1 Mackenzie King comes most immediately to mind. For illuminating discussions, see the essays in John English and Stubbs, J. O., Mackenzie King: Widening the Debate,(Toronto: Macmillan, 1977)Google ScholarBlair Neatby, H“Mackenzie King and the Historians, ” 1–14Google Scholar, and Courtney, John C.“Prime-Ministerial Character: An Examination of Mackenzie King's Political Leadership, ” 55–88Google Scholar

2 In the Canadian literature this argument has been advanced most explicitly by Hockin, Thomas A.,See his “Foreign Affairs: Canada Abroad as a Measure of Canada at Home, ” in Redekop, John H.(ed.),Approaches to Canadian Politics (Scarborough Prentice-Hall of Canada, 1978, esp.83–85.Google Scholar It has been a recurring theme in his other writings as well. See in particular his “Federalist Style in International Politics, ” in Clarkson, Stephen (ed.)An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada?(Toronto:McClelland and Stewart, 1968, 119–30;Google Scholar “The Foreign Policy Review and Decision Making in Canada. ” in Hertzman, Lewis, Warnock, John and Hockin, Thomas ,Alliances and Illusions(Edmonton: M. G. Hurtig, 1969), 93–136Google Scholar; and “Canada in the World, ” in his Government in Canada (London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975), 97–121Google Scholar It will be clear from what follows, however, that I do not fully share Professor Hockin's belief in the importance of idealism (or “voluntarism”) as a factor in Canadian foreign policy behaviour.

3 Particularly those who have been influenced by the literature of comparative politics, and especially by Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965).Google Scholar For brief reviews of approaches to the analysis of “political culture” (variously defined) in Canada, see Whittington, Michael S. “Political Culture: The Attitudinal Matrix of Politics, ” in Redekop (ed.), Approaches to Canadian Politics, 138–53Google Scholar and Bell, David V. J., “Political Culture in Canada, ” in Whittington, Michael S. and Williams, Glen (eds.), Canadian Politics in the 1980's (Toronto: Methuen,.1981), 108–25.Google Scholar The preoccupations of this address correspond more closely to those of “operational code” analysts, although the format is less structured and formal. For examples of the genre, see Holsti, Ole, “The ‘Operational Code’ Approach to the Study of Political Leaders: John Foster Dulles' Philosophical and Instrumental Beliefs, ” this JOURNAL 3 (1970), 123–57Google Scholar, and McLellan, David S., “The ‘Operational Code’ Approach to the Study of Political Leaders: Dean Acheson's Philosophical and Instrumental Beliefs, ” this JOURNAL 4 (1971), 52–75.Google Scholar

4 In Canada, the most extensive investigation of this kind in the foreign policy field to date has been the Canadian International Image Study, centred in Carleton and York and based on interviews conducted in 1975. Several publications have resulted. See in particular Byers, R. B., Leyton-Brown, David, and Lyon, Peyton V., “The Canadian International Image Study, ” International Journal 32 (1977), 605–71;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lyon, Peyton V. and Tomlin, Brian W., Canada as an International Actor (Toronto: Macmillan, 1979).Google Scholar

5 See his Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969)Google Scholar. Recalling in his introductory “Apologia Pro Libre Hoc” that King Alphonso X of Spain is often alleged to have observed “that if he had been present at the creation he would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe, ” Acheson goes on to remark that “In a sense the postwar years were a period of creation, for the ordering of which I shared with others some responsibility. ” Truman's secretary of state was not renowned for modesty. Earlier in the same passage he describes the task of creating “a world out of chaos” as “just a bit less formidable than that described in the first chapter of Genesis” (ibid., xvii).

