Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1937. "THE WING OF AMERICA"

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 135, 9 June 1937, Page 10

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1937. "THE WING OF AMERICA"

Is Canada a stumbling-block to Empire foreign policy decisions which otherwise might have been accepted by the Imperial Conference? This question is raised (and, so far as the A.A.P. writer is concerned, is answered in the affirmative) in .a cablegram yesterday, which suggests that Canada maintains a certain detachment from foreign policy because of Canada's belief that she is "safe under America's wing." The writer mentioned above adds:

It is believed that Mr. Mackenzie King even went so 'far as to say that while Canada supported the Empire it was not going to be dragged into any European upset or even into a fight, say, for Egypt, or perhaps any part of the Empire. This attitude resulted in today's meeting of heads of delegations having to recast the foreign policy resolutions drafted as a result of the earlier speeches. . .

It will be noted that the sender of the, message is almost as non-committal in his statement as Mr. Mackenzie King is alleged to be in his foreign policy. So, strictly speaking, there is at the time of writing1 no actual evidence that the Canadian Prime Minister's attitude is as suggested. But there is ample evidence that more than one publicist have interpreted the Canadian policy to be just as non-committal as the author of the cabled story implies. An analysis of such interpretations and anticipations will show that, whatever may be said in criticism of Canada's foreign policy reservations, they embody .little or no element of surprise. They may not be, on account of that, any less regrettable. M. Andre Siegfried enjoys welldeserved distinction as an impartial observer who has a penetrating vision and who writes with French clarity. Quite recently he penned the following:

Apart from mortal danger to England, the latent temptation to isolate herself in North America is perhaps the real tendency in Canada, and the one that goes deepest..

The reservation in the-first six words safeguards the existence of England herself, but it does not safeguard any of those Empire rights and interests along the Mediterranean-Red Sea route, in which Australia and New Zealand appear to be more interested than is Canada. While yesterday's cablegram mentions war over Egypt as a possible future occasion for Canada's abstention, M. Siegfried, diving into the past, finds an Egypt in the Chanak affair, which might have produced a new war between Britain and Turkey several years after the Great War, but which died of Empire inertia. He finds in Chanak a precedent:

If England is in mortal peril, a Canadian army will intervene to help defend her, as she did during the Great War. There is no formal engagement, however, for the Canadian Parliament is still master of the situation, and will malCe its own decision. Yet it would be impossible to refuse, for the pressure of the British element in the Dominion would be irresistible, and in an explosion of passion would carry all before it. ... If, on the other

hand, it is simply a question of an "English" war, of no vital interest to the Empire, the attitude changes completely, and the Canadian Government reserves the right to act in conformity with the interests of the Dominion.

And in that case the Canadians "would lag behind, as in the Chanak incident; which was so typical, and incidentally established a precedent." From this French observer's reasoned analysis, to the reported lack of agreement at the Conference, is but a step. His analysis does not prove the truth of the cabled report, but explains, if it ■ is, why it is. Canada, M. Siegfried argues, depends in defence matters mainly on the United States; yet depends also, in all matters, on Britain. Britain "counterbalances the American colossus, whose physical pressure otherwise would become unbearable.

... The combination of these two elements is essential to the political existence of Canada, for her independence is made up of the equilibrium which results from this double dependence." In line with that duality f American continental pull balancing Empire pull) "Canada is exerting constant pressure to prevent the British Government from compromising itself on the Continent more than it can help." For American reasons Canada "imposed" on the Empire the policy of dropping the Japanese alliance, an event of first magnitude in history. Canada "benefits both from being associated with the Imperial community, and also from being separate from it, which is very adroit." Benefits of that kind are purchasable, of course, only at a price. "Any rupture, even a serious difference of opinion between London and Washington, would put

the Ottawa Government in an impossible situation, for it would not know which side to choose." To avoid that situation is Britain's "chief aim." Immense consequences flow therefrom. Hence the Imperial Conference dissent.

Disappointment at. the probability that the Imperial Conference will fail [to cari)f Canada with it into any farreaching foreign policy decisions must not prevent the rest of the Empire from looking facts in the face and making the best of them. Even disappointments may be clarifying, for they remove mirages and false hopes. Mr. Lloyd George's picture of "the Empire" walking into' the leadership of, the Powers implies a Canada that the A.A.P. says does not exist and which M. Siegfried says cannot exist. The French writer is also responsible for the statement that Canada's dependence on exports, and on exports which need oversea markets over and above the British and United States markets, has developed a Canadian demand for freer trade throughout the world; in fact, on such trade "Canada's future depends." Link up this confident opinion with recent cablegrams concerning the freer trade advocacy in Washington, and again an alignment of Canadian and American attitude is discernible. So, for good or ill, Canada is an interpreter of the United States to the Empire, a brake on Empire \ commitments, and altogether a fact of tremendous importance. "If the fear of losing Canada, in a dispute with the United States, were relegated to second place," writes M. Siegfried, "the role of Great Britain in international affair? would be very different." But so long as that fear takes first place, Empire foreign policy seems destined to maifk time accordingly, and thus it is thai Canada, "a second-grade [American Power," pulls with such powerful strings in the affairs of the Empire and of Europe.