The paramountcy of Canada-U.S. relations

National Post ^ | May 22 2003 | Allan Gotlieb

[knighthawk]

The Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs has been conducting a "dialogue" with Canadians about our place in the world. It's a foreign policy review, of sorts, following the review of 1995 and 1970. But it doesn't require a review to recognize the paramountcy of Canada-U.S. relations in our foreign policy. Nor to recognize that the goals of our foreign policy are to enhance the security and prosperity of Canadians and help us contribute to a more peaceful and equitable world. In achieving these goals, paramountcy of the Canada-U.S. relationship derives from two inarguable facts:

1. Canadians will not be able to contribute significantly to international peace and a more just world without being able to influence the United States. Our inability to wield influence in Washington helps explain, more than any other single factor, the much-discussed recent decline of Canada's role in the world.

2) Canadians are unlikely to enhance their prosperity if our access to the United States, which generates through our exports, some 38% of our national income, is not secure, predictable, non-discriminatory and open to the free flow of our goods, services and people.

What are the implications of this paramountcy for the management of the relationship by Canada? Our political leaders need to follow three processes:

- Examine all Canadian-U.S. issues, as they arise, in the framework of Canadian foreign policy;

- Examine all foreign policy issues and initiatives within the framework of Canada-U.S. relations;

- Examine all domestic policy initiatives, insofar as they may have relevance, within the framework of Canada-U.S. relations.

This is why a proposal by the leading contender to the Canadian political throne is of major significance. Earlier this month, Paul Martin called for "a new, permanent Cabinet Committee on Canada-U.S. Relations, chaired by the Prime Minister. Its purpose would be straightforward: to monitor and manage this vitally important relationship in all its aspects [my italics]."

This is a very bold initiative. It would raise the management of Canada-U.S. relations to the highest level of responsibility and power in Ottawa, where it belongs. It could in time help restore Canada's influence in Washington, although the path is long.

The first requirement, to examine the Canada-U.S. relationship within the framework of our foreign policy, is dictated by an obvious but largely ignored truth -- a country's foreign policy is a mere phantom, a pretend foreign policy, unless it can be effective. U.S. power and dominance in the world being unparalleled in modern history, how can Canada hope to play a major international role without being able to influence the United States? An examination of the success of Canadian foreign policy in our "golden age" reveals the high-standing and respect that Canadian leaders and diplomats enjoyed in Washington, a fact which in turn contributed to influence in other important foreign capitals and international organizations.

Influence in Washington requires, as it always has, a high degree of trust, virtually automatic access at the highest levels and the ability to make substantial contributions to issues through real defence capabilities, high diplomatic skills, significant aid and civilian resources. Without these qualities, our voice is likely to be regarded as posturing -- useful, if at all, for home consumption.

Conversely, examining foreign policy initiatives in the framework of Canada-U.S. relations will ensure that they are assessed in terms of consequences for the relationship. The impact may not be especially negative, or even if it is, the government may decide to accept the costs and proceed anyway. But the governance process must ensure that foresight is exercised. It is doubtful whether Pierre Trudeau's futile peace initiatives, or Diefenbaker's equally futile space initiative two decades earlier, were examined by Cabinet in the U.S.-Canada context (if they examined them at all). Without such a process, Canada could end up subordinating larger and more significant interests to lesser, or more discretionary ones.

Canadian domestic policy also needs to be examined in the context of Canadian-U.S. relations. If this seems like a radical idea, the reality is domestic policy initiatives can have a high effect on the relationship, perhaps even greater than most foreign policy initiatives. Remember the National Energy Program? (The Department of External Affairs learned about it a day before its announcement). Remember FIRA? Both of these domestic policies were scrapped largely because of the objections of the United States and other foreign governments. During the last century, some European statesmen advocated that foreign policy should have primacy over domestic policy (as did Kissinger's mentor, Fritz Kramer). Perhaps the most powerful states need not worry too much if they do not act on this prescription. But for weaker powers, there is a greater need to recognize that the international costs of a domestic policy may outweigh any domestic benefits.

What about the decriminalization of marijuana? Given the potential impact of this domestic policy initiative on the freedom of movement of Canadians across the 49th parallel, is this a case for the primacy of foreign policy over domestic? Would the Prime Minister's Cabinet Committee on Canada-U.S. relations so find?

