Canada and the Organization of American States

349 46 4MB

English Pages 106

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Canada and the Organization of American States

Citation preview

CANADA AND THE ORGANIZATION OP AMERICAN STATES

A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of International Relations University of Southern California

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts

by Ted M. Tanen August 1950

UMI Number: EP59902

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Publ shang

UMI EP59902 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346

x

'S7 T/*/

This thesis, w ritte n by

.......................TED._M*..TAiraN............................ under the guidance of h.?r.^... F a c u lty C o m m ittee, and app ro ved by a l l its members, has been presented to and accepted by the C o u n cil on G raduate S tudy and Research in p a r tia l f u l f i l l ­ ment o f the requirements f or the degree of

Master of Arts H. J.DEUEL*... Dean September 1950

Faculty Committee

Chairman

/i.

INTRODUCTION In 1910, when the Pan-American Union building was being completed in Washington D.C., there were twenty-two chairs provided for the use of the governing board.

Each of

these chairs has the arms of an American nation carved upon it and is reserved for that member.

This paper considers the

position of the proposed owner of the 22nd chair, Canada, who remains the only American nation outside the hemispheric organ­ ization.

Before entering into a discussion of Canada and the

Pan-American Union itself it is necessary to bring out the re­ lations, past and present, of Canada in Latin America.

The

first two chapters of this paper therefore discuss the general Interests of Canada in Latin America, economical, political, and cultural.

Prior to the war, interest in the countries of

the Western Hemisphere was slight but gained steadily during World War Two.

After the war, it again began dropping.

Canada

became a member of the United Nations and her European markets were open for trade. The third section of this study deals with Canadian relations with the Pan-American Union or Organization of American States.

Three points of view are discussed, the

Canadian, United States and Latin American.

Each of these

has played a leading role in the "flirtation” that has taken place between Canada and the Pan-American Union.

iii

The status of Canada as a nation of equal standing with all other nations of the world has been a subject of much controversy.

It is often given as the main reason Canada has

not been invited to join the Pan-American Union.

For this

reason Canada's position in the British Commonwealth will be brought out very clearly in this study. Material has been gathered largely from secondary sources, for there were few primary sources available for this study.

Among the primary sources used were the Canadian House

of Commons Debates.

These were particularly useful in point­

ing out the government's views toward joining the Pan-American organization, but clear-cut.statements on the problem did not appear until 1936.

Documents of Conference meetings were used

whenever possible.

Minutes of the Eighth Committee at the

Montevideo Conference of 1933 were very interesting and helpful. Correspondence was carried on with the Canadian Depart­ ment of External Affairs, the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion and the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. Information obtained from these three organizations was used in various parts of the thesis. Writers of authority on Canada's relationship with the Pan-American Union were Professor John P. Humphrey of McGill University, Professor Reginald G. Trotter of Queens University and Professor Percy E. Corbett of McGill University.

Mr.

iv

Humphrey's book on the Inter-American System was the most thorough study found.

His articles in the Inter-American

Affairs series and various periodicals were also useful. Professor Corbett attended the Havana Conference under the auspices of McGill University and possibly the Canadian Government. Although many writers mention the possibility of Canadian participation in the Pan-American Union, the inform­ ation they give is largely the same as that given by the three authors mentioned.

It is mainly a matter of restating

the old arguments and giving no solutions for the problem. The material has been studied quite thoroughly and only the essential items have been brought out in this paper.

Had

more information on efforts of the Pan-American Union members to invite Canada into the Union been obtainable a more rounded discussion would have been possible.

As it is the Canadian

view is necessarily more clearly stated than that of the Organization of American States.

TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER

PAGE

INTRODUCTION I.

CANADIAN INDIFFERENCE TOWARD LATIN AMERICA

.

1

Canada in the Commonwealth ...............

2

Pre-War relationship with the United S t a t e s ...............................

10

The geographical and economic position of Canada toward Latin America ........

12

Canada and the; Monroe D o c t r i n e ........ Political relations with Latin America .

15 .

17

C o n c l u s i o n ..................... II.

18

A CHANGE OP P O L I C Y ....................... Strategic position .......................

21

Ogdensburg Agreement .....................

23

Defense cooperation

.....................

24

Diplomatic exchange

.....................

26

Economic changes .........................

29

Trade agreements and tariff arrangements Cultural interest

III.

19

.............

.

30

. . . . .

33

C o n c l u s i o n s ...........................

35

CANADA AND THE PAN AMERICAN U N I O N ......

36

Relationship of Canada in the early years. The decade before World War I I ........

36 44

vi CHAPTER

PAGE Interest at its p e a k .......................

IV.

58

S U M M A R Y ................... Possible advantages to Canada

70 .............

72

Advantages to Pan-American nations ........

jk

Canadian-United States position

..........

75

.......................

77

B I B L I O G R A P H Y ........................................

80

APPENDIX

90

Canadian invitation

A.

Canada: Imports to and Exports from Latin A m e r i c a ....................................

90

B.

Canada’s Trade Relations with Latin America

.

91

C.

Gallup Poll of C a n a d a ........................

93

D.

Letter from

Mr. Paul R. Kelbaugh, Chief,

Division of Conferences and Organizations

.

95

CHAPTER I .

CANADIAN INDIFFERENCE TOWARD LATIN AMERICA

The traditional Canadian attitude toward Latin America and the Pan-American Union has been one of indifference.1 Causes for this have been many and varied.

Great Britain was

the traditional Canadian policy-maker and it was not until after the First World War, when Canada signed the peace treaty and joined the League of Nations as a recognized independent nation, that she began forming a foreign policy of her own. Fear of the United States because of border incidents and talk of annexation in the past made Canada suspicious of her neighbor to the south.

Relations continued to improve,

but old fears did not entirely disappear. Geographically Canada was protected by the oceans and the United States from European expansion. to Europe than to Latin America.

Also she is closer

This is also the case for

Latin America which is closer to Europe than to Canada. Canada was protected by the Monroe Doctrine but she did not realize it.

p

It is highly improbable that the United

1 At the Bogota^ meeting of 19^8 the Pan-American Union became the Secretariat of the Organization of American States. 2 Walter W. Sage, ,lThe Historical Peculiarities of Canada with Regard to Hemispheric Defense," The Pacific His­ torical Review, 10:16, March, 19^1.

2 States would ever have allowed an aggressor nation to invade Canada without undertaking resistance. Political institutions in the two' areas, Canada and Latin America, differed.

Canada was not monarchistic, but

she separated democracy from republicanism, a step neglected by many Latin American

nations.3

Political relations with Latin America were slight up to the period of the Second World War.

Great Britain main­

tained embassies in the important Latin American capitals and Canada did not feel that it was necessary to establish em­ bassies of her own. These are the main factors that kept Canada in a stage of indifference toward Latin America.

They will now be brought

out more thoroughly.

CANADA IN THE COMMONWEALTH The position of Canada in the world of states has been much discussed.

Unlike the other American nations Canada

achieved her independence by evolutionary stages rather than by revolution.^

Therefore, there is still a political

3 John P. Humphrey, The Inter-American System: A Canadian View (Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1942), p. 4. 4 This does not mean that the relationship between Mother Country and colony was continually peaceful. Misunderstandings between the British and the French Canadians over self rule were continually giving trouble. A revolution actually broke out in the 1830‘s over the British policy of holding the French in submission.

3 connection with Europe which has ceased to exist in other parts of the

hemisphere.5

to nation, has been slow.

The process of change, from colony The British connection was very im­

portant to Canada both for protection and also in its formation and growth.

It has been a close association both juridically

and spiritually.

The responsibility for the protection of

her foreign interests was taken care of by the Mother Country, ffin whose judgement and policies she has an almost blind confidence. Although originally settled by the French, Canada, or New France as it was called at that time, was formally ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Paris in 1763.^

The excellent rule

of British officers and men during the period before the formal treaty was sighed played an important part in building up loyalty and trust in British government. The French Canadians o felt that British rule would be fair. For Canada the colonial

5 Francis R. Scott, in Laues, W.H.C., editor, InterAmerican Solidarity. (Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1941), p. 140. ^ J. P. Humphrey, Inter-American System, o p . cit. , p. 1. 7 Alfred Leroy Burt, A Short History of Canada for Americans (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1942), p. 5 6 . ® Ibid., p. 60.

4 stage lasted almost a century longer than in any other American

country.9

The British Colony of Canada had its

beginning in 1713 when the Treaty of Utrecht brought to Britain Acadia, Newfoundland, and the Hudson Bay Territory. Canada proper was not added to the British Empire until the Peace of Paris in 1763* whereby Canada, Cape Breton, and Prince Edward Island became colonies of Britain.10 The Canadian colonies were given gradually increasing powers of self-government but remained part of the British Empire.

In 1864 delegates from the Maritime Provinces and

the United province of Canada met at Charlottetown, and later in Quebec, to discuss terms of union for the British North American Provinces.

They were influenced by the American Civil

Mar, which was going on at the time, and therefore delegated larger powers to their federal government.

