GENERAL
CO28
KISSINGER, HENRY A.

DEC 21 1971

Dear Mr. Head:

Thank you for your recent letter and for sending me the copy of "Canada's Maturing Foreign Policy." I was interested to see it and have passed it along to my staff for their information.

I hope you will feel free to get in touch with me should the need arise and that you will stay in contact even if there is no need.

With warm good wishes for the holidays and the coming year,

Honorable Ivan L. Head
Special Assistant to the Prime Minister
Ottawa, K1A OA2
Canada

jlp:12/20/71

CANADA

OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER • CABINET DU PREMIER MINISTRE

Ottawa,
K1A OA2,
December 10th, 1971.

Mr. Henry Kissinger,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.,
U. S. A.

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

I am attaching, as promised, a copy
of the manuscript of the article on Canadian foreign
policy which will appear in the January issue of
"Foreign Affairs". I mentioned it to you while in
Washington because I did not want you to think that
it had been written subsequent to the meeting between
the Prime Minister and the President. As you will
appreciate, the publication schedule of the journal
required that it be submitted and set in type weeks
before the meeting.

The gap in pagination represents the
deletion of some background material on Canada which,
on reflection, contributed too much to the length
and not enough to the impact of the argument.

I should like to thank you again for
your courtesies of the last several days and to express
the hope that this communication link will continue
to be available should an occasion for its use arise.

CANADA'S MATURING FOREIGN POLICY

Ivan L. Head

One of Canada's better-known tourist attractions is a place called "Magnetic Hill". Each year, visitors by the thousands park their cars at the bottom, place the gearshift in neutral, and sit in delighted astonishment as they glide gradually but inexorably up the hill. The whole exercise is an optical illusion, of course. The cars only seem to be coasting uphill; they are actually going down. The tourists know this, but they come anyway. It's not the feat that is the attraction; it's the illusion.

The hue and cry that arose within Canada following the introduction in 1969 of the Government's White Paper on Foreign Policy bears some resemblance to the events at Magnetic Hill. The criticism was directed less at the paper's views of what Canada could and should do in the world than at the shattering of the belief cherished by many Canadians that their country's moral influence was unbounded. At a time when the British Government was reducing its forces east of Suez and when strong voices were being raised in the United States against that country's worldwide presence, some Canadians nevertheless were aghast that the Canadian Government should refer to Canada as a modest power with limited influence. What of idealism? What of our destined role? "It is ... disconcerting", said one critic, "to find no place for heroes in the future diplomatic adventures of our country."

9

- 9 -

II

With heroes or without, a foreign policy is
actively new acquisition for Canada. One hundred years
leading Canadian newspaper was able to write:

"We could not be freer than we are now, for
we have no foreign policy to complicate
things, and no army to provide."

The editorialist was not suggesting that Canada
relations with other countries, only that we had no
fired pattern of dealing with them. Perhaps because we had
options. Canada's foreign policies are in large measure
的影响 of the influence of two states with which it has long

...10

- 10 -

at Britain and the United States.
for some time the frustrations

the right to say to Great
us to help you, call us

Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier).

ears an entirely different quality, but

The United States is in some ways
an elephant. No matter how
tempered is the beast, one is
twitch and grunt."

Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau).

If not, however, Canada has employed
benefit for many years. Participating
inference and engaging in treaty
party direct, rather than through the
so to full independence. Yet by 1945

Minister responsible only for external
representatives abroad in only 23
years been asked, most probably would
bearded "normalcy" as the period prior to

...11

- 11 -

began to
But in 1945 we realized that the war had
the great depression. converted Canada into an industrial power at the same time as
it had destroyed the economic base of much of Europe. In this
new, post-war world Canada recognized that its international
relations had expanded more rapidly than had its foreign policy.

By 1949 this shortcoming had been corrected and a
balanced foreign policy acquired.

As befits all solid, functional structures, it
had four corners: the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and our close relationship
with the United States. The shape of that policy was first
identified by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent. If anyone had
observed then that the United States formed a sturdy segment of
three of those four legs, few Canadians would have regarded this
as anything but a happy and appropriate situation.

Two decades later, with the cold war showing few
signs of thaw, the anomaly of the world's most populous state
still denied membership in the international community, social
unrest more and more often turning to violent ends, and a world
in which technology had deluded millions to think that growth
was a goal which justified any excess, some Canadians began to
look anew at that square structure. Inevitably, any suggestion
of change attracted the criticism that it was motivated by
anti-Americanism, as the much earlier move to independence had

...12

- 12 -

been interpreted by some as being anti-British. One might just
as well describe as a "horse-hater" the farmer who had switched
to tractors in order to accommodate new conditions.