In the Martin initiative for raising Canada-U.S. issues to the highest level of government, difficulties could arise in co-ordinating its mandate with the Cabinet Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Another approach for addressing the paramountcy of the Canada-U.S. relationship was adopted by Pierre Trudeau during his last mandate in the 1980s. At a time when Ottawa was experiencing the full brunt of U.S. anger over the NEP and FIRA, the Prime Minister decided that something needed to be done to steady and diffuse the situation. He instructed his secretary of the cabinet, Michael Pitfield, to establish a new top-level deputy ministers' committee, under the chairmanship of the under secretary of state for external affairs (myself at the time). No substitutes were to be allowed at the weekly meetings. The mandate of the committee was to scrutinize and stop any initiatives arising from any department that had negative implications for the relationship. For the first time in Canada-U.S. relations, the foreign ministry was given the power to act as a true external agency. The committee, established at the nadir of the relationship in the Trudeau years, continued until the crisis eased.

The Trudeau approach was effective so far as it went. But it was involved only in clean-up and damage prevention after the harm was done. Paul Martin's initiative for a Cabinet Committee chaired by the Prime Minister is a superior solution. It is more likely to be successful in blocking damaging initiatives before they see the light of day. Moreover, the structure recognizes the true role and responsibility of the Prime Minister. Prime minister Brian Mulroney ran Canadian foreign policy towards the United States, even in its day-to-day aspects, not his foreign minister Joe Clark. This is necessary and appropriate given the primacy of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

Some are now suggesting that the Canadian ambassador to Washington should be a member of the Cabinet. The argument is that this will ensure proper weight is attached to his role and advice. This is a bad idea. The precedent that the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has sometimes been a Cabinet member is no precedent for Canada, but had its origins in U.S. domestic political considerations (a concession to Adlai Stevenson by president Kennedy). The Canadian ambassador in Washington is a negotiator on dozens of intractable issues. He needs room for manoeuvring, for floating trial balloons, for taking personal initiatives, for backing and filling, for trying things on for size, none of which he would be able to do effectively if he was, so to speak, reporting to himself. As a member of the Cabinet, he would lose the freedom to act ad referendum to his government.

Were the ambassador to be a member of Cabinet, he would probably outweigh the foreign minister in political importance. In the Cabinet, Canada-U.S. relations would be, in one respect or another, the responsibility of the Prime Minister as chairman of the new Committee on Canada-U.S. relations; the foreign minister, as head of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee; and the Canadian ambassador to Washington. Add to these, the minister of international trade and the minister of national defence, both preoccupied with the U.S. file. The Canadian ambassador to Washington would make one too many at the table.

Allan Gotlieb was Canada's ambassador to Washington in the Reagan years, serving both Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney. This article is drawn in part from remarks he recently made to the Business Council of Manitoba in Winnipeg.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[knighthawk]

Ping

[ClearCase_guy]

The paramountcy always get their man.

[cherry]

it all comes down to money doesn't it?.....when you export very easily across the border you can't afford to lose that convenience.....

I did not know that Canada exports 70%of its beef to the US....the mad cow thing is going to cost them.....

maybe they can have the Rolling Stones eat some steaks while they are up in Toronto....

Number one thing Canada must do is muzzle its anti-American idiots....you can't call our President names and for that matter you can't boo our National Anthem and expect everything to be lovey-dovey, no matter what the economics....

I would advise Canada to do what we Americans have done.....GET SOME ADULTS TO RUN THE COUNTRY....

[johns4]

The real problem, of course, is the terrible jean Chretien and his sickeningly anti-American gov't. We Canadians really don't like the lame-duck Chretien and Americans should rest easy knowing that he really does not represent public opinion in Canada. Very soon Chretien will go and a new, much more friendly attitude in the next Gov't. will prevail. Canadians dislike the anti-American attitude of this awful government and we can't wait to see the last of it....

[Mister Baredog]

The paramountcy of Canada-U.S. relations

Is the "c" silent? Are the paramounties a part of the Canadian military? LOL!

Sorry I couldn't help myself.

It does sound like some series soul searching going on up north, eh.

[irish_links]

"....The paramountcy always get their man....."

