 |
|
CDFAI
DISPATCH: SUMMER 2004 (VOLUME II, ISSUE II)
|
|
Promoting new understanding and improvement of Canadian foreign and
defence policy.
Canadian
Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute
Phone: (403) 231-7624
Fax: (403) 231-7647
E-mail: subscribe@cdfai.org
|
 |
|
|
|
Message from
the President – Robert S. Millar
|
|
Welcome to another issue of CDFAI Dispatch. The Institute has been
quite busy over the period of time since our last issue with some
interesting developments. We are adding a new dimension to the
newsletter with the inclusion of short essays from our Fellows on
topical issues. The Fellows program is an idea that has been
germinating for some time. It is our intent to make it one of the core
programs in CDFAI, one where we can provide a service to others
through professional writing and comment on issues of current
relevance in defence and foreign affairs.
There have been some changes in personnel at CDFAI with the creation
of a full-time External Relations Manager. Alexis Apps has moved into
this role which permitted Michelle Gertzen to join our small team as
Administrative Assistant. Chris Tucker was with us over the summer as
a research analyst and he has now gone back to school.
I would welcome any comments that you may have about CDFAI and the
things we are doing. In particular, if you have a comment about
anything that we write, feel free to send it to us.
Enjoy this issue of Dispatch.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
CDFAI
Fellows
|
|
This past July, CDFAI launched it’s new Fellows Program. We approached
fourteen well known and accomplished experts with an offer to
affiliate themselves to CDFAI as Fellows. The initial list of fellows
is printed below with short bios and areas of expertise. In return for
a small honorarium, these fellows have agreed to help CDFAI respond to
media requests for information about Canadian foreign and defence
policy and to prepare a short essay of about 1000 words for our
quarterly newsletter. We intend to include at least two articles in
each edition of the newsletter.
The Fellows program is beginning somewhat modestly, but a research and
publication program for the Fellows has already been launched. CDFAI
will publish at least four short research papers each year (of about
5000 words each) on our website (and will also distribute a limited
number of hard copies) on subjects of the Fellows’ choosing.
Arrangements have already been made for the following:
-
Jean
Sebastien Rioux, “French Canada and Canadian Foreign and Defence
Policy” to be published in March 2005.
-
J.L.
Granatstein and Charles Belzile, “The Special Commission on the
Restructure of the Reserves after Ten Years”, to be published in
September 2005. Plans are underway for a new conference to be held
in the fall of 2005 in conjunction with the Centre for Military and
Strategic Studies of the University of Calgary upon publication of
this report.
-
Elinor
Sloan, “The Origin and Evolution of the Canadian Forces’ Strategic
Capability Investment Plan” to be published in December 2005.
Further
research papers are under active consideration. CDFAI also intends to
launch a speakers’ bureau featuring our Fellows.
The Fellows Program is intended to achieve two primary goals: to give
our Fellows a greater opportunity to reach a wider public audience and
to add the talent of our Fellows to CDFAI’s other expert resources.
Persons interested in being considered for CDFAI Fellowship should
contact Dr. David J. Bercuson at
dbercuson@cdfai.org.
Derek Burney is President of the Board of New Brunswick Power
and Adjunct Professor and Senior Distinguished Fellow at Carleton
University. From 1989-1993, he served as Canada's Ambassador to
the United States. This assignment culminated a distinguished
thirty-year career in the Canadian Foreign Service.
David Carment is an Associate Professor of International
Affairs at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs,
Carleton University, Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Security
and Defence Studies at Carleton University. His recent books include
Using Force to Prevent Ethnic Violence: An Evaluation of Theory and
Evidence and Conflict Prevention: Path to Peace or Grand Illusion?
Mark Entwistle is a consultant in international affairs and global
business, negotiation and diplomacy, strategic communications, media
relations, public affairs and advocacy, government relations and
operations, and public policy issue management. He is currently
Vice-President, International and Government Affairs with ExecAdvice
Corporation (www.execadvice.ca)
and Senior Associate with Prospectus Associates (www.prospectusassociates.com),
Canadian affiliate of Golin/Harris International.
James Fergusson is Deputy Director of the Centre for Defence and
Security Studies, and an Associate Professor in the Department of
Political Studies at the University of Manitoba.
John Ferris, formerly the Head of the History Department at The
University of Calgary is a specialist in military and diplomatic
history, as well as in intelligence.
Jack Granatstein is a Distinguished Research Professor of
History Emeritus at York University, Toronto. The Conference of
Defence Associations Institute named him winner of the Vimy Award “for
achievement and effort in the field of Canadian defence and security”.
