The border in question; Time and the border, part 2

The border in question this program is produced and recorded at the University of British Columbia Canada under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters. Canada the new American nation barely three decades old and in the 19th century and began the 20th with confident hope the fulfillment of its national destiny lay in the years ahead. But the 20th century proved a dangerous time for youth and nations to seek maturity. The Canadian army had shaped not to have been in contact with the enemy but I am here to tell you that it had no dad dad in the key but he found it right at the invade and growing. Time and the border. The second of two programs

outlining some historical forces which influence relations between the United States and Canada in later programs specific US Canadian issues will be examined in an attempt to explain Canada's desire and efforts to survive in the shadow of a giant neighbor Canada came into being in 1867 as a result of England's desire to disentangle from Colonial Defense and the real danger of the divided British American colonies being swallowed in US expansionism to meet the American threat. A trans continental railway was laid welding the nation from sea to sea to uprisings led by Louis Reale were quelled. Having the incidental effect of displaying Canadian sovereignty on the prairie's Irish American Fenians launched numerous raids on Canadian soil succeeding even in assassinating a Canadian statesman. The Fenian raids coincided with Britain's troop withdrawal from Canada. The result was stimulation of

Canadian nationalism. The Toronto Globe April 18 1870. What audience have gained more a national character during the last six years and in any previous 20. And if we ask what is Carter's base we don't buy into the outrageous proceedings of the Fenians and there are better wars have been among the chief agencies failure of United States authorities to curb Fenian terrorism raised questions of American goodwill during this period. United States officials openly espouse the cause of Canadian annexation. People like Presidents Johnson and Grant senators Sumner and Chandler secretary of state Hamilton Fish. Canada still lacked treaty making powers and was often irritated at what seemed a less than zealous British defense of Dominion interests regarding negotiations on maritime fishing rights. Sir John A MacDonald the first prime minister once wrote The British Commissioners seem to have only one idea in their mind. That is to go home with a treaty in their pocket

settling everything no matter at what cost to Canada. British attitudes to be questioned later in the Alaska boundary dispute were perhaps revealed in a communication of one British diplomat to London. He wrote Canadians are filled with a belief that they can bully the Americans into giving way. It seemed indifferent to the risk they run by such a policy around the turn of the century while Canada was still consolidating her borders Europe Britain and America were pursuing imperialist policies the US was engaged in the Spanish-American conflict and Britain was at war in South Africa. Despite all irritations a strong attachment to the motherland persisted. Seventy three hundred Canadian volunteers fought in the Boer War. But a change was beginning in this attitude. In 1900 a new prime minister French Canadian Wilfrid Laurier stated I plan part can about this that in future Canada shall be at liberty to act or not to act but we interfere or not interfere to do just as she pleases and that she shall reserve to

herself the right to judge whether or not there is cause for it to lack. Soon after Canada was caught in what some Canadian historians consider an international squeeze play. The Yukon Gold Rush had revealed the necessity of Canadian sea access through the Alaska Panhandle. Two interpretations were possible to the treaty which established the Alaska border. The one which would give Canada sea access was the least tenable though it had some merit during the negotiations. Canada tasted President Theodore Roosevelt big stick diplomacy in March 1900 too. He moved US troops to Alaska. Britain and the US agreed the matter should be settled by a tribunal of in the words of the treaty six impartial jurors serve repute who shall consider judicially the questions submitted to them. The American team of impartial jurists consisted of Ely who route Secretary of War the predictable senator from Washington state and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge whose anti-Canadian sentiments were known.

Britain appointed Lord St. Chief Justice of England and appointed a former kopecks superior court judge and a prominent Canadian lawyer. Some Canadian historians have noted that the US didn't rest loading the tribunal but also resorted to diplomatic coercion by informing Britain in various communications that the Republic would take a serious ado of an unfavorable decision and at that time Britain was ardently currying us favor other Canadians historians However take a more lenient view of the Alaskan boundary dispute. Professor John Norris Lord our stone was the only one of the six who really took his duties seriously in that sense. The Canadians realized from the start that they would have to fight for Canadian. For the Canadian claim since the Americans were certainly fighting for the American plane without any idea of judicial function or stone partly as a result of pressure from the United States on the British Cabinet partly as a result of a judicial summing up

