Affairs had been established by the two countries to study ways of increasing cooperation in the economic field.46 And on November 14th President Eisenhower paid a short visit to Canada in the course of which he was enthusiastically welcomed. On this occasion the President spoke to the Canadian parliament. In his address he outlined the policy of his administration with respect to Canada.

PRESIDENT

President Eisenhower in visit to Canada outlines

U. S. policy toward its neighbor

EISENHOWER'S ADDRESS IN THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS, OTTAWA, NOVEMBER 14, 1953: . . . We . . . have long respected and admired Canada as a bulwark of the British Commonwealth and a leader among nations. As no Soviet wile or lure can divide the Commonwealth, nothing will corrupt the Canadian-American partnership. More than friendship and partnership is signified in the relations between our countries. . . . Now, this continent has been a laboratory of self-government. . . . Here ... independent and sovereign peoples have built a stage on which all the world can see: ... Each country's patriotic dedication to its own enlightened self-interest but free from vicious nationalistic exploitation of grudge or ancient wrong. . . . A joined recognition that neighbors . . . prosper best in neighborly cooperation. An international will to cast out the bomb and the gun as arbiters and to exalt the joint search for truth and justice. . . . Toward the strengthening of commercial ties a joint Economic and Trade Committee. . . now approved. . . . will meet periodically. . . . Joint development and use of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes Waterway is inevitable. You of Canada and we of the United States can and will devise ways to protect our North America from any surprise attack by air. And we shall achieve the defence of our continent without whittling our pledges to Western Europe or forgetting our friends in the Pacific. . . . Defensively, as well as geographically, we are joined beyond any possibility of separation.. Canada and the United States are equal partners and neither dares to waste time. There is a time to be alert and a time to rest. These days demand ceaseless vigilance. . . . Now is the time for action on all agreed measures. 47

...

...

In his State of the Union speech to Congress on January 7, 1954, the President reiterated his sup

The Committee held its first meeting in Washington on Mar. 16, 1954. On March 17 it was announced that the two countries had agreed not to dump surplus farm products on the world market.

See U. S. Dept. of State Bulletin, XXIX:735-38, Nov. 30, 1953, for a complete text of Pres. Eisenhower's address, and pp. 738-39, for the texts of a joint communiqué issued by Pres. Eisenhower and Prime Minister St. Laurent.

U.S. Congress passes the seaway bill

Finally, after thirty years of negotiation and argument, the Congress passed the seaway bill and it was signed by the President on May 13, 1954. Under this legislation a St. Seaway Development Lawrence Corporation was created and on June 9th, Mr. Eisenhower designated the Secretary of Defense as director of the corporation. Canadian and United States officials met in Ottawa on July 5-6 to discuss plans for action, concluding their discussions on August 13, 1954. The agreements reached at these meetings were published on August 18th.50 The first work on the project was begun at Massena, New York, and Caldwell, Ontario, on August 10th where Governor Dewey presided at ceremonies highlighted by the Work on the reading of a congratulatory message seaway project from President Eisenhower. Thus, three decades after the first of five begins American presidents had urged the opening of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes to heavy tonnage ocean vessels and the utilization of the power potential of the great river, work was started on a joint basis for the benefit of both countries and with the participation of both countries. This triumph for international cooperation and agreement was a long time in coming, but at last it was a reality instead of a political football or the instrument of a special interest group.

48 See U. S. Dept. of State Bulletin, XXX:78, Jan. 18, 1954. The President said: "Both nations now need the St. Lawrence Seaway for security as well as economic reasons."

49 See ibid., 639-40, Apr. 26, 1954, for Sec. Wilson's statement on this agreement.

50 See ibid., XXXI:300-301, Aug. 30, 1954, for the terms.

Areas of agreement between Canada and the United States were far more extensive by 1954 than were points of divergence. (80) Canada and the United States were partners in

Canadian-U. S. NATO. They had fought side by relations side in Korea. Their general supshow high port of one another in the UN was degree of the rule rather than the exception.51 agreement Economically their policies were meshing more and more effectively. Personal relationships between the leaders of the two countries were as friendly and almost as close as the one between Franklin Roosevelt and Mackenzie King 52 Defense arrangements were being stepped up and Canadian and American military consultations were a commonplace. Exchanges of personnel and ideas between Canadian and United States military training and educational facilities were broadly employed to improve cooperation on all levels. And, despite jibes and minor irritations, relations between the citizenry of the two countries were on a cordial and mutually respectful basis.

51 Occasionally, as in the Sept. 1953 instance when Mr. Pearson questioned United States intentions in Korea, and on Mar. 15, 1954 when he said that the United States would have to consult with its allies on its "new look" policy or risk fighting alone in a possible war, it was evident that Canada would not be a subservient agent of American foreign policy.

