Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unsociable sociability: The paradox of Canadian-American friendship

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the end of World War II, relations between Canadian and US leaders have become difficult, as the absence of the unifying force of war led to different political visions. However, on the whole, and in spite of a power differential that has grown since 1945, relations between Canada and the United States have nevertheless been good. How is this explained? In this reflection, rather than taking a structural-realist approach, we build on a perspective proposed by Stéphane Roussel in his theory on democratic peace between Canada and the United States. Roussel showed how the constructivist model could justify the absence of coercion and the relatively egalitarian cooperation between both states. While Roussel's studies refer only to the 1867–1958 period, we broaden the perspective to include the contemporary period and propose that the ‘unsocial sociability’ at the heart of Canadian-American relations is due to the recognition of the democratic nature of the other's regime and the implementation of institutional mechanisms and techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ‘All friendship must be sought for itself; however, it originates in utility’ (Piotte, 1999, pp. 55–56).

  2. The continued predominance of the realist theory in international relations explains why friendship has remained largely untheorized in the discipline (Oelsner, 2007). ‘Of the thousands of pages dedicated to the causes of war, there is not one that is entirely devoted to the study of the causes of peace’ (Blainey, 1988, p. 3).

  3. It is worth noting that Kant uses the same postulates as Hobbes, and from this point of view it is possible to classify him as a realist. The major distinction is Kant's belief that it is possible to go beyond power politics, while still maintaining the anarchic nature of the international system, and thereby achieve a perpetual peace between states (Oneal and Russett, 1999, p. 1; and Piotte 1999, p. 339 and pp. 335–347).

  4. For Kant, it is precisely the selfish interests of men that forced them to establish peace through the Republic, and, following that, between Republics: this is Kant's unsociable sociability (Kant, 1991).

  5. Recall that interdependence is defined as the influence that one actor can exert over the other in a relationship where both actors depend on one another. This dependence stems from the number, quality and significance of transactions between these two actors. The phenomenon is characterized by three factors: the multiple channels and exchanges at the transnational, transgovernmental and intergovernmental levels; the multiplication of spheres of activity and the lack of hierarchy between them; and, finally, the renunciation of the threat of force or of the use of force in relations between these two actors (Keohane and Nye, 1977).

  6. Afterwards, however, Paul Martin's Liberal government decided not to participate in this project, which proved to be very controversial in Canada.

  7. This group was dissolved after submitting its report.

  8. It is worth noting that these new threats are handled by military bodies, as well as by other public institutions such as the police, intelligence agencies and so on.

  9. Without getting into a detailed explanation of the possible conceptions of Canadian foreign policy, it is worth simply noting that they can be separated into four groups. There are pure multilateralists, who are willing to participate in interventions only if they are sanctioned in a multilateral way (UN); pure continentalists, who always support the United States; pure sovereignists, who will always oppose the United States; and partners in selective cooperation, who, depending on Canadian interests, will or will not cooperate (see Legault, 2004).

  10. Ironically or not, a certain type of anti-Americanism has long existed among the Canadian elite, especially among Anglophones. The latter often use this anti-Americanism to differentiate (or to try to differentiate) themselves from their southern neighbours. It is often forgotten that, for Anglophones, the original distinction in North America is not cultural, but is historically rooted in interests and beliefs. It arose out of the separation between Republicans and Loyalists during the war of American Independence. Although we are not trying to explain the two countries’ love–hate relationship by using this one premise, it remains relevant nevertheless. It explains, among other things, this periodic will to emphasize the difference in values between the two countries. For more on this issue, see Balthazar (1983, 1989); on the differences between Canadian and American values, see Adams (2003).

  11. In fact, as Doran mentions (2006, p. 394), according to this one variable, relations between President Bush and President Chirac should have been excellent, while relations with Prime Minister Blair should have been more difficult. In reality, however, that was hardly the case.

References

  • Adams, M. (2003) Fire and Ice. The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values. Toronto: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (1974) Vies Politiques. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aron, R. (1967) Qu’est-ce qu’une théorie des relations internationales? Revue française de science politique 17 (5): 837–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, R. (1984) Paix et guerre entre les Nations. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balthazar, L. (1983) Les relations canado-américaines: Nationalisme et continentalisme. Études Internationales 14 (1): 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balthazar, L. (1989) Les relations canado-américaines. In: P. Painchaud (ed.) De Mackenzie King à Pierre Trudeau. Quarante ans de diplomatie canadienne. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, pp. 251–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, D. (2002) L’intérêt national. Une notion trios discours. In: F. Charillon (ed.) Politique étrangère. Nouveaux regards. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, D. (2003) Théories des Relations Internationales. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blainey, G. (1988) The Causes of War, 3rd edn. New York: Free Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bothwell, R. and Granatstein, J.L. (1990) Pirouette: Pierre Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Policy. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A.F. (2000) Waiting at the perimeter: Making US policy in Canada. In: M.A. Molat and F.O. Hampson (eds.) Canada among Nations. Vanishing Borders. Toronto: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of National Defence. (2006) Canada–United States defence relations, http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&cat=00&id=1922.