6 There were also disagreements, of course, among the smaller powers, and within the great power ranks, but these were ancillary to the main bout. An intricately detailed account from the American point of view can be found in Russell, Ruth B., A History of the United Nations Charter: The Role of the United States 1940-45 (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1958).Google Scholar

7 The most helpful sources on Canada's role in the founding of the United Nations are Eayrs, James, In Defence of Canada, Vol. 3, Peacemaking and Deterrence (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), esp. 137–67;Google ScholarHolmes, John W., The Shaping of Peace, Vol. 1, Canada and the Search for World Order (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), esp. 229–95;Google Scholar and Pearson, Lester B., Mike: The Memoirs of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, Vol. 1, 1897-1948 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), esp. 244–78.Google Scholar Useful earlier accounts can be found in Soward, F. H., Canada in World Affairs: From Normandy to Paris, 1944-1946 (Toronto: Oxford University Press for the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1950), 124–97Google Scholar, and Soward, F. H. and Mclnnis, Edgar, Canada and the United Nations (New York: Manhattan Publishing for the Carnegie Endowment and the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1956), 1–32.Google Scholar Illuminating interpretations are provided by Glazebrook, G. P. de T., “The Middle Powers in the United Nations System, ” International Organization 1 (1947), 307–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and by MacKay, R. A., “The Canadian Doctrine of the Middle Power, ” in Dyck, Harvey L. and Peter Krosby, H. (eds.), Empire and Nations: Essays in Honour of Frederick H. Soward (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969), 133–43.Google Scholar

8 Article 27.

9 Article 10.

10 Article 61, paragraph 2.

11 Articles 55, 56, 57, 59, 62, 63, 64, 66 and 70.

12 For revealing evidence of the Canadian view of the Australian role, see Lester Pearson's comments on the head of the Australian delegation, Evatt, Dr. E. V., in Mike, Vol. 1, 273, 276-77.Google Scholar Pearson observes that Evatt “was saved from the snares of his courage (or, if you like, from his pig-headedness and vanity) by other delegations, including our own, who undertook the unspectacular but essential task of finding compromises for a Charter which had to be signed by the Soviet Union and by Liberia alike. In doing so we were charged by Dr. Evatt with weakness, but I think that deep down he knew that our policy of moderation and of reasonable compromise prevented the conference from being wrecked by some of his amendments if they had been carried against the opposition of the Big Four” (ibid., 277).

13 Holmes, The Shaping of Peace, ix.

14 For full accounts see Eayrs, James, In Defence of Canada, Vol. 4, Crowing up Allied (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980)Google Scholar, and Reid, Escott, Time and Fear and Hope: The Making of the North Atlantic Treaty, 1947-1949 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977).Google Scholar

15 See Munro, John A. and Inglis, Alex. I. (eds.), Mike: The Memoirs of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, Vol. 2, 1948-57 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973), esp. 135-90, 279–335Google Scholar, and Stairs, Denis, The Diplomacy of Constraint: Canada, the Korean War, and the United States (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974).Google Scholar

16 Fora helpfully annotated bibliography of the literature on Canadian defence policy for the period up to the 1970s, see Gray, Colin S., Canadian Defence Priorities: A Question of Relevance (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin, 1972), 271–84.Google ScholarA vigorously critical analysis of the Canadian military response to the cold war can be found in John Warnock, Partner to Behemoth: The Military Policy of a Satellite Canada (Toronto: New Press, 1970).Google Scholar

17 For careful quantitative analyses, consult Tomlin, Brian W., “Polarization and Alignment in the General Assembly: The Effects of World Cleavages on Canadian Foreign Policy Behaviour, ” in Tomlin, (ed.), Canada's Foreign Policy: Analysis and Trends (Toronto: Methuen, 1978), 51–68Google Scholar, and Lyon, and Tomlin, , Canada as an International Actor, esp. 163–89.Google Scholar

18 Though not always enthusiastically so. For a fascinating analysis of the attitudes of senior External Affairs officers in the period immediately preceding the creation of the North Atlantic alliance, see Page, Don and Munton, Don, “Canadian Images of the Cold War 1946-47, ” International Journal 32 (1977), 577–604.Google Scholar

19 For a review and analysis of Canadian peacekeeping deployments during the first two decades of the art, see Taylor, Alastair, Cox, David, and Granatstein, J. L., Peacekeeping: International Challenge and Canadian Response (Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1968).Google Scholar

20 Notably in Suez and Cyprus.

21 Not all observers are impressed by the intensity of the effort, but evidence can nonetheless be found in the Korean War, the 1956 Suez crisis, the conduct of relations with China and Cuba following their respective revolutions, the pursuit of agreements on arms control and disarmament, the prosecution of the war in Vietnam, and a number of other contexts.

