I conceive the general purpose of your visit to Ottawa to be the
improvement of our relations with Canada under its Conservative
Government. We seek to establish the same mutual confidence and close
working relationship with the new government that we enjoyed
[Page 687]
with the Liberal Government
for 22 years. The attainment of that relationship is, however, somewhat
impeded by the existence of vocal, widespread criticism of the United
States and its policies. In large part this criticism owes its origin to
Canadian nationalism. It has been further nourished by the election
campaign as well as by the current recession in Canada.1 A major manifestation of this has been a tendency to
assert Canada’s independence of the United States. Some members of the
government have been prone to play upon the emotional response that such
assertions evoke and to try to make the United States the whipping boy
for many of Canada’s ills. It will be important during your visit to
convey to members of the government a sense of the importance of
interdependence among independent nations, and of maintaining harmony
and unity among allies confronted with a common danger.
We would like to persuade the Canadians that (a) United States policies
are reasonable; (b) far from taking Canada for granted, the United
States prizes its intimate relationship; and (c) the United States
recognizes that problems exist in our relations and is determined to
find constructive solutions on the basis of mutual give and take. In
general I think frankness should be the key note, with a forceful
presentation of the United States case wherever our policies are
imperfectly understood.
The text of your speech to Parliament sets a good perspective for the
public aspects of your visit.2 Your
private talks with the Canadian Ministers could emphasize the common
global responsibilities of Canada and the United States. They would be
interested in a broad-brush treatment of the United States appraisal of
Soviet trends, with particular reference to disarmament, and the
possibility of a Summit meeting.
It will be well to be wary of tendencies on the part of some of the
Ministers to go into specifics and even become contentious. As you note
in your speech there is a multiplicity of established mechanisms through
which the two Governments can give their problems the full attention
they require. Also, I shall have opportunities for separate meetings
with the Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Smith. I
am enclosing a memorandum that suggests ways to handle specific subjects
which, within the foregoing context, are likely to be discussed.
[Enclosure]
4
SPECIFIC TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE PRESIDENT AT OTTAWA
1. Continental Defense
Our relationship with Canada in cooperative efforts to improve the
defense of the North American Continent has been most fruitful and
is of an especially intimate character. Consultation is maintained
through a number of joint committees of which the best known is the
Permanent Joint Board on Defense. We would like to have the
Conservative Government’s assurance that this relationship will
continue. We have been pleased to note recently that the Canadian
Parliament has ratified the establishment of the North American Air
Defense Command (NORAD) under
General Partridge and Air Marshal Slemon. We view this Command as
part of the NATO concept.
2. Atomic Energy
Cooperation
Cooperation between Canada and the United States in the peaceful uses
of atomic energy has been closer than with any other country. The
Canadians will be interested to know that under our amended Atomic
Energy Act, agreements for greater cooperation in non-weapons
military applications, e.g., power reactors for propulsion and other
purposes, will be possible.
3. Development of the Columbia
River Basin
We should call the attention of the Prime Minister to the rising
concern among people of the Pacific northwest states over General
McNaughton’s public
statements reflecting his interest in the possible future diversion
of Columbia River waters into the Fraser. We hope that the Canadian
Government shares, and will continue to share, our belief that the
Columbia Basin should be jointly developed on a cooperative and
equitable basis to obtain maximum benefits for both countries.
4. Meeting of Joint Cabinet
Committee on Economic and Trade Affairs
We have suggested to the Canadians that the next annual meeting be in
Ottawa on August 4. Although my trip to Brazil will prevent my
attending, Mr. Dillon will be
able to represent the State Department, and
[Page 689]
the other Cabinet officers concerned on our
side will be available. The Canadians may prefer a date later in the
Fall. We should try to get them to accept an August date, in order
to provide an early forum for detailed discussion of matters which
would otherwise take too much of the time of your visit. Moreover,
we consider it important to have such a meeting prior to the
Commonwealth Economic Conference opening in Montreal September 15,
so as to forestall any action at that Conference directed against
the United States.
5. Specific Economic
Problems
As regards individual problems such as our wheat disposal programs
under PL 480,5 the restriction of
oil imports and the tariff on lead and zinc, I would suggest that
you should avoid being drawn out further than the statements
contained in your speech. The valid objections of the Canadians to
our wheat disposal effort centered on the operation of our barter
programs. This program was drastically revised and curtailed over a
year ago and since then Canadian experts admit that our wheat
disposal program is no obstacle to Canada. This is borne out by this
year’s Canadian wheat export figures. Virtually all other questions
can be deferred until the Joint Cabinet Committee can discuss
them.
