Tweet
FOREIGN CONFLICTS
Ottawa Citizen, Canada
Final Edition
June 27, 2007 Wednesday
Having produced some great names in the history of the federal
bureaucracy, including the Nobel Peace prize winner Lester B. Pearson,
the Canadian foreign service has a proud tradition. It's unfortunate
that an insular elitism might be part of it.
Foreign ministries in other countries are equally susceptible to the
disease of arrogance, this conviction that foreign policy is such a
serious matter that it's best left to professionals. Amateurs such
as elected politicians need not apply. Only the big brains who staff
the department and the diplomatic corps can play the Great Game,
insist the lifers who toil away at Foggy Bottom, as the U.S. State
Department is known, the British Foreign Office, France's Quai d'Orsay
-- and probably Canada's Pearson building.
Just ask Stephen Harper. Well, he probably won't tell you, but some
recently released recordings of private sessions between the prime
minister and Toronto's ethnic media do illustrate Mr. Harper's
frustration with the relationship between his office and Foreign
Affairs.
The recordings, obtained by the Toronto Star, have a ring of truth
to them. They show the prime minister complaining about bureaucrats
who, despite having received clear direction from the government,
do not properly follow government policy.
One case that Mr. Harper apparently cited involved the government's
decision to acknowledge the Turkish genocide against Armenian civilians
during the First World War. The Turks, in perpetual denial, react badly
when outsiders mention the genocide. In the past, owing to Turkish
sensitivities, Canada's studied position had been to softpedal our
criticism of what Turkey did to the Armenians. The Turks are important
allies in NATO, after all.
The Harper government, to its credit, prefers a principled foreign
policy over a nuanced one. The government has condemned the Chinese
government on a range of issues. The government unequivocally sided
with Israel over Hezbollah and Hamas. And last year the government
in a clear statement denounced the Armenian genocide.
Seems the bureaucrats, however, presumably because they felt they
knew better than the prime minister what was in Canada's interest,
tried to undermine the force of the Armenian statement.
In the heady days of Liberal soft power in the mid-1990s, the Foreign
Affairs Department was at the centre of government. The urbane,
small-l liberals at Pearson were the stars of the day. Then suddenly
their big boss was Mr. Harper, a conservative from Alberta who'd
rather watch a hockey game than attend a cocktail party with urbane,
liberal intellectuals.
No wonder that when the Conservatives look for advice they seem these
days to be listening more to the generals and civilians at National
Defence headquarters. No wonder that other departments often seem
to lead the way in sectoral relations with other nations. No wonder
indeed that some observers believe that Foreign Affairs appears to
have become little more than a travel agent for those other government
representatives when they travel abroad.
The bureaucrats at foreign affairs complain often that they are
underpaid and underappreciated. They are probably right on both
counts. Many talented and hard-working people work in the department.
But they need to realize that, in the end, the elected government
decides foreign policy. If some bureaucrats think they're smarter
than the prime minister, then they should run for office.
Ottawa Citizen, Canada
Final Edition
June 27, 2007 Wednesday
Having produced some great names in the history of the federal
bureaucracy, including the Nobel Peace prize winner Lester B. Pearson,
the Canadian foreign service has a proud tradition. It's unfortunate
that an insular elitism might be part of it.
Foreign ministries in other countries are equally susceptible to the
disease of arrogance, this conviction that foreign policy is such a
serious matter that it's best left to professionals. Amateurs such
as elected politicians need not apply. Only the big brains who staff
the department and the diplomatic corps can play the Great Game,
insist the lifers who toil away at Foggy Bottom, as the U.S. State
Department is known, the British Foreign Office, France's Quai d'Orsay
-- and probably Canada's Pearson building.
Just ask Stephen Harper. Well, he probably won't tell you, but some
recently released recordings of private sessions between the prime
minister and Toronto's ethnic media do illustrate Mr. Harper's
frustration with the relationship between his office and Foreign
Affairs.
The recordings, obtained by the Toronto Star, have a ring of truth
to them. They show the prime minister complaining about bureaucrats
who, despite having received clear direction from the government,
do not properly follow government policy.
One case that Mr. Harper apparently cited involved the government's
decision to acknowledge the Turkish genocide against Armenian civilians
during the First World War. The Turks, in perpetual denial, react badly
when outsiders mention the genocide. In the past, owing to Turkish
sensitivities, Canada's studied position had been to softpedal our
criticism of what Turkey did to the Armenians. The Turks are important
allies in NATO, after all.
The Harper government, to its credit, prefers a principled foreign
policy over a nuanced one. The government has condemned the Chinese
government on a range of issues. The government unequivocally sided
with Israel over Hezbollah and Hamas. And last year the government
in a clear statement denounced the Armenian genocide.
Seems the bureaucrats, however, presumably because they felt they
knew better than the prime minister what was in Canada's interest,
tried to undermine the force of the Armenian statement.
In the heady days of Liberal soft power in the mid-1990s, the Foreign
Affairs Department was at the centre of government. The urbane,
small-l liberals at Pearson were the stars of the day. Then suddenly
their big boss was Mr. Harper, a conservative from Alberta who'd
rather watch a hockey game than attend a cocktail party with urbane,
liberal intellectuals.
No wonder that when the Conservatives look for advice they seem these
days to be listening more to the generals and civilians at National
Defence headquarters. No wonder that other departments often seem
to lead the way in sectoral relations with other nations. No wonder
indeed that some observers believe that Foreign Affairs appears to
have become little more than a travel agent for those other government
representatives when they travel abroad.
The bureaucrats at foreign affairs complain often that they are
underpaid and underappreciated. They are probably right on both
counts. Many talented and hard-working people work in the department.
But they need to realize that, in the end, the elected government
decides foreign policy. If some bureaucrats think they're smarter
than the prime minister, then they should run for office.