Some Considerations in Canadian Foreign Policy

LT.-COL. LEGGE: We are pleased to welcome once again to this platform the Honourable Paul Martin. In February, 1955, Mr. Martin delineated for us Canada's importance as a world partner and said, "The Empire Club of Canada, which takes its name from history's most successful association of free nations, is a singularly appropriate forum for the expression of the ideal of brotherhood in the community, national and international sense. For in the Commonwealth as in the Empire before it, there has been nurtured a genuine partnership among men of many continents who share a common devotion and a common love of freedom and justice". Four years ago that observation was true and now in 1959 when the resurgence of the Commonwealth as an international success is universally accepted, we are delighted to have Mr. Martin give us his informed opinion of 'Some Considerations of Canadian Foreign Policy'.

For many years the name of the Honourable Paul Martin has been a household word from coast to coast in Canadian politics, and he achieved fame as the Minister of National Health and Welfare at a time when everyone in the West was concerned with personal security. For ten momentous years from December, 1946, until the troubles of June, 1957, he was the efficient leader and administrator of one of the great departments of the Government of Canada. Yet throughout that period he retained his expertness in foreign affairs. As long ago as 1936 he was Chairman of the Canadian Delegation to the World Youth Congress in Geneva and in 1938 he was a delegate to the League of Nations. In 1946 he was a Canadian delegate to the first General Assembly of the United Nations and afterwards a representative to five subsequent Assemblies. On two occasions he has also been a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, a delegate to the Conference of the International Labour Office, and in 1955 he represented Canada at the Five Power Disarmament meetings in New York.

Mr. Martin's international interests were stimulated by his early education which took place in both Ontario and Quebec. He then attended famous universities in four countries-St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto; Osgoode Hall Law School; Harvard University; Trinity College, Cambridge; and the School of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. He was always a scholarship student and later, a university lecturer. For his academic prowess and public services he has been given honorary doctorates in law by many great Universities-Michigan, Dalhousie, Toronto, Queen's, Montreal, Dartmouth, John Carroll, Bishop's, and the University of Western Ontario. As soon as he was called to the Bar in 1928 Mr. Martin tried his hand in politics and received his only defeat in a by-election in Renfrew North. In 1935 he was elected for the riding of Essex East and through political feast and famine he has held it continuously ever since. In Parliament, Mr. Martin is in every sense, a 'House of Commons man' and although he is also an ardent partyman, he is respected by the members of all parties. At the present time he is a powerful member of the Opposition's shadow government and I am sure he must often ponder the paradoxical dangers of being such a good opponent that the government is thus kept in power-because Disraeli said 'No Government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition'.

Gentlemen, I am honoured to present the Honourable Paul Martin who will now speak to The Empire Club of Canada about "Some Considerations of Canadian Foreign Policy".

MR. MARTIN: I am honoured by being asked for the second time to speak to The Empire Club of Canada, and what I said on that previous occasion about this organization, I could easily repeat today. As the President has noted, the meaning and evolutionary character of the Commonwealth, particularly in these difficult days, serves to justify its importance as an instrument for the preservation of peace in the world, and the unity of those who are its constituents.

The Commonwealth has assumed even greater importance as the days have gone by. That importance is seen all over and, more particularly in the Far East, because of the growing importance of India, Ceylon and of Pakistan and of the other constituents outside of this continent, Australia and Europe.

Now, I had indicated I would speak to you today about some aspects of Canadian foreign policy, and I beg leave to modify that title, so that I can speak to you about some aspects of foreign affairs in relation to the situation in what is inaccurately described sometimes as the Middle East.

I recently paid a visit to Lebanon, to the United Arab Republic, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Israel, and today I thought I might give you some of my impressions and possibly some conclusions from this visit.

Mr. Ernest Bevin told a number of us in 1946, at the first meeting of the United Nations, that the two most dangerous spots in the world were Korea and the Middle East. I think that events since that time have proved the wisdom of his prophecy.

Last summer we were all agitated by events in Lebanon, and by circumstances and conditions in Iraq. For four or five years we have been troubled by the policy of the United Arab Republic, as presently constituted, and by Egypt as it was before union with Syria under the Presidency of President Nasser. While the position there now is relatively tranquil, history tells us that periodically eruptions take place in that particular sector that cause us all the greatest concern.