Notice was given by Prime Minister Trudeau during
the 1968 election campaign that a review of foreign policy was
contemplated. The review was needed, he said, "because of the
changing nature of Canada and the world around us". What were
sought were policies which would "accord with our national needs
and resources, with our ability to discharge Canada's legitimate
responsibilities in world affairs". 'Change' was the occasion,
and 'ability' was to be the measure. But would this be a departure
from purpose and an abandonment of friends and allies? Mr.
Trudeau claimed not when he addressed the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C., in March, 1969:

"I want to emphasize that this review is not an
excuse to prove our independence; that independence
needs no proving. Nor is it an exercise intended
to illustrate to the United States our potential
for irritation. We have no desire, and no surplus
energy, for that kind of activity.

We are building a new society in Canada. It should
not be surprising that the external manifestations
of this society may be somewhat different than has
been the case in the past. But just as one of the
invariable principles of that domestic society is the

...13

- 13 -

primacy of the individual, so is one of the
invariables of our foreign policy genuine
friendship with the United States."

The new policy was not to be a simple re-evaluation
of the old; nor was it expected necessarily to depart dramatically
from familiar lines. The review process itself could claim
novelty, however, for it proceeded on a conceptual basis and
tested the thesis that a modest power need not necessarily pursue
a foreign policy consisting largely of empirical adjustments.
When completed, the concept was capable of presentation in modular
form: a hexagon with six distinct, yet sometimes complementary
and sometimes overlapping objectives: peace and security, a
harmonious natural environment, sovereignty and independence,
social justice, and enhanced quality of life, economic growth.
The pursuit of these objectives, not the search for roles or
influence, was the policy thrust adopted by the Trudeau
Government. In the words of the White Paper:

"... it is ... misleading to base a foreign policy
on an assumption that Canada can be cast as the
"helpful fixer" in international affairs ... To be
liked and regarded as good fellows are not ends in
themselves; they are a reflection of but not a
substitute for policy."

The six policy objectives are not mutually exclusive;
the emphasis which the Canadian Government gives to them will

...14

- 14 -

form a constantly changing pattern. They should not be listed
in any given order, though, for this leaves the impression that
they are related in a fixed and descending order of importance.
Ideally, they should be illustrated schematically.

The objectives are neither exclusively foreign nor exclusively domestic. Mr. Trudeau has described them as the overall goals of his Government. He has stated as well that their pursuit is an ongoing process which will make Canada a better place for Canadians in a world better for all human beings. In this essay those goals form the backdrop to the deep and complex Canada-United States relationship.

### III

Because Canada and the United States share the greater part of a common continent, most of the important activities of either country inevitably affect the other, usually in a ratio proportionate to their relative sizes. Most Canadians have long been accustomed to this fact and, apart from a hardy, persistent, yet small number of shrill nationalists, become disturbed only occasionally. This seeming tranquillity is part of an understanding that those areas where the American presence is most evident in Canada -- activities flowing from our economic, cultural and environmental propinquity, and from our military alliance -- are in large measure an inevitable result of geography. Tranquil though the attitude may appear, however, it is not without

...15

- 15 -

concern, and even, on occasion, a touch of fear. The fear has
seldom been of the United States Government -- that, like any
focussed external threat, would encourage a cohesive response;
it is of the effects of the amorphous embrace of millions of
American magazines and books, of hundreds of thousands of
American investors, of thousands of American films and tele-
vision programs, of the constant pressure -- friendly yet over-
whelming -- of two hundred and twenty million talented, energetic,
acquisitive Americans. More recently, however, the fear has
been of United States economic policies.

These are twitches and grunts of which in many
instances neither the United States Government nor the average
American is likely cognizant. We here gain the impression that the
view from Washington of Canada and Canadians tends to be fitful
and spasmodic. The image pulsates in time to events often
unconnected with Canada. Visibility is generally clear from the
Pentagon, for example, because Canada is an enormous land mass
separating the U.S.A. from the U.S.S.R.; the scene reduces
itself to a statistical table for economists who may regard us as
an apparently endless source of mineral and energy resources, and
an immense market for U.S. manufactured goods and U.S. investment
capital; the prospect becomes warm and attractive to the
speechmaker -- Canada, a stable and friendly democracy adhering
to the rule of law. These variations in visibility are perhaps
no greater than is the view from any other country, but they
assume major significance when introduced into the policy of