of the of the evidence. And I think this is this being been lost sight of by a lot of Canadian nationalists to start and that our son's decision was made on the basis very largely of his own understanding of the evidence. I gave the gave. A considerable share of the territory larger perhaps than that then. Canadians like to feel it was strictly legal to the United States. And. Probably in the long run the lack of boundaries about where it should be considering the rather vague intentions of the people who signed the eight hundred twenty four hundred twenty six conventions upon which the original dispute developed to last week's case but the circumstances of the loss aroused unprecedented Canadian resentment towards both the United States and Britain. Circumstances such as Teddy Roosevelt's assessment of the proceedings that the British government tipped the wink to the chief justice. Prime Minister lawyer

echoed Canadian indignation. I have often regretted that we are living beside a great neighbor who I believe I can say without being deemed unfriendly to them. I very grasping international action. I have often regretted also that we have not in our own hands been pretty making power which would enable us to dispose of our all our pals. So an independent treaty making power became increasingly urgent for the evolving nation. In 1909 the international joint commission was set up to settle problems involving US Canadian boundary waters and on this Canadians not Britons would represent Canadian interests. The country meanwhile was filling out the vast geographic government had cut for itself homesteaders moved on to the prairie's domestic manufacturing was growing all of which raised the questions of Canadian and American trade and tariff policies. In one thousand eleven the old controversy of reciprocal or free trade between the two countries became a Canadian election issue.

Canadian historian Dean F-8 soured of the Department of International Studies evaluates this issue on the surface the issue was the approval of the arrangement for a reduction of tariffs by reciprocity between United States and Canada with the liberals supporting it and the conservatives opposing it. But as the election developed it became also a question of nationalism and the danger to the that the national image of Canada to use a modern phrase. But the concert was charging that this would mean the loss of Canada as an independent state. Another issue which which cut across it completely was the fitting and comeback over the creation of the Canadian navy which might be under British control so that the fire from being a straightforward clash of opinion on economics. This was a question of differences over economic development plus national feeling plus

a side issue on control or subordination to Great Britain on naval policy. Opponents of the reciprocity agreement saw a manifest destiny lurking everywhere and were able to justify their fears by statements of United States government leaders referring to reciprocity J Beecham Clark speaker of the House of Representatives declared. War. Hope to see the day when they are marker and wrote over every book of the British North America. Oh that's the way things are now. The government of reciprocity was roundly defeated but the new government under Prime Minister Robert Borden was soon to face a crisis which would both shake and shape the country. Yet 1914 Britain declared war on Germany without question though there was no alternative. Canada also voluntarily went to war and out of the fields of Flanders grew a new and powerful national pride. In

April 1915 French African and Canadian troops were holding trenches in the vital salient in the afternoon. The heavy chlorine clouds of the war's first gas attack rolled over the trenches French and African lines broke the Canadian lines held the Canadians then the line to fill the gap and held they thinned the line again and they held and held. Meanwhile the economy at home was turning the country into an industrial nation. A new battle honors were being added overseas. Bill 70 themI Ridge passion Dale and Canadian statesman meanwhile were carrying on a different kind of battle an angry prime minister Borden wrote in January 1916. It can hardly be expected that we will put 400000 or 500000 men in the field and willingly accept the position of having no more voice and receiving no more consideration than if we were toy automatically. Any person cherishing such an expectation as an unfortunate and even

dangerous illusion. So Canadian troops fought as a unit with their own commanders. The end of the war in 1900 was the start of a new Canadian era. It mittens to the League of Nations was another of the evolutionary steps toward total independence but it left the US unimpressed. The Canadian invitation to the 1921 Washington disarmament conference was sent to Britain. The US however was treating other American states differently. While it displayed indifference to the north it showed a keen interest in the affairs to the SO in Latin America deemed soured examines this difference. The basic difference is of the IDA States is vitally interested and we are not. In other words we're much further away from Latin America. Our contacts are more east west than they are north or south. And secondly that Estates is a great market for Latin American products and we are not except for Latin American oil and a few specialists such as coffee

into Mattos and so on. Then the United States historically has been the protector of Latin America of the Munroe doctrine. We have never had any such obligation. Having finally had a state's was the instigator of the Organization of American States dating back to the Pan American Union where us we can find ourselves to cooperate in the Commonwealth and were discouraged by the Americans from becoming an active fighting here in the Latin American group. That situation the chains but those are the long term factor which have influence our attitudes. Back to 1920 to Canada remained coolly aloof from Britain's quarrel with Turkey in 1923 the Dominion insisted that a Canadian not a British representative sign a hell of a treaty with America in 1906 the first Canadian envoy was appointed to Washington and in 1931 the process of peaceful evolution to full nationhood was completed by a British statute the Statute of