He is an Officer of the Order of Canada.
Frank Harvey is Director of the Centre for Foreign Policy
Studies and Professor of Political Science and International
Relations, Dalhousie University.
Rob Huebert is the Associate Director of the Centre for
Military and Strategic Studies and editor of the Journal of Military
and Strategic Studies.
Tami Jacoby is assistant professor in the Department of
Political Studies and a research fellow at the Centre for Defence and
Security Studies, at the University of Manitoba. She has published on
the Arab-Israeli conflict, critical security issues, Canadian foreign
and defence policy, and gender and International Relations.
Alexander Moens is a professor of Political Science at Simon
Fraser University. He published his first book on Jimmy Carter’s
foreign policy in 1990 titled Foreign Policy Under Carter.
Andrew Richter is an Assistant Professor of Political Science
at the University of Windsor.
Jean-Sébastien Rioux holds the Canada Research Chair in
International Security at the Institut québécois des hautes etudes
internationales (HEI) at Laval University in Quebec City where he
is also an Assistant Professor of Political Science, appointed on June
1st, 2001.
Scot Robertson is an Associate Professor at the University of
Alberta in Edmonton. He teaches courses in international relations,
strategic studies and military history.
Cameron Ross is the Vice President for International Relations
of Emergo Canada Ltd (www.emergo.net).
While mainly focused on business interests in Europe and the US, he is
also a co-chair of a team that is providing strategic security and law
enforcement advice to seven Caribbean countries. He retired from
active military service in June 2003. His last military appointment
was Director General International Security Policy (J5 Policy)
in National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, responsible for managing
international security relations.
Elinor Sloan is assistant professor of international security
studies in the Department of Political Science, and is a former
defence analyst with Canada's Department of National Defence.
Gordon Smith is the Director of the Centre for Global Studies,
and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the University of
Victoria. Dr. Smith arrived at the University of Victoria in 1997
following a distinguished career with the Canadian Department of
Foreign Affairs, which included posts as Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs from 1994-1997, Ambassador to the European Union in Brussels
from 1991-1994, and Ambassador to the Canadian Delegation to NATO,
from 1985-1990.
Denis Stairs is the McCulloch Professor in Political Science
for the Department of Political Science at Dalhousie University.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
Congratulations
|
|
Dr. David Bercuson - 2004 Vimy Award Winner
  The
Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDAI) is pleased to
announce that Dr. David J. Bercuson, OC, PhD, LLD, FRSC, has been
selected as the recipient of the Vimy Award for 2004.
Dr. Bercuson is a distinguished Canadian who has exhibited the
highest standards of leadership throughout his career of service to
Canada. The award will be presented on Friday, November 19, 2004, at a
mixed gala dinner in the Grand Hall of the Canadian Museum of
Civilization, Gatineau.
Dr. Bercuson attended Sir George Williams University, graduating in
June in 1966 with Honours in History, and winning the
Lieutenant-Governor’s Silver Medal for the highest standing in
history. After graduation he pursued graduate studies at the
University of Toronto, earning an MA in history in 1967 and a PhD in
1971.
In 1988, Dr. Bercuson was elected to the Royal Society of Canada
and, in 1989, he was appointed Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies
at the University of Calgary. In 1997, he was appointed Special
Advisor to the Minister of National Defence. He was a member of the
Minister of National Defence’s Monitoring Committee from 1997 to 2003.
Since 1997, he has been the Director of the Centre for Military and
Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. Currently he is the
Vice President of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute,
Calgary.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
Changes at CDFAI
|
|
The CDFAI Website will be changing its look in the near future.
Our hopes are that the website will be more user-friendly and visually
appealing.
 Congratulations
to Ms. Alexis Apps (pictured right), who has moved into her new
role as External Relations Manager for CDFAI. Alexis joined CDFAI in
2003 as Executive Assistant and was promoted to Coordinator Programs &
Administration in 2004. Alexis has a BA in History from the University
of Calgary.
As a valuable member of the CDFAI team, we welcome the abilities and
skills Alexis brings to this new position.
Michelle Gertzen joined the CDFAI staff as Administrative
Assistant in August. Michelle comes to us from Mancal Corporation and
has a BA in Sociology from the University of Lethbridge.
