Home › Features › Essays › Growing Independence in Canadian-American Relations

Growing Independence in Canadian-American Relations

By John W. Holmes
October 1967
Article Summary and Author Biography

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.

Print Email
Login or Register to leave a comment.

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

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.

The term "neutralism" will be flung as a red herring in the debate shaping up on Canadian defense and foreign policy. For Americans, this debate is closer to home but not dissimilar from the reappraisal of the "unequal alliance" made in other allied countries of which the United States grows independent. The language of the fifties fits the United States-Canada relationship little better than it fits that between the United States and its European associates. An unspoken assumption behind the principle of joint continental defense was, for example, that whether we like it or not, if the United States was at war, Canada was bound to be at war. Now, the United States is, de facto, at war, and Canada is not. If the United States were to declare war formally on North Viet Nam, embarrassing questions would arise over joint military measures. What language will fit this curious relationship in a period of transition and exploration is uncertain.

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.

Buy PDF

Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.

Related

Essay, Oct 1961
Canada and the United States in World Politics
John W. Holmes

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.

Read
Essay, Fall 1987
A Turning Point in U.S.-Canadian Relations
Adam Bromke and Kim Richard Nossal

A successfully concluded free trade pact will consolidate co-operation between the USA and Canada, and be of economic benefit to both. It will provide an effective example of liberalizing trade in a world riddled with protectionist tendencies. Failure on the contrary will inflame nationalist sentiments on both sides. The outcome of the trade negotiations may also influence co-operation in other fields such as acid rain, Arctic sovereignty and North American air defence.

Read
Essay, Jan 1965
Good Neighborhood
Lester B. Pearson

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.

Read