- 16 -

the most powerful state in the world. Canadians, it is assumed,
are so similar to Americans that they must surely share the same
goals, values and desires. If this assumption is borne out in
some instances, as in support for the U.N. or in similarities
in legal systems, it is not regarded as significant. Yet when
variations appear, annoyance follows. And variations there are.
Examples: belief on the part of Canadians that trade in
non-strategic goods with Cuba is likely to encourage in response
moderate policies and friendship; our long-standing willingness
to test cautiously the sincerity of the Soviet Union and China
as an alternative to the untenable tensions of a cold war of
indefinite duration; our concern that the high risk of oil
pollution in the beautiful, yet narrow and crowded, Strait of
Juan de Fuca (through which the international boundary runs) is
sufficient reason to place further south the tanker terminal for
Alaskan oil; our conviction that all countries should cease
nuclear weapons tests both above and below the ground.

It is this comprehensive and unique blend of
intimacy and assumption, shared interests and shocked misunder-
standing, that probably explains why the two countries in the
world with the greatest interpenetration at every level should
in their most recent foreign policy reviews - President Nixon's
"U.S. Foreign Policy for the 1970's" and "Foreign Policy for
Canadians" - give little mention to one another. It would be
impossible for either country to formulate a complete policy
toward the other, for there is no area of life in either country

17

- 17 -

which is not to some degree an influence, cause, or effect of policies in the other.

So long as the two countries remain so close geographically, economically and culturally, the assumptions will continue; so long as they continue as politically independent states, the misunderstandings will arise. In the view of the Canadian government, an independent Canada serves American as well as Canadian interests, partly because it contributes to the reputation of the United States as a good international citizen. Prime Minister Trudeau has emphasized this point in defending his view of the basic sincerity and general good will of the United States towards Canada. Freedom to pursue our own interests without undue interference proves the sincerity of U.S. foreign policy, not so much to Canadians who are in doubt only occasionally, but to other countries who may be in the habit of calling that good faith into question.

It is important that persons on both sides of the border remember this for the differences in attitude between the two countries are likely to increase in number in the future. Inexorably, Canada's resources and geography will demand of her responsibilities and decisions which may be contentious elsewhere. The "new society" which Prime Minister Trudeau mentioned in his Washington Press Club speech is one that places increasing emphasis on the quality of life and the importance of human relations. The philosophy of unrestricted growth has been challenged by his government. Gross National Product as the determining measurement of the health of a

- 18 -

society has been called into question and "Net Human Benefit" has been suggested as a substitute; a measurement which would take into account such factors as environmental deterioration, community overcrowding and resource depletion. These value beliefs contributed directly to the decision of the government in 1970 to establish 100 mile pollution prevention and control zones in the Canadian Arctic. The delicacy of the ecological balance and the frailty of all forms of life in the Arctic required, in the Canadian view, prevention of oil spills, not haphazard attempts at clean-up after the event, the current norm of behaviour. This particular legislation was protested by the United States government on the ground that it was in breach of international law. Canada replied that the unilateral act was taken in order to protect the environment until such time as the international community agreed to act cooperatively and set new and necessary standards of international conduct. Canada argued that the classical concept of freedom of the seas was being exploited by some maritime powers and by flags of convenience to the point that freedom had become license for irresponsibility. The coastal states (Canada's coast line is the longest of any of any country in the world) required protection against potential polluters and resource exploiters. A new balance of interest needed to be struck, not to deny the exploitation of mineral and living resources or to interdict maritime traffic, but to husband the resources and protect the wholesomeness of the environment. To these ends Canada has been participating wholeheartedly in the preparatory work for the third United

19

- 19 -

Nations Law of the Sea Conference and the 1972 United Nations Stockholm Environmental Conference. The Canadian goal is the international acceptance of adequate standards reflecting mankind's newly acquired knowledge and concern in environmental matters.

Canada cannot expect universal congratulation for pursuing policies of these sorts, however enlightened they may appear to liberal elements within this country. Population pressures elsewhere in the world and escalating United States demands for energy and minerals will undoubtedly cause Canada to be described from abroad as a selfish and self-indulgent country more concerned with protecting the high standard of living of its own citizens than of sharing its space and resources with the needy of the world. The needy in these circumstances will be portrayed variously as the crowded millions of South Asia, the fish-eating citizens of Japan, and the air-conditioned apartment dwellers of New York City. It will not be easy to counter these claims. Ironically, however, the easiest to answer may well be those of the developing countries. The Trudeau administration has reduced government spending since 1966 in every major sector but two -- foreign aid and programs to overcome regional economic disparities within Canada. Foreign aid expenditures have increased regularly both in dollar value and as a percentage of G.N.P. Canada was the first GATT member to implement completely the Kennedy Round, offering new market opportunities to the third world. In addition, a unique center for international development research has been founded, supported by Canadian funds but guided

- 21 -

Bill introduced in Congress in 1866 designed to facilitate the entry into the United States of the Canadian provinces and the Western territories. Nevertheless, there is evidence which takes other forms, sometimes unintentional but nonetheless worrisome.