Further evidence that the Canadians no longer speak English. Perhaps the author of the headline meant to use "primacy" or "pre-eminence." In any event, I don't think that paramountcy is an actual English word. It must be some pointless Canadian neologism.

Jeesh. Americans are constantly derided by Canadians for our odious cultural influences. Yet, it is they who have produced Alannis Morrisette, Celine Dion and now paramountcy. Henceforth, I think they should keep their comments to themselves.

[NYDave]

<<"Canadians are unlikely to enhance their prosperity if our access to the United States, which generates through our exports, some 38% of our national income, is not secure, predictable, non-discriminatory and open to the free flow of our goods, services and people.">>

While I have nothing in particular against Canadians, aside from beef (Cherry cited in an earlier post) what exactly is it that we import from Canada. I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but aside from a bottle of real Canadian Maple Syrup I have in my cupboard, mad-cow infected beef and some not too bad beer, what do they send us?

On another point, Canada had better tighten its bordor security in concert with our own law enforcement folks if they want to maintain a lovey-dovey relationship with us. It's too easy for those who wish to bring harm to the US to get across the border from Canada. God knows we are having enough trouble trying to prevent that with our Southern borders with Mexico.

[RJL]

But it doesn't require a review to recognize the paramountcy of Canada-U.S. relations in our foreign policy.

I disagree. The Canadian government just made it very clear, it was paramount for Canada to stand with Saddam Hussein and against the United States.

[Alberta's Child]

The U.S. imports a lot of paper and lumber from Canada (at least until that stupid softwood lumber tariff was imposed by the U.S. in 2001), and many "American-made" cars are actually made with parts that are manufactured in Ontario. The U.S. also imports a lot of oil and natural gas from western Canada.

[Conservateacher]

"The U.S. imports a lot of paper and lumber from Canada"

The US has trees.

"many "American-made" cars are actually made with parts that are manufactured in Ontario"

The US has factories

"The U.S. also imports a lot of oil and natural gas from western Canada."

Two outa three ain't bad.

[Shermy]

It's not that complex:

Here's an easier framework for understanding "Canada"

Chretien = TotalFinaElf

[desertcry]

Thanks for the timely post. Unfortunately I don't think the present mentallity of most Canadians is not yet ready to embrace the ideas of this very insightful article. Thus Canada will suffer a lot more before they wake up to reality. The arrogance of Canada's politicians is very costly to the well being of it's people.

[Alberta's Child]

The U.S. imports things from Canada that are cheaper than if they were made in the U.S.

That's the only reason we import anything from other places (electronics from Taiwan, bananas from South America, labor from Mexico, etc.), even if we have the ability to make them here.

You could make the case that the U.S. "has" everything it needs here. But that doesn't always mean it makes sense to produce everything here.

[ggekko]

"1. Canadians will not be able to contribute significantly to international peace and a more just world without being able to influence the United States...."


It doesn't help matters in the influence department when you spend less in absolute terms on your military than the nation of Ghana. The fact is that Canada has been freeloading off of our defense umbrella for years and honest response to the situation would be for Canadian leaders to realize the meaning of the saying that "he pays the piper calls the tune".

Instead of being honest about these realities Canadian leaders have been playing the French game of impeding our policies through international agencies. This has so stop if relations between US and Canada are to improve.

[The Californian]

Well.... we despised Clinton and his henchmen and were stuck with them for eight years. I don't hold it against you. Of course, I'm from California so I am probably in the same boat as the Canadians. Good luck on your next elections.

[IvanT]

Is the "c" silent?

It is a real word - it is a noun, a derivative of the word 'paramount' an adjective meaning 'of utmost importance'. It's in the English Oxford dicitionary, perhaps it isn't in the American Webster.

[IvanT]

The U.S. imports a lot of paper and lumber from Canada (at least until that stupid softwood lumber tariff was imposed by the U.S. in 2001), and many "American-made" cars are actually made with parts that are manufactured in Ontario. The U.S. also imports a lot of oil and natural gas from western Canada.

Don't forget the billions of dollars in military parts and equipment the US imports from Canada.....from companies like Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney Canada etc....