On July 1, 1867

the Dominion of Canada came into being, the written constitu­ tion of which was embodied in the British North America Act of 1867, passed without question by the British Parliament. The federation was composed of four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.11 9 Reginald F. Scott, Julia E. Johnson, Editor, Canada and the Western Hemisphere (New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 194477"p. 64. 10 Sage, "The Historical Peculiarities of Canada with Regard to Hemispheric Defense," Pacific Historical Review, o p . cit., p. 1 6 . 11 Ibid., p. 1 7 .

5 The period between 1867 and the first World 'War is one of developing a Canadian nation.

Although the Dominion

stretched from sea to sea in the l87 0fs, it was yet a dis­ jointed country.

This was a time when political leaders of

Canada, primarily Sir Wilfrid Laurier, were endeavoring to form a Canadian nationality.

A Canada First movement was

established and continued to grow until it reached the stage of becoming a political party. its influence lived on.

As such it soon broke up but

The principles it proclaimed were

adopted by the two historic parties (the Liberals and the Conservatives) in the rivalry to win the support of the grow1P ing national feeling throughout the Dominion. ^ The United States had unconsciously helped further this national feeling in Ganada.

The fighting over fisheries

on the Atlantic Coast made Canadians resentful and banded them together in a common cause.

The fisheries problem was

settled by the Washington Treaty of 1871 and marks an important stage in the growth of Canadian nationality.

Canada was forced

to compromise when the matter was handled by London.

The dis­

pute over the Confederate Commerce Destroyer Alabama, whose depredations during the Civil War had given the United States a good excuse for war against Britain was under discussion at

I2 A. L. Burt, A Short History of Canada for Americans, o p . cit., p. 206.

6 this time.

Anxious to keep the peace, the government in

London agreed to negotiate a settlement of both the fisheries question and the Alabama dispute..

Sir John A. Macdonald, the

Canadian Prime Minister, had hoped to checkmate the American claim against Britain by pressing a Canadian claim against the United States for allowing the Fenians to invade Canada; but through some oversight in London the Fenian business was left

out.1^

This put Prime Minister Macdonald in a difficult

position, since to press the fisheries claim might mean war between the United States- and Great Britain and he could not bring up the Fenian claim.

The resulting solution of the

problem gave the Canadians the feeling that their welfare had been sacrificed for British interests and hence the national­ istic feeling became stronger.^ Thus nationalism continued to grow.

Trade with coun­

tries outside the Provinces was discouraged. -*-5

This period

13 While the Civil War was in progress groups of Irish Americans, called Fenians, gathered on the border to invade and conquer Canada. In 1866 they did invade Canada, inflict­ ing serious damage before they were chased out. It was felt that the United States did nothing to stop this invasion. A.L. Burt, A Short History of Canada for Americans, o p . cit., p. 176. ^

Ibid., p. 208. Ibid., p. 213.

7 was also one of "filling out."

The prairie provinces, at

first the land of the Indians and buffaloes, became a country of farmers and towns.

Land was purchased from the Indians

to make way for settlers.

There was trouble at this time with

whisky traders who were crossing the border and corrupting the Indians of Canada.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police was

organized at this time to cope with the problem of whisky traders and other frontier trouble.

16

Although there had been

some dissension between the French Canadians and the British Canadians over representation in government it had been realized in London that to keep the Dominions attached to the Mother Country it was necessary to give the peoples of the Dominions the same liberty to govern themselves that the people at home 17 enjoyed. Whereas in 1867 Canada was still a colony, by 1919 she had developed into a nation of the British Commonwealth. No period or single event can be set aside as being that point whereby Canada became a nation, but the first World War is generally recognized as the true beginning of Canada as a nation.

Not only did the French and British Canadians join in

the support of their respective mother countries, but with the

^ p. 206.

17

A. L. Burt, A Short History of Canada for Americans, Ibid., p. 157.

8 organization of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, a new feel­ ing of unity under arms was achieved.

After the war Canadians

expected their country to act as a separate nation in peace­ time world*affairs.

The separate entry of Canada into the

League of Nations marked her debut as an international person ift in her own right. ^ Even at the time of Canadian participation in the League of Nations she did not have a single minister in any foreign capital. treaty by herself.

She had never negotiated an important In other words she still was not in complete

control of her foreign policy at this time.

There was not a

nation of this period which would have considered Canada on equal juridical footing with Great Britain, France, or the Argentine.^ The period between the two wars gradually cleared up the change that had taken place in Dominion status.

No longer was

Canada considered inferior to Great Britain but was now on equal footing with the Mother Country. signed the first all Canadian treaty.

oq

In 1923 Mr. Lapointe In 1926 the Imperial

Conference proclaimed that in no way were the members of the Commonwealth subordinate to one another in domestic or external affairs.

The Dominions were still united under the common

F. R. Scott, J. E. Johnson, Editor, Canada in the Western Hemisphere, op . cit. , p. 6 5 . ■*■9 Ibid., p . 6 5 . 20 Ibid., p . 66.

9 allegiance of the Crown and were to associate together as members of the Commonwealth.

pi

In 1927 the first Canadian 22 minister arrived in a foreign capital, Washington. The Statute of Westminister, 1931* further clarified Canada’s position as an autonomous nation of the British Empire equal in status to Great Britain and the other Dominions.^ Today the only limitations upon Canadian autonomy exist by Canadian consent.

In addition to a common Crown,

the Canadian constitution can be amended only in the British Parliament; and the Privy Council in London is still the 2‘ highest court of appeal in civil but not in criminal matters. From this brief sketch it can be seen that the change of Canadian status in the world of nations has been long and tedious.

Although some confusion still exists in the minds

of Americans, Canada Is now recognized as a nation on equal status with Great Britain.

pi

F. R. Scott, J^E. Johnsen, Editor, Canada in the Western Hemisphere, p. 66. ^

Ibid., p . 66,

23 w. W. Sage,"The Historical Peculiarities of Canada with Regard to Hemispheric Defense,1' Pacific Historical Re­ view , o p . cit., p. 24. ^

Burt, A Short History of Canada, o p . cit., p. 244 .

10 PRE-WAR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES Suspicion of the United States has played a major part in Canadian relations with the Latin American states. Without fear of the United States, Pan-Americanism would have had more appeal.

Since the United States has been a

leader in the policies of various Latin American countries, association with any of these countries might have involved Canada in the dispute. Canadian distrust of the United States can be dated as far back as 1775*

General Richard Montgomery and General

Benedict Arnold invaded Canada, one by way of Lake Champlain and the other through Maine, to try to win the French "habitants” to the American cause.

They failed largely be­

cause the American colonies had no real army; there were few weapons and little discipline.^5

yYie war of 1812 reinforced

in Canada the anti-American prejudice that dated from the previous war.

If it had not been for a split on American

policy it is very possible that the United States would have taken Canada in this war.

Britain was preoccupied with

Napoleon, and the forces of British North America were ill prepared to cope with an invasion.

There was much opposition

Burt, A Short History of Canada. op. f c'it'. --p p . 77-

79 .

11 to the war within the United States and it was largely sec­ tional, the opposition being concentrated in the north.

They

felt that the United States should not strike Great Britain in the back while she was fighting Napoleon to preserve her own and Europe’s f r e e d o m . T h e

result was that New England

actually continued to trade with Canada as if it were a friendly neutral and acted as a shield against American expan­ sion into Canada.

The military strength of the United States

was partially paralyzed by this factor.

This alone does not

explain the poor showing of the United States in this war. There was little American will to fight; the fighting resources were mismanaged; and the military energies were scattered over a wide region of the Lower Lakes, where there should have 27 been no fighting at all. A further factor of Canadian distrust, was the previ­ ously mentioned Fenian invasion.

After the Civil War these

Irish Americans who hated England gathered on the border to invade and conquer Canada, or British North America as it was known then, and the United States seemed to smile upon their enterprise.

In 1866 they invaded Canada in two places,

across the Niagara River and the Vermont boundary, causing a great deal of damage befdre they were forced to retreat.

Burt, A Short History of Canada, p. 107. 27 Ibid., p. 103. 28 Ibid., p. 176.

28

12 Canadians can not forget the unfriendly attitudes assumed toward them even by such recent leaders as James G. Blaine and Theodore Roosevelt who were advocates of annexa­ tion.

The United States was expanding and it was commonly

felt that Canada should be part of the United States.

This

type of talk plus past experiences did not soften the Canadian attitude.

As cited in Mr. James F. Rippy’s book, ’’Men cele­

brated the Fourth of July, 1895., by discussing such questions as the advisability of annexing Canada, Newfoundland, Cuba, and Hawaii and will Uncle Sam Continent.”2^

eventually rule the American

During the time of President Franklin Delano

Roosevelt's announcement of the ’’Good Neighbor Policy” this suspicious feeling of the Canadians was rapidly disappearing. As the popularity of the United States increased in Canada, Canadian regard of Pan-Americanism took on a new light.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECONOMIC POSITION OF CANADA TOWARD LATIN AMERICA Apart from her preoccupations with internal problems and the fact that, up to the first World War she had no foreign 29 As cited in James Fred Rippy, Latin America in World Politics (3^d Edition, New York: F.S. Crofts and Company, 1936), p- 115. D

J.P. Humphrey,

ojd.

cit. , p.

