Dr. Stéphane Roussel discusses Canada-US security issues.

Dr. Roussel is professor at the Department of Political Science and holds the Canada Research Chair in Foreign and Canadian Defence Policy at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

Information on DFAIT's Canadian International Policy eDiscussions:

View current eDiscussion

Security
View eDiscussion (now closed)
Questions and Resources

View Video Interview Library

Video Interview (in French with English transcripts)

Note: The opinions presented are not necessarily those of the Government of Canada.

Canada-US Relations	9 minutes	Quicktime
Canada-US and Security	6 minutes	Quicktime
Balance for Canada	1 minute	Quicktime

(Video players are available here: QuickTime | Windows Media)

Transcript:

Canada-US relations

My name is Stéphane Roussel. I am a professor in the Political Science Department of the Université du Québec à Montréal and chairholder of the Canada Research Chair in Foreign and Canadian Defence Policy. I have been working on Canada-US relations for nearly 10 years; actually, almost 12 years. It is my primary area of interest. I did my doctoral thesis on this subject and my publications deal essentially with relations between Canada and the United States in the areas of security and defence. This is an area for which I have a particular fondness and in which I have obviously acquired a certain number of ideas and reference points that do not necessarily match those of some of my colleagues.

In an attempt to provide an understanding of the nature of the current discussion in Canada over Canada-US relations, I will over-simplify by saying that there is a debate involving the nationalists on the one hand – people for whom defence and sovereignty, or even the Canadian identity, is essential. For these people, cooperating too closely with the United States means the loss of Canada’s identity or at least sovereignty. The opposing camp includes those I call continentalists, people who place greater confidence in Canada-US relations or are at least confident that these relations do not cause major problems for Canada. On the contrary, since the United States is Canada’s main trading partner, and Canada depends largely on the American market for its prosperity, these people feel that the future, or Canada’s salvation, lies in much closer cooperation with the US, and is achieved not only in terms of trade and the economy, but also of defence and security. They are often people who advocate for new agreements with the United States and alignment of Canadian foreign policy with that of the US, for example by contributing to the coalition in Iraq or missile defence.

I am probably closer to the second camp, though I do not share all of their views. One reason for this is that my research has caused me to develop a certain degree of confidence in Canada-US bilateral institutions. The history of Canada-US relations is quite remarkable. First, these two states have not gone to war for nearly 200 years. That is exceptional. From an international relations standpoint, it is a total aberration. All small states such as Poland, Finland, Belgium and Ireland that are in close proximity to a large power are negatively affected by this reality. One could exaggerate by saying that they are invaded nearly every 50 years. In Canada, we have managed to avoid this. Even better, I feel, we have managed over the 50 years since World War II, to establish virtually egalitarian relations. This is a surprising statement, because it is unusual for Canadians to hear this description of Canada-US relations. But an observation of how the relations between the two countries have developed since World War II reveals first that, by and large, the United States has respected Canadian sovereignty. Such is not the case for most major powers in their relations with their smaller neighbours. When problems arise between Canada and the US, as they did during World War II and the Cold War, a satisfactory solution is always found. Canada-US relations are managed quite successfully. That is why I have confidence in the institutions, because in my opinion, they guarantee in large part these curiously egalitarian relations. In fact, it could be said that Canada-US relations do not reflect the difference in power, since the United States is 50 or 100 times more powerful than Canada. This difference is not a factor in Canada-US relations.

How do institutions accomplish this? I would say that it is above all because they limit the risk of problems between the two states; they set cooperation limits between the two countries and establish the rules between the two states. They also define not only the duties of the two partners to each other, but also their obligations. There is thus a whole series of principles, of rules between Canada and the United States that prevent or limit the possibility of problems in relations between the two. I therefore feel that this explains why the United States has such respect for Canadian sovereignty.

The origin of these institutions is quite interesting. Back in the early 20th century, the first bilateral institutions had already demonstrated this egalitarian character. For example, the International Joint Commission had an equal number of Canadians and Americans. They were often technicians who thought in technical and not political terms. These people had a job to do and did it to the best of their technical ability. At that time, power-based relations were no longer a consideration. The fact that one was much more powerful than the other was of much less importance. The institutions that gradually developed over the course of the 20th century follow the model of the International Joint Commission. For example, the Permanent Joint Board of Defence had this same egalitarian character. Today, if we extrapolate, NORAD and Northern Command’s planning commission also tend to reflect this model in the sense that there are technicians who have work to do and are doing it to the best of their ability without necessarily bothering with political considerations.

I also think that the origin of these institutions is the result of the common political values between the two states. There is a very strong cultural and political commonality between Canada and the US. They are both liberal democratic states. Even though one has a presidency and the other is of British origin and there are many differences between them, the common origin of Canadian and American political culture and the commitment to liberal democracy predisposes both states to adopt the same institutions. Bilateral problems are thus settled the same way as domestic problems. This means that the use of force is eliminated; that theoretically, the stakeholders present are equals, and much depends on the rule of law. So it is not force but rather law between the two that prevails. This commonality of values thus explains the evolution of institutions between the two states. In my opinion, that is what we must build on as we look to the future of Canada-US relations in terms of security. Since 2002, there has been very rapid development of the institutional image of North America. The American government has created many new institutions, including the Department of Homeland Security and Northern Command, institutions that are fundamentally national, even though they have a major impact on this side of the border and in Mexico.

