Of course, there are outer limits to loyalty, and if one believes that the policies of one’s government are evil or dangerous to the interests of one’s country, one has always the recourse of resignation. It must be admitted that on the whole, diplomats do not resign readily. They sometimes console themselves with the reflection that if they left the service, a more dangerous and undesirable person might be appointed in their place.
A diplomat is a civil servant at the orders of his government who happens to be serving part of his life abroad. Under the orders of his government, yes, but under how many and how different governments in the course of a lifetime? As for myself, I have served under six Prime Ministers in the course of my career – a mixed bunch, one might irreverently remark. Some I have known better than others; most I have observed at pretty close quarters at home and abroad.
The only people to whom Prime Ministers can talk on a basis of real equality are other Prime Ministers. I have been present at many such “face-to-face” meetings between Canadian Prime Ministers and their counterparts in foreign countries. In addition to the importance of the official agenda for discussion between them, it was fascinating to watch the manner in which they took each other’s measure. There was always a period of small talk between the great men, customarily led off by a few mild jokes. Nothing of significance at this stage was said by either party, but if they were meeting for the first time they seemed to sense, not only on political grounds but on grounds of sympathy or aversion, whether this relationship would bear fruit in future. This matter of personal rapport or distaste between the leaders of nations is one of those elements in international affairs least easy to forecast, escaping all computerized data and baffling the planners, but by no means negligible in its effects. Two examples are the personal antipathy between President Kennedy and Prime Minister Diefenbaker, and the personal friendship between Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Nehru. It is not always the antagonist in the international arena who arouses personal mistrust – it is sometimes the ally.
In the conduct of Canadian foreign policy the effects of prime-ministerial or ministerial statements on international issues which are aimed at vote-getting at home, without regard for the long-term consequences abroad, are much to be feared. However, what really counts in the daily conduct of foreign policy is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have a strong position in Cabinet and be able to make his views prevail. A Foreign Minister maybe a charming chap, much liked by his officials, but that is of little use if the policies he is advocating are regularly shot down by his colleagues or overruled by the Prime Minister. Of course, in the worst case one may have a Minister who is both disagreeable and ineffectual.
It is notoriously difficult to get Canadian news into the columns of the foreign press. As I know all too well, it is easier for the camel to enter the eye of the needle than to get a well informed Canadian political story or considered editorial comment into the columns of the press of London, Paris, or New York. Perhaps this is in part simply because our news stories are not very sensational; perhaps if we indulged in more revolutions, or more spectacular scandals or crimes, we would receive more attention. There are far too few Canadian journalists permanently stationed abroad and too many journalists accompanying visiting Canadian ministers. Our actors, singers, and artists contribute enormously to a fuller view of Canada.
Politicians of all stripes are very prone to tell us what a great people we are and what a magnificent future awaits us if we vote the right way, or, alternatively, to chide us for backsliding if we do not fulfil their expectations by conforming to their policies. Fortunately, Canadians have enough common sense not to swallow all these congratulations and admonitions. Canadian governments have always had a tendency to dish out good advice to other nations, calling upon them to behave themselves in conformity with our high moral standards, and to cease and desist from disturbing actions. We are a little too apt to insist by contrast upon the purity of our own intentions. We have the more cause to be careful of the susceptibilities of other peoples because we are extremely susceptible to criticism of ourselves by others. This prickly sensitivity is not an asset to us.
We show to our best advantage in our association with the developing nations. We ourselves have gone through a colonial stage in our history and know something of the birth pangs of emerging nationhood. Our relationship with such countries also brings to the surface the idealist strain that has always played a part both in our aid programs and in our peace-keeping initiatives. In general, we are happier when we can fulfil a practical and humanitarian or peace-keeping role, and this has brought us many good friends around the world. We resent condescension, real or imagined. “Who the hell do they think they are?” is the common Canadian reaction. Sometimes this attitude comes into play even in our relations with those with whom we have the closest ties of friendship and affinity – the British, the French, and the Americans. We condemn in others what seems to us snobbery, cultural or social, whereas while we have no class structure in the European or even the American sense, we have many social and cultural dividing lines of our own, and quite a plentiful crop of snobs.
It is a well-worn platitude that in a democracy foreign policy should be based upon an alert and informed public opinion, but to repeat a truism does not make it come true. The fact is that most people, most of the time, are not much interested in foreign policy except when it touches their pockets or involves some special group organized for a particular cause. This lack of interest is reflected in this country in the paucity of public debate in and out of Parliament and the scrappy coverage (with some honourable exceptions) of international affairs in the press. Thus, informed public opinion is, and is likely to remain, in a minority.
It is, however, a minority essential to the conduct of foreign affairs, for a policy which has no real roots in public opinion is apt to be an artificial construction which may sound plausible on paper, but which collapses at any real test. The universities and the press have, of course, an indispensable part to play, informing and sustaining public interest. In Canada we have been fortunate in having an academic community who are making valuable contributions to our knowledge and understanding of foreign policy issues.
Those who operate in the field of international relations, politicians and professional diplomats, depend upon such informed comment. Even criticism is preferable to indifference; otherwise they may come to feel that they are functioning in a void, and no one likes to feel superfluous, not even an ambassador – or, indeed, an old ex-ambassador.
As to the vexed question of our national identity, it appears that, in the long run, despite all our self-doubts and divisions, we have an instinctive sense of what it means to be Canadian and no intention of relinquishing the privilege. Sometimes this seems clearer viewed from a distant perspective than closer at home.
Much of this material appeared in Spectrum (Volume 3, Number 2, 1983), a quarterly publication of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, under the title “As Others See Us – Canada’s Image Abroad.”
EPILOGUE
As it turned out, my farewell to diplomacy did not lead to a farewell to the Public Service of Canada. For on December 9, 1971, I was appointed Special Advisor to the Privy Council in Ottawa. My diary entry for that day reads as follows: “They have announced my appointment to the Privy Council. The front-page headline of the Ottawa Journal says ‘Government Crumbles’ and, directly below, ‘Ritchie Joins the Prime Minister’s Office.’ It sounds as though I had been called in to prop up the edifice. In reality this job has nothing to do with party politics. What precisely it has to do with remains to be seen. At any rate it gives me one more hand to play before I throw in the cards and clear out for good. Then I shall delve once more into the toppling piles of my diaries to see if anything can be unearthed that will bear the light of day.”
br />
Storm Signals : More Undiplomatic Diaries, 1962-1971 (9781551996806) Page 17