I decided at the end of the Session last year to go to the Middle East myself to meet some of the personalities in charge of the governments of these various countries, and to try to learn by contact with the people as well as by talking to their leaders, what the situation is so far as I could assess it. I was anxious to find out, too, what role Canada could play in an area where her commercial interests are very limited, and in an area with which we have had such little contact.

At one time it was the policy of the Government of Canada to rely entirely upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for the determination of policy in that area, but it seems to me because of the new character of Canada's status among the nations of the world, that we cannot in justice to ourselves and this situation, continually rely upon others for the formulation of policy here at home, or for determining the kind of cooperative or concerted action we are prepared to take along with our friends, particularly with Great Britain and the United States.

Increasingly the United Nations takes on added prestige, authority and achievement. Many of our international obligations now flow from our commitments to the Charter of the United Nations and perhaps this is exemplified in no area more effectively than in the Middle East itself.

I first went to Lebanon in the month of July last, when the President of the United States had caused some 12,000 Marines to be despatched to the shores of the Mediterranean, to provide tranquility in respect to a form of aggression which was alleged to have taken place on the part of Syria in her relations with that little country.

I had talks with President Chamoun, the then President of that country, and then with his successor, the present President, General Fuad Shehab. I am sure that under the present President the policy of the Government of Lebanon will be to seek to have recognized, at least in an unofficial way, the traditional role of neutrality which Lebanon has sought to exercise between Europe, the West generally, and her Arab neighbours. That, too, was in some measure the policy of President Chamoun, but President Chamoun did not agree with the declarations of intent on the part of great Arab leaders. He had not supported the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser. He did not believe the form of unity which he advocated was in the interests of the Arab people or the interests of Lebanon.

So I began my peregrinations in the Middle East by talking to these two men and to other leaders in Lebanon. Later I met President Nasser himself, whom I was privileged to see and talk to on two occasions.

President Nasser is a young man, not yet forty, a man whose career has been entirely spent in the Army and who, along with General Naguib, and some junior officers was responsible for the successful revolution which ended with the deposition of King Farouk.

I said to President Nasser, "I suppose you realize that next to Mr. Khrushchev you are, on the American continent, perhaps the most unpopular individual to be found at the head of any government in the world today?"

He acknowledged that this was likely the case. He deplored this fact . . . it was an unjust reputation ... it was an accusation that couldn't be substantiated with justice and it was one that overlooked the needs and the problems of Egypt itself.

He said, "We are a very poor country. We have the right to aspire to the same kind of nationalism and to urge the same kind of unity among the Arab people that Western and other countries claim for themselves. What we want is a commitment neither to the West nor to the East. We want to be able to realize what I call 'modern Arab Nationalism'. We want to be able to have a unity with other Arab peoples throughout the world, and particularly in that sector where there are some ninety million Arabs.

"If our relations with the Western world have deteriorated, that is in large measure due to the policies of certain of the great powers in the Western world. The United States refused us wheat and so did Canada. They refused to sell us wheat except on terms that we could not meet. They refused to supply us with arms. They denied us the opportunity of having the kind of medical care we need for our people. The Americal Government refused to carry out its commitment to build the Aswan Dam. The American Government interfered with the voluntary organization known as CARE and its program to feed Egyptian children.

"Faced with this situation, what else was there for me to do," said President Nasser, "but to seek assistance from the only other quarter available, the Soviet Union? From the Soviet Union we got arms; we were given wheat; we were given all the other things which the United States, in particular, denied us, and in accepting these things we have only given lip service to the matter of national survival."

I suggested to him that possibly he had become so committed to the Soviet Union that he would now find himself a prisoner of their intentions and their objectives. He didn't think so. He thought that those of us in the West failed to realize that in accepting aid from the Soviet Union there was no acknowledgment of support for the ideology practised in the Soviet Union itself.

I couldn't help but notice before my first interview began that there were on the mantle piece of the room in which we first talked, six photographs. There was one of Mao Tse-tung, one of Mr. Nehru, and of other leading figures, but no representation of any personality from the West. Was any deduction to be made from this fact, I asked him. He told me "No, the fact is that those gentlemen whose pictures are on my mantle-piece are the heads of governments and countries who have extended to me the opportunity of visiting them. I would have no hesitation in putting up in a prominent place in this room the picture of the head of the Government of the United States or of any other country if I was given the same pleasure of the welcome which I found in these understanding nations."

Now, there can be no doubt that one of the real troublesome provocations in this whole area of the Middle East is the attitude of the United Arab Republic, and of President _Nasser, in particular, to that impressive and dynamic State of Israel. Many people think that the possible settlement between Egypt, on the one hand, or the Arab countries on the one hand and Israel, is not likely to be realized in our time.

