Letters reveal candid views of British diplomats

[Tewder]

Oh come on. America bashing is remarkably rare in Canada considering our circumstances, and certainly far rarer than in Britain (where it has to compete with France-bashing, Germany-bashing, etc.). Moreover, Canada is one of the only countries in the world where legions of people will jump on you for making even the mildest criticism of the United States.

... well I should have specified 'some' Canadians of course (i always get myself into such trouble forgetting these details), but I can assure you that with an American partner we are on the receiving end of it literally everywhere as soon as the accent is detected, and I'm talking from all walks of life and in all contexts. It's no big deal and we laugh it off and everybody is fine within a matter of seconds once they realize we're really not offended and can take a joke. I get my leg pulled no end when I'm state-side too.

I think maybe what you are alluding to is that we would never deign to do the bashing in such a public way (Rick Mercer notwithstanding) and prefer to bash far more intimately. Whatever, we just have to realize that we shouldn't get so up in arms when a snobby Brit or self-obsessed yank says something stupid about us.

That said, the letter about Canada is what one might expect from a Thatcher appointee and hereditary peer. He complains about honours given out liberally when his own far higher honour was earned solely by dint of birth.

Zing! Now that's funny, and that's how we should handle international jibes.

 

[ACE]

.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am curious, how many of you actually read the whole letter. I find some of the criticisms quite valid. Take his examination about politics in Canada. Could anybody say that there were serious differences between the Liberals and the PCs during the early 80s? Or that his comments on patronage during that time period were off-base? Some of that still goes on in some parts of the country. The Maritime was notorious for a long time for such practices. What about his comments about our levels of debt and taxation, or environmental stewardship or treatment of natives? They seem reasonably accurate to be for the time period.

Some of his other observations which were criticized in this thread and in the media were taken out of context. For example, his observation about the lack of competition (which was idiotic) was accurate in suggesting that successful Canadians often leave to fulfill their goals elsewhere. That's pretty true. Even today. Ditto his criticism of Trudeau. Calling him an 'odd fish' is accurate if you read Lord Moran contrast of Trudeau's aspirations and his achievements (wanted to woo Quebec but ended up fighting a low-level counter-insurgency there). I am sure to an outsider, that would look fairly bizarre.

 

[adma]

... but aren't your observations about 'Cool Britannia' just as dated and irrelevent as those about Canada would be today? If you haven't been to London in many years you likely wouldn't recognize it as it has become one of the most progressive hotspots in the world right now for cuisine, fashion, art and style altogether.

Which in practice, is like judging Toronto through a perspective overly inflected by West Queen West or Leslieville...

 

[Tewder]

... and many other areas in Toronto Adma. The ones you mention may sort of be exemplary but they are exemplary of 'something' after all.

Judging London by dated notions of bowler hats, bad teeth and fish n' chips is increasingly simply not reflective of the reality of post-war generations (with the all but disappearing use of coal you'd even be hard-pressed to experience a good pea-souper there anymore either). You'll still find those things of course but they do not represent how younger generations self-identify, more 'European' than 'British' these days anyways.

 

[adma]

Yeah, but as per my point, you're speaking of an insular world of yuppie stylistas. I'm simply acknowledging more of a new-model end-of-the-Blair-era recessionary rot out there, that of young ASBO-flaunting trash, BNP types, etc.

You don't need to fall back on those "dated notions" when you got stuff like this embodying Execrable Britannia, 2009 Style.

 

[Tewder]

They're all generalizations really, and all part of our subversive little Britain...

 

[kEiThZ]

You don't need to fall back on those "dated notions" when you got stuff like this embodying Execrable Britannia, 2009 Style.

Madame Price is liked for more than her cultural sensibilities.

Suggesting that she represents the best of Britain would be akin to suggesting that Pamela Anderson represents the best of Canada.

 

[Urban Shocker]

What's wrong with Rick Astley?

