CANZUK Criticisms: Debunked

As CANZUK gains more traction across the political spectrum, its an ideal time to cut through the noise and address challenges raised by the proposal. While consistently polls highly, CANZUK still has its fair share of common criticisms mostly based on misunderstandings of CANZUK as a concept, modern geopolitics or more sinisterly deliberate misrepresentations designed to undermine the appeal of CANZUK. In this article, we will address these and provide clarity about what CANZUK is (and isn’t).

Criticism #1: CANZUK is a revival of the British Empire 

One of the most common criticisms CANZUK receives is the misguided notion that it is some kind of neo-imperialist plan to rebuild the British empire but this view is significantly removed from reality. An empire by its nature is unequal and exploitative, this is not the case with CANZUK. CANZUK is an alliance between 4 equal and sovereign nations cooperating for mutual benefit, not to disproportionately benefit a single member. If CANZUK was tailored to disproportionately benefit the UK, this would be reflected in public opinion, but polling has consistently shown CANZUK to not be more popular in the UK than the other 4 nations, with the most recent data showing 75% support in New Zealand, 72% in Canada, 70% in the UK and 68% in Australia ⁽¹⁾, with previous polling finding significantly less support in the UK compared to the other nations⁽²⁾.

Criticism #2: CANZUK is racist

Building on the previous point, many people often argue that the notion of CANZUK is racist as it excludes the wider Commonwealth only focusing on the historic ‘white dominions. While this argument may make sense on the surface, it quickly breaks down when you dig any deeper. The most important issue with this argument is that it fails to understand the driving force behind CANZUK, the CANZUK nations are tied together through cultural and historic ties, comparable economies and a shared commitment to democracy and the rule of law, rather than race and ethnicity which is not a factor. Other commonwealth countries either do not have strong enough cultural and political similarities to the CANZUK nations or lack adequately sized economies. This narrative also fails to recognise that all 4 CANZUK nations are some of the most multicultural and multi ethnic nations in the world, their combined populations would be about 23% non-white, compared to the EU which has a non white population of roughly 10%. Furthermore, the claim that the CANZUK nations are the historic ‘white dominions’ is not even accurate, since that classification generally included Ireland and South Africa not just CANZUK.

Criticism #3: CANZUK is a partisan extension of Brexit

In line with the previous two arguments, there is a common perception that CANZUK is a conservative project, often being claimed as an extension of Brexit and the ‘Global Britain’ initiative pushed by the British conservative government at the time. Unlike the previous arguments this one does contain a degree of truth, CANZUK has historically held stronger support amongst the right and even now most of its endorsements have come from right leaning individuals and groups, however this is not the full picture. CANZUK is a bi-partisan initiative and is not inherently aligned to any ideology (aside from democracy, freedom and the rule of law). The current global climate has pushed CANZUK to new heights of interest and shown that it has appeal across the political spectrum, with building bi-partisan momentum.

Criticism #4: CANZUK is incompatible due to the distances involved

Another common criticism is that the distance between the CANZUK nations creates trading barriers, but while this was an issue in the past, in the modern globalised world geographic distance is becoming increasingly irrelevant. In the modern world trade is driven by politics just as much as geographic proximity, with shifting global networks the need for diversified trade is incredibly clear. Furthermore, people also argue that the distance between the 4 nations creates separate geopolitical interests, with Canada primarily concerned with the US, the UK with Russia and Australia and New Zealand with China, but while this is true, it would be wrong to suggest that the CANZUK nations only care about their own regions. All 4 nations have global interests and maintain a shared commitment to protecting human rights, democracy and the rule of law, supporting each other against their own respective threats is mutually beneficial.

Criticism #5: CANZUK has no economic benefit

Similarly to the previous point, people often claim that there is little to no economic benefit from CANZUK ties, but this could not be further from the truth. First of all, increased trade and cooperation has consistently shown itself to be beneficial for all economies involved whether through international blocks like the EU or local economies within countries such as US states, cooperation and reduced trade barriers almost always leads to increased growth. Furthermore, the UK has one of the leading global economies, with London serving as one of the most important financial and innovation hubs in the world, by strengthening their ties to London the other 3 CANZUK nations could allow for a substantial boost to their businesses. New Zealand is a large producer of food helping to reduce Canadian reliance on low quality US imports. Canada is a major energy exporter which can help offset the energy concerns faced by several of the countries and Australia has large reserves of natural resources that can be used to bolster the economies of all 4 nations. CANZUK would also bolster economies by allowing for the easy movement of professionals, which would reduce staffing crises, helping economic growth and improving public services. By working together the CANZUK nations can reduce economic reliance on the US and by pooling their economies together the CANZUK nations can negotiate more equally with the US, China and the EU as well as be better able to regulate and tax businesses. That is not to suggest that barriers and challenges will not exist because they obviously will, but there is no reason to believe that competent leadership cannot overcome these barriers and build a solution that works for everyone.

Criticism #6: CANZUK’s Freedom-of-movement proposal is unsustainable

Another aspect of CANZUK people often question is the sustainability of freedom of movement as immigration debates are a hot topic across the world at the moment, critics question how a CANZUK free movement deal would function as well as argue that free movement between the CANZUK nations may further inflame immigration debates. This view ignores a crucial detail, that the framework for CANZUK to follow already exists through the Trans-Tasman arrangement. This arrangement allows for ease of movement between Australia and New Zealand, without undermining the ability for either country to control their own borders or interests, expanding this arrangement to include Canada and the United Kingdom would offer an easy framework for cooperation. The success of the Trans-Tasman arrangement also disproves any worries that migration between the 4 would be disproportionate or lead to a brain drain.

Criticism #6: Joining/Rejoing the EU is easier than CANZUK

CANZUK faces challenges through comparisons to the EU, with people arguing that the UK should work to rejoin the EU instead of building CANZUK. This argument fails in several areas, first of all is the fact that this only addresses the UK since EU membership is not a likely option for Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Furthermore, it falsely assumes that British reentry into the EU would be a simple and smooth process when in reality it would be incredibly complex and controversial, just as Brexit was. Additionally this argument follows the misconception that CANZUK is intended to be a replacement for the EU and essentially function as a smaller version of the EU, while there are many differing visions of what CANZUK should be, its foundational aims are simply free trade, free movement and broad cooperation, this is far less broad in its powers than the EU. Furthermore, CANZUK would work best when working alongside the EU, both organisations are committed to the same goals and would be natural partners on the world stage and share deep economic ties.

Criticism #7: CANZUK will harm the commonwealth

In a similar line of logic, some people fail to recognise the value of CANZUK due to not understanding how it is different from the Commonwealth, but while both CANZUK and the Commonwealth share the same goal of promoting peace and cooperation, the Commonwealth is an organisation with very little substance, it serves its role of tying countries together and promoting inter state dialogue, but aside from the Commonwealth games and summits, it has very little tangible presence. Just as with the EU, CANZUK would work alongside (and hopefully bolster) the Commonwealth not work to replace or undermine it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are many arguments against CANZUK that seem to make sense on the surface, but ultimately stem from either a misunderstanding of what CANZUK is and what it hopes to achieve or else from a pessimistic and defeatist attitude towards the ability of the 4 nations to overcome potential barriers. While CANZUK isn’t without its flaws and challenges, none of them are too large to render the proposal useless. In an increasingly dangerous world, overcoming the distances between nations and resolving concerns from domestic industries in order to create CANZUK is not just optional – its mandatory for our joint future.