I am satisfied, not only from these talks with the President of the United Arab Republic, but from other things. that given patience, given the right climate, this problem of Israel-Egyptian or Arab relations is not insoluble. It will require a great deal of patience; it will require a great. deal of understanding on the part of all nations, and particularly the nations of the West, but I believe, given those conditions, we can look for a settlement in the not too distant future in respect to this matter that undoubtedly is. one of the irritating points and dissatisfactions in this very difficult situation, a situation which if it were allowed to run wild could cause the greatest dislocation throughout the world.

I am satisfied, too, that many of our declarations against. President Nasser are unjustified and cannot be substantiated by the facts. I realize that many of the charges against him are true. A form of indirect aggression that takes place= over Cairo radio, that urges, as it did while I was there, the assassination of King Hussein of Jordan, is a form of provocation that under no circumstances can be justified, but I think we have to look at the whole picture with wisdom and with a measure of patience and if we do, I think we can provide a solution.

The charge that Nasser is a Communist; the charge that he supports Communist ideology, I think cannot be substantiated. He told me, "I do not drink. I do not drink because I am a Moslem. I believe in God. How could I be called a Communist? The Communist Party is not recognized in the United Arab Republic. Our country is not Communist. Why do you say, and why do others say I am a Communist, or we are giving undue support to the Soviet Union?"

I must say when we take into account the reasons for the integration with Egypt of Syria, we can recognize that the motivating influence in the initiative taken by Syria for integration with Egypt was because Syria had felt herself, or at least some of her leaders had felt, that Syria had become dangerously committed to the Soviet Union. Sa one of the reasons why President Nasser accepted union with Syria ahead of schedule, seemingly, is because of this, very danger itself.

He said, "I don't want Jordan". At that time everyone said Jordan was next. You remember Her Majesty's Government had sent British troops into Jordan a few days after the assassination of King Feisal in Iraq, and after the brutal assassination of Nuri-as-Said, his Prime Minister. Everyone thought that the incident in Iraq would likely be followed by incidents of the same kind in Jordan.

There is no question about it, Nasser had his eye on Jordan and if he interfered with that country, what was Israel going to do? He told me, and events have since subsequently confirmed what he said, "I do not want Jordan. The American Government is now being asked (this was about the middle of September) to furnish King Hussein with some hundreds of millions of dollars to enable him to carry out the program concerning that little country. Why would I want Jordan-a tremendous economic liability and burden that would be imposed on me and my country would be such as to warrant the conclusion that it was certainly a very unwise decision if taken on the part of the United Arab Republic."

Now, I wouldn't want anyone to think that I am forming these judgments or making these assessments on the basis of two conversations with President Nasser, but I frankly do acknowledge that whatever conclusions I do reach have been assisted by these talks and by the impression which he created in my mind.

I went to Iraq and had a conversation with President and Defence Minister, General Abdul Karim el-Kassem, six weeks after the revolution in a state which had all the intrigues which follow from a bloody revolution, and from a state that, like the Arab Republic, is in every sense of the word, a police state.

The general view was that the revolution in Iraq would lead to some form of union between that rich oil-producing country and the United Arab Republic. This was the next step and everywhere we went in Iraq there certainly were some indications of a very strong appreciation of the leadership which President Nasser has given to the whole business of Arab renascence in our time.

Prime Minister Kassem impressed me as the man likely capable of formulating independent judgment, although I talked to certain members of his government who clearly advocated union with Egypt on the same basis as that which prevails between Egypt and Syria. The same resentment against the western world was to be found from President Kassem as I found from President Nasser.

As to the Baghdad Pact, that was psychologically offensive to the Arab people. It was another manifestation of the power of Empire and of colonialism which the people in the Arab world, he said, no longer wished to see realized or continued.

"What we want," said President el-Kassem, "is to build an independent state, free of Western and Soviet Union entanglements."

"But did your revolution not receive great assistance from the Communist powers?"

"By no means did the Communists share in any impressive way in the success of our revolution. This was a revolution against men, against a regime that had failed to take into account the interests of the people of Iraq and it was one that was not dictated by the Soviet Union or by hidden Comunist cells in Iraq."

And subsequent events, while not altogether clear in their full perspective, do support Soviet declarations which Prime Minister el-Kassem unfolded to me. Now we know that the Number Two man of the Government, Mr. Aref, has been tried by a military tribunal, found guilty of treason to the State, and we do know he was one of the strong protagonists of full integration with the U.A.R.