22 See the government's 1970 “white paper” entitled Foreign Policy for Canadians (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970), esp. the pamphlet on the “United Nations, ” 15–17.Google Scholar

23 Readers who wish to taste the wine for themselves will find no better vintage than the collected essays of Holmes, John W.. See in particular The Better Part of Valour: Essays on Canadian Diplomacy (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1970);CrossRefGoogle ScholarCanada: A Middle-Aged Power (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976);Google Scholar and Life with Uncle: The Canadian-American Relationship (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981).Google Scholar Lester Pearson's position was very similar and finds written expression not merely in his memoirs, but also in some of his other publications, including Democracy in World Politics (Toronto: S. J. Reginald Saunders, 1955);Google ScholarDiplomacy in the Nuclear Age (Toronto: S. J. Reginald Saunders, 1959);Google Scholar and Words and Occasions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970).Google Scholar For a systematic analysis of Pearson's political beliefs, see Lawrence, Donald Arthur, “The Operational Code of Lester B. Pearson, ” paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, University of Toronto, 1974.Google Scholar For another example drawn from the writings of Canadian practitioners, consider Andrew, Arthur, Defence by Other Means; Diplomacy for the Underdog (Toronto: Canada Institute for International Affairs, 1970).Google Scholar

24 For the classic statement, see the study conducted jointly by Heeney, A. D. P., Canadian ambassador to Washington, and Livingston T. Merchant, American ambassador to Ottawa, entitled Canada and the United States: Principles for Partnership (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965).Google Scholar To the pain of its Canadian co-author, its publication aroused a storm of controversy in Canada. See Heeney, Arnold, The Things that are Caesar's: The Memoirs of a Canadian Public Servant (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), esp. 182–200.Google Scholar Among the consequences was an intense academic and journalistic debate about the merits of “quiet diplomacy. ” For the most prominent example of the genre, see Stephen Clarkson (ed.), An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada? An intriguing analysis of the “diplomatic culture” ofCanada-US relations is contained in K. J. Holsti, “Canada and the United States, ” in Spiegel, Steven L. and Waltz, Kenneth N. (eds.), Conflict in World Politics (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1971), 375–96.Google Scholar

25 Nye, Joseph S., Jr. has suggested on the basis of an examination of Canadian-American bargaining at the “summit” that the Canadians have tended to do rather well. See his “Transnational Relations and Interstate Conflicts: An Empirical Analysis, ” International Organization 28 (1974), 961–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a discussion of the relative bargaining advantages of the two countries, consult Winham, Gilbert R., “Choice and Strategy in Continental Relations,” in Axline, Andrew, et al., Continental Community? Independence and Integration in North America (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1974), 228–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 For discussions of these instruments, see Holsti, Kal J. and Allen Levy, Thomas, “Bilateral Institutions and Transgovernmental Relations between Canada and the United States, ” International Organization 28 (1974), 875–901;Google ScholarWilloughby, William R., The Joint Organizations of Canada and the United Slates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979):Google Scholar and Munton, Don, “The Political Roles of the International Joint Commission, ” paper prepared for the Institute of International Studies, University of Toronto, June 1979.Google Scholar

27 Mitchell Sharp, “Canada-U.S. Relations: Options for the Future, ” International Perspectives (Special Issue) (Autumn 1972).

28 Simeon, Richard, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy: The Making of Recent Policy in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972).Google Scholar

29 No more vivid demonstration of the capacity of international politics to discourage the idealisms of youthful diplomats can be had than through a reading of Harold Nicolson's diary of the Paris Peace Conference. See his Peacemaking 1919 (London: Methuen, 1964).Google Scholar

30 “However convinced I may be of the Tightness and inevitability of a given political doctrine, ” Nicolson once complained in reference to his involvement in partisan British politics, “I am temperamentally unable to give even a faint breath of fanaticism to my conviction. ” Of this passage Pearson later remarked, “He might have been writing about me” (Mike, Vol. 2, 9).Google Scholar

31 See Hartz, Louis (ed.), The Founding of New Societies (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1964).Google Scholar