[IvanT]

ggekko makes a good comment. Did anyone ever consider that perhaps Canada has not spent on our military as much in the last 30 years because the US won't let us? Afterall, I saw the numbers (in the hundreds of billions of dollars) in military equipment and parts the US imports from Canada, yet Canada keeps none of these for herself. Perhaps it makes it easier for the US to control Canada and get to Canada's resources. Afterall, I'm sure the US wouldn't be too happy if Canada were a major power. We have more uranium up here than any other country, yet we do not construct nuclear missiles. I wonder why that is? I wonder where all the uranium in US missiles comes from? Mostly from Canada.

[Growler]

Actually, I believe that all of the radioactive material in US nuclear weapons is recovered from older US nuclear weapons.

[Mister Baredog]

Is the "c" silent?

It is a real word - it is a noun, a derivative of the word 'paramount' an adjective meaning 'of utmost importance'. It's in the English Oxford dicitionary, perhaps it isn't in the American Webster.

Thanks for the info, we just aren't that sophisticated down here in Southern North America, I thought the mounties were going to infiltrate us or something(humor)

[ggekko]

"ggekko makes a good comment. Did anyone ever consider that perhaps Canada has not spent on our military as much in the last 30 years because the US won't let us?..."

Canadian PM Mckenzie King refused permission for the US to use Canadian air space for a possible retaliatory missile launch against the USSR during the Cuban Missile crisis. Given the gravity of that crisis is strains my credulity to believe that US has used its influence over Canada, such as it is, to restrain Canada in other military matters.

It is a matter of public record in Canada that successive Canadian Government have raided the Defense Budget in order to finance ever more lavish social welfare programs. This trend has been commented on forcefully by a number of Canadian Defense leaders. Canada's per capita Defense expenditure has decreased in lockstep with increases in per capita social welfare spending. This seems to me to be the more credible explanation. In all fairness to Canadian politicians this policy tilt seems reasonaby popular with Canadian voters.

An honest Canadian politician should get up and say that since Canada has no credible Defense capability Canada cannot support an independent foreign policy. They eschew such honesty, however, and attempt to use whatever influence Canada may have in the UN to frustrate US aims. This policy is fundamentally dishonest and cowardly.

[NYDave]

Thanks for the education. I have to admit that I am a bit ignorant of our (US) neighbor to the North. Although, I must say that I wouldn't mind the auto parts manufacturing being being brought back here and our own lumber facilities being exploited (damned evironmentalists). Perhaps we're a bloated overly paid workforce but, more and more, US jobs are being outsourced overseas, not just assembly jobs but white collar as well. IT is being stripped bare with systems development going, primarily at this point, to
India. China is graduating students very well educated in American accounting practices and law. Help desks are ending up in third world countries, as well. That's why I'm a bit sensitive regarding the creation American products, whether hardware or software, being "outsourced" offshore. And I'm not knocking the fine folks in Ontario who are making OUR auto parts. Why shouldn't they take advantage of the opportunity, eh?

[IvanT]

I was talking about the last 30 years.

[IvanT]

....and Mackenzie King was not Canadian PM during the Cuban Missile crisis, get your facts straight.

[MalcolmS]

What about the Importancy of writing good headlines?

[Alberta's Child]

The reason all these American jobs are going overseas is simple -- it's just cheaper to do the work there. Not just because people there are willing to work for less, but because the U.S. dollar grew incredibly strong against almost every major world currency from 1995 to 2002.

The weakening of the U.S. dollar is what will eventually bring some of these jobs back. In the case of Canada, there are major auto manufacturers with facilities on both sides of the border in Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario. They operate these facilities at varying levels of output on almost a weekly basis, depending on the strength of the U.S. dollar against the Canadian dollar.

Americans weren't too thrilled when the price of oil approached $40 per barrel. But someone working in the tar sands region up around Fort McMurray, Alberta was happy as a pig in slop -- because at $1.50 Canadian per $1 U.S., he was getting $60 per barrel for that oil.

[NYDave]

<<"The reason all these American jobs are going overseas is simple -- it's just cheaper to do the work there. Not just because people there are willing to work for less....">>

A graduate from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) will have a starting salary of around $5000US per year and be a very happy and productive worker as that $5K has a lot of purchasing power in India. His counterpart in the US is looking at $27K - 30K per annum. Your point about the strength of the dollar is well taken, but it's not the only factor. Labor costs are just a lot cheaper offshore and the quality of the work is quite good. Even if the dollar does decline significantly (George Soros is short), I don't think the tech and other white collar jobs will be coming home any time soon.

