Military historian Tim Cook’s latest book begins with a short, fascinating vignette that neatly captures the essence of Canada’s decades-long national security and defence relationship with the United States.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, speaking in Kingston, Ontario, accompanied by Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, declared that “the American people will not stand by in silence if control over Canadian territory is threatened by another empire.”
King, who apparently did not know what the president would say in advance, seemed surprised by the assurance, Cook wrote in his book “Good Allies: How Canada and the United States Fought Together to Defeat Fascism in World War II.”
The promise that President Roosevelt made on August 8, 1938, in the face of the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Japan, has formed the political foundation of Canadian national security ever since, much to the delight (and chagrin) of the Canadian political establishment for decades.
At the time, King seemed to understand his words correctly as a historic declaration from a like-minded democratic nation. He also understood its implicit dimension.
“It was also a kind of threat that the United States would trample on Canadian sovereignty if it perceived a foreign threat north of the border,” Cook wrote.
In 2024, that aspect of Roosevelt’s remarks has lost much of its threat. Instead, as former Canadian national security officials often describe it, it has deepened resentment and frustration in Washington at the seemingly indifferent attitude from Ottawa that the pledge seemed to engender.
In his book, Cook chronicles, in often vivid detail, the origins of the Canadian-U.S. security relationship, which has recently been dominated by U.S. frustration over Canada’s unwillingness to meet NATO’s two percent of gross domestic product (GDP) threshold for military spending.
His analysis is particularly insightful given the current tensions in relations between the two countries and the persistent criticism from U.S. lawmakers of both parties.
When America needed Canada
With the world once again watching the rise of authoritarian dictatorships, the US once again appears to be searching for good allies, which may be why Canada’s exclusion from a high-tech submarine deal involving Australia, the US and Britain still hurts so much for Ottawa.
Cook told CBC News that World War II was “one of the few times the United States understood that it needed Canada,” with Canada’s geography, mineral wealth and (at the time) untapped industrial potential making it a natural defense partner.
Cook suggests that in the decades that followed, and particularly since the end of the Cold War, complacency took hold on both sides of the border. Canada’s political and institutional setup, benefiting from the U.S. security umbrella, allowed the country to invest generously in social development.
At the same time, however, the United States had to worry about security on its northern border as well as in the southern region.
“One thing I’ve learned from reading hundreds of books and documents is that Canada is largely absent from discussions of U.S. security issues,” Cook said.
“Canada has been a very good ally to the United States. [during the Second World War]It was acknowledged at the time, but perhaps we were too lenient in that alliance.”
If there is a persistent policy failing (or political character flaw) on Canada’s side, it may be its seeming inability to tell its story in Washington.
“If we’re talking about today, maybe we need to shout a little louder about our own accomplishments and talk a little louder about security and defense,” Cook said.
At last summer’s NATO summit in Washington, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, Kirsten Hillman, was careful to emphasize the lengths to which Canadian diplomats were going to gain attention in the American capital.
She maintained that the Canada-U.S. relationship is stronger than ever, especially in terms of security and defence.
“We’re a progressive country and we’re trying to develop a lot of policies and we have a lot of ways to contribute not just to our own security but to global security,” Hillman said in July in response to a reporter’s question.
“The conversations aren’t monotonous. They’re complex. They’re serious. And we’re taken very seriously.”
Vincent Rigby, a former national security and intelligence adviser to the prime minister, agreed with Cook that Canada is often underestimated in Washington and has inconsistent messaging to Americans.
Promises, promises
“I think the challenge, especially right now, is that people don’t want to go to Washington if they don’t have a good story to tell or if little requests pile up,” Rigby told CBC News.
In a recent policy paper, Rigby argued that Canada’s reputation in the United States is at its lowest point since President Roosevelt extended his security umbrella nearly 90 years ago.
He said a lot of it has to do with successive Canadian governments making defence promises and then either not following through or taking so long to deliver on them.
“It’s hard to negotiate with the Americans,” said Rigby, now a professor at McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy. “I think we’ve lost their trust and we’re not a particularly reliable ally.”
Rigby added: “This is not a matter of the United States telling Canada to jump and asking how high it will fly. It is not a matter of simply fulfilling our obligations as members of NATO and NORAD. It is a matter of understanding the lessons of 1938 – what the United States wanted then and what it wants now.”
“The United States ultimately looks at almost all of our bilateral relationships through a national security or defense lens, whatever the issue may be,” Rigby said. “If we don’t step up on national security and defense, other parts of the relationship will suffer.”
Of course, Roosevelt was a Democrat, and Rigby said there’s another lesson Canadians should learn from his example: Democrats are just as likely as Republicans to turn a blind eye when Canada fails to meet its defense obligations.
“If you enter this world thinking that this is everything [Donald] “The idea that if Trump and the Republicans don’t get into power in the next election, then we’ll be OK and exonerated, is just completely wrong,” he said.
“The world is going to get worse before it gets better… What can Canada do for us? [Kamala] I think the Harris administration, if it wins the election, will be a little more outspoken and a little more aggressive.”