6.

13 policy of her own* there were no Canadian interests in Latin America.

Canada had no imperialistic ambitions in Latin

America- and her trade with these nations was relatively un­ important .31 Canadian investments in Latin America on the other hand were important,, particularly various banks.

The Bank of

Montreal has connections in Mexico, and the Royal Bank of Canada is ramified throughout the continent.

It operates in

Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia and it is influential in Venezuela, Peru and Panama.

The Royal Bank of Canada

formerly maintained 52 branches in Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, Martinique and Guadaloupe but this number has dropped somewhat.

The Canadian Bank of Commerce

has branches in Brazil and Cuba.

■30

There has been some Initia­

tive in the aviation fields to the south.

The Canadian Car

and Foundry Company made a contract in April 1938, to build and operate on a fifty-fifty basis an airplane manufacturing plant to supply military airplanes to the Mexican government.33 Trade between Latin America and Canada has been more

31 Arthur L. Neal, ’’Canada1s Trade Ties with Latin America,” Canadian Geographical Journal, 31:78, August, 1945. 32 Carleton Beals, The Coming Struggle for Latin America (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1938), pp. 113/11^ ^

Lbid.. p. 116.

14 competitive than complementary.

Both areas have tended

toward the export of bulk materials.

For these reasons the

pre-war trade between Latin America and Canada constituted a very minor proportion of the total commerce of both.

Ex­

ports from Canada to the Latin American states amounted to only forty-two millions.

During the depression the figure

dropped considerably* reaching Just over nine millions in 1932.

In 1938* Just prior to the outbreak of war, exports

amounted to seventeen millions* or 2 per cent of Canada’s total exports.3^

Imports into Canada from Latin America in

1938 amounted to sixteen millions or 2.5 pe** cent of the total imports.35 As was previously mentioned* while the areas are in the same hemisphere they are respectively closer to Europe than they are to each other.

Geographically speaking* no

capital in Europe* including Moscow* is as far away as Rio de Janeiro.

Gibraltor is closer to Canada than the capital

of Bolivia* and closer than any major city in Brazil.36 Today these statements of distance do not mean as much as in the past.

Canada and Latin America are becoming better

34 Carleton Beals* The Coming Struggle for Latin America, p. 114. 35 A.L. Neal* "Canada’s Trade Ties with Latin America*" o p . cit. , p. 8 2 . 36 R.A. McEachern* "South America and Canada*" Canadian Geography. 2 6 :3* January* 1943*

15 acquainted through such media as radio* movies and the air­ plane.

It no longer takes days or months to get to Latin

America from Canada.

Through radio* entertainment and news

are carried between the American neighbors.

Hollywood pic­

tures about Latin America reach Canada as soon as they reach the American public.

The styles* manners* habits of life*

social codes of the Americas are brought before the Canadian public.31

CANADA AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE When President Franklin Roosevelt made his famous ’’Kingston" speech on August,l8 * 1938* his statement was re­ garded in Canada as an application of the Monroe Doctrine. The vital and much discussed part of this speech stated: The Dominion of Canada is part of the sisterhood of the British Empire. I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire.38 The response to this statement* which was given at Queens University* was spontaneous. gesture to the Canadians.

It was a very pleasing

The feeling was that for all prac­

tical purposes the president had extended the Monroe Doctrine

31 R,A. McEachern* "South America and Canada*" Canadian Geography, 26:3* January* 19^3* New York Times, 2:5* August 19* 1938.

16 to Include the Dominion of Canada.

It was interpreted as

such by State Department officials of the United States. However, when reporters questioned the President on the ap­ plication of the Doctrine in Canada, Mr. Roosevelt denied that there were any implications.

The President referred

the reporters to the 1823 text asking them to read it.

This

touches off the question as to whether Adams, Monroe or any other United States statesman ever considered Canada as coming under the Doctrine. In 1823 President Monroe proclaimed that any attempt by the powers to 1"extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere" 1 would be looked upon ’"as dangerous to our peace and safety."'^0

Any attempt to invade Canada would

mean a war with Great Britain.

Since Canada was already under

Great Britain other powers would probably stay out. What then is Canada's relationship to the Doctrine? The subject was rarely considered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Britain.

The reason was the power of imperial

Her naval supremacy was unquestioned.

Reference

to Canada and the Doctrine came in 1914 when William Howard Taft asserted that if the Dominion were attacked the United

^

New York Times, 1:4, August 20, 1938Ibid.. 1:4, August 20, 1938.

17 States would be drawn into the struggle.

iii .

It is doubtful if Monroe ever considered Canada in relation to the Doctrine which bears his name.

England

was Canada’s protector to the period of the first World War. Strategically, however, the United States could not permit an invasion of Canada any more than she could support an attack on her own shores.

Whether or not this is the Monroe

Doctrine cannot be definitely stated; however, it is obvious that the two countries are mutually dependent for strategic iip reasons.^ POLITICAL RELATIONS WITH LATIN AMERICA Although some Latin American countries had established consulates in Canada as early as l875> It was not until the period of the Second World War that Canada began sending lip diplomatic missions to Latin America. J It is interesting to note that during the oil controversy in Mexico, Canada con­ sidered sending a minister to Mexico to look after British

^

New York Times, November 28, 191.4.

42 Lionel H. Laing, "Does the Monroe Doctrine Cover. Canada?” American Journal of International Law, 32:793-6, October, 1938. ^ External Affairs, Monthly Bulletin of the Depart­ ment of External Affairs, Ottawa, Canada, Vol. 1, No. 5 , May, 1949, P. 27.

18 Interests in that country.

Since there was no minister

for Great Britain in Mexico, relations having been broken over the controversy, Canada felt the United Kingdom should have some sort of representation.

In 19^0 the Canadians

discussed the remedy for the situation; assigning a Canadian minister to Mexico to be responsible for British interests. The idea was not carried out and the Canadians did not send their own representative until the British Minister had returned.^ CONCLUSION Canada had remained out of the Latin American field for many years and for many reasons.

Lack of interest be­

cause of her relationship with the Commonwealth and her traditional feeling toward the United States were the major reasons.

Through the years Canada had developed into a nation

in her own right, but her foreign interests did not develop as fast as her national ones.

Great Britain was still su­

preme in Europe and Canada’s traditional policy had been to follow her.

The policy changed with the second World War.

We must now consider this change of policy caused by the war. ^ John P. Humphrey, "Canada and the Mexican Revolu­ tion," Canadian Forum, 20:273, December, 19^0.

CHAPTER II A CHANGE OF POLICY The early summer of 19^0 brought a change in Canadian indifference toward Latin American and Pan Americanism.

Politi­

cal and economic dislocations, produced by the war, were forc­ ing Canadians to re-examine their strategic position.

As

Humphrey states, "Canada had begun to feel the impact of the war and was beginning to wake up to some of the geographical facts of her existence.1 1 This new interest was very real but uninformed.

Canadian newspapers now began carrying more

Latin American news articles.

Magazines and editorials began

considering Latin American and its relationship to Canada.

In

19^0, Professor Percy E. Corbett of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs went to Havana as an unofficial ob­ server for the Second Consultative meeting of American Foreign ministers.2

In many ways Canadians were showing their inter­

est in Latin American and in the Pan American system. An immediate result of the war was the loss of Canadian markets in Europe.

These markets were unimportant compared

to the Canadian market in Great Britain to which Canada was

John P. Humphrey, The Inter-American System: A Canadian View (Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1^2*7, P« 6. 2 Ibid., p. 7 .

20 exporting more than ever before.

But, because of the war

Canada was unable to meet the unfavourable Canadian trade balance with the United States by converting a sterling surplus into American dollars.

This dollar shortage came

at a time when dollars were needed the most. were needed to combat this, problem.

Strong measures

Unnecessary purchases

in non-sterling areas were discouraged, and Canadians had to give up pleasure travel in the United States.

The problem

of getting United States dollars had to be solved.

There

were three ways in which Canada could improve her position.

3

The first was to borrow from the United States; the second to liquidate Canadian investments in the United States; and the third and most acceptable was to increase Canadian ex­ ports to countries that could pay for them in American dol­ lars.

The most convenient place to find these countries was

Latin America.

For the most part this area was a "hard

currency" region, it was non-belligerent, and there were some regions of Latin America that would be complementary to Canadian trade:

Moreover, the war had also resulted in de­

creasing Latin American trade with Europe, so these countries would be susceptible to Canadian offers.^ 3 This was before the Hyde Park Agreement of April 20, 19^1, which gave Canada more dollars through United States purchases and gave her the benefit of the Lend-Lease Act. ^ Humphrey, o£. cit. , p. 8 .

21 The stage was set by the war.

The effect thereof

will now be shown.

STRATEGIC POSITION Canada was the first nation of the western hemisphere to enter the second World War.