The issues of free trade vs. tariff, and reciprocity (with the U.S.) vs. protectionism, were the very stuff of Canadian election campaigns earlier in this century. The ictor over the years was always Canadian independence, a preference for parliamentary institutions rather than republicanism, a belief in the superiority of the legal and political system which guaranteed the life style of both the English-speaking and French-speaking communities, and a recognition that a trading state such as Canada could not survive either in a world of protectionism or in the economic embrace of the United States. No one doubted the illogic of the economic cost of an independent Canada or of the problems posed by the vastness of the northern half of the continent; no one questioned the economic advantages which would accrue from a north-south linkage. Notwithstanding, Canadians chose Canada. A federal election in 1911 was fought on the issue of continentalism and the government of the day, which advocated such a trend, was defeated. Prior to World War I, the source of most investment capital was the United Kingdom; the British preferential tariff still held many advantages for Canada; the challenges and opportunities of the frontier remained a stimulating and satisfying feature of Canadian life; mass communications facilities were in their infancy. In the result,

- 22 -

few Canadians possessed either the stimulus or the facility to relate to other than their immediate surroundings or their largely European origins. Continentalism was not so attractive a concept as it appears today.

The reason of course is that during the decades since 1911 many of the above factors have changed. Today the siren song of material benefit floods across the border by television, radio, film and magazine. While Canadians are not likely any more devoted now than in 1911 to the improvement of their economic well-being, their world has moved from an agricultural and primitive industrial base to one of technology and mass production. Immense capital and reliable markets are the mainstays of the system. For these, Canada has long turned to the United States. The dollar value of our trade in 1970 - almost $21 billion - illustrates the new intimacy. So does the extent of U.S. investment in Canada; an estimated $35 billion, about 30% of all U.S. foreign investment everywhere in the world. Diversification of trading partners and gradual repurchase of foreign investment could overcome some of this inter-dependency but would not reduce it substantially for many years. That being the case, Canadians will remain subject for some time to the vagaries of the United States economy. American inflation becomes our inflation, diminishment of U.S. capital outflows means a decrease in our growth rate, U.S. protectionism means Canadian unemployment. The dependency can be eliminated quickly enough,

...23

- 23 -

as the militant Canadian nationalists assert repeatedly, but
at an immense cost to Canadians as individuals and to Canada
in its relations with the United States.

Given that neither country wants such a schism,
it can be argued that it is in the interest of each not to hurt
the other either consciously or by indifference. When the
vulnerability is almost totally on one side, there must be a
proportionately higher degree of awareness on the other. This
awareness seemed to be missing last August. Canada was caught
in a situation not of its own making and in the result thousands
of Canadians have suffered grievously. This has done nothing
to enhance the image of the United States in Canada; America's
claims to greatness and to moral leadership are being challenged
broadly for perhaps the first time in a century in the editorial
pages of Canadian newspapers. One of the consequences has been
a fresh questioning within Canada of the fundamental relationship
of the two countries. That this should be so is cause for
concern. The Prime Minister put it this way in reply to a
newsman's question:

"When the Americans look at what they're doing
they say: "Well you know, we're doing this to
the Japanese and we're doing this to the
Europeans", but they don't seem to realize what
they are doing to Canadians. If they do realize
what they are doing and if it becomes apparent
that they just want us to be sellers of natural

...24

- 24 -

resources to them and buyers of their manu-
factured products -- all these if's -- we
will have to reassess fundamentally our relations
with them, trading, political and otherwise."

IV

Canadians and successive Canadian governments have
long assumed that the extensive economic relations of the United
States and Canada were different than those between other
countries, were "special". This view seems to have been shared
in the past by United States governments in the formulation of
policy. The integrated power grids, the oil and gas pipelines,
the rationalization of much of the continent's automobile
production, the massive investment flow (measured in total volume,
American investment in Canada is far, far larger than the reverse;
measured on a per capita basis Canadian investment in the United
States is higher), the sheer size of our trade - all these are
evidence that the relationship is intricately locked together.
Yet none of this evidence weighed heavily enough at Camp David
in August to dissuade President Nixon from applying universally
his 10% import surcharge. More bewildering even than the
surcharge was the impression gained in Canada that the United
States Government was not aware of the facts of the economic
relationship between the two countries. This episode seemed to
be evidence of those spasmodic blind spots. Or is it Canada

