bout de papier, Vol. 20, No. 4 (2004) — Spring/Summer 2004 // Printemps/Été 2004, pp. 31–32
Editor:
Retired ambassadors, we all know, retreat to their gardens, cultivate their grandchildren, read (and occasionally write) spy novels, and pen their memoirs. The public hears as little about them as it did during their quiet exercise of influence. But they cannot escape the cruel world. And they care.
How much they care was demonstrated in April by three urgent letters, two of which made world-wide front page news. All three were provoked by an agreement between US President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that flouted the United Nations and seemed certain to retard the Middle East peace process. Each letter was addressed to a head of government and signed by upwards of 35 former ambassadors, many with Middle East experience. The Brits, the first to go public and the angriest, seemed more concerned with Iraq than Palestine and objected to Prime Minister Blair’s perceived subservience to Washington. Coming from the one essential actor in the process, the American letter was understandably the more significant. Peace will not come to the Middle East without the support, perhaps the dictation, of the world’s only superpower.
Scarcely noticed, the first of the three letters to be composed and delivered came from the quiet Canadians. Only Le Devoir carried a report, on May 12. The quiet media treatment was not the fault of the editors or the reporters. Rather, it derived from the decision by the authors not to promote publicity until their political masters had a chance to ingest the wisdom in their letter. They would be more responsive, it was thought, if treated with that courtesy. This is the first publication of the full text of this unprecedented letter.
The group instigating this letter, the Middle East Discussion Group, cherishes a number of ex-Ambassadors in its ranks, and has been meeting more or less monthly for 30 years. It has counted General E.L.M. Burns, Robert and Anne Stanfield, Heath Macquarrie, David Halton, Floria MacDonald, John Sigler and William Barton among its members. The Group has heard many authorities from the Middle East and North America, but was always intended to do more than listen or discuss. About once a year, the members (with a few abstainers) have offered the Minister advice on Canadian policy. On one occasion, Prime Minister Trudeau invited the core members to explain their views. The approach favoured by a large majority of the Group may be gleaned from the letter to Prime Minister Martin. Though some members wanted the letter’s tone to be as robust as that of their British and American counterparts, they heeded the wisdom of one authority, who observed that “to be influential with modest means, one needs be modest in demeanor.”
The letter was written quickly to ensure that the Prime Minister would receive it before his meeting with President Bush. Did he read the letter? Did he convey our counsel? Did the two leaders even discuss the Middle East? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But for me it was heartening to have confirmed that many of our most experienced diplomats feel that raising Canada’s voice, albeit quietly, just might make a difference.
We have not yet received a reply, but we have not given up hope. After all, the Prime Minister has been rather busy of late.
Peyton V. Lyon
The Middle East Discussion Group
Ottawa, Ontario
24 April 2004
The Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P.
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario KIA OA2
Dear Mr. Martin;
We, the undersigned, strongly support the constructive statements which you and Foreign Minister Bill Graham recently made on critical events in the Middle East conflict. Our Ottawa group, now going into its thirtieth year, includes Canadian retired parliamentarians, ambassadors, journalists, academics, religious leaders and others concerned with Canadian policies to foster a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Your recent comments carry on your father’s balanced approach when he strongly promoted the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967. The principle of “land for peace” established in that resolution must remain the basis for any viable peace in the area. In 1947, Lester Pearson played a critical role at the UN in securing the adoption of the UN General Assembly partition resolution which led to the creation of the state of Israel.
We share your endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s proposal to withdraw some settlements, which Canada has always regarded as illegal. We believe your are also right in taking a wait-and-see attitude in its effects on the prospects for a negotiated peace. We see serious problems ahead:
• Even after a withdrawal, Israel will retain control of Gaza’s land borders, sea cost and airspace, and keep a veto over the establishment of an airport or sea port there, making more difficult Palestinian acceptance of the withdrawal as genuine.
• Still more serious is that Israel’s implementation of the proposal will be conditional on Palestinian prevention of violence emerging from Gaza, leaving the plan hostage to veto groups wishing to sabotage it. The Palestinian Autority was excluded from any negotiations on the withdrawal plan, and the influence of Hamas is only likely to increase as a result. Despite the shortcomings in the record of the Authority thus far, we believe that strengthening the moderates is critical for any success in the fight against terrorism.
• The stark pronouncements on the Palestinian refugees, included in the Bush-Sharon correspondence, will further intensify Palestinian resentment and anger. As the chair of the Refugee Working Group, Canada knows better than most how difficult and sensitive this issue is. We welcome your statement that a peace agreement wil have to deal with refugee compensation, and that they “have got to be dealt with fairly.” This merits continuing emphasis.
• The Bush-Sharon acceptance of the permanence of substantial Israeli settlements in the West Bank is highly provocative, flies in the face of protestations that final negotiations are not being prejudged, and implies that Israel’s recently established “demographic realities” can transcend international law. Canada should stick resolutely to its position that it is up to the two sides to negotiate borders.
• The appalling cycle of violence in the area is very unlikely to be broken by the recent US-Israeli agreement. Our government is right to condemn both the use of suicide bombers and acts of forcible repression, including “targeted assassinations.” We agree strongly with the views of four former chiets of the Israeli security service Shin Bet that the failure to offer the Palestinians a political alternative has resulted in the terrible violence now practised by both sides. Serious dehumanizations has occured and must be reversed.
• Despite the problems created by recent policy developments, there are many in Israel and the Jewish diaspora community, and among Palestinians, who share the view that a political solution can and must be found. We believe the efforts of Israel and Palestinian leaders, in the unofficial “Geneva Accord” and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Plan to restore the peace process should be strongly supported. We urge that Canada develop further its own quiet peace-building efforts.
Canada knows the fundamental importance of multilateral cooperation and apprecates the responsibility of the international community to develop a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace” in the Middle East. We share your confidence in the professionalism of our foreign service, our intelligence community, and the Canadian military in dealing with the problems of this troubled area. Under your leadership, they should be given every encouragement to work with their counterparts abroad in finding shared roles to restore and sustain the peace process. Canadians will be given broad support to any effort in this direction.
(signed)
Theodore Arcand*
Douglas Anglin
William Barton*
John Baycroft
Eric Bergbusch*
Fred Bild*
Geoffrey Bruce*
Ross Campbell*
A.T. Chernushenko
Martin Collacott*
Gordon Cullingham
Clark Davey
Joseph Debanne
Willian T. Delworth *
Marc Faguy*
David Farr
George Fleming
Dwight Fulford*
Robert Gayner*
Randolph Gherson*
Jacques Gignac*
Richard V. Gorham*
Antonio and Peggy Gualtieri
John Gaylord Hadwen*
Zicky Hammud
Gary Harman*
James Hyndman*
Willian Janzen
Paul Lapointe*
Allan N. Lever*
Edward G. Lee*
Peyton Lyon
Vaughan Lyon
Michael Mace*
J.C. de Montigny Marchand*
Gilles Mathieu*
Tudy McLaine
Robert W. McLaren*
John Noble*
Geoffrey Pearson*
Marc Perron*
Alfred Pick*
Jacques Roy*
Carol Seaborn
Michael Shenstone*
John Sigler
William Silver
Douglas Small*
Anne Stanfield
John Starnes*
James Steele
James H. Taylor*
Kenneth D. Taylor*
Douglas Valentine*
Erik Wang*
Withold Weynerowski*
c.c. The Honourable Bill Graham, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs
* Former Head of Mission
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 20, No. 4 (2004) — Spring/Summer 2004 // Printemps/Été 2004, pp. 31–32. Read the rest of this issue →
