Edward Said writes that “nations are themselves narrations”, suggesting that nations of
the world have a propensity to formulate distinct images and fundamental beliefs defining and
binding their peoples as different from others. Often passed down through generations, these
narrations are based on core myths that signify who a member of the nation is, what they stand
for, and how they should act. Mythologies regarding national identity circulate within Canadian
society perhaps more than any other society in the world. These often historically rooted
narratives construct the world today as foreign policy leaders, looking to legitimize their policy
of choice, link their strategies to these mythological elements of national identity that already
have resonance amongst the population. As these foreign policy strategies are adopted, the
representations of self and other present in the mythologies, become realized, though never quite
as they were originally articulated. By attuning my focus to the myths that supposedly underlie
the national identity of citizens in Canada, I ask what is the relationship between Canadian
national identity as rooted in its myths and the foreign policy decisions of its government? Are
these narrations of self and other powerful enough to dictate Canadian foreign policy or do
foreign policy decisions reflexively alter these myths and the particular understandings of history
they depend upon? After reviewing the mythological narratives underpinning Canadian national
identity and tracing references to these elements in Canadian Parliamentary debate surrounding
the state’s involvement in the 2001 Afghanistan and 2003 Iraq wars, I question the impacts this
relationship has on those inside and outside Canada. The actual execution of these policies
produces results that run counter to the national myths they supposedly reinforce (those
Canadians have a duty to protect go unprotected, roles Canadians ought to fill, go unfilled). Yet,
it appears that while the specific content of these myths are able to change, the sense of
righteousness and unity amongst those who propagate the myths remains, even while Canadian
foreign policy fails to uphold the mythological precepts it was seemingly created to defend. In
conclusion, I offer some implications of the co-constitutive relationship between national myths
and foreign policy outside the Canadian context.
