bout de papier, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1985) — March 1985 // Mars 1985, p. 33
The PAFSO Professional Committee’s Breakfast Seminars continued in full force through the winter season. Speakers included International Trade Minister James Kelleher, (see interview on page) Frank Petrie, Lord Carrington, Robert Ford, John Harker, Greg Newell, Stephen Lewis, Charles McMillan and Jeffrey Simpson.
Charles McMillan, Senior Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, discussed Canadian trade performance under four general headings: “traditional” style, at which the private sector was highly proficient; inter governmental, at which Canada did well enough; and two problem areas, namely counter-trade and the use of trading houses, where much more work was needed. Dr. McMillan confirmed the high priority for trade under the new Government, and promised a review of both pubic and private-sector structures for its promotion. Increased capabilities for flexible response, better co-ordination of existing talent, improved acquisition of foreign investment/technology, stronger technological data-bases and improved cooperation between government and trading firms would all likely be major factors, he noted; Japan was certainly one model to be studied in this context, as in industrial policy and R&D.
President of the Canadian Export Association (CEA) Frank Petrie raised a number of pertinent questions regarding the Department’s role in trade. He said the Department (and the government as a whole) seemed to lack a focus for trade promotion activity, and Canadian exporters remained unsure where to go for answers. The role of the Department in questions of export financing, aid/trade links, international anti-combines activity and global transportation issues were also unclear, he added. The CEA had all these matters under active review, however, and speaking as a former trade officer he hoped that the Department in time would become recognized as the logical source of assistance and advice for Canadian exporters.
Another headliner was the Secretary- General of NATO Lord Carrington. In an “off the record” briefing to a large audience, his range of topics included the state of East-West relations, arms control in the context of renewed USA/USSR contacts, the importance of NATO solidarity combined with political flexibility, the need for improved conventional forces in the NATO mix, and Canada’s continuing political and military commitment to the organization.
East-West relations had also been the topic of an earlier speaker, former Canadian Ambassador to the USSR Robert Ford. Mr. Ford indicated that Canada was well-respected in the Soviet Union but that relations might well remain difficult over the next decade even if Mr. Gorbachev, an intelligent and well-educated man who had visited Canada, did eventually become leader.
The Soviet economy was not performing as well as the Kremlin had hoped, however, a factor that might impel the Soviet leadership towards improved ties with the West at least in economic terms.
An old PAFSO hand, former Executive Director John Harker, addressed another Breakfast Seminar in his capacity as Director of International Affairs for the Canadian Labour Congress. In his remarks, he called for greater mutual respect and more frequent contacts between External and the labour movement. Many NGOs had developed an active interest in global affairs, and the CLC was interested in working to reduce the Government/NGO gap. Specifically, he discussed the labour movement’s activities on issues such as disarmament, South Africa, protectionism and trade promotion, suggesting that there was much the Congress could do to cooperate with Departmental programs in such areas. He also supported a repeat of the experimental 1979-81 External/CLC secondment program.
Reviewing the prospects of the new Government, Globe & Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson suggested that innovators in the Conservative Party would have about a year more to promote change before electoral and other pressures slowed the tide, although the government’s “honeymoon” would likely last longer. The Liberal Party meanwhile would fail to die away completely, but would take perhaps 2-3 years to regain its feet organizationally and in terms of credibility with the public. Mr. Simpson predicted that public interest in foreign policy issues (such as disarmament and Ethiopia) would likely continue to rise, but perhaps largely as a preoccupation of the intelligentsia and specific interest groups. He considered that sectoral free trade with the U.S. might be an exception to this prediction, given the extremely broad potential impact of changes in tariff and especially non-tariff barriers, but he also felt that the debate had yet to achieve sufficient focus to catch public attention fully.
Finally, two successive speakers presented an interesting contrast in approach to the work of the United Nations. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Greg Newell made a strong and polished case for Washington’s decision to pull out of UNESCO, which he characterized as necessary to combat excessive politicization, statist concepts and poor personnel and budgetary management. Asserting that “pressure from an empty chair” was a viable revenue for reform, he indicated that the United States would be strengthening its activities in those U.N. organizations it did consider well-run. Mr. Newell’s “tough-love” presentation impressed many listeners; so did the remarks of Stephen Lewis, Canada’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Mr. Lewis’s witty and strongly-enunciated presentation admitted irritation with certain aspects of his new job, including a perceived Departmental worship of the telex, diplomats’ frenzied search for the mot juste at the expense of substance, and the endless round of canapés in New York. He nevertheless defended the U.N.’s record vigorously, particularly in the economic fields, and called for an activist approach to solving the acknowledged problems in certain areas. Mr. Lewis has clearly lost neither his attachment to social justice nor his warm pugnacity, the latter evinced by his characterization of one Seminar participant, an old acquaintance, as a ’predatory post-pubescent”
In December, the Professional Committee also held an organizational meeting to draw together suggestions and volunteers for 1985. Working groups were established for possible activities relating to the Foreign Policy Review and the questions of foreign service training. PAFSO members interested in learning more about these groups should contact respectively Paul Meyer at IDA (phone: 996-1251) and either Paul Henry at PCO (phone: 995-6708) or Nesta Scott-Hankey at CPL (phone 995-1099). Suggestions for future Breakfast Seminar leaders would also of course continue to be welcomed by this reporter at PER (phone 996-1989).
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1985) — March 1985 // Mars 1985, p. 33. Read the rest of this issue →