[Alberta's Child]

Even if the dollar does decline significantly (George Soros is short), I don't think the tech and other white collar jobs will be coming home any time soon.

One of my employees just went through a process with Dell's help desk. He was dealing with a technician from India whose command of the English language was so bad that he couldn't even understand him. After speaking to the guy's supervisor, we were given a special number to call -- and out problem ended up getting fixed by some guy in Toronto or Texas.

I don't care how good these people are -- they'll only compete with Americans in things that either don't require a serious commitment to quality or that don't require a lot of ingenuity or creative thinking. There are two Indian guys working in my small company right now, and I can say with some certainty that "our" Indians are better than "their" Indians. LOL.

[ggekko]

"I was talking about the last 30 years...."

As I was. The incident I refered to in the Cuban Missile Crisis is illustrative of the range of autonomy that the US has not sought to breech in the course of US-Canadian relations since WWII.

The pattern in Canada is nevertheless unmistakable: per capita social welfare spending has gradually crowded out per capita defense spending in Canada. No matter how one may try to slice this reality it leaves Canada, in geo-strategic terms, a weak, withered sattelite of the US.

Canadian forces served with distinction in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. This legacy is being frittered away by Canadian politicians of the Jean Chretien stripe.

If Canada wants an autonomous foreign policy it will have to spend considerably more on its defense than the nation of Ghana. An irresponsible multi-lateralism will not be an adequate substitute for this commitment.

[Conservateacher]

I'd be willing to pay more!

[Alberta's Child]

I'd be willing to pay more!

That might work if you are a consumer, since you would then represent the end point in the production-consumption chain. If you were a manufacturer who relied on parts or raw materials to produce your goods, you'd be a fool to rely on more expensive domestic sources.

I don't mind paying a little extra for U.S.-made products, but the quality has to be there, too.

[WaterDragon]

how can Canada hope to play a major international role without being able to influence the United States?

Good point. Another one is how do you hope to influence someone while you are also telling him how much you despise him?

It may be that threatening each other with contempt and browbeating may be how liberal/Lefties influence each other, but it won't work long on Americans, as Canada SHOULD be learning by now.

[WaterDragon]

new, much more friendly attitude in the next Gov't.

The problem will be that now we are alerted. Any change of 'attitude' and what is said publicly will be adjudged as merely for effect, not real change. We won't be interested in new rhetoric so much as new actions. There is a great deal that has to be undone. Sweeter words won't cut it. If Canadians truly are unable (not unwilling but unable) to elect conservatives, then how can you consider yourselves a representative democracy?

[NYDave]

I ran part of a systems development project last year where the programming had been outsourced to TCS (Tata Consulting Services) in India. There was certainly a language problem and we bent more to their time zone than they did to ours. An Indian friend of mine, who is a US citizen and has lived in this country for over 20 years, tells me that the quality of the work from India is improving rapidly. The Indians are no longer the "bottom feeders" in the developmental "food chain" but are quickly coming up to speed with respect to their technological capabilities. However, the innovation and creative thinking still resides here. TCS was given very strict specifications and told to abide, very literally, by them.

[WaterDragon]

Did anyone ever consider that perhaps Canada has not spent on our military as much in the last 30 years because the US won't let us?

The tinfoil hat you're wearing will not, as Cretien told you, transport you to nirvana.

We won't LET you? Some days.......

[Alberta's Child]

The Indians are no longer the "bottom feeders" in the developmental "food chain" but are quickly coming up to speed with respect to their technological capabilities.

That's an excellent point. They are becoming more like Americans by the day, just as Japan became more like Americans in the 1970s and 1980s.

And look at the result -- Honda builds cars in Ohio, Nissan builds cars in Tennessee, and Toyota just announced that they are opening a major new manufacturing facility for light trucks in Texas.

Wait until those Indians start playing golf -- they'll be leaving Bangalore for Arizona before you know it.

[redhead]

For a government that is so openly contemptuous of the United States and all she stands for, it sounds like Canada is inordinately concerned with ways to get themselves invited into the American government.

Can it be that they really DO want us to think more higly of them? Can it be that they are having second thoughts about their contempt? It almost sounds as if they hope we'll make them a state.