...25

- 26 -

three years (1936, 1944 and 1945) when the United States did not
enjoy a favourable balance of payments position in its merchandise
trade account with Canada. Canada has no discriminatory tariff
or non-tariff barriers aimed at United States goods. Canada's
dollar has been floating freely since June, 1970 and cannot
be suggested to have an artificial value compared with the
United States dollar. These last two points are important because
the two factors which the U.S. Government said had forced it to
act were the artificial currency valuation and unfair trading
practices of some countries. But not of Canada. Our sin,
apparently, has been to sell more to the United States than we
have bought in the past couple of years. Canadians have been
given the impression that the U.S. Government regards a bilateral
merchandise surplus in favour of the United States as normal and
proper but if that surplus turns into a deficit, partly because
of an imbalance in purchases under the Canada-U.S. Defence
Production Sharing Agreement - and this because the United
States is at war in Vietnam - then Canada must be at fault
somehow and draconian measures become justified, to the extent
of driving up Canadian unemployment.

For that is the result in Canada of the American
surcharge. One does not require a degree in economics to realize
that unemployed Canadians are not likely able to buy many imported
products - even products manufactured in the United States. Nor
will American investment in Canada offer a healthy return should
our economy become depressed.

...27

- 27 -

For Canadians, the issue has moved from annoyance
towards bitterness with the information that Canada's longstanding
total current account deficit with the United States increased
considerably during the first six months of this year. Not-
withstanding the merchandise surplus in 1970, our non-merchandise
deficit was so large that our total current account deficit in
favour of the United States was $214 million. This U.S. current
favourable balance skyrocketed to $273 million in the period
January 1 - June 30, 1971. (There is a net U.S. capital inflow
into Canada, but this has nothing to do with current trading
problems.) Canada, the source of much of America's foreign
exchange earnings, is bearing the unintended brunt of United
States policies to increase those earnings. This contradiction
seems not to be noticed in Washington.

In years gone by this continuing net benefit to the
United States economy from its intimate commercial relationship
with Canada has been acknowledged. On the assumption that the
basic awareness remained unchanged, the Canadian government
responded promptly but in low key to the August economic policy
announcement: a request of the U.S. government that the import
surcharge not apply to goods of Canadian origin because Canada
was not guilty of either of the two practices recited by President
Nixon as being detrimental, and because the surcharge would be
injurious to both countries; a statement of support for the
re-structuring of the international monetary system; total
sympathy and understanding for the desire of the U.S. government

...28

- 28 -

to base its economy on a better footing. Canada has not disputed the propriety of the United States acting initially in a non-discriminatory fashion against all countries. No special favours have been sought. The argument advanced, simply, is that those countries (and there are many) that have demonstrated their innocence in the key areas be granted exemption immediately, and not be used as involuntary hostages in order to bring additional pressure on the recalcitrant minority.

There was little popular outcry in Canada for retaliatory measures, as, for example, placing a very heavy export duty on natural gas and oil exports. Indeed, only one Canadian political party, the New Democrats, urged any action approaching retaliation. The government did act to assist these Canadian companies which faced severe business disruption and the consequent layoff of thousands of employees. Nevertheless, the United States attitude has not been sympathetic. The Canadian request for exemption from the surcharge has been rejected; Washington's reaction to the employment support legislation has taken the form of a warning that countervailing duties might apply if this legislation proves "injurious" to the United States.

The prevalent Canadian attitude thus far remains one more of sadness than of anger. The question Canadians face, however, is whether they can afford to remain so vulnerable. Some are even asking whether they can survive. After all, Canadian 1970 sales to the United States of $10.99 billion represented 13% of our G.N.P. whereas American sales to Canada of $9.91 billion

- 29 -

that same year represented only .97% of the United States
G.N.P.

The elephant simile is an appropriate one, but
it should not be exaggerated. In a speech of welcome to Soviet
Premier Alexei Kosygin in Ottawa in October, 1971, Mr. Trudeau
said:

"True friendship, when once attained, and if
soundly based, is strong enough to endure temporary
differences, and to emerge stronger for having been
tested. Canada's long relationship with its
oldest friends is proof to us that however uncertain
may be the consequences from time to time of short-
term events, the long run consists of a climate
of understanding and cooperation."

