Course 2, Volume 1A. American Foreign Policy in Growth and Action Page: 317
This book is part of the collection entitled: National WASP WWII Museum and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the National WASP WWII Museum.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE UNITED STATES WORKS FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE DEFENSE
UN action in Korea, was in an agreement reached
on October 26th for a coordination of economic
efforts. This agreement was embodied in a
document titled "Principles for Economic
Cooperation."39
Canada's forces went into action in Korea on
February 19, 1951 and by May 1st Canadian
troops comprised one-third of the
Canada sends Commonwealth Division contribu-
troops to ted by various members of the
Korea and British union. In spite of the drain
Europe caused by the Korean war, the
Canadian parliament voted on Oc-
tober 22, 1951 to send 12,000 troops (an infantry
brigade and eleven air squadrons) to serve with
the NATO forces in Europe.40
A joint United States-Canadian civilian defense
planning program agreed to on March 27, 1951
further pointed up the growing realization that
the fates of the two nations were
New commonly shared.4' And on May
arrangements 1st, an agreement was readied by
for U. S. the two countries with respect to
bases in United States bases in Newfound-
Newfoundland land.42 These baes had been se-
cured when Newfoundland was a
separate dominion. When Newfoundland became
the tenth province in the Canadian Confedera-
tion on April 1, 1949, new arrangements had to
be made to safeguard the interests of both the
United States and Canada, as well as to insure
the continuance of tenancy by the United States
Air Force on these strategic outposts in the North
Atlantic.
In spite of these indications of closer accord in
economic and defense matters, Canadian impa-
tience over the delays in the St.
Foreign Lawrence seaway project and con-
Secretary cern over the possibility that actions
Pearson warns taken in Washington might bring
of too great on a third world war caused fric-
reliance tions between the two nations. Mr.
on U. S. Lester Pearson, Canadian Foreign
Secretary and Canada's leading
39See U.S. Dept. of State Bulletin, XXIII:743, Nov. 6, 1950, for
the terms of this agreement.
400n Feb. 5, 1951 Defense Minister Claxton announced that Can-
ada was embarking upon a 3-year defense program to cost more-
than $5,000,000,000.
41See U.S. Dept. of State Bulletin, XXIv:588, Apr. 9, 1951, for
terms of the agreement.
42Ibid., 813-14, May 21, 1951, contains the terms of this agreement.delegate to the UN, warned in a speech at the UN
on April 10, 1951 that there was danger in the
tendency of the international organization to
become "too much the instrument of any one
country.". He obviously had the United States in
mind for he said on the subject of Canadian-
United States relations: "The days of relatively
easy and automatic relations with our neighbor
are, I think, over."43 Mr. Pearson's fears were
not realized, but there was no doubt that, for oneCanadian
Premier says
Canada may
go-It-alone on
seaway
projectreason and another, dissatisfaction
with the United States was present
north of the border.44 And when
Prime Minister St. Laurent was in
Washington on September 28, 1951
he made it plain that Canada would
go it alone on the St. Lawrence
project-in fact was prepared to doso immediately in view of the failure of the Ameri-
can Congress to act on the proposal. The Prime
Minister, however, was quick to acknowledge, on
a later visit to the United States on November
19th that Canada recognized the leadership of
the United States in the struggle to preserve the
free world and that his country would continue
to support the position of the United States in
that fight.
As the presidential elections of 1952 ap-
proached, the administration became more active
in its desire to get approval for the St. Lawrence
plan. President Truman sent a let-
U. S. Senate ter to Congress on April 19, 1952
delays action urging early enactment of the pro-
on posal.45 But the Senate, mindful
seaway of the coming campaign, on June
because of 18th, passed the buck once more to
1952 the next Congress by voting 43 to
campaign 40 to recommit a resolution sanc-
tioning the 1941 agreement. On
June 30th the Canadian and United States gov-
ernments asked the International Joint Commis-
sion to authorize engineering works for power
development in the section of the river known as
International Rapids. This application was ap-
proved by the Commission on October 29th and
43New York Times, Apr. 11, 1951.
44Canadian dairy interests were annoyed at the import quotas
for dairy products set up by the Defense Production Act approved
by Congress on July 13, 1951.
45See U.S. Dept. of State Bulletin, XXvI:719-20, May 5, 1952, for
the text of the letter.317
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 159 pages within this book that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Air University (U.S.). Extension Course Institute. Course 2, Volume 1A. American Foreign Policy in Growth and Action, book, April 1959; Alabama. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1077937/m1/331/?q=%22~1%22~1&rotate=270: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting National WASP WWII Museum.