Barack Obama’s decision to make Canada his first official foreign visit could give Stephen Harper's government an opportunity to mend the deteriorating relations with the United States.
However, Harper will have to take the lead and think beyond bilateral issues to re-establish strong ties with its most important ally. Perhaps he could learn from the poor relationship his predecessors shared with another popular U.S. president.
It was a cold morning, at the dawn of the '60s in the United States. A young democratic senator from Massachusetts took the presidential oath.
“We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom – symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning – signifying renewal, as well as change,” he said.
Almost half a century later, another young American president made history. In his words, “Change doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.”
John F. Kennedy and Barack H. Obama have a lot in common. While the former was the first Catholic president of the U.S., Obama is the first African-American president.
Both represent the new generation of Americans. Change was the common overtone of both of their campaigns. And like Kennedy, Obama has big boots to fill.
A historical precedent from John F. Kennedy suggests, presidential visits to Canada have always been quite close to the inauguration date.
It symbolizes the importance of the economic and strategic partnership between the two countries. Considering the high scale of trade across the border, it is crucial for the Canadian prime minister to share a warm and friendly relationship with the American president.
Though most Canadian prime ministers have bonded well with American presidents, Kennedy and John Diefenbaker did not fall under that precedent. Their relationship was in troubled waters right from the start.
When Kennedy visited Ottawa in 1961, 50,000 observers came to downtown to welcome him. “Kennedy was a smash hit,” and “police complained of the biggest traffic jam in city history,” wrote Knowlton Nash, former CBC anchor and news director in his book Kennedy and Diefenbaker: Fear and Loathing Across the Undefended Border.
“Nothing is more vital than the unity of the United States and Canada,” said Kennedy in his parliamentary address.
While his visit and speeches were met with applause, trouble was brewing elsewhere.
The two leaders disagreed on many key issues and Diefenbaker ended up earning the wrath of the opposition, the U.S. State Department and the media. And that eventually contributed to his downfall.
Diefenbaker, in his election campaign, had presented his vision of Canadianism, which included distancing the nation from the United States. His ultra-nationalist approach did not go down well with the U.S. administration. Despite being committed to a NATO nuclear role, Diefenbaker failed to face up to the question of storing nuclear warheads on Canadian soil. He was also indecisive about the prospect of Canada becoming a member of the Organization of American States (OAS).
His anti-American and wavering opinions on issues further severed the relationship between Ottawa and Washington. The Winnipeg Free Press attacked Diefenbaker for having poisoned Canada’s relations with the American people and humiliated Canadians, Nash wrote.
The Liberal opposition led by Lester Pearson raked up these topics in the election campaign and Diefenbaker was defeated in the April 1963 election. “ . . . The final disintegration of the Diefenbaker government was caused solely by an attempt to quarrel with the U.S.,” Nash wrote. Diefenbaker, claimed Kennedy spent “one million dollars” to defeat him.
Harper has a tough road ahead of him, though the world is is a different place. American domination is no longer a major
Instead, Canadian fear. Afghanistan, NAFTA renegotiation, Alberta oil and the environment are some of the key issues that will shape future Canada-U.S. relations.
The Afghanistan mission is likely to pose a conflict of interest for Harper and Obama.
The Conservative government has publicly committed to end Canada’s main combat mission there in 2011. But, the Obama administration wants to shift its focus from Iraq to Afghanistan.
According to a recent poll by EKOS research, 47 per cent of Canadians believe the relationship between the two nations will be fundamentally different under the new U.S. administration. However, the research also suggests a high level of worry among Canadians about the NAFTA and the Afghanistan mission.
Diefenbaker and Kennedy fell out on major bilateral and continental issues.
However, Harper faces the challenge of protecting Canadian politics and at the same time, going beyond Canada-U.S. relations.
The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University recently released a blueprint for ways Canada can effectively engage the new U.S. administration. The report concluded that it is important to build a partnership of trust with the United States.
The partnership should focus not only on bilateral issues, but also on global concerns. Canada must become a “credible contributor”, not an “annoying diversion”, the report says.
“If the prime minister places the emphasis on bilateral issues, the U.S. president will say, ‘Well, then we are really not interested in being a partner’,” says Michael Hart, a NPSIA professor.
“Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder,” said John F. Kennedy in his address to Parliament in 1961.
Diefenbaker’s years in office soured this relationship as his anti-American sentiment drove all his domestic and foreign policy decisions – or indecisions. Harper has a chance to re-inforce the strong ties between the two allies.
He has to be assertive and protect national interests. But, he should also project Canada as a contributor that will help the U.S. tackle global issues.