bout de papier, Vol. 11, No. 4 / Vol. 12, No. 1 (1995) — Spring 1995 // Printemps 1995, pp. 89–90
FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE: CANADA
AND THE UNITED STATES TO THE 1990s
by J.L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer,
Toronto, Copp Clark Pitman Ltd., 1991,
334 pp. $19.95. CANADA AND THE UNITED
STATES: THE POLITICS OF PARTNERSHIP
by Robert Bothwell, Toronto, University of
Toronto Press, 1992, 190 pp. $18.95.
Reviewed by Donald Barry
Although Canadian-American relations have been widely studied there have been surprisingly few book length accounts that put the relationship in perspective. These two volumes go a long toward filling the gap. They are also important reading in light of the government’s review of Canadian foreign policy.
Written for a general audience, For Better or for Worse, by J.L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer, is a highly readable, fast-paced historical survey of relations between the two countries. Organized around the theme of “continued tension between conflict and co-operation,” it traces the relationship from the pre-confederation period through the reciprocity debates of the 19th and early 20th centuries, two world wars and the cold war, and the competing nationalisms of the 1970s and early 1980s, to the era of free trade.
Robert Bothwell’s Canada and the United States, which was short-listed for the 1992 Gelber Prize for the best book on international affairs published in English, is an engagingly written, scholarly written, scholarly account of the relationship in the postwar era. It is especially valuable in exploring the shifting patterns of domestic politics in Canada and the US, the management of which has become as critical a factor in Canadian-American relations as the conduct of the relationship itself. A major theme in both books is the remarkable stability of the relationship and how Canada survives in an association of extraordinary interdependence and persistent asymmetry. For Granatstein and Hillmer the answer lies in the combination of American self-restraint and skillful Canadian diplomacy. For Bothwell an important point of difference is Canada’s social welfare system.
The relationship has been well served by this state of affairs. But circumstances have changed in recent years. Growing fragmentation of the American policy process and resurgent strains in Canadian federalism have complicated the conduct of Canada-US relations. At the same time, debt and deficits have put pressure on Canada’s social programs. How can interdependence and separateness in contemporary Canadian-American affairs be reconciled? The answer lies in finding the right balance between the two countries’ national and bilateral interests. In the past, both books show, the relationship has been approached at various times from “partnership” and “nationalist” perspectives. The volumes also demonstrate that neither perspective provides a durable basis for managing Canada-US relations; the former because it obscures important differences between the two countries, the latter because it precludes the cooperation necessary for both sides to realize their interests. There is no immutable balance of interests in Canada-American relations because the relationship itself is not static. Nevertheless, useful guidelines for calibrating relations between the two countries can be extrapolated from these accounts. First, given the range and extent of Canada- US interdependence the two countries should take each other’s interest into account in forming their policies. In the final analysis, however, each side’s approach must be grounded in its own national interest. Too much bilateral intimacy encourages Canada and the US to subordinate legitimate individual interests to common concerns, or risks giving that impression. This eventually precipitates a nationalist backlash in both countries, especially in Canada where concern about American influence is never far below the surface. Increased nationalism in turn leads to more restrictive national policies and growing bilateral discord. Second, Ottawa and Washington should be responsive to each other’s foreign policy priorities and accommodate them when it is in their interests to do so. This would not only enhance the pursuit of those priorities, but also affect each government’s disposition toward the other and hence its willingness to promote the other’s concerns within its own political system. Although public and institutional pressures have constrained both governments’ capacity to manage the relationship, especially on the US side, they still wield enormous clout.
Third, both sides should keep their commitments. There is no surer way for a country to damage its credibility than to renege on its obligations. Some of the lowest points in the relationship were reached when the Diefenbaker government failed to act on its commitment to acquire nuclear weapons in 1963 and when the US Senate refused to approve the 1979 East Coast fisheries agreement.
Finally, neither government should expect preferential treatment from the other. Concessions can engender an unhealthy dependence on the part of the recipient, and a feeling of having been too generous on the part of the donor, thereby creating pressures for more detached relations. Moreover, special treatment is not earned; it is extended as a favour. And what is freely given can be freely taken away.
In sum, these two volumes offer informative accounts of the evolution of Canada- US relations. They also constitute an important point of departure for assessments of the future of the relationship.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 11, No. 4 / Vol. 12, No. 1 (1995) — Spring 1995 // Printemps 1995, pp. 89–90. Read the rest of this issue →
