bout de papier, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1987) — Fall 1987 // Automne 1987, pp. 17–18
….on page 48, column 1, Vol. 4, no. 4 (this is the only point I hope you may find it possible to print): “Currie, unlike victorious British and French generals was granted no special vote of thanks nor given a gift from a grateful country”
The fact is that the Government proposed to give him a cash gift of $250,000, but could not get it past the Unionist caucus. I had the story from the late Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen, who told it to three of us at the request of the late Hon. J.M. Macdonnell. I can give it in precisely Mr. Meighen’s words:
“We decided in Council to recommend to caucus a cash grant of $250,000. We took it to caucus, where it was immediately assailed with the utmost virulence from all sides. Not one member had a good word to say for it. This went on for some time. Then Borden intervened. ’Well”, he said, ’I think I have now heard sufficient. It seems evident that the Government’s proposal does not command the assent of caucus. I can’t see that any useful purpose would be served by prolonging the discussion. Indeed, had Sir Arthur Currie himself been present, and had he listened to what I have been listening to for the last half or three-quarters of an hour, I think he would tell us to take our $250,000 and stick it — in our Exchequer’.”
Eugene Forsey
I was delighted to re-discover bout de papier during a brief Ottawa visit. Congratulations on your new format and variety of content and long may you prosper.
Stan V. Allen
I wish you and your team the best of success with bout de papier, which I found most interesting.
Oscar Maurtua Ambassador Embassy of Peru
I wish to comment on Peyton Lyon’s article “Ethnics and Foreign Policy” in the spring issue of bout de papier. Discussion of important foreign policy issues in the journal of our professional association is welcome and I hope it continues. Like many in our service, I have appreciated the contribution Professor Lyon has made over the years to discussion of important questions. However, as an officer deeply involved with the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe I cannot let some of his comments concerning the CSCE pass without rebuttal.
While there is no question that “ethnics” like other groups of interested Canadians, exert influence on foreign policy (as on other aspects of Government policy), Professor Lyon’s suggestion that our position in the CSCE is solely driven by the desire of Governments to cater to pressure groups results in a one-sided and misleading portrayal of Canada’s role and objectives. I will illustrate this by highlighting certain of his statements and setting the record straight.
“The Government continues to exploit the CSCE to cater to East European and Jewish minorities”.
The Canadian Government values the CSCE as a multifaceted Conference in which security and cooperation in Europe, in all their elements, may be pursued and middle powers such as Canada can play an important role. One aspect of security is human rights, a subject which arouses concern in Canada not only among “ethnics” but among Canadians of all origins. As Mr. Clark said in his speech at the opening of the CSCE Follow-Up Meeting in Vienna, progress in East/West relations depends upon the building of confidence, and poor implementation by the Soviet Union and some other East European countries of their commitments under the CSCE is not conducive to an upward trend in confidence. This is not “catering” to any group, much less a shift in “Canada’s traditional roles and style” “. It is a simple recognition that, if we cannot ensure that commitments in one important area are honoured, there are major roadblocks in our attempts to pursue viable agreements in others.
At the consultations with interested “spokesmen for NGOs in October 1986, East European and Jewish organizations predominated”.
In fact, the whole morning session was devoted to security and economic cooperation, and the afternoon to humanitarian affairs. Every effort was made to invite representatives of major NGOs and academic experts with an interest in any aspect of the subjects covered by the CSCE. Indeed, this may have been the first time this mix of arms control, “ethnic” and human rights groups, and individual specialists, was brought together to discuss a common subject. Whatever may have been the actual numerical balance of the interests of those who attended, there were many able and articulate spokesmen for arms control, and we believe the dialogue among those present was mutually interesting and profitable.
[They] were strongly encouraged to raise complaints about Soviet transgressions to Ottawa, or directly to our Delegation to the Conference.”
They were encouraged to share with us, then and on an ongoing basis, information about events in Eastern Europe, such as family reunification, on which, in many cases, they and not Government might have important factual details. We requested all those represented to keep in touch with us and feel free to express their views, and we undertook to keep them informed. Anyone who has followed the hearings of Parliamentary Standing Committees concerned with human rights over the past two years knows that they require no special encouragement to make their concerns known.
“The vigorous pursuit of human rights, presumably through loud diplomacy, may well reduce a nation’s capacity to promote other objectives, notably détente and control over the arms race.”
