bout de papier, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2014) — Winter 2014–15 // Hiver 2014-2015, pp. 12–13
“ Note de la redaction : « Tian Bei » ou « trésor Celeste », tel était le nom honorifique chinois Donne a Arthur Menzies, enfant
de missionnaires canadiens en Chine qui devait devenir une sorte de missionnaire de la Chine au Canada. « Précieux » mentor de bon nombre des diplomates les plus reputes du pays, Arthur Menzies était aussi l’un des diplomates canadiens les plus qualifies du XX siècle, que ce soit en mission auprès de l’OTAN en Chine, au Japon avec le general MacArthur, ou comme premier ambassadeur du Canada au désarmement. Son fils, Ken Menzies, a édité le dernier ouvrage d’Arthur Menzies, publié a titre posthume. Les extraits qu’il a regroupés ici empruntent un langage simple et direct qui donne aux lecteurs l’impression d’être assis a la table de cuisine des Menzies. Quelqu’un veut du café? (Arthur Menzies est décédé le 4 mars 2010 a l’age de 93 ans; voir bout de papier, vol. 25, n° 2, et Michael Posner dans le Globe and Mail, 27 mars 2010.)
A letter from Dad while he was NATO Ambassador said: “We had our usual discussion of nuclear targeting.” I realized two things. First, that while the rationale for nuclear weapons was MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction — the discussion actually made sense. If each side thought about which cities and defence installations to target to send a message that it was willing to wind down the war, some might survive. Second, that Dad — in fact — was a “Cold Warrior”. This book is about the life of a Cold Warrior and his wife — of meetings at the highest levels, of the mundane but no less important exigencies of successful diplomacy, and of the role of domestic outreach that can be rather more unpleasant than international diplomacy itself.
Shortly before his death in 2010, Dad started to write his memoirs. The first of these, Australia and the South Pacific: Letters Home, 1965-1972 (Penumbra Press), came out in in 2009. This next book covers his life as Defense Liaison 1 (1962-65), NATO Ambassador (1972-76), and Ambassador for Disarmament (1980-82). It was largely complete at the time of his death. Like Australia and the South Pacific: Letters Home, it is based largely on my parents’ letters to their extended family: my sister and I, Dad’s sisters, and Mum’s brother and sister-in-law. The Cold Warrior book is about the routine and day-to-day life of a diplomat and his wife, not policy analysis which remains in DFATD files. Working from letters written at the time helps catch the flavour of diplomatic life then.
I have selected several extracts from Cold Warrior to show how the book captures the moment. The first links to the quote which opened this introduction to the book. The point made — politicians must think seriously about MAD — comes from a letter by Dad to the whole family.
At the Nuclear Planning Group meeting (Editor’s Note: NATO’s senior body on nuclear matters) we had the usual discussion about the problems ministers might have to face when deciding whether to use nuclear weapons in a war, and if they did, when and what type. The new U.S. Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, was impressive in his grasp of the subject and also shed light on the Defense Readiness Condition alert of U.S. forces ten days earlier. Our meeting spread over a day and a half. At the end, the ministers and I were received by Queen Juliana at the Palace. She took an intelligent interest in our meeting and then went on to draw the conversation toward the world energy crisis. Most of the talk was in English, but she switched into French and German and Dutch with ease. (From pages 70-71)
Much of the book deals with the daily exigencies of diplomatic life:
We were fortunate that all twenty of the guests we invited for our dinner at the end of November in honour of the new Governor General, Jules Léger, and Mme Léger turned up. Sheila was worried about whether they would, and worried even more about the staff, because in the mornings they had been about three hours late because of the continuing disruptions caused by the energy crisis. For the toast to the Légers, I made a good little speech, truly bilingual in being half in French and half in English, and Jules responded, mostly in French, in a light and amusing way. We spent most of the week preparing for the meetings of the Defence Ministers the next week, and of the Foreign Ministers of NATO the week after that.