Her reason for doing this

was her position as a nation in the British Commonwealth. She fought not as a colony of Great Britain, however, but as a nation of North America, for the British declaration of war did not necessarily bind Canada.

Proof that Canada was

looked upon as an independent nation was shown by the United States.

The neutrality laws were not invoked against Canada

until she had actually declared war one week after Great Britain.

The German Consul in Ottawa even protested against

search of his premises by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the grounds that Canada was still neutral.5 The collapse of France and the possible defeat of Britain' made Canadians realize that the nations of the Western Hemisphere must work together.

The Atlantic Ocean and the

British navy were no longer security against invasion.

^Walter W. Sage, "The Historical Peculiarities of Canada with Regard to Hemispheric Defense," The Pacific Historical Review, 10:15, March, 19^1.

22 During the early years of the war the threat presented to the Western Hemisphere by an Axis-dominated Europe became apparent.

As the then Prime Minister,

Mr. W. L. Mackenzie

King, stated in the House of Commons on July 12, 19^3: The nations of North and South America have come to a clear and formal recognition of the .common danger in which we stand. The democratic and Christian ideals in which we have all been nurtured are menaced by enemies more dangerous than any aggressor in the history of the western civilization. Under such cir.cumstances it, is right and natural that we should draw closer to those who are our friends and, in particular, to those who fight with us. But in addition to this immediate cause for the establishment of closer rela­ tions with our Latin American neighbours, there is a growing realization that in the post-war era, as well as in the;period of conflict, we shall have interests in common; that our joint contributions to the peace and welfare of the world as a whole can and must be based on a joint and effective interest in the welfare and peace of our own neighbourhood. It is thus a matter of significance, and a sound cause for satisfaction, that we have constantly increasing evidence of the growth of mutual knowledge, mutual respect and mutual good-will among the nations of this h e m i s p h e r e . 6 In reality it is doubtful if Canada's defence policy can differ fundamentally from that of the United States.

It

does not seem probable that Canada could remain out of any war involving an attack on the Latin American continent.

Her

geographical position as a nation of the Western Hemisphere makes her partly responsible for keeping the peace in this area.

^ House of Commons Debates, July 12, 19^3« P« 4665*

23 OGDENSBURG AGREEMENT The most notable move for hemispheric solidarity was the Ogdensburg Agreement of August 18, 19^0.

Through

this agreement Canada and the United States were to create a Permanent Joint Defence Board.

In a way this was also

drawing Canada into the Inter-American defence system. Mr. Humphrey states:

As

"in so far as defence is concerned,

Canada entered the Pan-American system through the back •door at Ogdensburg on August 18, 1940."^ According to the declaration issued * by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister William Lyon Mac­ kenzie King, the new board was to study the defence of the "north half of the Western Hemisphere.

Air, sea and land

problems were discussed as well as personnel and material problems.

The conclusion drawn by Mr. Humphrey in regard to

this agreement is that Canada took over some of the respons­ ibility for defending this area.9

The territory taken into

consideration includes the greater part of the Panama Canal zone, which would be the area most susceptible of attack.

7 Humphrey, op., cit. , pp. 16, 17. o Ibid., p. 17. 9 Ibid., p. 18.

24 Canada has a great interest in this zone for it is the closest thoroughfare for Canada's inter-oceanic trade.

Ac­

cording to Humphrey, it is also the quickest means of send­ ing her western commodities to Europe, her biggest market. 1(3 The British-American exchange of island bases for destroyers, on September 2, 1940, shifted attention from the Ogdensburg Agreement.

The importance of this agreement

between the United States and Great Britain had its effect on the Western Hemisphere nations.

On September 7, 1940,

Secretary Hull announced that the newly leased bases were available to the other American republics, and, as one of these bases was in Newfoundland, Pan-Americanism had "thus 11 come right up to Canada's front door."

DEFENSE COOPERATION ’ Indication of Latin American regard for the Canadian war effort was made in the resolution adopted at the InterAmerican Conference on Problems of War and Peace held in

John P. Humphrey, The Inter-American System: A Canadian V i e w , op. cit., p. 18. H Francis R. Scott, "A Half-Century of Inter-American Relations," Inter-American Affairs, 19*11 (New. York: Columbia University Press, 1942), p. 37•

25 Mexico City, March, 19^5-

At the meeting it was resolved:-

1. To pay a tribute of admiration and gratitude to Canada for its magnificent war effort in the de­ fence of the American continent. . . 2. To express its wish that the collaboration of Canada with the Pan-American system shall become ever closer.12 In extending thanks on behalf of the nation of Canada for this resolution, the Prime Minister stated: We are proud to share in the defence of freedom on this continent as in Europe and Asia. We are convinced that the basic solidarity of the peace-loving people of this hemisphere will contribute materially in the post-war period to both regional and world security. We greatly welcome the increased collaboration in all matters of mutual interest and concern with our neigh­ bors of the Americas.13 This letter indicates the willingness of Canada to cooperate with the nations of the hemisphere for security reasons.

It also brings out, however, the desire of Canada

to cooperate on a worldwide rather than a regional basis. It has been a fear of Canada that the Pan-American Union has been too regional minded and this feeling of isolation Canada will not agree to.

The problem will be brought out more

thoroughly in the next chapter on the Pan-American Union.

12 "inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace," Mexico City, 19^5* Congress and Conference Series No. 4 7 . (Pan American Union 1945)* P • 55* 13 Excerpt from Prime Minister Mackanzie King’s letter of thanks to the Pan American Union. Cited from Arthur L. Neal, "Canada's Trade Ties with Latin America," Canadian Geo­ graphical Journal, 31 :8 2 , August, 1945*

26 DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGE The entry of Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and El Salvador into the war naturally brought these countries into closer relations with Canada; but as of 1942 Canada had legations only in the ABC countries. Until late 1940 the Canadian government was averse to having representatives from Latin American countries.^ Then late in 1940 the Prime Minister announced that invita­ tions to establish legations in Brazil and Argentina had been accepted.

The two countries immediately appointed their minis­

ters while Peru, Chile, and Mexico made overtures to open legations in Canada. -*-5 The year 1942 brought a change in Canada's diplomatic arrangements in Chile.

Previously the Canadian minister to

Argentina had also been minister to Chile.

In November a

separate legation was established in Chile, making a total of three in Latin America. ^

P.E. Corbett, "Canada in the Western Hemisphere," Foreign Affairs, 19:778, July, 1941. 15 Ibid., p. 1 9 . ^ John P. Humphrey, "Canada," in Arthur B. Whitaker Inter-American Affairs, 1942 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), p .' 41.

27 There was much discussion, in the House of Commons and in various newspapers, as to the advisability of open­ ing more legations in Latin A m e r i c a . ^

In May of 1943 the

Prime Minister announced that discussions were in progress between Mexico and Canada on the possibility of a Canadian minister being sent to Mexico City.

Mr. King expressed his 18 hopes that legations would soon be opened in Cuba and Peru. In answer to a question as to why the government did not develop these new legations at once, the Prime Minister replied that it was due to the lack of personnel.

Because

of the pressure of the war on Canadian man power, it was, he said, "almost impossible at present to provide any more of the senior officers of the permanent external service for appointment as ministers

abroad.

Important changes were made in Canada's diplomatic representation in 1944.

In the course of the year, she

elevated her legations in Brazil and Chile to the rank of embassies.

A legation was created in Mexico, and its status / was raised to embassy. An embassy in Peru was established in the same y e a r . ^ Canada, House of Commons Debates, July 12, 1943, p. 4769. 18 Ibid., p. 4769. 19 Ibid., p. 4769. 1944

20 John P. Humphrey, "Canada," Inter-American Affairs(New York: Columbia University Press, 1945)* P - 8 6 .

28 In liberal, but less nationalistic French circles, interest in the opening of new legations and embassies was evident.

There were frequent reminders in the press that

the new missions might well be headed by French Canadians who would be peculiarly suited for such appointments.

French

Canadians such as Turgeon (Argentina and Mexico), Desy / (Brazil), Vaillancourt (Cuba), and Laureys (Peru) had done much to make French Canadian culture better known in Latin Pl America. On March 9, 19^^* the Canadian government announced its intention to abstain from official relations with the Farrell administration of Argentina.22

It appears that this

was meant as a gesture of solidarity with the United States and Great Britain since it followed similar action taken by these nations.

This situation did not last long.

In 19^5

the Argentine legation was raised to embassy status.23 Today Canada’s diplomatic representation in Latin

21 F. H. Soward, A. M. Macaulay, "Canada and the Pan American System," Contemporary Affairs (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 19^8)* Number 21, p. 25* Canada, House of Commons Debates, March 9 , 1 9 ^ , p. 1329• Farrell, as vice president, succeeded President Ramirez when the latter resigned. February 15, 1 9 ^ to April 9 , 1945. 23 Paul Redwood, "Canada," in Whitaker, A . P.,editor, Inter-American Affairs - 19^5 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1946), p. 93*

29 America stands at five embassies, and one legation in Cuba, whereas in 1939 she had none. increase?^

This has been a most energetic

As Mr. Redwood states: "Taking into account

the trade commissions which cover the area, it is obvious that Canada’s role in Latin America is not

passive.