Top
of page...
|
|
|
|
Annual Conference
|
|
Defining the National
Interest: New Directions for Canadian Foreign Policy
November 4-5, 2004
In this year of change and review, the 2004 conference will define
and refine Canada's international interests. The conference format
includes panel discussions on Canada's economic, security and
political interests led by academics, representatives from Non
Government Organizations, policy makers and business elites as well as
working group sessions. The focus of the conference will be the
results of a national public opinion poll conducted by the Dominion
Institute in conjunction with the Conference.
"Defining the National Interest: New Directions for Canadian Foreign
Policy” is sponsored by: The Centre for Security and Defence
Studies at Carleton University, the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs
Institute in Calgary, the Department of Political Studies and the
Centre for International Relations at Queen's University, the
l'Institut québécois des hautes études internationales at Université
Laval and the Dominion Institute.
Top
of page...
|
|
|
|
UPCOMING
|
|
CDFAI is actively planning to fully participate in the public
consultation on the foreign and defence policy reviews later this
fall.
Top
of page...
|
|
FUNDING
|
|
CDFAI has
been awarded a $10,000 Public Diplomacy Grant from Foreign Affairs
Canada. These funds will go directly to support the Student Run
Conferences.
Top
of page...
|
|
|
|
Article - 60th
Anniversary D-Day Celebration
|
|
 by
Jack Granatstein
I had the great good fortune to go with CBC TV News to Normandy for
the 60th anniversary commemorations of D-Day.
My overwhelming feeling there was not of the triumph of Canadian and
Allied arms, but of sadness. It was dreadful to see the 5000
Canadian graves in the Commonwealth War Graves Cemeteries at
Beny-sur-mer and Bretteville-sur Laize, however beautifully they are
maintained. It was horrifying to see the killing ground where Kurt
Meyer’s teenaged soldiers of the 12th SS Panzer Division murdered
Canadian prisoners of War at the Abbaye d’Ardenne. And it was
terribly moving to watch the D-Day veterans, once young men in the
vigorous prime of life and now old men, hobble along the beach,
their eyes streaming, unutterably sad.
For a historian, however, it was a rich experience, a chance to see
Juno Beach again, to go to Omaha Beach and to the American
military cemetery there with more than 9000 dead, and to see
Verrieres Ridge and the Falaise Gap towns where so many Canadians
died. Sixty years is not so long, but in the lush, verdant France of
today, it is almost impossible to contemplate what was and what
might have been if the Allies had not prevailed in the summer of
1944.
To me, it was also very important to see how the French people
reacted to the anniversary. At the 50th which I also
attended with the CBC, they had been distant, I thought, almost
ungrateful and resentful of those who had come to France to spend
their dollars. Not this time, however. There was a genuine bonhomie
and gratitude to “our liberators,” mixed in with more than a little
shame that France had been forced to rely on the Anglo-Saxons to
free the country from the Nazis and the Vichyites. If they did not
before, the French now seem to understand the price paid for their
liberation by the American, British and Canadian forces.
To me, as well, it was important to note how Canada was regarded in
France and by our wartime allies. The Canadian Forces were third in
the marchpast of allies at the great and hugely impressive spectacle
staged by President Jacques Chirac at Arromanches on June 6, 2004,
immediately following the American and British military contingents;
HMCS Charlottetown, in fact, led the naval review. The Canadian
guard that participated at Arromanches and other ceremonies was a
composite, made up of a naval colour party, a Canadian Air Force
platoon from Gelsenkirchen, Germany where its members serve as part
of a support unit, and militia soldiers from the units (or the
successor units) that served in the Third Canadian Infantry Division
that landed on Juno Beach on June 6. Typically, the guard had no
time to train together before the ceremonies, and its drill was
ragged, compared to the American, British, Norwegian, and other
contingents. Worse, some of the soldiers and airmen and women were
fat. If the Canadian Forces are to take part in international
ceremonies and not look utterly foolish, we need to take them
seriously and prepare for them. Anything else is embarrassing.
Nonetheless, what mattered most was that Canada was there and
prominently so. This was only fitting, I thought, as we had been
hugely prominent in the Normandy battle, in the liberation of France
and of Northwest Europe, in the struggle for democracy and freedom
and against Hitler. Canada, with a population of just eleven million
in 1939, once mattered.
The country mattered in the Great War of 1914-18 too. The Canadian
Corps established itself as the master of the battlefield of the
First World War. Indeed, the cemeteries in Normandy pale
beside those that stretch along the Somme, for example, the French,
British, Australian, and Canadian burial grounds all coming one
after another, mile after mile after mile.
I have written about Canadian military history for more than 35
years now, and I never fail to be struck by how war shaped Canada—in
our own collective mind and in the mind of the world. We think of
ourselves as peacekeepers today, or so our government tells us; the
rest of the world, if it thinks of us at all, sees us as a warrior
nation. Certainly that was true in France in the first week of June
2004.