The first full week of December there was a meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers and the Chiefs of the Defence Staff: I had all the senior Canadian commanders in Europe in for a seminar with General Dextraze on the Monday to bring the military up to date on political developments, and such things as the talks in Geneva on arms limitations. Our dinner at home on Thursday night for Mr. and Mrs. Richardson and General and Mrs. Dextraze went quite well. The Minister travelled with such a large staff (we had to include all military personnel down to the rank of Brigadier General) that we had to keep it an all-Canadian affair. It was the same for the dinner for the External Affairs side we had later, except that on that occasion we dipped much lower to include the Juniors involved as well. As I mentioned more than once to Sheila, when Mr. Richardson had come for the first Defence meeting I attended in 1972, he was very new in the job and knew very little. I found it much easier to brief him this time, but there was still a world of difference between a political person like him and a real experienced professional like Mr. Sharp. (From page 72)
The next extract presents what Dad felt was one of his major accomplishments: prodding the government to use military forces for overseas disaster relief — an earthquake in Italy. The conclusion that it was “well received in the Italian Canadian community” deserves elaboration. Votes are a politician’s currency and TV pictures of the Canadian military delivering aid in North Italy may have helped the government gain or hold several constituencies with a substantial proportion of Italian Canadians. The perceived payoff solidified the government’s willingness to use military forces for disaster relief:
In early May there was an earthquake in the Udine region, in northeastern Italy. Given the extent of the casualties and destruction, there was some discussion among NATO ambassadors about ways in which Alliance countries might show their concern, and at our suggestion the Acting Secretary-General issued a press release. The Chief of Defence Staff, General Dextraze, was still in Brussels, so I got in touch with him and asked if he would agree to my ascertaining what emergency medical assistance CFE (Editor’s Note: Canadian Forces Europe was Canada’s military formation in Europe during the Cold War) could provide, if we were able to obtain the authority of the appropriate ministers. He responded magnificently and instructed the Commander of CFE to get organized. Meanwhile I had got in touch with Ottawa, where the usefulness of the proposal was recognized, but general caution was expressed concerning who would pay the extra cost for fuel, etc. However, I was authorized to tell the Italian Ambassador what we might provide and to ask what might be needed. This I did, and fifteen minutes later he asked for all of it to go right away. There was another set of phone calls with Ottawa seeking ministerial approval. This came at about 8:15 p.m., and the first plane landed in the Udine area before midnight. Three flights were made during the night, and a road column of eighty vehicles set off at first light. Eventually two hundred of our men were involved. It had been a good exercise to test the alertness of CFE and to demonstrate in a practical way the solidarity of the Alliance. I found it fun to be the instigator and planner of the operation. However, it meant a lot of phone calls and telex messages. This effort on the part of the Government of Canada was well received in the Italian-Canadian community, a politically important consideration from the Government’s point of view. (From pages 128-129)
The last extract shows Dad’s moral commitment to citizen participation and his response to being involved in providing it while Ambassador for Disarmament.
In Saskatoon I spoke to a meeting of about three hundred in Knox United Church, organized by Project Ploughshares. It began with interventions by those not in sympathy with the government’s policies. I tried to explain that arms control and disarmament should be viewed as elements in our overall foreign and national security policies. Countries will only reduce their armaments if they are assured by verifiable agreements that potential adversaries are making comparable reductions. Countries or groups of countries on both sides will then feel secure, but they will be happy to achieve or maintain that security using fewer soldiers, less military equipment, and a lower defence budget. Thus, Canadian national security policies have three thrusts: membership in NATO, a defensive alliance; a persistent search for balanced and verifiable arms control and disarmament agreements; and a continuing effort to deal with the underlying political and economic causes of international tension.
These policies were not accepted by many non-governmental groups concerned with the arms race and the threat of a nuclear holocaust. They wanted the government to take more radical action: Canada should get out of NORAD and NATO, set an example of disarmament, and be an intermediary between the United States and the Soviet Union. There was also criticism of Canada’s being involved in armaments production and export. Others would have the government stop all exports of uranium and nuclear technology and equipment.
I respected the good intentions of these people and their groups. I pointed out that I was a servant of the government, and therefore an explainer of government policies. I pointed to some of the harsh realities of the world and the limited influence that Canada has in international arms control negotiations, and I recounted some of the initiatives Canada had taken in peacekeeping and in proposing disarmament formulas. Considerable numbers of those who attended my meetings did not accept my efforts. They used question periods as opportunities to state their views at length, to criticize government policies, and to attack me as an explainer of government policies. One young man in Calgary actually spat at me. The suggestion that in a democratic country the way to change government policies was by changing the opinion of a majority was not accepted. Some of the meetings dragged on for nearly three hours, and often the chairmen did little to keep them under control. Some of the sustained confrontations were pretty exhausting! (From pages 150-151)
During his childhood, Ken Menzies accompanied his parents on their postings to Japan and Malaya. After an undergraduate degree in Politics and Economics at Queens, he did graduate work in Sociology in England completing a doctorate at the University of Essex. Returning to Canada in 1972, he became a professor at the University of Guelph. He has written two books on sociological theory and numerous articles largely on criminal justice topics. He lives with Ann Stallman and has one step daughter and two grandsons.
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2014) — Winter 2014–15 // Hiver 2014-2015, pp. 12–13. Read the rest of this issue →