52 Governor-General Massey visited Washington in May 1954 and addressed a joint session of Congress on May 4. See U. S. Dept. of State Bulletin, XXX:762-64, May 17, 1954, for the text of his speech.

Differences between U. S.

and Canada will occur, but general areas of agreement are large

It cannot be denied that many Canadians are envious of the power, wealth, and productivity of the United States. But that envy is growing less as Canada develops into one of the potentially richest and fastest growing nations of the globe. And the envy which does exist is tempered by the knowledge that in the thermonuclear age we are all on the same continent together—what affects the Texan affects the farmer of Saskatchewan, what affects the Nova Scotia fisherman affects the Detroit auto workers, and what troubles the Florida vacationer equally threatens the British Columbia lumberman. Likewise there are those in the United States inclined to belittle the Canadians. But here again, these individuals cannot help but realize that the small population of Canada stands between them and the U.S.S.R. across the pole. One hundred and thirty-six years of an undefended boundary between the United States and Canada have not prevented the two nations from developing differently, but they have helped both countries to see clearly their mutual dependence upon one another for continued prosperity, peace, and survival.

Enough has been said in this long review of our country's foreign policy from the 1770s until the present day to demonstrate that a nation's

Dangerous to try to solve foreign policy problems by hasty thought

position in the world requires constant reassessment. It is easy to pontificate upon the subject of foreign policy. Any man in the street will give, on less than a minute's notice, his opinion and advice on a question relating to the conduct of

international relations. He has an answer to every problem and, unless he is wiser than most, his answer is rarely based upon anything more than emotion, ignorance, prejudice, or a combination of all three. However, while it is relatively easy to settle world problems on this basis, it is at the same time dangerous. If the foregoing pages have shown anything, they should have convinced the reader that the formulation, conduct, explanation, and analysis of foreign policy is a matter for deep study and eternal reevaluation.

We need to know basic design and scope of policy

Each reader will object that an area or topic of special interest to him has been treated too briefly, or too superficially, or has even been omitted entirely. (81) To these charges the plea will always have to be "guilty." In extenuation it may be remarked that a vast literature on the subject of America's foreign relations already exists in reasonably accessible form and to add to it more than we have is of doubtful utility. Furthermore, any selective process has its pitfalls, and where the material is so extensive, selection inevitably means that not even the writer can be satisfied with the result, let alone the critical reader. Nevertheless,

what does seem important at this point is not additional descriptions of specific events and reactions, but a statement of the basic design and scope of American foreign policy as it faces the immediate and foreseeable situations in the world today.

Foreign policy must be dynamic and adaptable

Before we proceed to do this, however, it is necessary to point out that an examination of the development of American foreign policy is not, of itself, a justification of that policy. Nor is it a reliable forecast of the future of that policy. Foreign policy is not made in a day. It grows and is built on situations and events over a long span of time. And in its applications it is an ever-changing, dynamic process. These applications may in time become the steps by which a quite stable facet of policy is developed and imbedded in our overall national policy toward similar or related situations. But never does foreign policy rule out the possibility of change, adaptation, or, in some instances, reversal because of altered circumstances. To be firm in our dealings with other nations is an admirable quality. To be inflexible is to court disaster at the worst, or to falter in our leadership as the least serious consequence. How and where to strike the balance between the strong maintenance of principles and the dependence on blind rigidity is the task of our national policymakers. We can hope and pray that these leaders have the necessary wisdom to make the choice intelligently, and we can make the effort to identify and choose leaders with this necessary talent. Having made our selection, in a democracy we are free to criticize or to approve their

We must understand reasons for foreign policy decisions

decisions. By the same token we also have the duty and responsibility of trying to understand the basis for their decisions while we are asking them to explain the reasons for their actions or their declarations. (82) Some attempt has been made thus far in this study to do just that. Now we should endeavor to summarize our findings.

In a readable pamphlet issued several years ago by the State Department there is set forth a series of values in which lie the roots of a democratic nation's policies. These enduring values are given as follows:

We are an independent nation, and we want to keep our independence.

we mean to

We attach the highest importance to individual freedom, and Our enduring keep our freedom. national values we are a peaceful people, and we want

to see the time when war and the threat of war are abandoned as instruments of policy by all nations.

We are a friendly people. We have no traditional "enemies." We want to settle our differences with other people as "good neighbors."

We believe in justice. A peace based on justice is the only peace which can endure.1

Here we have a statement of fundamental truths about American foreign policy. It would be possible to select other phrases or to enlarge upon

The basic purpose of our

these. Our leaders from George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower have voiced the ideals and aspirations of our nation in its affairs with foreign policy other nations in countless addresses, proclamations, declarations, and remarks. An anthology of such expressions would fill many pages from which equally cogent extracts could be taken to characterize American foreign policy. But they would all add up to the summarization that the purpose of American foreign policy is to preserve the independence and integrity of the United States.