Jordan . . . the tragedy of Jordan is a country divided against itself-an artificial state that came into being largely as the result of recommendations of that great statesman, Mr. Churchill, in 1921. Everyone admires the courage and adventurous qualities of King Hussein, but it would be untrue reporting to say that all the people of that country of a million and a half were fully in support of and fully loyal to King Hussein. But as a result of the influence of Dag Hammarskjold, the successful Secretary-General of the United Nations, a measure of tranquility will persist in Jordan for the foreseeable future. Instability in that country, or any revolution in that country would have the deepest consequences, not only for Egypt, not only for Israel, but for the whole of the Middle East. What force outside of the United Nations was not able to do, the Secretary-General, who was travelling in that area, was able to bring about.

I did not know when I went to the Middle East that Mr. Hammarskjold was going to be visiting the same personalities and travelling over the same area. My visit, because of my friendship over the years, was enriched because I was able to learn directly and indirectly of discussions which he had with President Nasser President Chamoun, President el-Kassem, and with Mr. Ben-Gurion.

In the course of this trip I felt that we in the West have lost a lot of friends. We have lost a lot of friends because I think we have failed to understand fully the circumstances and the forces that were at play in that very troubled area.

We, ourselves, have always recognized the principle of self-determination. We cannot deny it to others if we assert it for ourselves. So I think the President of the United States was right when on the 13th of August last, speaking in the United Nations on the problems of the Middle East, said that the West must give sincere evidence of its belief in the right of all of these states in the Middle East to achieve national independence and to advocate and achieve, if that is possible, Arab unity in any legitimate form which they propose. This does not condone the indirect aggression over the Cairo radio.

The last personality 1 saw was Mr. David Ben-Gurion, of Israel, with whom I spent almost a day in the southern regions f the Negev desert. Mr. Ben-Gurion is undoubtedly one of the very great men of our time and certainly must be regarded as one of the truly great fathers of that little State of Israel which now is about ten years old . . . a man of the greatest horizons . . . wise statesmanlike judgment, a capacity to understand that others have problems and others have rights. While he is prepared to recognize these unreservedly, he is tenacious in championing what he believes is right for the State of which he is now the first Prime Minister, and undoubtedly the dominating figure. He is prepared to recognize that President Nasser had legitimate claims, the Arab peoples had legitimate aspirations and he joined in the belief that difficult as it is this problem of Israel-Arab relations is not an impossible one.

He told me at one time the Mufti of Jerusalem, long before statehood had been accorded to Israel, had agreed on a population settlement in Israel which I think in itself reflects the kind of agreement that can come about between Israel and the Arab nations, notwithstanding the fact that those who agree with this possibility also postulate as an essential condition the necessity of limiting population in Israel. Whether or not that is to be the case only time will tell.

Others in Israel had various views. I wonder if you remember the views of one of the most distinguished parliamentarians in that country who said he thought they had made a great mistake and that there had been unnecessary provocation, and because of the advent of the inter-ballistic missiles, it would be wise for both the West and the East to recognize the diminishing quality of the Middle East in terms of strategy and military objective ... would it not be better to encourage neutralization of the whole area rather than encourage continuous competition between the East and the West in the whole area?

Now, Canada, I believe, has an opportunity of playing a useful role in mediation and accommodation in this particular area. We have few commercial interests, certainly not incomparable to the growing commercial interests of West Germany or of Greece or of Italy, but as a member of United Nations, we have an opportunity, and I think an obligation to play an increasingly important role there, as we have during the past five years in South and Southeast Asia.

We have recently strengthened our personnel in our diplomatic missions and in some cases we have raised their status. It seems to me now, having in mind that Iraq is at any rate the second most important Arab country in this area, that the time has come when we should establish a diplomatic mission in that country, important not only as an oil-producing country, but as a country which along with Egypt, can play an important role in bringing about satisfactory solutions in a situation which could easily engulf us all.

I am satisfied from my experience in Iraq that it is important for us now to give consideration to the establishment of a diplomatic mission, so that along with the United States and Great Britain, we can formulate policies in concert with them, and certainly that is desirable as a member of the United Nations. . . . We can in that way play an increasingly important role.