Westminster deemed soured. I suppose the simplest way to say that the Statute of Westminster represents a legal qualification of conventional understandings which are expressed in the Balfour declaration of one thousand twenty six. It put down on paper the fact that each Dominion was completely sovereign and full control of the actual territorial questions as well as domestic questions which involve merchant shipping for instance and that no law passed by the British parliament could override a law passed by the parliament of a Dominion country. Its meaning was that it made as clear as you could in legal terms that the British come with the nations have become an association of partners equal in status but not in stature. And this point was made still clear with the outbreak of war in 1039 when the right to neutrality which was implied but not stated in the negotiations was

exercised effectively by our own. During this time trade channels were increasingly trans border rather than transatlantic long an obvious necessity for Canadian expansion was a link between the Atlantic and the Great Lakes and in 1030 to Canada and the US signed a treaty for construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway rejection of the treaty by the US Senate was merely one of a series of Canadian irritations on this subject spending the next 20 years at the League of Nations during this period. Canada was dealing then characteristic North American attitude regarding the rest of the world. It was a Canadian who said we live in a fireproof house far from inflammable materials but the traditional ties with Europe were still strong in September 1939 Britain again declared war on Germany. This time however Canada waited a full week before declaring war for the first time in its own right until the US entered hostilities two years later. Canada was Britain's principal ally.

The Canadian government having nobody made a blunder you have the Canadian army. Well that up on the continent of Europe or elsewhere. I think it is really unlikely that it will end without the Canadian army coming out with an ad that good at. All the all round of amy reid the continental nature of North American Defense was formally recognized in the meeting of President Franklin D Roosevelt and Prime Minister Mackenzie King in August 1040 at Augsburg New York. The permanent joint board on defense was a stablished in which military leaders of both countries would cooperate and advise on the defense of the north half of the Western Hemisphere less than a year later. The Right Honorable the prime minister will now thank to the people of Canada. Mr King's message on this momentous occasion will be heard throughout the United

States through the pathologies of the mutual network. Ladies and gentleman right honorable W. Mackenzie King. Yesterday the people of the United States and of the British Empire are learning with amazement that the negotiations are so well intended by the United States had in fact been made a cover by Japan for a carefully planned attack upon United States territories and forces and upon British territories and forces in the Pacific. I need not to beat what you have already been told by Mr Ruth out and Mr George. My purpose tonight is to supplement what has already been said by a statement of Canada's position. Candidate action was taken from day yesterday. As soon as I received authoritative information of the outbreak about going today I

summoned a cabinet to meet at 7:30 in the evening. It was at once recognized the parents action where the threat to the defense and freedom of Canada and the other nations of the British Commonwealth as a result of our deliberations it was decided that the government of Canada should immediately associated with the government of the United Kingdom in hostilities against Japan by Christmas. Several Canadian resident regiments were lost with the fall of Hong Kong. Thus the Dominion had a human stake admittedly small in the Pacific as well as in Europe where Canadian forces fought through Sicily Italy and accepted full responsibility for one of the three beachheads at Normandy. No army allied or enemy surpassed the Canadians or com follies the Scheldt estuary but their achievement had to compete with superior big power propaganda. In August 1942