For those countries with which Canada has not yet established diplomatic relations, the channel of communication to the local government remains the accredited United Kingdom representative.^

ECONOMIC CHANGES Pre-war trade between Latin America and Canada con­ stituted a very minor proportion in the total commerce of both areas.

With European trade sources cut off at least

temporarily the two areas turned to each other.

Canada could

meet this new demand only in a limited way, however, as the main force of her energy had to be toward the United Kingdom. Manufacturers could not fill orders, and ships were not

^ Canadian Representatives Abroad and Representatives in Canada of the British Commonwealth and Foreign Governments, Department of External Affairs, p p . .3“1^* March 15, 195°* Redwood,

ojd

.

clt. t p. 93-

Monthly Bulletin of the Department of External Af­ fairs, Volume 1, No. 5 , May 19^9, p. 2 7 .

available to transport the material southward.^7 The leading commodity exported to Latin America is paper, mainly newsprint.

Rubber manufactures were a lead­

ing export, before the war, to all Latin American countries, oft

the main item being tires. ^

Soda compounds are important

to Mexico and are also sold in Nicaragua, Honduras, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.

Other exports

have been processed goods of various kinds, wheat, flour, dried fish, whiskey, as well as pipes and tubes of iron. Imports into Canada have been largely confined to agricultural and pastoral products.

Minerals, including oil,

have also been fairly important. The oil has been imported / from Colombia, Peru and Venezuela, while Brazil and Colombia have supplied coffee and Argentina has provided maize, flax­ seed, cattle hides, canned meat and quebracho.3°

TRADE AGREEMENTS AND TARIFF ARRANGEMENTS An important factor in, and reflection of,this

A. L. Neal, "Canada’s Trade Ties with Latin America, Canadian Geographical Journal, o p . cit., p. 8 3 . 28 Ibid.. p. 8 3 . 29 ibid.. pp. 83-8 6 . 3° Ibid.. p. 8 8 .

31 increased trade, was the visit of the Canadian Trade Mission, which, headed by Mr. James A. MacKinnon, then Minister of Trade and Commerce, toured most of the South American repub­ lics in 19^1.

Mr. MacKinnon made a similar trip to Mexico

and Central America in the spring of 19^6.31

The minister

urged Canadian producers to cultivate trade relations with the central American republics on the ground that great oppor­ tunities for increasing Canadian exports coexist in them op "with a popular sentiment favorable to Canada."-3 Mexico and Colombia, he felt, offered special opportunities to Canadian producers, but there were also ready markets in Panama", Nicaragua, Guatemala, Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica, all of which had money to buy Canadian goods.33

. cit. . p. 2 .

6? heard of the Union were then asked if they would vote for entrance of Canada into the Pan-American Union.

Of this

thirty per cent twenty-two per cent stated that Canada should be a member, 4 per cent stated that she should not, and 4 per cent were undecided.

All political party groupings show

exactly the same extent of ignorance.

There was no differ­

ence amongst the separate groups supporting their respective federal political parties.^8 Career diplomats and members of the Department of External Affairs may not make public their views on a cur­ rent and controversial issue.

However, "off the record"

conversations in Ottawa, Lima, Santiago, Buenos Aires, and Rio de Janeiro, were obtained by Mr. Eugene H. Miller.

He

reports that there is a clear-cut, and fairly equal division of opinion of the subject.

One prominent ambassador expressed

the view that Canada is, after all, a Western Hemisphere nation, the Latin Americans are anxious to have it join the Union and there would be nothing to lose by such a step. Others feel it would weaken Canada’s esteem in Latin America. Some felt there were no reasons for joining since trade was dropping.

They also felt that good relations with the United

States are of prime importance to Canada, and it may be easier ^ Canadian Institute of Public Opinion. Public Opinion News Service Release, Gallup Poll of Canada. Saturday, June 14, 1947, pp. 1,2. See Appendix C.

68 to maintain these good relations if Canada is not at the council table, when disagreements arise between Latin America and the United States.^9 Interest in the Union was definitely lagging.

Re­

garding a speech by Mr. John Foster Dulles, on Pan-Americanism which was given in Canada at the Canadian Club, a member of Parliament had the following to say: Just yesterday in our city a gentleman from Wash­ ington, John Foster Dulles, made a political speech at the Canadian Club, I think the doctrine of panAmericanism that he was advocating is dangerous. Some of these Latin republics in South America have not been friendly to Britain, and it was Britain who gave the Americas the protection they had at sea, as the Monroe doctrine was the supremacy of the British fleet. . . .It was a great mistake to have a speaker like that at that time. There should be no attempt to trifle with the question of pan-Americanism. These Latin republics will lead us into a war if we join and follow them.70 The following year Mr. Louis St. Laurent, the Prime Minister of Canada, commented on the suggestion that Canada should join the Pan-American Union.

His views lie in the

direction of Mr. King's for the most part.

He appears to

be conservative In relation to his feelings toward the Union, and the pre-war feeling makes Its return.

Mr. St. Laurent

feels that the relations Canada and the other members of the 69 Eugene H. Miller, "Canada and the Pan American Union,11 International Journal. Winter 1947-19^8, p. 37* ^ House of Commons Debates, March 9> 19^8, p. 2016. Mr. T. L. Chuech, Speaker.

69 Union are satisfactory.

It did not appear that there was

any advantage in formal Canadian membership and since the Union was designed for American republics there would have to be some changes made.

He added that Canadafs historical

and traditional ties lie in the direction of Europe rather than Latin America.7^

Interest appears to run in a cycle.

Canadian interests were in Europe up to the second World War when it turned to Latin America.

At the end of the war

Canada turned once again to Europe. From what has been stated in this paper it is clear that the question of Canada and the Pan American Union is not Canada and Latin America but rather Canada and the United States.

Changing reaction to the problem has been based on

the shifting trends of other questions rather than on the merits of joining or not joining.

At present the trend seems

to be away from membership in the Union. South American ambassador in Ottawa*"During membership was a hope.

^

In the words of a the war Canadian

Now it is merely an aspiration."^2

London Times, February 14* 1949•

4:2.

As cited in Eugene H. Miller* "Canada and the Pan American Union*" International Journal, Winter 1947-1948* p. 38. For a list of Pan American organization meetings (other than this conference) attended by Canada* see Appen­ dix D.

CHAPTER IV SUMMARY In the past many arguments have been given against Canadian participation in the Pan-American Union.

This

final chapter discusses the most important of these which hinge on Canada's membership in the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Also included here will be the possible advan­

tages to Canada and Latin America by Canadian association. The final portion of the chapter deals with the Canadian United States position and the possibility of a Canadian invitation to join the Union.

There does not seem to be a

basis for these arguments that the Organization of American States and the British Commonwealth of Nations are incompat­ ible.

Prior to the Statute of Westminister, in 1931* this

might have been a plausible argument, but it is not valid today.

Canada is a nation in her own right.

If the feeling

continues to exist in some circles, it is because of a com­ plete misunderstanding of the constitutional bases of the two organizations.

Although the Dominions are under a common

King there is not a common government.

The Nations of the

Commonwealth are individually equal in status to any other nation of the world.

The King takes no responsibility for

the decisions, which are handled by his ministers who would

71 be Canadians in this case, and, to quote Mr. Humphrey, "seldom knows that they have been taken."'*'

Any act,

political or economical, which is taken by Great Britain does not necessarily bind Canada.

Canada is able to sign

treaties or agreements which do not concern the mother country.

There would be no legal reason why Canada could

not sign the treaties and agreements existing in the Organization of American States.

If for some moral reason

Canada felt she could not sign one or more of the treaties nothing would compel her to do so.^

For Canada to attend

the conferences and take part in the Union's work she need only accept an invitation to do so.

No formal act is neces­

sary and Canada need not accept all agreements entered into by the Union.3 Somewhat similar to the above argument for remaining out of the Union are the emotional attachments toward the British Isles.

There is a reluctance to join the Union by

those who are closely attached to Britain and her traditions. These Canadians feel there is much to be gained by remaining close to the mother country through preferential tariffs and

^ John P. Humphrey, The Inter-American System: A Canadian View (Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 19^2), p. 270. 2 Ibid.. p. 271. 3 Ibid., p. 271.

a closed British system.^

Any benefits derived from join­

ing the Organization of American States, they feel, would be negligible.

POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES TO CANADA Canada might expect the increase in trade that member ship would bring.

It is not to be expected that the Latin

American market would ever replace European markets; but there is almost unanimous support for plans to increase the volume of hemisphere trade and reduce economic dependence on continental

Europe.5

Canada!s prestige might increase in the family of na­ tions because every nation dealing in Pan American affairs is treated as an equal regardless of size or population. Canada at present is in an awkward position of still being considered tied to the apron strings of the mother country.