In response to questions from Professor Lyon, it was pointed out, to the apparent satisfaction of most of those present, that there is no contradiction between vigorous pursuit of human rights and of military stability in the CSCE. Indeed, they are mutually inter-related and complementary. If we had not taken such a position in the past, we could not have achieved the balance reflected in the Helsinki Final Act and the Madrid Concluding Document. And Canada played an important role in the CSCE Stockholm Conference, whose final Document represented the significant achievement in arms control.
“A mellowing of conditions within the Soviet Union, moreover, seems likelier to occur as the result of détente than of external pressure in a cold war atmosphere.”
The question whether pressure or détente has promoted “mellower” conditions in the Soviet Union may produce lively discussion among specialists, presumably in light of the experience of the dozen years since Helsinki. At Vienna, Canada had sponsored or cosponsored proposals on air pollution, the ozone layer, biotechnology, commercial contacts and information, countertrade, tourism, science and technology, terrorism, and information, and the western proposal for conferences on confidence- and security-building and conventional stability, as well as a wide range of proposals in the “human dimension”. We have played an active and constructive role in all three Baskets. We have repeatedly and forcefully expressed our concerns about the human rights record of some countries, and will continue to do so, since this is crucial to security and cooperation in Europe, a goal we are pursuing on a broad front and with every resource available at this important Conference.
Alan Bowker
Re: Martin I. Levine letter, Summer 87
I am sorry that Mr. Martin Levine was offended by my column on “Ethnics and Foreign Policy”. That was not my intent, or expectation.
I did not — and do not — presume to know how all Jewish-Canadians think about our Middle East policy, or even the majority. I am well aware of the splendid diversity of view found among the Jews of Israel and, to a lesser extent, among those of North America.
Politically speaking, the fact that really matters is that the Canada-Israel Committee (CIC) claims to speak for the entirety of organized Jewry in Canada, and Jewish- Canadians rarely challenge that claim. (Does Mr. Levine ever do so?) And does the CIC, by far the most efficient of the lobbies seeking to influence our foreign policy, ever criticize an Israeli action or policy?
The problem is greatly compounded by a second fact: all our political parties accept the claims of the CIC, and also believe that there is a cohesive Jewish-Canadian vote, greatly attached to Israel, and able to swing a number of precious constituencies, mostly in Toronto. They also believe that Jewish- Canadian wealth can do wonders for the party coffers! True or false, this perception explains far more about Canada’s pro-Israel bias than the rational deliberation imagined by Mr. Levine. (The situation in the United States is similar, and far more serious in its consequences.)
The CIC doesn’t always win, and Canada’s policies have been inching towards greater balance and effectiveness. But note our isolation at the recent Francophone Summit. Canada alone refused to vote in favour of Palestinian self-determination! Instead we quibbled. Did we hear Mr. Levine, or the CIC complaining?
Wrong I may be, but not alone. Professor John Kirton and I recently surveyed Departmental views for a forthcoming book on the domestic sources of Canada’s Middle East policy. In sharp contrast to its cooperation in three earlier surveys, the Department pressed the public button (does anyone wonder why?) and urged all DEA members to clam up. Almost all heeded the advice. (This obedience should reassure Joe Clark, and confound Flora MacDonald!)
Fortunately for scholarship, the response from former officers was more than ample, and entirely consistent with the half dozen returns from serving officers and about thirty interviews in recent years. The respondents included at least sixteen ex-Ambassadors to the Middle East (three to Israel), three ex- Assistant Undersecretaries and one ex- Undersecretary. An overwhelming majority concurred that our policies have been unbalanced in favour of Israel. Even more striking was the response to a question about the respective weights of the various inputs in making our Middle East policy. By a decisive margin, the panel put the “Jewish Canadian Community” in first place, followed by the Prime Minister and DEA; “Israel” was not far behind.
In view of this, can a serious student of Canada’s external behaviour really ignore the “ethnic” factor?
In a nasty little dig, Mr. Levine implied that my views reflect “prejudice”, “ presumably anti-Jewish. This has become a standard ploy of the die-hard champions of Israel, and the risk that one might be branded an “anti-Semite” has silenced many critics. I choose not to be intimidated by this McCarthyite blackmail. British and American courts have recently been very generous towards individuals falsely accused of being anti-Jewish. It may well be time to ask a Canadian court to rule whether criticism of Israel, or Canada’s pro-Israel posture, constitutes racist “prejudice”
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1987) — Fall 1987 // Automne 1987, pp. 17–18. Read the rest of this issue →