 

[shumoon]

There is a newfound appreciation of the British influence in South Asia. Post-independence there was a lot of antipathy towards the former colonial master. Today that record is viewed as more mixed with an appreciation for the success the Brits had in uniting India through a common language (english) and infrastructure (the railroads) and institutions (a professional and apolitical armed forces, a competent federal civil service (a different story lower down), the parliamentary system, the common law legal system, etc.) These have all had their role in shaping India post-independence into a fairly cohesive, progressive nation. The countries that shied away from their British heritage have become basketcases (ie Pakistan).

Pakistan has hardly shied away from its British colonial legacy. English is the preferred medium of education. The British are responsible for building Pakistan's railroads as well as India's. Pakistan's armed forces were fostered by British officers post-independence. While the military has become involved politically, that is hardly un-British (remember Oliver Cromwell?). Pakistan also inherited a British-styled civil service. Pakistan also has a parliament and a prime minister, just like India and Canada. It too has common law legal system. Pakistanis even drive on the left side of the road, just like the British, but unlike Canadians. Pakistan is a member of the British Commonwealth. Pakistanis maitain ties to Britain in the form of a high level of immigration to the U.K. and the remittances those immigrants send back to Pakistan.

Pakistan is a failed state, but not because Pakistan turned its back on its British heritage. Pakistan's failures lie elsewhere. Feudalism thrives in Pakistan whereas India enacted land reform decades ago. General strikes initiated by political parties routinely cripple industrial cities like Karachi. Illiteracy is a big problem. Deforestation has been devestating to Pakistan's environment. Geopolitically, India has always been more important to Britain than Pakistan by virtue of its larger population and resources. So it may actually be a case of Britain favouring India and courting India and shying away from Pakistan rather than Pakistan shying away from Britain.

 

[kEiThZ]

Geopolitically, India has always been more important to Britain than Pakistan by virtue of its larger population and resources. So it may actually be a case of Britain favouring India and courting India and shying away from Pakistan rather than Pakistan shying away from Britain.

That's funny. You'd be hard pressed to find Indians who agree that India more strategically valuable to the West (including the UK) than Pakistan. The latter was the darling of the west all through the cold war, when the Shah's antics in Iran and India's left leaning (read Communist sympathizing) tendencies deeply concerned the West. It's only of late that India has gained some significance in the West as its economy has started growing.

As for the colonial inheritance, sure Pakistan has virtually the same heritage as India. The key difference though is that it didn't inherit western values with regards to democracy and human rights. The first is a sham in Pakistan, and the latter is rather liberally abused. The Indians, for their many failings, have largely absorbed Western values and have seen to it that democracy flourishes and that by and large there is some concern for human rights (though they do fail from time to time). Then there's the completely politicized institutions like the Army, the judiciary and the civil service. That's spectacularly un-British (the Oliver Cromwell era had long passed when the Brits left South Asia) and doesn't occur in neighbouring India. Looking at the whole picture, this is why I say, Pakistan is turning its back on its colonial heritage whereas India has used that heritage as a springboard to a better future. Though, you are right in pointing out that there are more to Pakistan's problems than its heritage....but that's for a different thread.

 

[GenerationW]

What's wrong with Rick Astley?

His hair is slowly killing him.

 

[shumoon]

That's funny. You'd be hard pressed to find Indians who agree that India more strategically valuable to the West (including the UK) than Pakistan. The latter was the darling of the west all through the cold war, when the Shah's antics in Iran and India's left leaning (read Communist sympathizing) tendencies deeply concerned the West. It's only of late that India has gained some significance in the West as its economy has started growing.

I cannot comment on the Indians' perspective, but Pakistanis like New Left Review editor Tariq Ali certainly view the West as favouring India over Pakistan. In his book The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power, he states that in the context of the Kashmir dispute, "The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union agreed that the single most important country in the region was India." (p. 197).

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto stated in his book Pakistan and Alliances, The United States unilaterally terminated military assistance to Pakistan... The United States moved closer to India after the Sino-Indian War in 1959... The United States imposed an embargo on the delivery of military equipment to Pakistan [during the 1965 war with India]" (as quoted in The Duel, p. 202).

Pakistan was hardly "the darling of the west all through the cold war" as you make it out to be.

A side-note: "the Shah's antics in Iran" didn't bother the West at all, especially when the Shah went on his legendary armament shopping sprees in the U.S.