bout de papier, Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021), pp. 42–43
EDITED BY ASA McKERCHER
AND GALEN ROGER PERRAS
VANCOUVER, UBC PRESS, 2017
IN A RECENT GLOBE AND MAIL COLUMN, John Ibbitson complained that, with the switch of Champagne for Garneau, Canada has had 14 foreign ministers in just over 20 years. 14! And many of them non-memorable. We grump about Canada’s loss of credibility and standing abroad. This has to be one of the reasons.
The contrasting model of consistency for lengthy periods is cogently presented in Mike s World, a collection of essays edited by Asa McKercher and Galen Roger Perras that assesses the Pearson legacy. The authors make clear that continuity in messaging and the successful cultivation of key players were not problems for Canada in the early years after WWII. As head of post in Washington (44-46), Under-Secretary (deputy minister) of External Affairs (46-48), Secretary of State for External Affairs (48-57) and finally as Prime Minister (63-68), Pearson remained a principal strategist of Canadian foreign policy and a major contributor to post-war architecture for 18 years.
It is unlikely that his most celebrated achievement, the resolution of the Suez crisis, for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957, would have been remotely possible if he had not been recognized as an astute, highly regarded, and, above all, well-known and experienced player by western powers and by many nonaligned countries. Closer to home, the view may have been different. According to an allegedly authentic account, a reporter, looking for the ‘distaff’ angle, approached Mrs. Pearson. “How does it feel to be the wife of a celebrated Nobel laureate?” “Surprised,” responded Mrs.
McKercher and Perras have assembled a galaxy of gifted veteran and younger historians to guide us through the hugely eventful Pearson years. The legacy is parceled out by sector, beginning with “the Pearsonian World”, embracing peacekeeping, the peace commission in Vietnam, the United Nations and the fascinating relationship between Pearson and his (often) indispensable ally, and (at times) disruptive, (occasionally) unscrupulous and (most of the time) arch competitor, Paul Martin Sr. The chapters run the gamut from “Pearson the Pragmatist”, a focus on human rights, Arctic sovereignty, perceptions of the Arab world, Latin America and the Caribbean, the distancing with Britain; and “Pearson, the idealist”, which grapples with the Cold War, Commonwealth challenges, NATO and nuclear dilemmas, the environment, and, of course, Quebec and France.
For most of us who toil (or toiled) in the Pearson building where memorabilia and excerpts from his Nobel acceptance speech decorate the lobby walls, we thought we knew the basics of the Pearson career — at least I did as I joined the Department just before he left office as minister in 1957. Mike’s World revealed that I had a lot to learn.
As young officers at that time, we could take no credit for any part of the Pearson achievements. But as professionals, we bathed in the reflection of that golden glow. President Kennedy referred to Pearson as “the chief architect of the Canadian Foreign Service, probably the best in the world.” Julius Nyerere was more subdued but echoed the compliment. In his memoir, Humphrey Trevelyan, a senior British Ambassador, scored the Canadians as one of the best foreign services, ranked just after the Yugoslavs. He noted that “Canadians will give you a balanced judgement from their mid-Atlantic perspective.”
All the more reason for surprise when the brickbats began to fly before Pearson left office, not just about the flag, but targeting foreign policy. With apologies to readers who may have previously seen this vignette about External Affairs in Pearson’s time, but it sets the tone … Writing in the Toronto Star, James Eayrs, an eminent University of Toronto political scientist, described the induction ritual for newly minted Foreign Service Officers with his usual barbed flourish. Probationary officers, he wrote, were led to a basement chamber in the East Block (where most of us worked at that time). Their consciences were removed and placed in a safety deposit box. A deposit slip was provided for those keen to retrieve their consciences upon retirement. But, Eayrs concluded, following 30 or so years in the amoral, Pearson-contaminated precincts of External Affairs, no one would.
As the authors make clear, Eayrs was joined by many others. But why so much scorn? Much of it was unrelated to foreign policy. The new Canadian flag, a Pearson triumph, enraged the Tories and Diefenbaker most of all. It was a major aggravation, as were other policies which diluted the old imperial connection. Another factor was Pearson’s performance in the House of Commons. He was no match for the scorching bellicosity of John Diefenbaker, nor nearly as skilled in parliamentary cut and thrust as his rival Paul Martin. Pearson was an easy target, and much of that disparagement was superficial. He didn’t look or sound prime-ministerial. He had soft features, a lisp and according to the journalist Charles Lynch, he “walked funny”.
Jennifer Tunnicliffe notes that Pearson was less than enthusiastic about the formulation of some of the international instruments codifying human rights. Pearson preferred the “British Way”, which was to rely on national legislatures to enact “sensible and progressive law” on human rights. There is a related ongoing debate (by Jill Lepore in The New Yorker) about the pros and cons of a written constitution.
Worse was to come. Pierre Trudeau’s denigration of the “Defrocked Prince of Peace” was the jab that cut most cruelly, not least because it was said publically and directed at the man most responsible for Trudeau’s elevation to Prime Minister.
The harshest critic in these pages is Maurice Jr. Labelle, whose chapter is headed “Not So Nobel: Arab Perceptions of Lester Pearson and Canada”. On the Suez crisis, Labelle concludes that the “Arabs grew increasingly §—=———— disenchanted as Canadian diplomacy in McKerche! the Middle East betrayed the very idea of Canada” and that Canada’s neutrality in Perras hav the Arab/Israeli dispute was “a homemade mirage.” Labelle offers some documentation for his conclusions, but does so without reflection on the extent to which Pearson and other Western leaders were mindful of the Holocaust, which, scarcely more than a decade before, had decimated the Jewish population of Europe.
While not flinching at criticism, Mike’s World leaves us in no doubt about the legacy and difficult world in which it was forged — a world described by Robert Bothwell as rendered “in fifty shades of grey”. In the preface, John English reminds us that foreign policy was not among the most consuming or important challenges that confronted Pearson over the five years when he was Prime Minister. These were domestic issues, and the accomplishments were momentous: national medicare, the maple leaf flag, official bilingualism, the Canada Pension Plan, and racially unrestricted immigration. He concludes that “… for better and for worse, Mike Pearson remade Canada.” Taken together, the verdict of these essays is “for better”.
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021), pp. 42–43. Read the rest of this issue →