V

Notwithstanding that the bulk of this essay is
directed to Canadian-American relations, not all of Canada's
energies, of course, are devoted to living with its giant and
sometimes unpredictable neighbour. The new directions of
Canadian foreign policy are the result of new needs and of new
demands upon us from a variety of sources. These changes in
direction and emphasis will not always parallel the policies
of the United States, but there is no reason to suppose that
divergence is synonymous with disagreement or conflict. Both

- 30 -

countries desire a peaceful world, and Canada recognizes its
obligation to contribute towards that end. Present Canadian
defence policy was articulated in 1969 as meeting four
priorities:

- the defence of Canada;

- the defence of North America (through NORAD);

- NATO obligations;

- U.N. peacekeeping.

We are a three ocean country; measured in terms of population, we rank seventh of the 15 NATO allies. It is unrealistic to assume that Canada can or should perform a defence role oriented solely to Europe, or on the same scale as the larger powers. It is equally unrealistic, however, to assume that Canada is unreliable or reluctant to assume its responsibilities. Canadian forces served with distinction in both world wars and in Korea; Canada has participated in every single U.N. peacekeeping and peace observation mission as well as being a member of each of the three International Commissions for Supervision and Control in Indochina. Canadian Armed Forces personnel are now serving abroad with the U.N. Force in Cyprus, the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization (Middle East), the U.N. Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, the Control Commissions in Vietnam and Laos, as well as in NATO Europe. A specially trained and equipped battalion group remains constantly on a stand-by basis in Canada, ready to fly instantly to any part of the world in response to a request for Canadian participation in international peacekeeping.

- 31 -

We have absorbed much of our costs in these
undertakings rather than pass them on to the United Nations.
We have willingly and promptly paid all our U.N. special and
general assessments. Indeed the thought of resisting payment
as a means of expressing distaste for U.N. policies or as a
political lever would be so repugnant to most Canadians as
to be preposterous even to consider.

Geography has placed Canada between the two super-
powers and, thus beneath the main routes of intercontinental
nuclear missiles, whether they be rocket or bomber-borne.
Canada's southern neighbour has been a traditional friend; it
is in Canada's interest that her northern neighbour, notwithstanding
its different economic, political and social systems, be friendly
as well. A nation of 22 million persons cannot be regarded as
a threat by either of the United States or the Soviet Union.
That fact places upon Canada a responsibility to search for areas
of common interest with each. Those areas are well identified
in one direction, but require considerable probing and examination
in the other. That process is now underway. Immense tracts of
arctic and sub-arctic territory, giving rise to special trans-
portation, communication and developmental problems offer to
Canada and the Soviet Union a community of interest which each
is anxious to explore. Hopefully, other links will in due course
also develop and contribute to a climate of confidence extending
from the Hindu Kush up over the pole and down to the Gulf of
Mexico.

...32

- 32 -

We are a geographic interface between the two
nuclear adversaries; this has contributed to the innate
Canadian abhorrence of war and to our active pursuit of
internationally agreed disarmament and arms control measures.
Canada has been a member of every international body charged with
these subjects since 1945. It earned this assignment because
of the nuclear capability it gained during World War II as part
of the American-British-Canadian cooperative development of the
atomic bomb. The Government has declared to Parliament that
it regards disarmament and arms control as one of the most
important aspects of Canadian foreign policy. Our goal differs
not at all from the American goal; our approach, and our timing,
however, often vary considerably. This is so partly because
of our geographic location, partly because we regard large-
power reluctance to act more promptly as a symptom of size, and
partly because we are not ashamed to admit that we are frightened
by the possibility of accidental war and disgusted by the
advocates of over-kill.

In what other ways does Canadian foreign policy depart from American? One of the most obvious arises from our position as a founding member of the Commonwealth of Nations. This gives Canada a direct, informal link with 7.55 million people from every continent and several of the oceans who comprise the 31 country association. The character of the Commonwealth has changed immeasurably in the past 25 years. That association plus the much newer 22 member Agence de Coopération culturelle et technique des pays francophones, of which Canada is also a

- 33 -

member, contribute dimensions distinct from United States policy
and with a focus quite unlike that of the United Nations and
its several specialized agencies. Interestingly, the Secretary
General of each of these international associations - the
Commonwealth and La Francophonie - is a Canadian.

It is Canada's historic and linguistic separation
from the United States which has given to it the opportunity to
cultivate these links. And they are taken seriously. Of the
twelve countries which Prime Minister Trudeau has visited officially
since 1968, eight have been Commonwealth members (the others:
the United States, Japan, Indonesia, and the Soviet Union plus
a brief call at the Vatican). The existence of these relationships,
plus our parliamentary traditions, go far to explain why
Canada has never emphasized its hemispheric location.