6

Canada would benefit by cooperating more closely with the United States and other Pan American countries in fight­ ing Fascist and Communist propaganda from

abroad.7

4 Percy E. Corbett, "Canada in the Western Hemisphere Foreign Affairs, 19:784, July, 1941. 5 Ibid.. p. 7 85 . ® Horace Donald Crawford, "Should Canada Join Pan America?” North American Review, 248:232, December 1939* 7 Ibid., p. 232.

73 Problems of the other American nations are more closely related to Canada’s than to any nation of Europe. Canadians think as Americans do, are subjected to the same forces of political and industrial development.

’’Canadians

ftft

are Americans. w

By belonging to both the Commonwealth and the Organi­ zation of American States Canada might be able to use her influence to prevent any conflict between Great Britain and the United States.

Canada in the central position would

better understand the ways and means of settling the dis­ pute .9 A more specific reason why Canada should join the Organization of American States is that she cannot afford to remain outside the rapidly developing system of hemisphere defence.

In the future the defence of the United States and

Canada cannot differ fundamentally, and since the defence of the United States is inextricably tied up with that of the whole hemisphere it follows that Canada must also accept a in responsibility having the same scope. ^ -If an attack on a Latin American country would be a threat to the United States, it would also be a threat to Canada. p Horace Donald Crawford, America?” o j d . c it. t p. 232.

’’Should Canada Join Pan

9 J.P. Humphrey, Inter-American System, o p . cit., p. 27b. 10 Ibid., p. 261.

74 There is the danger that if Canada remains outside the system, the other American nations may conceivably take some action which would be against her interests, or, what is much more likely, fail to consider Canadian interests at a l l.11 A final advantage that participation would bring to Canada is that she would share the benefits of the various Pan-American conventions, including the series of treaties providing machinery for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes.12

ADVANTAGES TO PAN-AMERICAN NATIONS Canada has possessed a stable constitutional govern­ ment for many years.

It has not only set up the machinery

of popular control, but it has developed traditions which assure the continuance of the democratic government.

As a

member of the Inter-American system, Canada might well be expected to set an example of a successful democracy.13

Fur­

thermore, this background of constitutional government and

11 J.P. Humphrey, Inter-American System, o p . cit., p. 265. 12 Ibid., p. 2 69 . 13 Charles G. Fenwick, "The Question of Canadian Par­ ticipation in the Inter-American Conferences," The American Journa1 of International L a w , 31:473* July* 1937.

75 stable political traditions might be a constructive part of developing new principles of law to meet the changing conditions of American international life.-^ American nations would benefit by Canada’s membership in the Union because this would bring most of North America into the cooperative organization "which is not rightfully Pan American until Canada becomes a member,"'*’^ Every American nation, Canada included, would feel that peaceful relations throughout the Western Hemisphere had been strengthened.

This would react on public opinion

in the Hemisphere and in Europe as well.1^ Principles of the Monroe Doctrine have already been interpreted as applying in theory to Canada.

Membership in

the Union would strengthen those principles and "promote

^

solidarity and security in this hemisphere."1?

CANADIAN-UNITED STATES POSITION The closeness of the United States and Canada puts a

1^ Charles G. Fenwick, "The Question of Canadian Par­ ticipation in the Inter-American Conferences," The American Journal of International Law, 31*^73* July* 1937* ^5 h.D. Crawford, "Should Canada Join Pan America?" North American Review, o p . cit. , p.232. 16 Ibid., p. 232. 17 Ibid.. p. 232.

76 different bearing on Canadian relations with the Organiza­ tion of American States.

Professor R.G. Trotter feels that

Canadian participation rrrust be examined by its effect upon the -United States.

He states in his article in the Inter-

American Quarterly: . . .If within the Pan American organization either Canada or the United States were to support the stand of the other as against tendencies or interests in Latin America it would be at the risk of injuring its own relations with Latin America. If an the other handj Canada as a small power were to line up beside Latin American countries to resist .policies emanating from Washington, as would sometimes be inevitable, that would give occasion for American irritation toward Canada. It should again be borne in mind, also, that to a considerable degree Canada, so far as she has interests in Latin America, is there a competitor with the United States. Thus it is difficult to see how Canadian-American relations would be on balance helped by Canada joining the Union. . . .1,8 This is wholly a negative attitude toward the problem.

It

is true that Canadian relations with the United States are of greater importance than with Latin America but Canadian friendship with the United States should be strong enough to withstand the petty irritation that Professor Trotter has in

m i n d . 1^

His argument is that a nation should not join

the same organizations as a neighbor because this may lead to some disagreement.22

If such were true the smaller

18 Reginald G. Trotter, "More on Canada and PanAmericanism," Inter-American Quarterly, 2:9, January, 19*10. 19 John P. Humphrey, Inter-American -System, o p . cit., p. 27920 Ibid.,

p.

279.

77 nations of the world would have withdrawn from the League and would never have joined the United Nations.

Canada

might, by continued refusal to join the Union, cause fric­ tion in Washington.2-*- Canadian policy should be to strengthen all possible bonds with the United States and as Dr. Raymond Buell stated,

"The participation of Canada

in the Union would inevitably advance the interests which Canada and the United States have in common."22

On the same

point Professor P.E. Corbett stated that Canada’s absence from the inter-American organization . . .would be apt to hamper relations with the United States. . .for the simple reason that, as the community becomes more closely knit, an unr integrated unit that refuses to use the general machinery of cooperation will find itself in a position of increasing disadvantage.23 Canada might very well lose favor in the United States by not belonging to the Pan American Union.

CANADIAN INVITATION? There is no legal reason why the republics could not invite Canada to attend conferences even though she does not

21 John P. Humphrey, Inter-American System, o p . cit., p. 280. 22 Report of a Round Table of the Fourth Annual Con­ ference of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. May, 1937, P. 28. 23 p.E. Corbett, "Canada in the Western Hemisphere," Foreign Affairs, op. cit., p. 7^3-

78 belong to the Union.

Apart from the doubtful benefit that

she could avoid making any contribution to the budget of the Union, there is no material benefit that would result from not joining.^ The possibilities of Canadian acceptance of an invita­ tion at this time are not good.

During the course of a press

conference in Washington on February 12, 19^9* Mr. St. Laurent, the Prime Minister, stated: Our Government has been giving thought to the Pan American Union over a great many years and our rela­ tions with the members of the Pan American Union. . . have always been most*satisfactory. The angle from which this has been examined is as to whether our actual participation in the Pan American Union would be productive of any real advantage for any of its members. Our cultural, our trade relations, with the member states of the Pan American Union has always been very good and they will improve constantly. So far it has not appeared to us that there would be any decided advantage in a formal membership in the Pan American Union. . . .At the present time we consider it much more urgent to bring about this North Atlantic Union than to extend one that might be regarded as exclusive for the Western Hemisphere.^5 Progress made during the war years appears to have been lost.

If anything Canada has returned to its pre-war

position of disinterest.

It is an important question and

should be discussed more between members of the Canadian

oil

Humphrey, Inter-American System, o p . cit.. p. 290.

Monthly Bulletin of the Department of External Af- . fairs, May"^ 1949, Vol. 1, No. 5 , p. 33-

79 government and members of the Pan-American Union.

As Mr.

Soward states: . . .it would be well for Canadians to do some hard thinking about inter-American questions before the time comes when our government may be confronted by an invitation embarrassing to avoid or difficult to refuse.26 The question has not been answered.

Canada still

feels she has not been invited and the Union answere there is no inclination that she wants to be invited.

f.h. Soward, and A.M. Macaulay, "Canada and the Pan American System," Contemporary Affairs, No. 21, p.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Ball, Margeret M., The Problem of Inter-American Organization. Stanford: University Press, 1944. 117 PP. Barrett, John, The Pan-American Union, Washington: Pan American Union, 1911. 253 PP. Beals, Carleton, The Coming Struggle for Latin America. York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1938. 401 pp.

New

Bemis, Samuel P . , Latin American Policy of the United States. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1943. 470 pp. Burt, Alfred Leroy, A Short History of Canada for Americans. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1942. 277 P P . Chamberlin, William Henry, Canada Today and Tomorrow. Little, Brown and Company, 1943. 338 p p .

Boston:

Dawson, Robert MacGregor, Canada in World Affairs, Two Years of War 1939-1941. London: Oxford University Press, 1943. 342 pp. Dafoe, John W., Canada An American Nation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1935. 134 pp. Green, Philip Leonard, Pan American Progress. Hastings House Publishers, 1942. 213 PP.

New York:

Guerrant, Edward 0., Roosevelt1s Good Neighbor Policy. New Mexico: The University of New Mexico Press, 1950. 235 PPHumphrey, John P., The Inter-American System: A Canadian V i e w , Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1942. 329 PPJohnsen, Julia E., Canada and the Western Hemisphere. York: The H. W. Wilson Company” 1944. 295 PP. Laves, Walter, Editor, Inter-American Solidarity. University of Chicago Press, 1941. 227 PP* Lockey, Joseph B., Pan-America Its Beginnings. The Macmillan Company, 1926. 503 PP.

New

Chicago:

New York:

81

MacCormac, John, Canada: America1s Problem. Viking Press, 1940. 285 pp.

