bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1988) — Summer 1988 // Été 1988, p. 26
John Starnes comments on Stephen Lewis’s comments on defence policy:
“Stephen Lewis’s June 4 speech in Montreal to the congress of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, in which he strongly criticized the government’s defence policies, showed bad judgement, intemperance and arrogance. These are qualities Canadians do not expect from those appointed to represent them abroad.
Lewis is reported in the Citizen as having said that some of the views “would not be shared by the government,” and that he is “entitled to a little bravery at the 11th hour of my tenure.” He also is reported as having said. “No diplomatic appointment robs me of my tenacious opposition to cruise testing and my tenacious support of nuclear freezes.”
His argument about bravery at the 11th hour is specious. The rule that diplomats do not make public speeches on important policy issues without the approval of ministers is practical and sensible. It is obvious Lewis knew the rule when he accepted the appointment and the considerable emoluments attached to it. For Lewis to act now as if the rule doesn’t apply to him is arrogant.
Does he think he is the first Canadian diplomat to have differed with those making Canada’s policies? Many of us who have held similar appointments differed from time to time with the government’s policies. We expressed our views through the channels provided for such purposes. If our views were ignored we did not consider that an excuse for using our privileged position to express them publicly. If Lewis feels so strongly about his opposition to the government’s defence policies that he cannot contain himself until his resignation next August, then he should have resigned long ago.
From Lewis’s Speech: Arrogant: Ottawa Citizen, June 15, 1988.
The Armenian Community comments on External Affairs’ comments on the Armenian genocide:
..by complying with the Turkish government’s attempts to suppress the recognition of April 24 and the teaching of the genocide in our schools, our External Affairs department is in fact supporting the revisionistic goals of that country. The interests of the Canadian Armenians are being sacrificed for the political expediency of the External Affairs department, and this runs contrary to the principles enshrined in the Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Constitution.
Even worse, it sets a precedent enabling other foreign governments to control and deny ethnic minorities living in Canada their freedom of expression and preservation of their history and culture.
In conclusion, we submit that the External Affairs department must re-examine its priorities in order to protect the interests of the Canadian people it represents and to ensure that the hard work and dreams realized by the establishment of the multiculturalism policy is not undermined and destroyed
And Andrew Witer, M.P., member of the Multiculturalism Committee takes up the cudgel:
This is completely contrary to the traditions established by this country on the issues of human rights recognition. We have seen similar evidence in other cases of this kind of basic violation of the goodwill that has been built up by this country over the past 30 or 40 years, specifically vis-à-vis the Sikhs and the Indian government. We have seen it vis-à-vis the Baltic communities and the Soviet Union. There is an example where we are getting the same kind of obstruction.
I think it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that regardless of what party is in office, the people in External Affairs are the same. The same people are there today who were there 5, 10, and 15 years ago. What I find terribly disturbing, Mr Chairman, is that it would appear we have people in External Affairs who are standing up for the positions of foreign governments, and in some countries that would be called treason.
Based on this and other evidence we have heard, there seems to be a little club in Ottawa between diplomats from foreign embassies and our own External Affairs people. They go out to lunch every other day; they go to dinners; they exchange conversations and positions and concerns. It is all one little club, and it would appear that they do not want to offend each other at the expense of Canadians… So would you like to see a House of Commons committee conduct a formal investigation into the Department of External Affairs of Canada to find out how widespread this is and how long it has gone on?
From Minutes of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, June 7, 1988.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1988) — Summer 1988 // Été 1988, p. 26. Read the rest of this issue →