Our role in international affairs now is such that we cannot refuse to take such courses but that will bring us into agreement with either the United States or Great Britain. We have with both of these countries a basic philosophy and a basic attitude that cannot and will not be disturbed but this does not mean, if we are to carry out our obligations as a member of the United Nations, that we should not formulate our own judgment. Where the United States, and particularly the United States at the present time, is unable to carry on in the role of mediation, I am satisfied from what I have seen and from what I know that we are afforded an opportunity of doing that very thing.

I say again that this problem, this difference between the Arab world and Israel is not an insoluble one. I am satisfied that notwithstanding the difficulties of the refugee problem, and notwithstanding the difficulties that prevail between members of the Arab League and certain proposals which they make in contradiction to one another, notwithstanding the unity they present on other aspects, and notwithstanding the hostility against the West at the present time, that we can by careful statesmanship emerge from a situation that is now difficult to one that can become more orderly and less disturbing.

We must win the sympathies of the Arab world. Otherwise, we shall lose the Arab world. We shall lose it to our greatest enemy, the Soviet Union. These Arab nations have a sincere ambition, sometimes exaggerated, possibly, in the light of the interpretation we give, but their desires and ambitions have counterparts in our own history. They want a greater degree of unity among themselves. They may not all agree as to the form of that unity but Islam's and the Arab language itself are common denominators that we cannot fail to recognize. We must assist them in improving their awful living standards. These are legiti- '? mate ambitions which the West must recognize and as we know now, the decision of Her Majesty's Government to release to Egypt certain of her sterling holdings, gives evidence of a rapprochement between Egypt on the one hand, and Great Britain on the other, that will be welcomed by most people in the world who wish to see peace preserved in our time.

We have suffered from certain misconceptions-from the mistaken idea that if Nasser were overthrown tranquillity would reign in the Middle East. We should realize that history and the mercurial temperament of the Arab world, not Nasser, certainly not Nasser alone, are responsible for the churnings among the Arab people. We should recognize the Middle East cannot be dominated by the traditional middle classes that have held sway for centuries. The middle classes now are no longer representative of the aspirations of the Arab people. These are some of the misconceptions under which we have suffered.

We must establish as a basic postulate in these new relations in the Arab world the clear fact that we must continue and will continue to look upon Israel as a new state, entitled to be recognized as sovereign and that there must be on the part of no Arab nation any effort to liquidate her or drive her people into the sea.

That essential basis of the new policy which we believe we have to develop toward the Arab world and the Middle East is the first policy upon which we can build others that will recognize and bring about for the Arab world what they have a right to ask and what they have a right to demand without in any way interfering with our desire to see the continued sovereign existence of Israel as a state that now gives her people the asylum and liberty which I believe the people have won for themselves by their achievements alone in Israel.

Any intervention that takes place from now on must be only through the United Nations. Any great power intervention can cause us only added difficulty and increased misunderstanding. We must look upon the United Nations as having thus far afforded in the Middle East the best demonstration of its successful operations to date in the political field. Under the United Nations we had the observation group in Lebanon that served as a stabilizing factor in October, the operations of the United Nations Emergency Force in the Gaza strip, keeping the peace between Israel and Egypt, the work of UNRRA in the refugee camps, the work of the United Nations operating between Jordan and Egypt. These are all demonstrations of the effectiveness of the United Nations in that area.

And, finally, the tremendous achievement of the Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, during the month of September last. Many thought that the only way peace could be preserved would be by the presence of American troops in Lebanon and Her Majesty's troops in Jordan. The United Nations by a carefully considered well supported resolution, was able to bring about a withdrawal of the forces of these two countries and in their place was placed an idea which in no way represents the use of force, but the conscience of mankind-the power of the United Nations. The authority of the United Nations is respected, by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and by President Gamal Abdul Nasser, in the United Arab Republic.

There, it seems to me, is the key to the future, and in all of this woe a country like Canada with close affiliations with Great Britain, with the Commonwealth and with the United States can play a very useful role of accommodation and mediation.

I recognize, Mr. President, that this is only one of the fronts of trouble in the world. Berlin, the Far East, other situations will creep in, day to day and month to month, but this one will emerge again and we have now behind us the lessons of last summer-lessons which clearly reveal that the successful form of intervention must be only through the United Nations. In the formulation of the policy of the United Nations, the member states can play a great part. It is because I believe that our country can play a useful role that I give you these impressions, and I put forward these submissions.

Peace is something that we have to strive for on many fronts. This is a troublesome front, but it is one which affords our country a great opportunity to make its contribution to the preservation of peace in one of the troubled areas of our world.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by Mr. Alexander Stark, Q.C.