Finally, if there is a single aspect of Canadian
foreign policy that attracts greater public support than any
other, it is that part which is devoted to economic assistance
to developing countries. Indeed the bulk of public criticism
of our aid program asserts that it is not growing fast enough.

VI

How to sum up any analysis of present Canadian
foreign policy? Emphasize, perhaps, the absence of pro-tentiousness.
Canada is not number one; it has little inclination towards

...34

- 34 -

chauvinism. It is not without pride, however, and it is not
easily discouraged. Hopefully, it may even have buried forever
self-delusion. Certainly it pays more heed to common sense than
to theory or theorists. All this has been better said by two
Canadians, one a Prime Minister in 1969, the other a humourist
in 1853. Each deserves honour of place in concluding this
essay.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau told a distinguished
American audience in Washington, D.C.:

"We Canadians do not have an exaggerated view
of our importance. We prefer to think that our
place in the world is such that we can occasionally
experiment with good ideas without risking a
complete upset of the whole international order.
We are as pleased as is any country when our
views are sought or our assistance requested.
But we may be excused, I hope, if we fail to take
too seriously the suggestion of some of our
friends from time to time that our acts -- or
our failure to act -- this or that way will have
profound international consequences or will lead
to widescale undesirable results."

The humourist was a maritimer named T. C. Haliburton
and he wrote on occasion about Canadian-American relations.

...35

- 35 -

His judgement is as sound today as it was a century and a quarter
ago:

"It is authors of silly books, editors of
silly papers, and demagogues of silly parties
that keep us apart."

Should any reader question the propriety of giving
the last word on such a heavy subject as foreign policy to a
social satirist rather than to a Prime Minister, he should be
cautioned that Canadians would not regard such as inappropriate.
That, perhaps, says something for the soundness both of Canadians
and of their attitude toward the world.

EXECUTIVE
FG-6-11-1/Kissinger, Henry
0028
KISSINGER, HENRY A./H* [ec]

CANADA

Ottawa,
K1A 0A2,
December 28th, 1972.

PERSONAL

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.,
U. S. A.

Dear Henry:

The nature of the business in which we are engaged increases the likelihood that, from time to time, we will be put in a vulnerable position on the flank. Nevertheless, I hope that I shall never again be caught from the rear as I was last week shortly after speaking to you the first time. My embarrassment continues, but the government's attitude, as stated in my first call, remains constant.

Thank you for your Christmas greeting. I wish you a happy new year with success in all your undertakings.

RECEIVED
SEP 24 1973
CENTRAL FILES

JAN 30 1969

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

MAIN BUILDING, WHITEHALL, LONDON, S.W.I

TELEPHONE WHITEHALL 7022

17th December, 1968.

My dear Henry

I do not need to tell you how delighted I was
to hear of your appointment to what will certainly
be the most critical post for relations between
America and Europe in the next decade. I have just
been reading the Brookings' papers, or I would have
written earlier. It will be an exciting business
to turn some of those diagnoses into prescriptions!

This is not an official letter, but if you have
any spare time on your first official visit to
London - the sooner the better so far as I am
concerned - I would love to lay on a dinner with
some of the boys, so that we could explore the
issues more freely.

With best wishes,

Dr. Henry Kissinger

THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS CLUB

IN an effort to broaden public discussion of foreign and Commonwealth policies, the Foreign Affairs Club was founded in October, 1965, under the chairmanship of Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, who was subsequently Secretary of State for Education and Science, having previously been Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and, earlier, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home, the former Prime Minister, who has since become Foreign Secretary, having also previously held the latter office and that of Commonwealth Secretary, was the second chairman of the club.

The present chairman is Mr. Denis Healey who was Secretary of State for Defence from 1964 to 1970.

The club dines at roughly monthly intervals to discuss major underlying issues—economic, political and strategic—which shape the policies abroad of Her Majesty's and other governments.

The club is particularly concerned to hear and discuss information and opinions that may not be in accord with the fashion of the moment; or which, while freely available in other countries, are nonetheless neglected in the United Kingdom.

Membership is largely drawn from journalism, the universities, parliament and business. Members are permitted to invite to each dinner new guests who are interested in taking part in the discussion and perhaps in joining the club.

Unless otherwise stated by the chairman, or his deputy, the guest speaker's address is not for attribution. In all circumstances answers to questions are off the record; and so, too, are comments from members and guests.

A subscription of £3 0s. 0d. is payable yearly on October 31. Members pay £2 0s. 0d. in advance for each dinner booked. All extras are paid for as desired.