Our governments have deliberately and calculatingly trashed the
traditions and history of the Canadian Forces. The British ceremony
at their Bayeux war cemetery was explicitly Christian; the Canadian
service at Beny-sur-mer was wholly non-denominational, even though
virtually every grave marker there is marked with a cross or Star of
David. It is as if the war was fought by today’s multicultural
Canadians, not the men of 1944. This matters, because our
governments have tried to make our history bland, airbrushing the
military exploits from our past and stressing the “atrocities”
earlier governments committed against Ukrainian Canadians in World
War I or Japanese-Canadians in World War II, for example. But the
military history of Canada will not disappear from the soil of
France or from the minds of Canadians. CBC Television had as many as
750,000 viewers per minute for its D-Day coverage on a warm summer
Sunday this past June. That says something.
The veterans, with 260,000 of the original 1.1 million men and women
who served in the war continuing to survive, can still talk and tell
the stories of their Second World War. And at last they are talking
to their great grandchildren and to schools and to the media.
We Canadians are not a military or warlike people, not really, but
we are a nation with a military past. We need to see our wartime
history as a source of pride. Almost alone among nation states, we
have not sought conquest or territory or plunder. We have
slaughtered none except our lawful enemies, those who sought to
destroy us. We fought for—and still fight for—freedom and democracy,
sacrificing our young men very reluctantly and only for the right
causes. This is a proud history, one we need to mark, to teach our
young, and to celebrate.
We did that this June in Normandy. Happily
Canadians read about and watched the commemorations. Happily there
are still a quarter million vets who will know that Canadians care.
And so we should, so we must.
Top
of page...
|
|
|
|
Article - The Domestic Politics of Foreign Policy: Communicating
Foreign Policy
|
|
 by
Mark Entwistle
Canadians are not necessarily ill informed about foreign
affairs but most certainly about the foreign
policy of their government.
Governments are probably less transparent about their foreign policy
activities than even the main issues of domestic policy. In all
public policy, there is a Grand-Canyon-gap between policy
development within the professional public service and the politics
of “packaging” and communicating policy in the public domain. The
isolation of foreign policy-making from political communications is
even more acute.
The government regularly confuses communication with
consultation. There is a process in government to hold dialogue
with Canadians that is structured enough to warrant its own Treasury
Board and Privy Council Office directives. There are various
examples of past public consultations on foreign policy, which come
in different forms, some direct to the public and some by means of
Parliament. There is little evidence, however, that any of these
“dialogue efforts” have a substantive impact on the conduct of
real-time Canadian diplomacy. They at least meet the need to be
perceived to be consulting. On the other hand, the government rarely
communicates to Canadians the rationale for foreign policy
decisions and the policy basis for those actions.
Why is this? There are a number of factors in play.
The general background landscape is one of secrecy in government,
which has grown worse over the years. The Information Commissioner,
an officer of Parliament, has decried consistently the “culture of
secrecy” in the federal public service. This environment is partly
the product of hubris in the governing elite, including the senior
public service, many of whom continue to behave as if they believe
public policy issues are just too complex for the general public to
understand. It is also largely the result of the way the symbiotic
interface between politics and the press has evolved.
The “packaging” of media politics into sound bites and careful
message management has been a feature of politics in all democracies
for the past two decades, and, when this is combined with the
“vulgarization” of mainstream journalism, it creates a fear in
political circles of dealing in complex policy issues. Political
communicators have concluded that there is no room for nuance and
transparency because they can see no reward. So policy is
caricatured and “sacred cows” created to provide a political safe
zone on controversial issues. This vicious circle is intensified by
the combative adversarial nature of our party politics and a news
industry that trades in the business of controversy. And foreign
policy is as “complex” as it gets.
Political communications is a unique beast, marked by a distinct and
purposeful lack of clarity and which aims for the intangible versus
the tangible. The communications of foreign policy fits in the same
mold.
In the daily calculations of politics, foreign policy is relegated
as something to be avoided. Political advisors to Prime Ministers
despair when their bosses inevitably start to travel increasingly to
escape the relentless pressure of hostile domestic politics and to
commiserate with other beleaguered leaders. The refrain: “there are
no votes in foreign policy.” Inversely, as the Canadian demographic
profile changes due to immigration and ancestral disputes from other
places are imported into Canada, judgments of whether Canadian
policy is “correct” or not become more emotional in larger
configurations of Canadians. In political circles, this worsens
distrust of foreign policy because it can now trigger hotspot
reactions in certain communities. And the sometimes tawdry
competition between interests is not a pretty sight for a Canadian
public schooled in the imagery of Pearsonian internationalism.