32 Whitaker, Reginald, The Government Party: Organizing and Financing the Liberal Party of Canada 1930-58 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977).Google Scholar

33 Though it is certainly oversimplified, and begs the question of which of the causal forces involved are fundamental and which are not. For a discussion of some commonly cited theories, see Bell, David V. J., “Political Culture in Canada, ” in Whittington, and Williams, (eds.), Canadian Politics in the 1980's, 117–22Google Scholar, and Bell, David and Tepperman, Lome, The Roots of Disunity: A Look at Canadian Political Culture (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979).Google Scholar Stimulating reflections can be found in William Christian, “Ideology and Canadian Politics, ” in Redekop, (ed.), Approaches to Canadian Politics, 114–36Google Scholar, and more extensively in Christian, William and Campbell, Colin, Political Parties and Ideology in Canada: Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists, Nationalists (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1974).Google Scholar

34 Cairns, Alan C., “The Governments and Societies of Canadian Federalism, ” this JOURNAL 10 (1977), 695–725.Google Scholar

35 The argument became particularly vigorous in later life. See his Canada's First Century, 1867-1967 (Toronto: Macmillan, 1970).Google Scholar An analysis of Creighton's thought can be found in Berger, Carl, The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English-Canadian Historical Writing: 1900-1970 (TorontoOxford University Press, 1976), 208–37.Google Scholar

36 The targets are clear enough in Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1965)Google Scholar, in which those who receive the hardest knocks include the “officials of External Affairs, ” who “had mostly been educated in the twilight scepticism of Oxford liberalism” (49). But they are far from villains, operating as they do in response to forces larger, than themselves, more clearly identified in the essays of Technology and Empire: Perspectives on North America (Toronto: House of Anansi, 1969).Google Scholar

37 See, for example, Clement, Wallace, Continental Corporate Power: Economic Linkages Between Canada and the United States (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977).Google Scholar

38 It is a cliché, but a pertinent one, to cite Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Federalism and the French Canadians (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968).Google Scholar

39 For a stimulating analysis of this cluster of intellectual phenomena in the early Trudeau years, see Bruce Doern, G., “Recent Changes in the Philosophy of Policy-Making in Canada, ” this JOURNAL 4 (1971), 243–64.Google Scholar In the context of foreign policy, see Thordarson, Bruce, Trudeau and Foreign Policy: A Study in Decision-Making (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1972), esp. 79–97.Google Scholar

40 For a review of some of these developments, see Kirton, John J., “Foreign Policy Decision-Making in the Trudeau Government: Promise and Performance,” International Journal 33 (1978), 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar An “insider's” discussion of the latest episode in a long series will be found in Osbaldeston, Gordon, “Reorganizing the Department of External Affairs,” International Journal 37 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, forthcoming. See also Dobell, William M., “Interdepartmental Management in External Affairs,” Canadian Public Administration 21 (1978), 83–102;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMadar, Daniel and Stairs, Denis, “Alone on Killers' Row: The Policy Analysis Group and the Department of External Affairs, ”International Journal 32 (1977), 727–55;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Maybee, J. R., “1CER and its Two-Year Search for an Approach to Integration, ” International Perspectives (September/October 1972), 40–43.Google Scholar Doubters may find confirmation of their scepticism in Kim Nossal, Richard, “Allison through the (Ottawa) Looking Glass: Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy in a Parliamentary System, ” Canadian Public Administration 22 (1979), 610–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 See Kirton, “Foreign Policy Decision-Making in the Trudeau Government, ” and Dobell, William M., “Is External Affairs a Central Agency? —A Question of Leadership Controls,” International Perspectives (May/June, July/August 1979), 8–12.Google Scholar

42 The most extensive analysis is Thordarson, Trudeau and Foreign Policy.

43 It was described as “a comprehensive long-term strategy to develop and strengthen the Canadian economy and other aspects of our national life and in the process to reduce the present Canadian vulnerability” (Mitchell Sharp, “Canada-U.S. Relations: Options for the Future, ” 13).

44 See Osbaldeston, “Reorganizing the Department of External Affairs. ”

45 Oral briefing, Ottawa, Spring 1982.