5000 Canadians and about a thousand British troops struck across the English Channel at the heavily fortified town of. It was a tragic failure which cost over 900 Canadian lives and over 900 captured. That's kind of a read the counter the less it heard the U.S. proclaimed as a heroic American raid American Rangers strike back was the title of a newsreel shown in Canada. There were 50 Americans on the DE upbraid. But what is their historical significance in Canada's part in the second world war. I think you'd be very hard to place too high and some of its historical importance in World War 1. We gain the right to be a self-governing partner in the Commonwealth and in World War Two. We showed our strength in an international grouping and at one time we were the strongest ally of Great Britain in the desperate year between June 1940 and June 1941. The second world war gave us an

unnatural or rather an unexpected rise in political strength arising from the absence of other countries. It also meant that we had a chance to acquire experience and show capacity in international affairs. In other words our participation in civil aviation food and agriculture on relief and rehabilitation on the bank and the fund to show that we had first class people both cabinet ministers and civil servants they could pull our weight in international organizations. So the war while not seriously affecting our national unity of world war one that brought us in with more confidence with higher prestige and with a greater right to participation in international affairs thereafter. Then the Cold War. Canada has never fully deceived itself along with the isolation illusion. Those kind of it was both an enthusiastic supporter and a prime minister hater of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Nieto while recognizing the threat lying on the other side of her arctic front tears. She could still express serious disagreement in dealings with Washington. There was the long dreamed of Saint Lawrence Seaway in face of a lack of American cooperation. Canada decided to go it alone in 1054 the US suddenly decided it it wanted to participate. Lester Pearson then external affairs minister later summed up Canadian reaction in Rochester. For more than 20 years we tried to persuade you to join us in this development. For more than 20 years your Congress refused then at the last moment your Congress acted not by following the principles which had been embodied in the international treaty which years before had been worked out between us but by deciding unilaterally to build on the US side. But two canals which would be required. To be perfectly frank many Canadians

didn't think too highly of this last minute participation either of its timing or its nature. Growing concern was evident throughout the 50 years over the nature and amount of U.S. investment in Canada. American parent companies frequently exercised extra territorial control over their subsidiaries in the Dominion or royal commission investigating the matter reported in part. If as seems likely the present trend continues under which foreign investment in Canada is heavily concentrated in the resource and manufacturing industries it seems probable if this were continued to cause concern and conceivably it could lead to actions of an extreme kind to being taken at some future time. The year 1957 saw a Canadian-American relations strained as they hadn't been since the Alaska bounded dispute 50 years earlier in 1057 a Canadian diplomat Herbert Norman committed suicide in Cairo. The cause of

Seneca went on. Mr. NORMAN step was alleged to have been the constant and irresponsible linking of this name with communism by the United States Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. The depth and heat of Canadian resentment was expressed in newspapers from Atlantic to Pacific and followed with undisguised indignation letter to the Ottawa Citizen. There seems to be some sinister motive behind these continued insults to Canada. It doesn't take much imagination to conceive of the US attempting to occupy Canada by military force as a supposed protection against Communists on trumped up charges such as those leveled at Mr Norman. These people are no friends of Canada. Letter to the New York Times. What is really happened is that Canadian attitudes towards the US of crystallize sharply. But no politicians to see was sought bromides the present feeling of the Canadian people toward the US. Temporary I hope is not a negative

disapproval it is a positive dislike. The magazine Newsweek predicted that the Canadian ambassador would be recalled from Washington letter to The Globe and Mail. A growing number of Canadians are beginning to question the nature of this friendship. It seems to take the form of a long series of insults and injuries by those Americans who hold the actual power in the US. Followed by editorials and speeches deploring what has happened and urging Canadians to forgive and forget. It must be the most one sided love affair in international history. Of course the Canadian ambassador wasn't recalled and following a stiff note from Ottawa to Washington the anger gradually dissipated. Four months later the US replied to the Canadian note. But in the interim a new government under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker wrote a landslide to Pollard the new government had made a strong appeal to Canadian nationalism. But the exemption C's of the

Cold War pressed increasing contact with and trust in the Republic on the Dominion that this was possible is to the credit of both parties. There were however in the 1960s unsolved problems which could be ignored only at the peril of good relations. If Canada is to retain independence it has to solve US economic and cultural penetration. It has to find a more viable position in continental defense. Solutions have to be found to disputes still outstanding the many and magnificent points of agreement across the border have been exhaustively noted by service club speakers on both sides of the forty night program. It is the disagreements which must be faced and which Canadians at least are talking about. The border in question produced and recorded at the University of British Columbia Canada under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio written and narrated by Bill McCarthy produced by Jack McCoy of

the preceding program was made available to station by the National Association of educational broadcasters. This is the end E.B. Radio Network.