If Canada wants to strengthen or better defend its interests in the years ahead, it will first do so by attempting to build bilateral institutions that can create a bridge to these new American institutions. There is sometimes talk of the Canada-US planning cell at Northern Command becoming a permanent institution. Some bring up the possibility of having a maritime NORAD or land-based NORAD. This is probably the way of the future for Canada: to develop institutions that will strengthen the equal nature of these relations.

Canada-US and Secuirty

There is still a series of questions between the United States and Canada that sharply divide researchers: in terms of defence and security, what is Canada’s primary responsibility, specifically with regard to its relations with the United States? In my opinion, we must first recognize that Canada is a North American state and that its first responsibility lies within North America. A look back in history provides a better understanding of the current security issues. What best sums up the nature of relations between the two countries is the Kingston Dispensation; that is, an exchange between Prime Minister Mackenzie King and President Franklin Roosevelt in 1938. Roosevelt had said that the United States could never allow an outside enemy to invade Canada and so would not stand passively by in the event of a threat directed against Canada. At that time, Prime Minister King had replied that in exchange for the protection the United States would afford Canada, Canada would have to commit to preventing its territory from serving as a springboard or base for enemies of the United States. Therefore, by defending itself, Canada is also helping defend the United States. The basic exchange between Canada and the United States is that the US will protect Canada, and in return, Canada must do its part to protect itself. There is also something of an implicit threat by the Americans: if Canada does not keep its part of the agreement, the Americans will carry it out in our place, whether Canadians want them to or not.

In my opinion, therefore, Canada’s primary responsibility is to protect itself in order to protect the United States. Obviously, there is a whole discussion concerning the nature of the threat to Canada in terms of security and defence – discussion focuses above all on threats. We must recognize that there are very few threats. Canada is thus fortunate in this sense, because it is not a target of enemies lurking in the international system. However, it could easily become a gateway to the United States. For the most part, the threat to Canada is that it could become a base for enemies of the United States. I had a colleague who had created a worst-case scenario for Canada and the United States, in which terrorists operating from Canada on the American side leave obvious trails of their movement through Canada, causing the United States to close the border with Canada, and in so doing, they commit a form of economic suicide for a large part of the American economy and take with it Canada’s prosperity. That would be one of the worst nightmares. Canada’s responsibility is therefore above all to ensure that Canada is not a source of concern or risk for the United States.

Obviously, there is the whole issue of adjustment; that is, to what point Canadians are prepared to compromise or adjust to satisfy American expectations. Do we want to create a Department of Homeland Security in Canada? We already have a very similar department. But do we want to go further? Do we want a Patriot Act in Canada? Do we absolutely want to fall in line with the American government’s idea of the nature of the threat? Do we want to buy into the speech by the Bush administration on the threat in North America? I don’t think we have to go that far. In fact, if we look at what has happened since 2002, we tend to see rather that Canadians are very good at giving the Americans the minimum they require while maintaining a very Canadian approach. Legislation passed in Parliament in 2001 still reflects this aspect and at least respects Canada’s political culture.

Another interesting element I have been working on for some time is the role played by Canada’s provinces and municipalities in response to the expectations of or requests by the United States. The role of Canada’s provinces is very different from that of the American states, for example. In each American state, there is a Department of Homeland Security and it can be seen that the relationship between the federal government and the states in the United States is very different from that which exists in Canada. It is basically a safeguard for Canada in the sense that federal-provincial relations require the Canadian government to implement measures different from those in the US. There are thus a number of elements like this that make it possible to envision the future of Canada-US relations with some degree of confidence including the extent to which Canadians continue to assume their responsibilities in terms of the defence of North America, the fight against terrorism and possibly—though it is still a topic of debate—in interventions abroad. The nature of Canada’s role in interventions abroad led by the United States is an issue that must be defined over the coming years. Obviously, Canadians will never accept the Iraq intervention model. Unilateral action without UN consent is out of the question, with a coalition that is finally reduced to a few large states. I feel that Canada’s attachment to the multilateral model and the UN model is too significant to be swept aside. That said, how we find a balance between American expectations of Canada and a Canadian way to proceed is a matter that must be discussed.

Balance for Canada

It is up to Canadians to find and return to this balance between the necessity of taking into account the expectations and interests of the US, because whether we like it or not, we share the American continent with them and our prosperity depends on them. We must therefore consider their expectations and the necessity of defending our own identity. I think one of the problems with those who advocate greater integration between Canada and the United States is not taking into account respect for the Canadian identity. It is to look at the situation and ask: “how can we preserve what makes us unique and distinguishes us without calling into question our relations with the United States, and even deepen these relations?” We must therefore always find a way of “Canadianizing” our North Americanism.

Dr. Roussel's articles (in French only):
Roussel, Stéphane et Bélanger, Yves. La sécurité des Amériques: Les premiers pas vers une intégration régionale? Observatoire des Amériques, Février 2003.

Roussel, Stéphane et Rancourt, Jean-François. Le Département de la Homeland Security (DHS): Tour de Babel bureaucratique américaine? Le Maintien de la Paix, bulletin no. 61, décembre 2002.

Roussel, Stéphane. Le Canada et le périmètre de sécurité nord-américain: sécurité, souveraineté ou prospérité? Options politiques, avril 2002.

Roussel, Stéphane. National Security Strategy, Northern Command et Homeland Security: L'impact de la réorganisation de la sécurité aux États-Unis sur les politiques canadiennes. Sécurité Mondiale, bulletin no. 3, janvier-février 2003.