Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:46:37.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reinterpretation of Canadian-American Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

John H. Redekop
John H. Redekop
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 227 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See for example Close the 49th Parallel Etc., ed. Lumsden, Ian (Toronto 1970)Google Scholar; Hockin, Thomas et al., The Canadian Condominium (Toronto 1972)Google Scholar; Carr, D.W., Recovering Canada's Nationhood (Ottawa 1971)Google Scholar; Sykes, Philip, Sellout: The Giveaway of Canada's Resources (Edmonton 1973)Google Scholar; Brossard, Philippe, Sold American! (Toronto 1971)Google Scholar; Pope, W.H., The Elephant and the Mouse (Toronto 1971)Google Scholar; Independence, the Canadian Challenge, ed. Rotstein, Abraham and Lax, Gary (Toronto 1972).Google Scholar The last four contain useful bibliographies.

2 For an early study see Moffett, Samuel, The Americanization of Canada (New York 1907)Google Scholar, reprinted with a foreword by Allan Smith (Toronto 1972). The most important theoretical study is Continental Community?, ed. Axline, Andrew, Hyndman, James, Lyon, Peyton, & Molot, Maureen (Toronto 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Other useful studies include Sharing a Continent, ed. Morchain, Janet (Toronto 1973)Google Scholar; The Influence of the United States on Canadian Development, ed. Preston, Richard (Durham, North Carolina 1974)Google Scholar; and Warnock, John W., Partner to Behemoth: The Military Policy of a Satellite Canada (Toronto 1970).Google Scholar

3 See the discussion in Young, Oran, Systems of Political Science (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1968)Google Scholar: “Probably the most basic set of variables and organizing concepts in any discipline can be labelled descriptive” (p. 5).

4 Eayrs, James, “Sharing a Continent,” 55–94 in The United States and Canada, ed. Dickey, John Sloan (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1964), 93.Google Scholar See also Holmes, John's statement in Canada, Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence Respecting Canada-U.S. Relatiohs, Wahn, Ian, chairman (Ottawa 1970), 12Google Scholar, as well as Minifie, James M., Peacemaker or Powder-Monkey: Canada's Role in a Revolutionary World (Toronto 1960)Google Scholar; Dickey, , ed., The United States and Canada; Neighbors Taken For Granted, ed. Merchant, Livingston (New York and Toronto 1966)Google Scholar; Eayrs, James, In Defence of Canada, 2 vols. (Toronto 1964 and 1967)Google Scholar; Minifie, James M., Open at the Top: Reflections on US.-Canada Relations (Toronto 1964)Google Scholar; McLin, J.B., Canada's Changing Defense Policy 1957–1963: The Problems of a Middle Power in Alliance (Baltimore and Toronto 1967 and 1970)Google Scholar

5 Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs, 11. George Ferguson is Editor Emeritus, Montreal Star.

6 See, for example, Sykes, Philip, Sellout (Edmonton 1973)Google Scholar; Close the 49th Parallel Etc., ed. Lumsden; Rotstein, Abraham, The Precarious Homestead (Toronto 1973)Google Scholar; Warnock, John W., Partner to Behemoth: The Military Policy of a Satellite Canada (Toronto 1970)Google Scholar; and Laxer, James, The Energy Poker Game: The Politics of the Continental Energy Deal (Toronto 1970).Google Scholar

7 See, for example, Getting It Back: A Program for Canadian Independence, ed. Rotstein, Abraham and Lax, Gary (Toronto 1974)Google Scholar; (Canada) Ltd., ed. Laxer, Robert M. (Toronto 1973)Google Scholar; and Carr, D.W., Recovering Canada's Nationhood (Ottawa 1971).Google Scholar

8 For a description and analysis of more than twenty major agencies see Canada, Department of External Affairs, Canadian Governmental Instruments for Conducting Relations with the United States (Ottawa 1969).Google Scholar See also Thomson, Dale, The Formulation of United States' Policy Towards Canada, a document prepared for the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, House of Commons (Ottawa 1970)Google Scholar, especially 29; Dobell, Peter C., “The Influence of the United States Congress on Canadian-American Relations,” International Organization, 28, 4 (1974), 903–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Holsti, Kal J. and Levy, Thomas Allen, “Bilateral Institutions and Transgovernmental Relations Between Canada and the United States,” International Organization 28, 4 (1974), 875–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar At times Canadian spokesmen seem to go out of their way to subordinate Canada to the us. Consider Prime Minister Trudeau's statement to President Nixon in Washington in 1969 in which he stated that he was looking forward “to listening to your views on world problems, on [sic] the information and the wisdom that you will want to impart upon me in your talks” (Globe and Mail, Toronto, 25 March 1969).