New York: The

MacKay, R. A., and Rogers, E. R., Canada Looks Abroad. Oxford University Press, 1938. 402 pp.

London:

Peat, Louisa Watson, Canada: New World Power. New York: Robert M. McBride and Company, 1945. 293 pp. Rippy, James Fred, Latin America in World Politics. Third Edition: New York: F. S. Crofts and Company, 1938. 303 PP. Scott, Francis R., Canada Today. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, 1939. 184 pp.

London:

Skillingn Harold G., Canadian Representation Abroad. The Tyerson Press, 1945. 359 PP*

Toronto:

Soward, F. H., Parkinson, J. F., MacKenzie, N. A. M., MacDermont, T. W. L., Canada in World Affairs. London: Oxford University Press, 1941. 343 PP. Tomlinson, Edward, Battle for the Hemisphere. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1947. 250 pp.

New York:

Tyler, Alice F . , The Foreign Policy of James G. Blaine. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1927. 411 pp. Usher, Roland G., Pan-Americanism. Company, 1915. 466 p p .

New York: The Century

Whitaker, Arthur P., Editor, Inter-American Affairs: An Annual Survey, No. 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942. 253 PP. _______ , Editor, Inter-American Affairs: An Annual Survey. No. 2. New York: Columbia University Press, 1943. 253 PP. _______ , Editor, Inter-American Affairs: An Annual Survey. No. 3.. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944. 278 pp. _______ , Editor, Inter-American Affairs: An Annual Survey. No. j4. New York: Columbia University Press, 19*45. 285 PP. _______ , Editor, Inter-American Affairs: An Annual Survey, No. 5.* New York: Columbia University Press, 1946. 328 pp.

82 B.

PERIODICAL ARTICLES

’’Brazilians Seek Canadian Trade,” Pan American Magazine. 30: 12, November 1919. Brebner, J. Bartlett, "Canada and the Hemispheric Policy,” Bulletin of the Story Behind the Headlines. New York, Vol. II, No.' 2, pp. 16-22, December 27* 1938. _______ , "Canada's Choice in Foreign Affairs,” Quarterly Journal of Inter-American Relations, Vol.2, No. 1, pp. 50-57* January 1939. _______ , "Ogdensburg: A Turn in Canadian-American Relations," Inter-American Quarterly. Vol. II, No.4, pp. 18-2 8 , October 1940. "Canada Gets More Goods From Latin America," Inter-American, 1: 39* May 1942. "Canada's Industrial Development and Her Future Trade," Pan-American Magazine, 28: 210-11. "Canada Looks South," Inter-American. 5: 42, March 1946. "Canada Moves for Trade Gains in Latin American,” U . S . News, 20: 54, February 15* 1946. "Canada's Trade with 15* 1947.

Latin America," Time 50: 38, September

"Canada Woos Latins," Tabulated Business W e e k , p. 50, November 25* 1939. Clokie, H. M., "Canada’s National Status in Recent Years," The Annals. 253:22-31, September, 1947. Corbett, P. E., "Canada and Pan Americanism," Quarterly Journal of Inter-American Relations. 1:30-4, October, 1939. _______ , "Canada in the Western Hemisphere," Foreign Affairs, 19:778-89* July, 1941. Cox, I. J., "The Vacancy at Buenos Aires," World Affairs. p. 55“6, March, 1937. Crawford, H. D., "Should Canada Join Pan America?" North American Review. 248: 219-33* December, 1939.

83 Cross* A.P., "Canada Appoints Five New Ministers*" Canadian Business* 16:34-7, January, 19^3* Drew* George* "A Canadian View of Pan-Americanism*" American Association of School Administrators, Official Report* p. 141-7, 1941. Duggan* Stephan* "Canada and Pan-Americanism*" Foreign Af­ fairs, 18:628-31* July* 1940. _______ * "The Western Hemisphere as a Haven of Peace," Foreign Affairs, 18:614-31, July* 1940. "Embarrassing," Time * 50:38, September 8 * 1947* Fenwick* Charles G.* "The Question of Canadian Participation In Inter-American Conferences," The American Journal of International Law* 31:473-476* July, 1937* Humphrey* John P., "Canada and the Mexican Revolution," Canadian Forum* 20:269-73, December* 1940. _______ * "Pan America in the World Order," Canadian Forum* 21:199™202* October* 1941. _______ * "Twenty-Second Chair: is it for Canada?" InterAmerican Quarterly * 3 :5“13, October* 1941. Hurlbert* E. H., "Nation in Perspective* Canada at the PanAmerican-Pacific Exposition," Science American. 80:17, July 10* 1915. Hutchinson* Bruce* "Canada and her People," Foreign Policy Reports. pp. 322-333, March 1* 1943* Irving* T.B.* "Le Canada et l ’Amerique Latine," Le Canada Francais. 30:401-410* Febryary* 1943* Irving* Virginia* "Lest We Forget Latin America*" Canadian Forum* 24:34-35, 57~58* May and June 1944. Keith* J.R.* "Canada Moving to Pan-Americanism*" Saturday Night, 5 8 :6 -7 , April 17, 1943Laing* Lionel H.* "Does the Monroe Doctrine Cover Canada?" American Journal of International Law, 32:793-796* October"" 1938:-------------------------

84 Lemontagne, "Canadian Trade with Latin America,11 Commercial Intelligence Journal, May 17, 1941. Leblanc, Fernand, "Le Canada et 1 A r g e n t i n e ,11 L* Actualite^ economique, pp. 44-68, November, 1942. Lippman, Walter, "Canada and the Monroe Doctrine," Saturday Night, p. 22, December 31* 1938. Macdonald, N.P., "Canada and the Pan-American Ideal," Empire Review, 463:81-85* August, 1939» MacIntyre, Donald, "Canadian Policy and Latin America," Canadian Forum, 23:272-273* March, 1944. MacKinnon, J.A., "Canada and South America," Industrial Canada, 42:55-59* December, 1941. Massey, Vincent, "Should Canada. Join the Pan-American Union?" Maclean1s Magazine, pp. 44-47* August 15* 1947McEachern, R.A., "South America and Canada," Canadian Geo­ graphical Journal J26:2-13* January, 19^3* McLean, M., and J.R. Baldwin, "Shake Hands Latin America*" Behind the Headlines Series, No. 3, p. 16, 1940, Montagnes, J., "Beating the Big Boys in South America," Canadian Magazine, 74:6, July, 1930. Morton, A.C., "Canada Looks South," Rotarian, August, 1944. pp. 49-50. Morton, W.L., "Canada and the World Tomorrow," Canadian Institute of International Affairs, Toronto, pp. 35-38, 1943. Neal, Arthur L . , "Canada’s Trade Ties with Latin America," Canadian Geographical Journal, 31:78-95, August, 1945. /



Patry, Andre, Coup d ’oeil nos relations avec 1 ‘Amerique Latine," Revue Dominicaine, 53:223-233, April, 1947. Renfrew, Gael, "Canadafs Vacant Chair," World Affairs. 104: 50-52, March, 1941.

85 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, "Solidarity of the Continent,” Address before the Pan American Union, Washington, D.C. Vital Speeches of the Day, 5:434-435* May 1, 1939. Shellaley, C.S., "Canadian Influence Drifts South,” Monetary Magazine, p. 2, November 8 , 1947. Trotter, R.G., "Canada and Pan-Americanism,” Queens Q, 3:252-260, August, 19^2. _______ , "More on Canada and Pan-Americanism,” Inter-American Quarterly, 2:5-10, January, 1940. _______ , and R.Q. Mackay, "Pan Americanism is not Enough Two Opinions," Public Affairs, 5:118-123* Spring, 1942. The Pan American Yearbook 1945* Compiled and published by Pan-American Associates, New York Pan American Magazine Building, pp. 829. Thorning, Joseph F., "The Place of the American Republics and Canada in the New World Order," The Americas. 3* 161-167* July 1946, April 1947. Watson, J.W., and W.R. Mead,— "Canada in the American Balance, Culture, 5:385-402, December, 1944.

C.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES. Bulletin of the Pan-American Union, Volume 8l No. 5j5, May, June, 1947 81 No. 9 ,September 1947 Pan-American Union, Minutes of the Second Session of the Eighth Committee. International American Conference, Montevideo, 1933* Minutes and Antecedents, Vol. I, 204 pp. Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace. Mexico City^ 1945, Congress and Conference Series No. 47.

86 CANADA Department of External Affairs. British and Foreign Government Representatives in Canada. Department of External Affairs* 1928, I93O7I9 3 9 . Canadian Government Representatives Abroad and British and Foreign Government Representatives in Candda. Depart­ ment of External Affairs. January 1940.

.

