Still a Utopian Dream: A United Canamerica

A book appeared in Canada last month, entitled “Merger or the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country.” The main motivating factor behind the proposed union of the two North American countries is that neither is strong enough on its own to compete economically with the emerging powers, particularly China. The idea is not nonsense, but from a political point of view, it is utopian, argues columnist Paul Brill.

The relationship between Canada and the United States is in some ways similar to that between Belgium and the Netherlands, although of course the scale of things is far larger. Just like in the Low Countries, there are some differences between the two states, but no insurmountable political rifts. The countries have much in common and there is plenty of harmonious movement between them.

Just as the Netherlands seem to be overrun with Flemings at the moment, many Canadians have in the past tried their luck in the U.S. At the same time however, the differences between the countries and their national goals and ambitions are a rich source for jokes and reciprocal trash talking. On the side of the larger neighbor this is done with a certain amount of warmth; when coming from the smaller neighbor, it is laced with a pinch of sarcasm.

Switzerland without the Pen Knives

Consider what an American senator once said about the Canadian army, when he described it as being like the Swiss army, “but without the pen knives.” Or the satirist Jon Stewart, who said, “I’ve been to Canada, and I’ve always gotten the impression that I could take the country over in about two days.”

A well-known Canadian response is: “Canadians don’t just have a sense of humo[u]r, they can spell it, too.” That sense of humor includes a talent for mild self-deprecation. The Canadian politician Preston Manning made this observation: “An optimist in Canada is someone who thinks things could be worse.”

In short, there are things to grumble about and they do get on each other’s nerves from time to time, but both sides appreciate the solid relationship that they have with their neighbor. Except, that is, when every now and then a voice is raised suggesting that something substantial really is missing. The tenor of such arguments can be quite surprising. Last month in Canada, a book appeared entitled, “Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country.”

The author was Diane Francis, a journalist who has written for several Canadian papers. Her book attracted attention, including in the U.S., where Foreign Policy magazine ran a serious article with the title, “The Case for Canamerica.”

Competing with China

The main motivating factor behind Francis’ proposal of a union between the two North American countries is that neither is strong enough on its own to compete economically with the emerging powers, particularly China. Canada is especially vulnerable to economic invasion. The country lacks the power to exploit its own natural resources in the far north, or to assert itself in the area around the North Pole. The free trade agreement between the United States and Canada has too little substance to compensate for this shortfall.

The economic case that Francis makes is not ridiculous, and neither are the underlying strategic arguments. But from a political point of view, the idea of Canamerica — or Americanada, which is more likely — is of course utopian. This is certainly the case at the moment: Given the recent political impasse in Washington, the Canadians would have serious second thoughts about a union with their large southern neighbor. For their part, the Americans are not waiting around to see whether the separatist movement in Quebec can be defeated (or for the arrival of more Justin Biebers).

Furthermore, it is plain to Republicans that it would be much harder for them if they had to get the support of 30 million Canadians, with their Obamacare-plus and other “European-style” proclivities. That is one reason why Puerto Rico has never been incorporated into the Union — it would almost certainly mean two more Democratic seats in the Senate.

Global Trends

Aside from all these considerations, there is the simple fact that there is no recent global trend toward the formation of larger nation states — quite the opposite, in fact. In the last half century there has been only one successful union: the reunification of Germany. What happened in Vietnam was much more like a reconquest; the reunified Yemen is in fact a failed state. Other attempts to do away with borders have never gotten off the drawing board. There is, of course, the European project, but this is now being approached very cautiously. Apart from a few diehard federalists, nobody is openly fantasizing about a United States of Europe anymore. The chance of a full political union is no better or worse than the chance that there could be two new European entities, in the shape of an independent Scotland or Catalonia.

The uncomfortable paradox is that in the world of economics and finance, the trend is toward ever larger entities. The nation state, however, occupies a very special place in the hearts of its inhabitants. This applies even to Canada, which communication guru Marshall McLuhan described as “the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity.”