  • Dixon, J.W. (1993) Democracy and the management of international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 37 (1): 42–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doran, C.F. (1996) Les relations canado-américaines dans une ère d’incertitude. Études Internationales 27 (2): 281–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doran, C.F. (2006) Canada–US relations: Personality, pattern, and domestics politics. In: P. James, N. Michaud and M. O’Reilly (eds.) Handbook of Canadian Foreign Policy. Toronto: Lexington Books, pp. 389–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. (1983a) Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs (Part 1). Philosophy and Foreign Affairs 12: 205–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. (1983b) Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs (Part 2). Philosophy and Foreign Affairs 12: 323–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M.J. (1986) Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1151–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. (1997) Ways of War and Peace. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, G. and Viljoen, T. (1990) The Defence of Canada. In the Arms of the Empire. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farr, D.M.L. (1991) Britain, Canada, the United States and confederation: The politics of nation-building during the turbulent years. In: Centre for the Study of Canada (ed.) Reflections from the Past. Perspectives on Canada and on the Canada-US Relationship. Plattsburg: Center for the Study of Canada–State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (2001) Taking stick: The constructivist research programme in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science 4: 391–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortmann, M. and Legault, L. (1989) Une diplomatie de l’espoir: le Canada et le désarmement. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, E. (2005) Theories of friendship and politics. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Workshop 15, The Politics of Friendship: Bridging the Gap between Theoretical and Empirical Studies; 14–19 April, Granada, Spain.

  • Gibbons, A.O. (1953) Sir George Gibbons and the boundary waters treaty of 1909. Canadian Historical Review 34 (2): 124–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gluek, A.C. (1979) The invisible revision of the Rush-Bagot Agreement, 1898–1914. The Canadian Historical Review 60 (4): 466–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, S.D. (1988) Sovereignty or Security. Government Policy in the Canadian North (1936–1950). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haglund, D.P. and Fortmann, M. (2002) Le Canada et la question de la sécurité du territoire: L’exemption de Kingston tient-elle toujours? Revue Militaire Canadienne 3 (1): 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. and Heynen, J. (2005) Managing through networks: The state of Canada-US relations. In: D. Carment, F.O. Hampson and N. Hillmer (eds.) Canada among Nations 2004. Setting Priorities Straight. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. ([1651], 1968) Leviathan. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, E. ([1795], 1991) Vers la paix perpétuelle et autres textes. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krouck, B. (2004) La normalisation des relations entre le Canada et la République populaire de Chine vue par les diplomates français (1968–1970). Études Internationales 35 (2): 339–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legault, A. (ed.) (2004) Le Canada dans l’orbite américaine: la mort des théories intégrationnistes. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legault, A., Grégoire-Blais, M. and Bastien, F. (2005) Les dernières années de l’ère Chrétien: Une gouverne divisée et incertaine à propos de l’Irak. In: A. Donneur (ed.) Le Canada, les États-Unis et le monde. La marge de manœuvre canadienne. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, pp. 151–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massie, J. and Roussel, S. (2005) Le dilemme canadien face à la guerre en Irak, ou l’art d’étirer l’élastique sans le rompre. In: A. Mc Leod and D. Morin (eds.) Diplomaties en guerre: sept États face à la crise irakienne. Outremont: Athéna, pp. 69–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministère des Relations internationales du Québec. (2006) La politique internationale du Québec. La force de l’action concertée, http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/fr/politique_internationale/presentation/index.asp, accessed 20 January 2010.

  • Nash, K. (1990) Kennedy and Diefenbaker: Fear and Loathing across the Undefended Border. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oelsner, A. (2007) Friendship, mutual trust and the evolution of regional peace in the international system. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 10 (2): 257–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oneal, J.R. and Russett, B. (1999) The Kantian Peace. The Pacific benefits of democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885–1992. World Politics 52: 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J.M. (1994) How liberalism produces democratic peace. International Security 19: 87–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, L.B. (1975) Memoirs, Vol. 3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piotte, J.-M. (1999) Les grands penseurs du monde occidental. L’éthique et la politique de Platon à nos jours. Montréal: Fides.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, R.A. (1977) The Defence of the Undefended Border. Planning for War in North America 1867–1939. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, J.L. (1998) Does democracy cause peace? Annual Review of Political Science 1: 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robitaille, A. (2003a) Le ROC fissuré par la guerre. Le Devoir 22 March: B-4.

  • Robitaille, A. (2003b) Leur vengeance sera terrible. Le Devoir 29 March: B-4.

  • Roussel, S. (2002) Pearl Harbor et le World Trade Center. Le Canada face aux États-Unis en période de crise. Études Internationales 33 (4): 667–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roussel, S. (2004) The North American Democratic Peace: Absence of War and Security Institution-Building in Canada–US Relations, 1867–1958. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B. (1993) Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-cold War World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Post. (2003) The empire strikes back. 26 March: A17.

  • Thomson, J.H. and Randall, S.J. (2002) Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1995) Constructing international politics. International Security 20 (1): 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfers, A. (1962) Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics. Baltimore, MD and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de science politique, UQAM, Case postale 8888, succ. Centre ville, Montréal, H3C 3P8, QC, Canada

    Caroline Patsias

  2. Institut québécois des hautes études internationales, Pavillon Charles-de-Koninck 1030, avenue des Sciences-Humaines, Bureau 5458, Université Laval Québec (QC), G1V 0A6, Canada

    Dany Deschênes

Authors
  1. Caroline Patsias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dany Deschênes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Patsias.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Patsias, C., Deschênes, D. Unsociable sociability: The paradox of Canadian-American friendship. Int Polit 48, 92–111 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2010.38

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2010.38

Keywords

Search

Navigation