While it is a truism to say that such phrases are semantic exercises and that whatever words are used to state and describe national aims and aspirations are susceptible of varying interpretations, it is nevertheless equally true to point out that deeds alone cannot illustrate the fundamentals of a nation's determination to preserve its existence.

1 U. S. Dept. of State. Our Foreign Policy 1952 (Washington: March 1952), p. 6.

Words have to be used, and they are often as powerful and as revealing as deeds.

Foreign policy cannot be achieved by slogans

At the same time, it must be emphasized that foreign policy is not something to be accomplished or explained by slogans and catch phrases. Numerous instances have been noted in the course of this study where electrifying, infuriating, witty, or prophetic slogans and phrases have played an important role in the history of our foreign affairs. (83) But they have almost invariably had a solid background of fact and circumstance which prompted their use, as well as their popular acceptance. Where they have lacked this substantial foundation they have "boomeranged," or have been ridiculed into derision. Authoritative pronouncements, then, must have the ring of sincerity and the emphasis of strength behind them or they become empty utterances that do us as a nation no good abroad, or at home.

Our foreign policy is designed to keep us free

as

What then is the design of our foreign policy today? It is, as it has been from the beginning, a structure of purposes to keep the United States secure a nation and to maintain our country as a living symbol of the greatness and rightness of democracy in a world seeking a standard toward which to repair. If the United States, by its example and its leadership, can provide that standard and can help men of good will everywhere to reach it, the major goals of our foreign policy will be attained.

To fulfill the purposes of this design is not an easy undertaking, as we have seen in the recital of our history. Powerful nations and combinations

its turn, has been overcome or by-passed with degrees of success. Still the roadblocks appearerected by the intent of other nations or existing by the very nature of an imperfect and, at times, unknown world.

Communists regard

the U. S. as their chief opponent

Today the United States in its approach to its dealings with other nations is faced with the existence of a powerful opposite. International communism has as one of its avowed the eventual tripurposes umph over "international capitalism." The communists identify the United States as the epitome of the capitalistic state and as the leader of world capitalism. The fact that a number of nations allied with the United States, and as fully determined to resist the menace of communism, profess socialism rather than outright capitalism as the basis of their systems does not seem to confuse the communists. In reality what the communists-as nations and as individuals— oppose is not "capitalism" (as they define it), but the cardinal fact of the free world's attraction for so many millions of people. This is the doctrine, typified at its best but not monopolized by the United States, the British Commonwealth, France, the Benelux nations, the Scandinavians, and many others, that the state exists for the benefit of the individual, not that the individual lives only to serve the state.

There are many nations opposed to communism where this doctrine is not carried out in practice, and even in the United States, it may be argued,

What the communists really oppose

the principle and the implementation of this concept are not always observed. But the significant fact is that the opponents of communism recognize that there is nothing in the communist philosophy or the communist example which inspires a belief that life under communist rule holds any hope of achieving this desired arrangement. Because the United States has made it a founding stone of its system, America has friends and allies today in its effort to defend the free world against the challenge of communism.

Some will assert that we have friends and allies because of our size, our wealth, our power, and

Our size and power

are not the whole reason for our world leadership

our possession of thermonuclear weapons. If this were the whole story we would still have many nations on our side-but they would not be friends and allies. They would be satellites and sycophants. Opportunism is not unknown in international alliances. But the strength of the free world alliance today lies in more than guns and butter, and dollars and planes. And much of the reason why this system of defense arrangements is in existence is that the opponents of communism know, when they face the issues realistically, the United States, for all its faults, has the world's greatest potentiality for holding to the standards of the fundamental dignity of the individual.

There are in the world today, besides the allies of the free world and the nations of the communist bloc, a number of so-called "uncommitted" countries. For one reason or another We must each of these nations chooses to appeal to the remain outside the two main camps. "uncommitted" It is to these uncommitted nations nations that the United States, in its foreign policies, must make the most compelling appeals in the immediate future. We cannot ignore or lightly regard those nations that are already our allies. Our efforts to retain their friendship must be constant and evident. But with them the battle has been partially won. By our example and by the inherent values in their own systems, they have been convinced that their futures are closely linked with ours and their fates are in the same balances as our own.(84) If we are to win the uncommitted nations to our side and are to convince them that we are on their side, unremitting efforts must be expended by us to demonstrate the values of the free way of life. This can be done not only by exposing the fallacies of the communist appeals, and the chicaneries of the communist behavior. It can be accomplished even more successfully by proving, both by words and by deeds, that America and its allies provide the strength and the security of a rallying point for a victorious defense of freedom in the world of today.

We must demonstrate

the values of the free way of life