9 “Within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there was from 1950 to 1969 a sub-committee on Canada… It found little work to occupy it and it was absorbed at the beginning of last year into the Sub-Committee on Western Hemisphere Affairs” (Dale Thomson, United States' Policy Toward Canada, 24–5). The joint “structures have played a role in the dyadic relationship, but simply as a forum for the exchange of information and the statement of national positions, not for hard bargaining” (Peyton Lyon and Maureen Molot, Introduction to Part Two, in Axline et al., Continental Community? 113).

10 See Kurth, James, “American Hegemony: A Thicket of Theories,” Proceedings, Canadian Political Science Association, St John's, Newfoundland (Toronto 1971), 14.Google Scholar

11 “Absorptive Systems are Impossible: The Canadian-American Relationship as a Disparate Dyad,” Axline, et al., Continental Community? 94

12 Sharp, Mitchell, “Canada-us Relations: Options for the Future,” International Perspectives, special issue (Autumn 1972)Google Scholar

13 Morchain, Sharing a Continent, 51 ff.

14 Perhaps the best examples of this rejection are the expulsion of the nationalist “Waffle” group from the Ontario New Democratic Party in 1973 and the defeat of the Diefenbaker government in 1963.

15 Sigler, John H. and Goresky, Dennis, “Public Opinion on United States-Canadian Relations,” International Organization, 28, no. 4 (Autumn 1974), 637–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 652

16 The contrasts between Canadian and American public opinion are noteworthy. For example, in 1965 58 per cent of Canadians named the United States as Canada's best friend, followed by the United Kingdom with 24 per cent; at the same time in the United States 58 per cent of Americans named the United Kingdom as the United States's best friend with only 10 per cent naming Canada (ibid., 640). Significantly, 43 per cent of Americans believed that Canada did not have an independent foreign policy; when asked which nation Canada had to follow 26 per cent cited the United Kingdom and 19 per cent the United States.

17 Ibid., see table 4, page 645, and Table 8, page 659.

18 Morse, Randy and Pratt, Larry, “A Radical Analysis of Canadian-American Relations,” Proceedings, Canadian Political Science Association, Toronto (Toronto 1974) 7Google Scholar ff.

19 Ibid., 24. See also Capitalism and the National Question in Canada, ed. Teeple, Gary (Toronto 1973).Google Scholar

20 Morse and Pratt, “A Radical Analysis,” 1–10

21 Andrew Axline, “Integration and Inequality: Notes on the Study of Integrative Hegemony,” Axline, et al., Continental Community? 72

22 Rotstein, Abraham, The Precarious Homestead (Toronto 1973), 52.Google Scholar If one insists on describing Canada as a satellite, then another term must be found to describe the qualitatively different status of Poland or Hungary or Czechoslovakia, whose governments were established as puppet regimes during Soviet military occupation and where any significant deviation from Kremlin policy still precipitates Soviet military intervention, as seen in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

23 Etzioni, A., Political Unification (New York 1965), 4Google Scholar

24 Galtung, J., “A Structural Theory of Integration,” Journal of Peace Research, v, no. 4 (December 1968), 377Google Scholar

25 Lindberg, L., The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration (Stanford 1963), 5Google Scholar

26 Haas, Ernst B., The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–57 (Stanford 1958), xv–xvi.Google Scholar See also Lijphart, Arend, “Cultural Diversity and Theories of Political Integration,” this JOURNAL, IV, 1 (March 1971), 1–14Google Scholar

27 John J. Kirton, “The Consequences of Integration: The Case of the Defense Production Sharing Agreements,” Axline, et al., Continental Community? 117–18

28 Deutsch, Karl, et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton 1957)Google Scholar

29 See Andrew Axline, “Integration and Inequality: Notes on the Study of Integrative Hegemony,” Axline, et al., Continental Community? 69–73

30 H. Edward English, “The Political Economy of International Economic Integration: A Brief Synthesis,” ibid., 20

31 James Hyndman, introduction to Part Three, ibid., 222

32 For an opposite view consider John J. Deutsch's assertion that “as far as North America is concerned… the degree of integration has probably gone further here than it has anywhere else” (Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs), 8. Apparently Deutsch defines integration simply as massive interaction.

33 Linkage Politics, ed Rosenau, James N. (New York and London 1969)Google Scholar, esp. chapters 1 and 3

34 Ibid., 7

35 Ibid., 13

36 “Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations,” ed. Fox, Annette Baker, Hero, Alfred O. jr, and Nye, Joseph S. jr, a special issue of International Organization, 28, 4 (1974).Google Scholar For an earlier introduction to this topic see the various articles in International Organization, 24, no. 3 (Summer 1971).