6. Opening of St. Lawrence
Seaway
You may wish to indicate to the Prime Minister your expectation of
participating in an international ceremony marking the official
opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Tentative plans call for the
ceremony to be held on Cornwall Island (Canadian territory) on June
23, 1959.
7. Visit of Prime Minister
Diefenbaker
I recall that a few months ago when you suggested to Prime Minister
Diefenbaker that he visit
Washington, he urged you to come to Canada instead and you agreed.
In this context you might tell him, without mentioning any date,
that you hope your next meeting with him will be in Washington.
8. Trade with Communist
China
While Canada does not recognize the Communist Chinese Government and
maintains controls over trade with that country, it does permit
trade in non-strategic commodities. There has been recent criticism
in Canada that the United States’ China trade policy operates to
prevent U.S.-owned Canadian companies from selling merchandise,
particularly automobiles, to Communist China. To meet this problem
we are prepared to propose during your visit a modification in the
Treasury
[Page 690]
Department’s
licensing practices governing the operations of American
subsidiaries established in Canada. While we should not publish the
details of our proposal, the Canadian Government will want to be in
a position to indicate that some accommodation has been reached on
this score. This will result in pressures for similar treatment for
United States subsidiaries in Japan, Indonesia and elsewhere and
might also lead to similar pressures from some U.S. domestic
interests. We assume in this connection that the Canadian Government
will not recognize Communist China and will continue to support the
moratorium formula in the United Nations.
9. Concessions to Canadians in
COCOM
We hope to obtain Canadian support for the continued embargo of
nickel and cobalt if the U.S. agrees to a removal of copper from the
multilateral embargo list. In this connection it can be noted that,
of the 7 metals items which Canada wishes to delete from embargo
(iron and steel scrap, molybdenum, aluminum, copper, cobalt and
nickel) the U.S. in the COCOM
negotiations has already made significant concessions on the first
three.
10. Arctic Inspection
Zone
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has
not yet replied to a letter from Khrushchev dated May 30, in which the Soviet leader
took sharp exception to Diefenbaker’s earlier disapproval of the Soviet
attitude regarding the U.S. proposal in the UN for an Arctic inspection zone. We have agreed, at
the Canadian request, to postpone the transmission of your reply to
Khrushchev’s letter to
you of May 9 until after your visit to Ottawa. Now there is the new
Khrushchev letter to you,
received July 2. This subject should be discussed.6
11. NATO Food Bank
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has
referred on several occasions recently to the desirability of
setting up “something in the nature of a food bank whereby there
will be available under NATO
direction food for distribution among those countries that today
stand in danger of being overrun by the Soviets by economic means”.
In view of the generalized nature of his suggestions we are not
clear whether the Prime Minister is suggesting jointly controlled
stockpiles or individual national stockpiles. The Canadian proposals
are now properly before the NATO
Food and Agricultural Committee for further study.
[Page 691]
12. Other International
Questions
In developing the theme of the interdependence of independent
nations, it would be useful to refer to Canada’s recent effective
participation in the solution of major international problems, for
example: their contribution of forces to the United Nations command
in Korea; their participation in the International Control
Commission in the Indo-China States; and their participation in the
United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East. We hope to
encourage the Conservative Government to continue playing this kind
of effective role in international affairs. The Canadians may also
be interested in learning our thinking on Lebanon and on problems
faced by De Gaulle in Algeria
and Tunisia. These and other wide-ranging international questions
whose bilateral aspects are of interest to the Canadians might most
appropriately be discussed in detail by me when I meet with the
Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Smith.
13. Communiqué
For our purposes, a communiqué or joint statement following your
visit is not necessary. Your meeting with the Prime Minister is to
be of the same informal nature as Prime Minister Macmillan’s recent visit with you. A
communiqué would impair this aspect of informality, and it is
preferable to avoid focusing public attention on specific matters,
since the problem troubling the Canadians cannot be wholly resolved
at this time. However, it is probable that the Canadians will press
us for either a communiqué or joint statement. If they do, I believe
that, rather than let the matter become a major issue, we could
agree to generalized language emphasizing mutual cordiality and
cooperation.