The arms-length approach of politics to foreign policy acts to
encourage the traditional instinct to isolation in the professional
Foreign Service. The corporate culture of the Department of Foreign
Affairs tends to treat foreign policy as a child to be sheltered
from outside scrutiny because it is too sensitive and complicated to
explain adequately. There would be a reluctance to engage in
transparent communications on policy, not because the information is
classified, but because Foreign Affairs might lose even more control
over foreign policy formulation than already lost to the other
more-than-a-dozen government departments that deal internationally
within their technical mandates. The career diplomat is a threatened
species.
The worrisome result of all the above is immature public discourse
on foreign policy, unfortunate and unacceptable in a country of
Canada’s potential and historic track record. By choice, the
government peddles in simplifications, mythologies, and vague
generalizations that double as conventional wisdom. This prevents a
broad public understanding of the real dynamics and pressures in
making foreign policy, the trade-offs and the larger national
interests at play -- why we do what we do. The old debate over
values versus interests as the guiding principle of foreign policy
would be largely set aside if citizens had greater insight into why
the government makes certain decisions, most often being forced to
choose the lesser of evils. Appreciation of the full battery of
conflicting considerations could serve to consolidate public support
around the need to rebuild our foreign policy assets, including
military and diplomatic resources. The hard decisions can be put off
because the public has not been let in on the “secret.”
But, it would require considerable leadership to break the patterns
and absorb the risk of transparency. One small practical place to
start could be to begin communicating the rationale for foreign
policy decisions. In the diplomatic service, Canadian embassies and
consulates are provided with an “Explanation of Vote” for votes
taken by Canada in the United Nations. This permits diplomats to
explain the background thinking behind those votes to other national
governments. In a similar way, the Minister of Foreign Affairs could
begin to issue an “explanation” of foreign policy decisions to
better inform the public. This approach would revolutionize the
communication of foreign policy, improve the quality of public
discourse, lead eventually to better policy-making, but make the
life of the government of the day much more difficult by laying bare
the complex inter-play of interests that make up our foreign policy.
Mark Entwistle is a Fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign
Affairs Institute, a consultant and former Canadian Ambassador,
career diplomat, and Press Secretary and communications director to
three former Prime Ministers of Canada.
Top
of page...
|
|
|
|
American Myths
|
|
 CDFAI
has partnered with The Dominion Institute on a book, newspaper and
documentary film project titled "American Myths".
“American Myths” is a documentary film, polling, newspaper and book
initiative that will raise awareness of the degree to which many
Canadians’ attitudes toward the United States are confused by a haze
of erroneous information, half-truths and lingering suspicions. The
goal of this project is not simply to challenge Canadians’ assumptions
about the US but encourage a much needed debate on what Canada could
be if we articulated who we are as a nation on own terms as opposed to
defining ourselves in opposition to America.
"American Myths" will be launched in January 2005 with a nationwide
campaign.
If you are interested in more information on the upcoming American
Myths project please contact The Dominion Institute at 1-866-701-1867
or
staff@dominion.ca.
Top
of page...
|
|
|
|
GRADUATE SYMPOSIUM
|
|
The Conference of Defence Associations Institute and the Canadian
Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute in collaboration with the Centre
for International Relations at Queen’s University, and the War Studies
Programme at the Royal Military College of Canada will host the 7th
Aannual Graduate Student Symposium:
Security and Defence: National and International Issues
Dr. David
J. Bercuson will be the keynote speaker at this conference.
The symposium will take place on October 29 – 30, 2004 at the Royal
Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ontario.
For more
information on the symposium please contact
projectofficer@cda-cdai.ca.
Top
of page...
|
|
|
|
ABOUT OUR ORGANIZATION
|
|
CDFAI provides Canadians with factual and comprehensive policy
analysis to promote their understanding of Canada’s foreign policy and
the state of our military preparedness and national security by
developing and sponsoring authoritative research and education
programs.
Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Calgary, CDFAI is a non-profit,
charitable research and education institute.
Top
of page...
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
|
|
Thank you for your interest in The Dispatch, CDFAI’s quarterly
electronic newsletter. If you are interested in having The Dispatch
sent directly to your in-box please send an e-mail to
subscribe@cdfai.org with “subscribe” in the body of the message.
Top
of page...
|
|
|