37 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, jr, “Introduction: The Complex Politics of Canadian-American Interdependence,” ibid., 595–607

38 The major issues analysed by various authors include capital movements, energy resources, corporate relations, multinational firms, law of the sea, national defence, labour organizations, fisheries, and pollution, ibid., 671–848.

39 See especially Joseph S. Nye, jr, “Transnational Relations and Interstate Conflicts: An Empirical Analysis,” ibid., 961–96.

40 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, jr, “The Complex Politics of Canadian-American Interdependence,” 595

41 Ibid., 599

42 Oran Young, Systems of Political Science, 19, suggests that systems theory may be seen as a set of specific principles or propositions, or as “a set of techniques and as a framework for a systematic process of analysis.” I am using it mainly in the latter sense.

43 Easton, David, “An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems,” World Politics, IX, no. 3 (April 1957), 384.Google Scholar I acknowledge a utilization of many of his categories and concepts.

44 Oran Young, Systems of Political Science, 3, makes a useful distinction between the production and the allocation of values. In Canada subsystems dominate both.

45 Easton, , A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1965), viiGoogle Scholar

46 Young points to several ways of looking at systems and, by extension, subsystems. One can assert that “(1) a system must be definable in the sense that it can be located with some precision in time and space, (2) a system is spoken of in cases where a variety of operations carried out preferably by several disciplines arrive at the conclusion that a specific system exists, and (3) a system must manifest significant differences in the time scales of its structures and processes” (Systems of Political Science, 15–16), or one can describe a system simply as “any conglomeration of elements that seems interesting for the purposes of research at least for the preliminary activities of data gathering and initial analysis” (ibid., 16). My usage approximates the former approach.

47 See footnote 8 and Thomson, D.C. and Swanson, R.F., Canadian Foreign Policy: Options & Perspectives (Toronto 1971), 143.Google Scholar

48 The political significance of the American private sector impact is widely unrecognized. Consequently the Canadian public may protest against relatively minor American governmental intervention, for example the voyage of the Manhattan through the Canadian Arctic, but ignore the cumulative pressures in the private sector for assimilation and absorption.

49 Creighton, Donald, Canada's First Century (Toronto 1970)Google Scholar, esp. chapter 14

50 See Garth Stevenson, “Continental Integration and Canadian Unity,” Axline, et al., Continental Community? 194–217.

51 Easton, “An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems,” 385 ff.

52 Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Boston 1965) 6Google Scholar

53 Ibid., 7

54 Morchain, Sharing a Continent, 69–76

55 In their introduction to Axline et al. Continental Community? the editors suggest that the Eire-United Kingdom dyad is very similar to the Canadian-American dyad yet somehow the Irish seem to be less concerned (10, fn. 10). I suggest that they underrate the extent of continental politicization in Canada as well as the Canadian border mentality based on Canadian geography.

56 Easton, “An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems,” 387

57 Much of the argumentation in this and the next paragraph is a re-interpretation of ibid., 387–8.

58 Ibid., 391–4

59 Easton argues that “every culture derives part of its unique quality from the fact that it emphasizes one or more special aspects of behaviour and this strategic emphasis serves to differentiate it from other cultures with respect to the demands that it generates” (ibid., 388). Largely because of the impact of the politicized continental subsystems no special aspect of behaviour, other than a peculiar love-hate response to the US, has emerged in Canada.

60 Ibid., 392

62 Porter, John, The Vertical Mosaic (Toronto 1965), 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Morse and Pratt, “A Radical Analysis,” 2 and 3

64 Morchain, Sharing a Continent, 1 and 2

65 Sharp, “Canada-US Relations,” 20

66 Lindberg, , “Political Integration as a Multidimensional Phenomenon Requiring Multivariate Measurement,” International Organization, XXIV, no. 4 (November 1970), 673–4Google Scholar

67 Ibid., see 661 ff and 679 ff.

68 Deutsch, Karl, et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton 1950), 46–59Google Scholar

69 Haas, E. and Schmitter, P., “Economics and Differential Patterns of Political Integration,” International Political Communities: An Anthology (New York 1966), 266–76Google Scholar

70 Nye, J., Peace in Parts (Boston 1971), 48–54Google Scholar

71 Philip Jacob's observation is well taken: “Hence, for integration to occur among two or more previously existing communities requires that the values shared within each become shared with each other” (“The Influence of Values in Political Integration,” The Integration of Political Communities, ed. Jacob and Toscano (Philadelphia and New York 1964), 210).