A Distinguished former United States Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Livingston Merchant, was recently quoted as saying, "Canada is more important to the United States than any other single country." This will startle the average American who thinks of Canada-when he thinks of it at all-as a land of snow, wheat, "Northern Dancer," tourist camps and discontented people who speak French.
A Distinguished former United States Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Livingston Merchant, was recently quoted as saying, "Canada is more important to the United States than any other single country." This will startle the average American who thinks of Canada-when he thinks of it at all-as a land of snow, wheat, "Northern Dancer," tourist camps and discontented people who speak French.
Americans would do well to think a little more often and more deeply about their relations with the fast-developing country to the north that lies between them and the Soviet Union-relations which involve partnership on the continent and coöperation in the wider world. At this time, when the United States is entering upon a period of renewed leadership in international affairs under President Johnson-leadership for peace, security and progress-Canadian developments, both domestic and international, can affect the burden of responsibility which the United States is carrying.
Barely 18 months ago I had the privilege of meeting with President Kennedy at his home in Hyannis Port to review the state of relations between our two countries and to discuss broader international issues which were current at the time. I recall his remarking then on the number of changes which could be foreseen on the world scene as a result of predictable retirements, elections and other events then known to be impending.
In the short interval since that meeting more drastic changes have taken place than could have been contemplated at our meeting, including his own tragic and lamented death. Through it all, we Canadians have shared your sorrows and your anxieties. Like you we have attempted to appraise the significance of developments in Europe and in NATO; of the assertion of a growing economic and political role by the "developing countries" of Asia, Africa and Latin America; of the brusque and unexpected change of leadership in the Soviet Union; and of the display of an atomic potential by Communist China. One thing which has remained unchanged amidst the changes has been the close coöperation between our two countries and the continued need for such cooperation. Much may change but this will remain. Our interdependence may not be equal in both directions. But it is there, and it should be appreciated by Americans. This in its turn requires an understanding of what is going on in Canada.
II
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Geography gives Canada a strategic position unlike that of any other ally of the United States. Situated between two nuclear titans, the Soviet Union and the United States, it is certain to be automatically and totally involved in any general nuclear war. Furthermore, the vast Canadian land mass, stretching far into the north, has become a prime strategic asset in the protection of the only force capable of deterring a Soviet onslaught upon the West: it affords the strategic air forces of the United States the essential early warning which is vital to the protection of the whole Atlantic world.
The most significant fact about the Canadian-American relationship may prove to be that the United States is growing less dependent on its allies- including Canada. That Canada is growing more dependent on the United States is a more frequent assumption, especially of Canadians, who make a political sport of accusing each other of abetting this deplorable trend. The United States cares less and less what Canada does because it has a declining interest in our territory for its defenses in a missile age. This trend is unlikely to strengthen our bargaining power in Washington, but it leaves us freer to follow our own course. American independence of Canada encourages Canadian independence of the United States. It tempts us to "neutralism"-if "neutralism" means much in a world shifting from alignment to duopoly, when the "neutralist" heretic General de Gaulle could be outflanked by President Johnson on the road to Moscow.
About a decade ago a Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs created a furor on both sides of the border by saying that "the days of relatively easy and automatic political relations with our neighbors are, I think, over." Nourished for years, as we all had been, on post-prandial pap about the unfortified frontier and the capacity of North American good will to mellow away all differences, Americans and Canadians were unduly shocked. They disregarded the fact that Mr. Pearson had not said relations were deteriorating; he merely said they had become more complex. They had become more complex be cause they were no longer a simple matter of line- fence disputes over borders and waterways. We had both ceased isolating ourselves from the troubles of the world and, for that reason, we were likely to have differences on a great many more subjects than in the past. Mr. Pearson aimed to persuade people on both sides of the border to adopt an adult attitude to our relations, to abandon the persistent North American illusion that good will without understanding was adequate and that problems could be smiled away in intercommunity singing, to recognize that any two countries in close proximity were bound to go on having disputes and differences and that the mark of intelligence was not to pretend they did not exist but to approach them tolerantly, judiciously, and unemotionally-and, in a sense, to take them for granted.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.