bout de papier, Vol. 26, No. 2 (2011) — Fall/Winter 2011 // Automne/Hiver 2011, pp. 5–8
There is a wonderful image of exhaustion and elation in Chariots of Fire when Eric Liddell wins the 400 metres at the Olympic Games in Paris in 1924. The cinematic treatment of that event stresses his unlikely victory (in a race longer than his accustomed shorter sprints) over two American rivals, one failing to finish and the other out-paced at the end, along with other quarter-milers in the field. Unmentioned in the film, and in most accounts of the race, was the Canadian who finished fourth, David Johnson, a Rhodes Scholar from Quebec then studying law at Oxford University. Johnson is also mentioned only once in passing in the official history of the Department of External Affairs, though he served with distinction in Ottawa and abroad after joining the department in 1941 from the Department of Finance, where he had been Solicitor to the Treasury. Johnson interrupted his work in the foreign ministry to serve at the front with the Canadian Army in Northwestern Europe. After the war, he represented Canada abroad as Acting High Commissioner in Dublin, as High Commissioner to Pakistan, as Canada’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, as Canadian Commissioner on the International Supervisory Commission in Vietnam and finally as Ambassador to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. While in Ottawa, he had risen through the ranks to Associate Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs.
His final overseas assignment with the Canadian government (though not his last work abroad) is the subject of the following correspondence. This selection of letters explains why he was appointed to the post but leaves unexplained why he was obliged to resign as ambassador after his appointment had been extended. Though his formal letter of resignation (which unfortunately was not found on this file) was evidently received by 18 August 1960, he characteristically delayed his departure until 12 November 1960 so as to avoid an untimely interruption in diplomatic contact and reporting.
In fact, David Johnson was a victim of the “gay purges” which swept through the public service of Canada, including its foreign service, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In an interview with Dean Beeby of The Canadian Press nearly 20 years ago, the former head of the RCMP Security Service, William Kelly, claimed not only that Johnson had been forced to resign from the public service but that he had also been threatened with arrest and prosecution should he ever return to Canada. As Kelly put it, Johnson “was warned not to come back to Canada as he might run into difficulty, and he never did”.
Contrary to that assertion, Johnson, who was highly regarded in the senior ranks of DEA and by the minister, Howard Green, was persuaded by the Under-Secretary of State, Norman Robertson, to take a leave of absence and there was no suggestion that he could not return to Ottawa or work for another government department, though the downgrading of his security clearance presumably precluded further service in DEA. The reasons for his return from Moscow were kept quiet and the Canadian government, notably through the efforts of Charles Ritchie, then Canada’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, secured an appointment for him as Resident Representative of the Technical Assistance Board of the United Nations in Nigeria, where he served for two years. Before he took up his international assignment and again after it was over, Johnson met with former colleagues and others in Ottawa. After his formal retirement from the public service of Canada, Johnson went first to London, England, though there is no indication on his personnel file that he did not return to Canada before his death on 3 January 1972.
The following reprinted correspondence comes from the file on David Moffat Johnson (in two parts) in the Historical Personnel Records (RG32, Volume 822) of Library and Archives Canada. On the same file are letters of thanks for his distinguished service from Green and Robertson, who was a longtime friend and colleague of Johnson. With thanks to Paulette Dozois and Brian Beaven of LAC for their assistance in locating this material.
SECRET AND PERSONAL Ottawa, December 19, 1955
David Johnson, Esquire, Canadian Delegation, International Supervisory Commission, Hanoi.
Dear Dave,
By the time you receive this letter you will have finished half a normal tour of duty in Indo-China. While it is difficult to foresee at this stage what sort of plans we should make for the Commission in Vietnam for the next full year or so, it is clear in our minds that you should not stay in Hanoi or Saigon longer than was expected when you originally undertook this assignment, i.e., August 1956. It might be possible that you could return before that time, but it is generally agreed that you should not stay any longer and we must therefore make plans for your next posting.
2. You may recall that at an early stage in the game, while you were still in New York, consideration was given to your going to Moscow. I mentioned this possibility to the Minister recently and he asked me to explore it with you once more. John Watkins will have served more than one term by next autumn and we would like to have him back in Ottawa. You are aware that Ralph Collins has been appointed to Moscow and will be arriving there within the next few days. His knowledge of the Russian language is good and he could certainly remain in charge for a few months between the time John leaves and you arrive. The date of arrival could therefore remain fairly flexible and this would give you time to take a fairly lengthy leave after the year spent in Indo-China. For purposes of discussion we might aim at a date not later than November 1. Naturally, if it suited your plans to get there earlier, so much the better.
3. The knowledge of communist techniques which you will have acquired during your stay in Indo-China will, it seems to me, be most helpful in the Moscow environment. Your U.N. experience would also be invaluable. Further, the job is getting to be much more active and in a sense more tricky than ever since the communists have decided partly to open and then to close again the tap of cooperation. We get more visitors from the Soviet Union and I think this trend will continue; more Canadians are also going to Moscow. During the next two or three years the problem of Germany will loom large in our preoccupations and one of the keys – and the main one at that
– can only be found in the Kremlin.
4. For these and a variety of other reasons I think Moscow is going to become increasingly important in the immediate future and I for one would be delighted if you could accept this assignment.
5. I would not wish to be firmly committed to this proposal, nor would the Minister, but I thought that I should give you this indication of our thinking so as to obtain your reactions.
6. Do send me a note and let me know how this strikes you.
Yours sincerely, Jules Léger
SECRET AND PERSONAL Canadian Delegation / Délégation du Canada Hanoi, January 2, 1956
Jules Léger, Esquire, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, OTTAWA, Canada.
Dear Jules,
I have your letter of December 19th asking me what my reactions would be to a posting to Moscow.