Right.

[July 4th]

In any event, I don't think that paramountcy is an actual English word.

Actually, it is. But I've only heard it used once or twice, and only by the British.

[freeasinbeer]

It was actually the Americans that booed the Canadian anthem first, lst year during the NBA playoffs between Detroit and Toronto, and it has been going back and forth since then.

I agree with the rest of the comment though, Canada needs some grown-ups in charge, pronto!

[Alberta's Child]

Canada bump.

[gcruse]

Some thoughts on the article.

• What kind of nancy-boy uses 'paramountcy' more than once in a speech?
• "...international peace and a more just world" and "equitable world." have built-in assumptions that there is an international law to bring justice, and some international mechanism to achieve equitability other than getting out of the way and letting countries create themselves.  The latter being the only realistic avenue Canada has, to dream of more is to dream of world organizations.  This is not the direction of American policy, suggesting that Canada/US relations have loggerheadcy (well, if he can do it...) already built in.
• As to an American relations czar, a fig leaf (maple leaf?) over the "moron," "bastard" comments and Quebecois assault against American kids, works about as well as an air freshener in a three-hole outhouse.
  

[irish_links]

"..Actually, it is. But I've only heard it used once or twice, and only by the British...."

What ho? I stand corrected. Although paramountcy was not listed on my Merriam Webster it is indeed a proper English word. According to Roget's the definition is as follows:

paramountcy

NOUN: The condition or fact of being dominant: ascendance, ascendancy, dominance, domination, predominance, preeminence, preponderance, preponderancy, prepotency, supremacy. See OVER.

Well, you live and learn.

Regards

[NYDave]

<<"Wait until those Indians start playing golf -- they'll be leaving Bangalore for Arizona before you know it.">>

Most of the Indians I know who have moved here and obtained their residency and eventually their citizenship rue the cold weather and can't wait for the first breath of Spring to get out on the links and chase that stupid little white ball around (I only say that as I played as a teenager and was terrible). I certainly don't have a problem with anyone from any country bringing their skills and education to this country and applying same in the job market. A good friend of mine is from India (we worked together for going on 20 years) and is as outspoken as I am about the varying visa programs and outsourcing of work offshore. But you may be right. Those IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) grads might want to opt for the old U.S. of A. (or Canada) in the future. By the way, IIT is extremely difficult to get into. Those who don't make the cut opt, as a second choice, for MIT, Cornell, Princeton, etc. in this country.

[Dr. Luv]

For someone with such stong views, you have, ahem, an unusual grasp of history. It was John Diefenbaker (sp?) who was the Canadian PM during the Cuban missile crisis (King died in 1948) and the Canadian armed forces never fought in Vietnam. Did you get anything else wrong?

[ggekko]

I have been corrected twice on the issue of who the Canadian PM was during the Cuban Missile crisis; on that particular point I do indeed stand corrected. The fact remains that the Canadian PM at that time did refuse overflight rights to the US in the event of a retliatory strinke agains the USSR; this refusal is an historic fact. I stand by the substance of my argument, however, which no one has seen fit to substantively address.

The Canadian Government has relentlessly decreased Defense spending in real terms since the 1970s. This decrease has happened simultaneous to an increase in real terms of social spending in Canada and an increase to the extent to which successive Canadian governments have adopted multi-lateral institutions as their principle foreign policy mechanism. These phenomena are not coicincidental but intergally related; as Canada has become militarily weak its politicians have looked with greater and greater affection upon the UN and its related organizations.

I would be interested if anyone who is Canadian and is reading this thread would address the issue of why Canadian politicians and the Canadian chattering classes are apparently surprised by Canada's current lack of influence in Washington. Canada can no longer project force beyond its own borders; this weakness has provoked concern more than contempt in Washington. Having an independent external force projection capability in Canada would encourage Washington to take Canada more seriously on issues such as Iraq.

Why are Canadian polciy and opinion makers evidently surprised by the fact that weakness does not promote respect and access?

[Dr. Luv]

"The fact remains that the Canadian PM at that time did refuse overflight rights to the US in the event of a retliatory strinke agains the USSR; this refusal is an historic fact."

I can find no substantiation of your allegation. Perhaps you can cite a source?