the scenes (Netherlands is the 2nd most common seat holder there).

And one can't overlook the fact that Canada is often used to broker EU vs US issues. Canada has also been instrumentally involved (more than any other nation) in the Northern Ireland peace process. Senior Canadian military officers are the ones who administer many of the 'ceasefires' and 'weapon turnovers' and act as the 'honest broker' third party to the dispute there. This has been going on for a couple of decades now. Again, a measure of Canada's diplomatic influence (small though it is, it is influential and respected).

I suppose Prime Minister Pearson's Noble Peace Prize for his work on the Suez Crisis is also relevant - Canada was the 'honest-broker' to that famous war-like episode between USA and UK-France. So I think Canada does belong on the list - not number one, but certainly a nation that diplomatically 'punches above its weight', given that Canada's population is roughly the same as Poland (and less than half of France, Germany, Italy or UK).

Btw, a quick review of the people the UN appoints to the Chairs of various permanent Committees also tends to show a disproportionate number of Canadians holding such senior positions. It is quite normal for Canada to always have at least one UN Chair at all times.

[Michael]

Do you feel that's solely due to US pressure? I can't see Canada giving that much attention to a despicable and stupid war like Afghanistan without abnormal US pressure.
No - not in the slightest.

Canada is big on NATO. NATO invoked Article Five of the NATO agreement after 9/11. That's not a political decision, that's a treaty obligation and Canada takes those seriously.

Btw, if you remember the time period, the US Government was against the Afghanistan operation from day one - they wanted to attack Iraq, not Afghanistan and made no bones about it. Ergo, it is absurd to postulate US political pressure on anyone in favor of the Afghanistan operation (there just wasn't any).

Indeed, the US invasion of Iraq shows how little international influence the USA really has at its disposal - every major US ally (except UK and Australia) said "no fucking way, are you nuts?"

And it is to be noted that Australia didn't even bother to send even a 'token' force. UK did send a 'token' force - the minimum amount of support they could politically get away with (and withdrew it at the first opportunity to do so). This speaks of a major lack of diplomatic influence on the US part.

Heck, does anyone think that Australia or UK will be so quick to sign up for the next one? I think they both got burned badly over it. That's a big blackmark against the USA when those who come to US aid at US request suffer for it. It certainly killed the career of the politicians who stoodup for the USA (Blair and Howard) and likely will have a long term negative impact on those particular political parties they represented.

[Americano]

No - not in the slightest.

Canada is big on NATO. NATO invoked Article Five of the NATO agreement after 9/11. That's not a political decision, that's a treaty obligation and Canada takes those seriously.

Btw, if you remember the time period, the US Government was against the Afghanistan operation from day one - they wanted to attack Iraq, not Afghanistan and made no bones about it. Ergo, it is absurd to postulate US political pressure on anyone in favor of the Afghanistan operation (there just wasn't any).

Indeed, the US invasion of Iraq shows how little international influence the USA really has at its disposal - every major US ally (except UK and Australia) said "no fucking way, are you nuts?"

And it is to be noted that Australia didn't even bother to send even a 'token' force. UK did send a 'token' force - the minimum amount of support they could politically get away with (and withdrew it at the first opportunity to do so). This speaks of a major lack of diplomatic influence on the US part.

Heck, does anyone think that Australia or UK will be so quick to sign up for the next one? I think they both got burned badly over it. That's a big blackmark against the USA when those who come to US aid at US request suffer for it. It certainly killed the career of the politicians who stoodup for the USA (Blair and Howard) and likely will have a long term negative impact on those particular political parties they represented.

I understand NATO but the US doesn't have the amount of trade clout over Australia or the UK it employs against Canada. When Canada refused to participate in the Iraq fiasco the US 'punished' it with the hoof and mouth disease cattle embargo.

[Michael]

I understand NATO but the US doesn't have the amount of trade clout over Australia or the UK it employs against Canada. When Canada refused to participate in the Iraq fiasco the US 'punished' it with the hoof and mouth disease cattle embargo.

Yes, it was widely understood in Canada that the long US ban on imported Canadian beef at that time was being driven by Washington's pique at Canada for thumbing its nose at the Iraq plan. No surprises there.

However, that particular 'punishment' was entirely 'opportunistic' not one of principle - and it involved less than 1% of US-Canada trade. Ergo, this was an entirely symbolic and not significant gesture. US has a long history of playing [dumb] partisan political games with trade issues with Canada (cf. softwood lumber for example), so there's nothing new here or particularly significant from an economic perspective. Canada wins 10:1 in trade arbitration cases with the USA, so no one really cares too much about this stuff up here - we know it is usually pure US political crap that won't stand up to legal review.

What was particularly significant is that the economic harm cased by that particular US 'punishment' (ban on cattle imports) was entirely focused in Alberta - the one place in Canada that is home to the largest block of pro-US, pro-Bush, pro-military, pro-war, social conservatives in Canada!

That just shows that the US government really just doesn't care or pay much attention to Canada - which is the exact opposite to the 'message' they tried to send.