My answer is that I should be flattered to be selected to go to Moscow. If all goes well here, I should like to be able to count on about two months in Canada between postings. This would give me about four or five weeks leave and about three or four weeks in Ottawa during which I could be briefed in the Department and make other preparations.
I realize that you are making a preliminary enquiry and in no sense a firm offer. Hence I am not mentioning the subject matter of your letter to anyone in this office. Naturally I should be grateful to hear from you as soon as any definite decision has been taken.
With best wishes for the New Year.
Yours sincerely, David Johnson
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL March 5, 1958
Mr. David M. Johnson, Canadian Ambassador, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Dear Dave,
Your normal tour of duty in Moscow will expire in July. At this stage Departmental planning is very much up in the air. I intend, however, once the elections are over, to raise some problems of personnel with the Minister. There are several appointments which should be looked into in April or May.
For planning purposes, I would therefore very much like to have a word from you as to how you envisage your own future, i.e., whether you would like a second full tour of duty in Moscow, or a shorter tour after home leave; or, whether you would prefer another posting either in Ottawa or abroad.
I am sure you will realize that the Department cannot be committed to any course of action until after the elections; it would, however, be helpful to have your views at a fairly early stage, particularly if you preferred not to return to Moscow after having taken home leave.
Yours sincerely, Jules Léger PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Moscow, March 14, 1958.
Canadian Embassy / Ambassade du Canada Jules Léger, Esquire, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa.
Dear Jules,
Many thanks for your letter of March 5 informing me that my tour of duty will expire in July next and enquiring how I envisage my future.
I should like to take some Home Leave beginning about August 1. After that it would be agreeable to me to return to the USSR for another tour of duty or to be given another posting abroad.
Yours sincerely, D.M. Johnson, Ambassador
E.W.T. G[ill], Note for Personnel File: D.M. Johnson, 2 October 1959.
Secret, Personnel Information.
In an interview with David Johnson I told him that we were exploring possibilities of replacing him in Moscow some time next year and that it might take place in the early spring. Turkey was under consideration as a posting for him.
Mr. Johnson said he was agreeable to meet the department’s wishes, either in staying on at Moscow for his full second tour or in being moved. He expressed a preference to serve abroad rather than at home and he would be quite willing to go to Turkey, if we needed him there. He would also be willing to accept a position in Latin America and mentioned Mexico and the Argentine as places where he will be willing to serve.
As regards Moscow, he thought that a knowledge of Russian was a most important attribute that an Ambassador could have. He said that the Soviet leaders were conversationally inclined and instinctively sought out those who could speak Russian. This gave Russian-speaking Ambassadors a preferred position. He mentioned that the U.S. and the U.K. were now attaching considerable importance to a linguistic requirement in their postings.
E.T.W. Gill, Memorandum for Personnel Division, 18 August 1960.
Personnel Information. Private and Confidential.
Mr. D. M. Johnson
Mr. D. M. Johnson, Canadian Ambassador in the U.S.S.R. has submitted his resignation and this has been accepted by the Under-Secretary.
Mr. Johnson plans to leave Moscow in the latter part of October or early November and proceed to the United Kingdom where he proposes to live for the next year.
Will you please prepare, for my signature, letters to Mr. Johnson giving him information about his leave credits, superannuation benefits and removal arrangements.
E.T.W. Gill
David M. Johnson [Canadian Embassy, Moscow] to N.A. Robertson [USSEA], 6 September 1960.
Personal and Confidential.
Dear Mr. Robertson,
Many thanks for your letter of August 26 [not on file], which enables me to make plans for the future. Here are my comments on it.
Let me first deal with the date of the termination of my tour of duty in Moscow. I suggest on or about November 12. The reason for selecting this time is that November 7 is, as you know, an important day here and is likely to be even more important this year than usual because of the expected presence in Moscow at that time of top Communist leaders. It seems to me it would be useful to remain a few days after November 7 in order to observe developments and report on them.
There is no difficulty about your suggestion that I keep my plans fluid for some time. My plans after I leave Moscow remain, as set out in my letter of July 5, to spend some months in London brushing up law at the Inner Temple but these are flexible plans which can be changed.
I am proud to have served in two government departments for nearly twenty-five years and would seriously consider any suitable post offered me in Ottawa or elsewhere in Canada or abroad. I do not object to a post abroad as long as it does not carry heavy representational duties. In fact, I have given some thought to technical assistance possibilities in underdeveloped countries.
Since it is difficult to do much from Moscow, I decided to wait until I had settled down in London before exploring possibilities.
You will realize that I have been away from the practice of law for a long time now. Hence it seems to me that a post where a legal background would be useful would be more appropriate than one which could only be satisfactorily filled by an active practising lawyer of long experience.
However, there is no reason why I should bother you with all these details. It was kind of you to offer to examine openings in Ottawa but please do not feel under any obligation to do so.
Yours sincerely, David M. Johnson
N.A. Robertson to D.M. Johnson, 6 October 1960. Personal and Confidential [o/s SECRET].
[Notes above letter and proposed timing of departure]
“This is agreeable to me.
I am glad that you are prepared to consider seriously any suitable post which may be open in another Government department here. In these circumstances, I would suggest that we leave the matter of your resignation in abeyance since it would be to your advantage to transfer from one Government appointment to another rather than to resign and thereafter accept another position in the Public Service. Therefore I propose, for the time being, to have your departure from Moscow processed as an ordinary transfer to Ottawa.”
[There follows an explanation of the possible implications of his resignation for leave entitlement and reimbursement for removal expenses.]
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 26, No. 2 (2011) — Fall/Winter 2011 // Automne/Hiver 2011, pp. 5–8. Read the rest of this issue →
