Posted By David Rothkopf Share

At my summer camp in Maine -- which was really the equivalent of that South Pacific manhood ritual where they attach vines to a teenaged boy's testicles and throw him off a tree -- on the very first day they would gather all the new campers around and teach them the camp song. It was entitled "Oh, Camp We Love" and, as the budding concentration camp guards they called counselors used to point out, "it's sung to the same tune as the Canadian national anthem, "O Canada.'" Naturally, this generated confusion and blank stares from all the boys present because the comment was roughly as helpful as suggesting the camp talent show utilize the same narrative technique as The Tale of Genji. I mean, for goodness sake, we were from New Jersey. We knew Canada was up there somewhere between Boston and the North Pole and that they played hockey there, but beyond that, details were scarce.

Since then, throughout my life, I have always found that when giving a talk, a reference to Canada is reliably good for a laugh. Making fun of Canada seldom offends any American and Canadians tend to be too polite to object. And it it's funny because Canada is so darned unthreatening, bland enough to make your average bowl of tapioca seem muy caliente. (The only thing more boring than Canada? Coldplay. "Viva la vida?!" Seriously. Viva la sominex.) Of course, I'm not the only one who has gone after Canada. Take for example the greatest song ever written about international relations, "Blame Canada." (Which song clearly kicks the ass of anything Coldplay has ever written. Of course, so too does anything ever done by that immortal Canadian-Egyptian-Armenian, Raffi.)

It's all a bit unfair actually. A lot unfair. And I was thinking this as I was watching President Obama's press conference with Prime Minister Harper. Harper's year has been as politically star-crossed as Obama's has been seemingly guided by a lucky star. But together yesterday, these two were the picture of what good allies should be. They were polite, respectful, at times deferential, honest about areas of concern and seemingly sincere in their desire to work through potential trouble spots whether they be sclerotic border crossings or the potential for turbulence on trade. Both were gracious, articulate, and statesmanlike.

The U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue they announced was an excellent step to strengthen an already rock-solid relationship by collaborating on an issue where common interests abound.

During the news conference held by Harper and Obama, each of the men warmly characterized the state of the relationship between the two countries. Framing his remarks in the context of Obama's ascendancy to office, Harper said:

His election to the presidency launches a new chapter in the rich history of Canada-U.S. relations. It is a relationship between allies, partners, neighbors, and the closest of friends; a relationship built on our shared values -- freedom, democracy, and equality of opportunity epitomized by the President himself."

Obama, speaking next said:

I came to Canada on my first trip as President to underscore the closeness and importance of the relationship between our two nations, and to reaffirm the commitment of the United States to work with friends and partners to meet the common challenges of our time. As neighbors, we are so closely linked that sometimes we may have a tendency to take our relationship for granted, but the very success of our friendship throughout history demands that we renew and deepen our cooperation here in the 21st century.

"We're joined together," he continued, "by the world's largest trading relationship and countless daily interactions that keep our borders open and secure. We share core democratic values and a commitment to work on behalf of peace, prosperity, and human rights around the world."

Usually such words exchanged between political leaders are empty rhetoric. But, in the case of the U.S. and Canada, even with the ups and downs the relationship has been through, they ring true.

It underscored a reality that doesn't earn magazine covers in the way problems such as those highlighted in FP's Axis of Upheaval do. It is natural to focus on problems and threats. But throughout human history and especially in the current era, instability and failed states are really "dog bites man." 

What is rare, exceptional really, are the cases of the special relationships, the alliances that transcend treaties and become true and enduring partnerships. In many of the most important elements of life and foreign policy, boring is good. Boring is the foundation that allows us to stand the upheaval. Boring is constant in an inconstant world and as such is indispensable and invaluable. (The very best marriages for similar reasons, are sometimes perceived as boring. My wife for example, likes both Canada and Coldplay very much. Come to think of it, I'd probably better move on to the next thought...)

I would go further, it may well be that among the relationships of neighboring states, particularly among comparatively powerful neighbors, the U.S.-Canada relationship may be unique in history.  Oh sure, once, long ago, we had that little "Fifty-four Forty or Fight" issue, but that was with the British and frankly with all that manifest destiny testosterone pulsing through our then adolescent veins we were bound to get into trouble with anyone we encountered.

To put it into context, go through history in your mind. Pick two neighbors anywhere. Now find a pair that have gotten along better, avoided war (save for the conflicts depicted in "Canadian Bacon" and that in the aforementioned classic "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.")

