Review: The Politics of Linkage <i>Power, Interdependence, and Ideas in Canada-US Relations</i>

THE POLITICS OF LINKAGE Power, Interdependence, and Ideas in Canada-US Relations Brian Bow Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010. 232 pp, $32.95 paper ISBN 978-0774816960It used to be, in the not very distant past, that the division between the study of politics and the study of history was a matter of dates. Very recent events, or subjects that had immediate and useful application, were the province of students of politics or political science. Older events belonged to historians, although it was well understood that practitioners of history or political studies could and would borrow freely from one another. This was especially true in the field of international relations, and indeed sometimes it was hard to distinguish the political scientists from the historians. Someone like James Eayrs, for example, could easily pass in either category, and it is likely that Eayrs will be remembered more for his historical works than as a political scientist.Times change. Both history and political science have become more theoretical. Few would now mistake a historian for a political scientist, or vice versa. History and political science remain adjacent pastures, but the academic herbivores grazing in their fields are unlikely to think that the grass or fodder is greener on the other side of the fence - though the products ofthe scholarly herds may in the end be indistinguishable to the untutored eye or nose.Brian Bow's book, The Politics of Linkage: Power, Interdependence, and Ideas in Canada- US Relations, may seem to contradict this image of equal but separate fields. In the first place, Bow writes plainly and clearly, these days not a common academic characteristic. Next, his book is historically based, consisting of four case studies of notable events in Canadian-American relations: the nuclear weapons controversy ofthe early 1960s; the dispute over the free navigation of Arctic waters in the early seventies; the national energy program of the early eighties; and, skipping a decade, the different policies of Canada and the United States on the Iraq War of 2003.At a glance, the case studies are concise, lively, and apparenuy comprehensive. The nuclear issue, though a thrice-told tale, is handled in a manner that transcends its hackneyed origins. The fabled cruise of the Manhattan through the Northwest Passage is handily and usefully described. The repetitive and tedious diplomacy ofthe national energy program (which at the time seemed to be like the curse of Sisyphus to those caught up in it) has cried out for a summary - and here it is. The Iraq War and the aftermath of Jean Chretien's refusal to join it are very recent events, on which opinions sharply differ, and Bow certainly has his opinion, again, clearly expressed.For each of these events, Bow makes the point that American policy was forbearing - that is, that despite the great disparity on power and size and importance between Canada and the United States, the Americans did not coerce the Canadians in order to secure a favourable outcome. This will not be news to students of Canadian- American relations: the same point is made in various books, most notably Greg Donaghy^ Tolerant Allies (2002), where the titie is, essentially, the message.Bow early on raises the question whether Canadian- American relations could be considered special, and concludes that, in the generally accepted sense ofthe term, denoting closeness and compatibility and influence, they were in his first case and to some degree even in the early 1970s. As for the national energy policy and Iraq, the cases were special even if the underlying relations were no longer close or the respective political ouuooks compatible. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.