Greenaways London LW 78710

MEMORANDUM

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

January 14, 1971

GENERAL

CO 160

FGG-11-1 /~~KISSINGER, HENRY A.~~

MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID YOUNG

KISSINGER, HENRY A./H*

FROM: Helmut Sonnenfeldt

Former UK Defense Minister Denis Healey will be in town from February 7 to February 11. He is tied up on the 8th and already has appointments with Secretaries Rogers and Laird and Gerard Smith. He would like to see Henry and prefers some time in the afternoon of February 9.

Please give me a time, so I can pass it on to the UK Embassy which called me with the above information. Alternatively, you can talk directly with Anthony Eliot of the UK Embassy.

Appointment: February 9 afternoon; time __________

Sonnenfeldt inform British Embassy __________

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

Dear Mrs. Heidefeldt:

Thank you for your letter and your kind
remarks about the United States. I hope
you and your daughter will remain friends
of our country.

Unfortunately, I am unable to see your
daughter during her visit to Washington.
as my schedule these days is quite full
with official business. I hope she will
nevertheless enjoy a visit to our capital.

Enclosure: Photos

Mrs. Ehrengard Heidefeldt
Ryttmastareg. 21
21752 Malmo
Sweden

KISSINGER, HENRY A. 1/4

OCT 12 1971

Dear Jack:

Many thanks for your letter of October 6. It has been a long time since I last heard from you and I was pleased to know what you have been doing. I am glad that you stay in touch with our old friends and wish I had more time to do the same. And, I know that my parents appreciate your seeing them.

It was thoughtful of you to add the note about your sister-in-law, but you don't need to be embarrassed.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Mr. Jack C. Heiman
Arrow Handicraft Corporation
1464 West 37th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60609

jlp:10/14/71

RECEIVED
OCT 13 1971

CENTRAL FILES

JACK HEIMAN
arrow handicraft corporation

1464 West 37th Street • Chicago, Illinois 60609
523-5411
Area Code 312

October 6, 1971

Dr. Henry Kissinger
White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Henry:

It is with true interest that I follow your activities on radio, television and in the press. You will never know what a thrill it is for me, that a fellow I used to live with for five years in my early life, is able to achieve what you have achieved in this great land of ours.

Knowing how busy you are and what tremendous responsibility you have, I never want to bother you. I feel that once you return to private life, we might have a chance to see each other again.

You might know that I make it my business to see your Father and Mother in New York whenever possible. This I did long before you achieved your high office.

Paul Stiefel, who lives just a couple of blocks away from me, tells me he is in touch with you and that you might be in Chicago the middle of October.

To my amazement and embarrassment, I heard yesterday that my Sister-in-law (who, by the way, is a very pretty girl) wrote you a letter using my name as an introduction. This I regret very much, because I believe it is uncalled for and I never believe anybody should use anyone else's name without prior consent. For this reason I am writing you this note, so you know the facts and I can make my sentiments known to you in this regard.

For all of your endeavors, I always wish you the best.

JCH/jk

TIME OUT FOR A MOH
HOLY GIFT
ABSENCE
TOY MUSEUM
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

[il]

MEMBERS OF
TOY MUSEUM, USA
AMERICAN
TOYS

JACK C. HEIMAN
8555 NORTH KEELER AVENUE
SKOKIE, ILLINOIS 60076

February 2, 1973

Dr. Henry Kissinger
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Henry:

Last night it was my pleasure to listen and see you on television. The thought crossed my mind that I had better write these few lines to you before you leave for Hanoi.

I know, as you certainly do, that the whole world has been watching you for quite sometime. I have been watching too, but for me it has been more than just watching. I shall never forget those years from 1930 to 1935. Those were the formative years of my life when due to circumstances I made my home with your parents, you and Walter. Who-ever would have dreamt at that time what the future was to hold for us. Who could have dreamt that you would become an assistant to the President of this great land of ours and would play such a major role in Foreign Policy decision-making concerning the whole world. I know how proud your father, your mother, Walter, and your children must be of your accomplishments. I, too, share their feelings.

My thoughts, good wishes, and prayers have always been with you but especially so these past few months. I am so proud and pleased to congratulate you on a job so well done. It is my fervant hope and prayer that your endeavors now and in the future shall only be crowned with success.

While you are in Hanoi, I will be attending the Toy Fair in Nurnberg. You can imagine how my thoughts and feelings will again touch the past. Upon my return I shall make my yearly trip to New York City for the Toy Fair there. I hope that as in the past I will have the opportunity to visit with your parents.

I also hope that sometime in the future (on my occasional trip to Washington) you may be able to see your way clear to afford me the pleasure and opportunity to see you for a few moments. After all

(continued)