British and Foreign Government Representatives in Canada. Department of External Affairs. July, 1941. Canadian Representatives Abroad and Representatives in Canada of the British Commonwealth and Foreign Govern­ ments . Department of External Affairs. 1944-48 and 1950. Report of the Department of External Affairs, Canada. Ottawa; E. Cloutier, CMG, BA, Printer to the King's most Excel­ lent Majesty, Latin American Consular Offices in Canada, 1949. 126 pp. External Affairs. Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Ex­ ternal Affairs, Ottawa, Canada. Vol. I, No. 5* May, 1949. 48 pp. Statements and Speeches, Information Division, Department of External Affairs, Ottawa, Canada. Statement on Pan-American Union - Rt. Hon. W.L.M. King, House of Commons - August 4, 1944, p. 1. "Canada in the Americas," An Address by Mr. L.B. Pearson, Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, to the Herald Tribyne Forum, New York, March 8, 1947. No. 47/7, P. 3"Canada and World Affairs," Statement by Mr. L.B. Pearson, Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the House of Commons on November 16 and 17, 1949. No.

49/43 . 23 pp . HOUSE OP COMMONS CANADA. Debates:

June 18, 1936. January 25, 1937* January 27 , 1937.

87 March 30, 1939May 30, 1940. July 15, 1940. July 31, 1940. August 6 , 1940. Canada Treaty Series, 1944, No. 1 5 . UNITED STATES Foreign Relations of the United States, 1928. Department of State, Washington, D.C., Vol. 1, p. 5 8 3 * D.

PUBLICATIONS OF LEARNED ORGANIZATIONS

“Canada as an American Problem,” A Symposium of the Latin American Economic Institute. Published by the American Council on Public Affairs. Washington, D.C., 1941. 177 'PPCanadian Historical Review. June 1943, Vol. June 1948, Vol.

24, No. 2, p. 17929, No. 2, p. 186.

Canadian Institute of Public Opinion. Public Opinion News Service Release, January 12, 1944. Gallup Poll of Canada. 2 pp. Canadian Institute of Public Opinion, Public Opinion News Service Release. June 14, 1947. Gallup Poll of Canada. 2 pp. Corey, A.B., R.G. Trotter, and W.W. McLaren, Conference on Canadian American Affairs. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1939250 pp. Under the auspices of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Kleven, V.E., nCanadian-American Solidarity,” Institute of World Affairs. Vol. 19-20, 1941-1942, pp. 26-31 . University of New Mexico. Soward, F.H., and A.M. Macaulay, “Canada and the Pan American System,” Contemporary Affairs, Published under the aus­ pices of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1948. 47 pp.

88 E.

NEWSPAPERS

London Times,

April 17, 1920. May 8 , 1922. December 10, 1926. January 6 , 1927* March 14, 1927. July 13, 1927. May 20, 1944. February 27, 1946. April 23, 1947. September 6 , 1947* February 14, 1949-

New York Times.

March 23* 1931October 16, 1932. November 28, 1936. November 18, 193S. June 22, 1939June 23., 1939August 7* 1940. July 22, 1941. September 25, 1941. June 1, 1942. September 2, 1943January 30- 19^-4. March 17* 1944. February 27* 1945February 28, 1945May 23* 1945. August 31* 1947April 15, 1947. April 27* 1947. March 1949March 21, 1949October 12, 1949-

F.

CONFIDENTIAL AND MINEOGRAPHED PAPERS

*Canada, The Pan American Union and World Peace, Victoria Branch.Study Group, 1939-1940. 12 pp. typed. ^Canada and Pan America, 1939* Montreal Study Group, 8 pp. typed.

89 *Canada and the Pan American Union, August* 1945* 13 PP* typed. A memorandum of statements made in the House of Commons and exists in single copy only. *Canada-South American Relations, A Concrete Suggestion, Montreal* 1940. To pp. mimeographed. *Corbett* P.E.* Memorandum on Canada and Pan-Americanism. 1938. Special C.L.I.A. memorandum. 4 pp. mimeographed. *_______ * The Havana Meeting of American Foreign Ministers, Confidential* September* 1940^ 6 pp. mimeographed. Kelbaugh* Paul R.* Chief* Division of Conferences and Organizations* Organization of American States. August 5, 1950* Letter* 1 p. * Chief* Division of Conferences and Organizations* ■ Organization of American States. August 18* 1950. Letter* 2 pp. *Lalande* Leon* The Fan American Conferences, Brief Survey* Montreal Study group. 1937* 8 pp. mimeographed.

* Can be obtained through the Canadian Institute of International Affairs only.

A P P E N D I X

APPENDIX A CANADA: IMPORTS TO AND EXPORTS FROM LATIN AMERICA Years 1938, 1944, 1948 300 280

Key - Exports from Canada Imports to Canada

/77

HI

260 240 .

220 200 180

160 140 120 100

/// ///

80 78,000 60 40 20 16,015

1938 Given in thousands of dollars.

1944

1948

APPENDIX B CANADA'S TRADE RELATIONS WITH LATIN AMERICA A.

Canada has Most Favored Nation Treaty with:

1 . Argentina . . . . . 2 . Brazil

...........

n

3 . Chile .............

n

4. Dominican Republic

rt

5- Guatemala

ti

........

...........

tt

7. Uruguay ...........

ft

6 . Haiti



8 . Ecuador ........... 9. El Salvador . . . . 10.

Venezuela

........

11.

Bolivia

........

12.

Costa Tica

13.

Panama

14. Colombia B.

. . . .

...........

t! tt

tt It

........

Canada has accorded the benefit of its Intermediate Tariff to: 1. Paraguay

C.

The following Latin American Countries had no commercial trade arrangement of any kind with Canada as of August*

1945:

92 1. Cuba. 2. Honduras. 3. Mexico. 4. Nicaragua. 5. Peru.

Arthur L. Neal,, ’’Canada’s Trade Ties with Latin America,,” Canadian Geographical Journal, 31*91* August* 19^5*

APPENDIX C GALLUP POLL OP CANADA June 14, 1947“-after 9 a. m. By Canadian Institute of Public Opinion Questions asked: ’’HAVE YOU HEARD OR READ ABOUT THE PAN-AMERICAN UNION?" Those who said “yes" were then asked: "CAN YOU TELL ME BRIEFLY WHAT IT IS?” Answers given: College Yes Yes Yes No,

% (and c o r r e c t ) ........ 47 (partially correct) . . 20 ( i n c o r r e c t ) ............. 4 etc _2£ 100

High School % 20 10 2 68 100

Public School % J 5 2 86 100

Persons included in the 30 per cent of the total national sample who answered "Yes," to the first question, were regarded as having some knowledge or interest in the subject.

They were then asked:

"AT PRESENT CANADA IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE PAN-AMERICAN UNION. DO YOU THINK SHE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE A MEMBER?" The majority of these informed persons felt Canada should become a member.

94 Should be a member

22 $

Should not

4

Undecided

4

Total (Who had heard of, etc)

30$

Usually, Gallup Polls on Canadian foreign relations find some differences amongst the separate groups supporting the respective fed­ eral political parties. In this survey no such variations appear. All political party group­ ings show exactly the same extent of Ignorance; the proportions of the informed in these groups who favor Canadian membership are also practi­ cally equal.

Taken from Canadian Institute of Public Opinion. Public Opinion News Service Release.

APPENDIX D Letter from Mr. Paul R. Kelbaugh, Chief, Division of Con­ ferences and Organizations. Organization of American States. August 18, 1950. Mr. Ted. M. Tanen, 10797 Ohio Avenue Los Angeles 24, California Dear Sir: In reply to your specific inquiry of June 16 as to the efforts that have been made by the Pan American Union (since 1948 the name of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States) or by the Organiza­ tion of American States to bring Canada into formal member­ ship, I may say that no such formal invitation has ever been extended to Canada. This may appear to be somewhat strange, inasmuch as there has always been a very friendly feeling towards Canada on the part of the 21 American Re­ publics. And the possibility that Canada would one day become a member has always existed in the minds of the political leaders of the Hemisphere. Indeed, when the furni­ ture was made for the members of the old Governing Board.of the Pan American Union, back around 1910, a chair was in­ cluded with the name and coat-of-arms of Canada. At various official conferences and functions held in the Western Hemisphere during the past 60 years, one or another speaker has mentioned the desirability of Canadian participation in the central organization. The inclusion of the word "States" rather than the historical word "Republics" in the new name of the Organization represents an implied hope that Canada may some day come in. But my feeling is that a formal invitation will not be extended to Canada until it is clearly evident that the people and government of that country are persuaded of the advantages of membership. And it is apparent that much spadework in Canada is necessary before the people of that country will be so persuaded, for, as one Canadian remarked not so long ago, Canada historically has considered herself to be in the Northern rather than the Western Hemisphere with her political, economic and cul­ tural currents running east and west rather than north and south.

96 While not a member of the Organization of American States, Canada does belong to the following inter-American technical organizations: Inter-American Radio Office, InterAmerican Social Security Committee, Inter-American Statis­ tical Institute, Postal Union of the Americas and Spain, and the Pan American Institute of Geography and History. She also sends delegates to various inter-governmental and unofficial conferences of a similar nature in the Hemi­ sphere .. It Is hoped that the foregoing comments may be of some assistance. Very sincerely yours,

\>niv«rsity ot Southern California U b lt ^