Go further, in the vein of my post last week on America's worst alliances, make a list of America's best alliances. Canada tops the list so easily that it is hard to find anyone else that is close. There's the United Kingdom, of course, but we did get off to a bit of a rocky start with them and there was that pesky War of 1812 and they were, despite being officially neutral, not entirely constructive during the Civil War.

And then the next best ally? Ah, while the choices are few they are so tempting. Readership-baiting is so gratifying. (Really, you guys are so easy to toy with. It's like having a dog that always goes after the stick.) I guess the next best ally we have had is Israel. (There, I've said it. Come on all you "realists" time to line up and give it your best shot. I'll even provide your first line for you: "Some of my best friends are Jews, but...") Or, offering the kind of paradox that makes such analyses so much fun (and explains everything about our relationship with the French) perhaps number three is actually France. Ah, this really is too enjoyable.

I think I will stop writing and just warmly contemplate your reactions out there in Wonkavia, land of the Foreign Policy geeks. (And congratulate myself for having gotten through an entire piece about Canada without a single joke about Celine Dion.)

DAVID BOILY/AFP/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

ZATHRAS

4:53 PM ET

February 20, 2009

What about Australia?

Australia has been just as good an ally as Israel, and a lot less trouble. Plus, where would you rather scuba dive? Which country makes better wine? Can you get kangaroo meat pies in Israel? I rest my case.

 

SPAMOUFLAGE

5:17 PM ET

February 21, 2009

Nice to hear once in a while

I laughed, I cried and I was happy to read about a powerful neighbour recognizing the little guy. With a friend like Canada, who needs Australia. Let's see if that gets people revved up. We make good wine and what can I say: beavers are way better than roos. Really, no contest.

 

WALKING WOUNDED

3:38 PM ET

February 22, 2009

A friend to depend on...

Until we realize it's turned into codependency.

Talk of trade relations with our frigid partner reminds us that Canada is our primary oil supplier. Great, except the cheap fix connection is about to change. Tar sands = $4/G.

By American oil shale? Much worse. Our habit now has to be Thunderbird cheap.

Omigod, we're stealing from the kids piggybank, and sneaking out to tipple with anyone who'll pass their brown bag. That Russian used to be easy, but now she's a bitch. Israel? They charge us to drink from our bottle.

Step 1: We admitted we were powerless over petroleum, and that our lives had become unmanageable...

 

SAMUELROBITAILLE

8:01 PM ET

February 22, 2009

Congratulations

I would also like to congratulate you for getting through the whole piece without a Celine Dion joke,,, however it was probably the only typical, unknowledgable and cliché joke and or reference missing.

 

JCPIERCE11

4:30 AM ET

February 23, 2009

Where are the Foreign Policy geeks?

There have been a total of 6 (including mine) comments made to your commentary. Your presumption that there are so many people out there who would care enough about your best allies ranking to actually get upset about it and post comments made me throw up in my mouth. Take it down a notch, this isn't the NY Times, it's FP.

 

NYCBRIAN

9:45 PM ET

February 23, 2009

a little too harsh

not sure why the last two posters felt it necessary to rip into the post. It was done with a fair amount of self-effacing humor and let's be honest, the NYT is not exactly the brand it used to be. In terms of benchmarks of respectability I'm willing to put the FP right up there, especially since they aren't the house organ for the White House like the NYT has shamelessly been for the past several years (where is judith miller now, anyway?).

I think Canada would certainly be first, but to rank Israel ahead of Britain is, frankly, absurd. I have a lot of Jewish friends.......well I do b/c I live in Brooklyn, but I still think Israel is not a good ally in any sense of the word. Their intractable position on building settlements has resulted in countless hindrances to a solution in the Middle East, and their actions have attracted even more visceral attention from terrorists b/c of our acquiescence. Admittedly I find the overuse of the term "special relationship" a bit nauseating but we have had a special relationship with them and Walter Russell Mead defines why this is very well in his "God and Gold." France's abdication of NATO's alliance under De Gaulle was an ungrateful gesture and in what respect could anyone argue that Chirac furthered our interests?

 

FNORD

12:23 AM ET

February 24, 2009

My 2 cents

I would suggest us here in Norway. Despite being liberated by the russians, the socialist government at the time decided to go with the US. We have the highest per. capita number of soldiers in Afghanistan (and contribute with lots of money), and we refused to join in the Iraq war. Wich is a real sign of an alliance as opposed to a sychopant. Hey, for fifty years we trained to hold the russians for three days waiting for you guys to show up. (hoho).

Im not sure I would put Israel in there, to put it mildly. That relationship seems more like a troubled parent/child relation than an alliance of equals.

 

David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.

Read More