Behind the Embassy Door: Canada, Clinton, and Quebec

by James Blanchard

From the moment he became U.S. ambassador to Canada in 1993, James J. Blanchard was determined to make a difference. He succeeded – to hte benefit of both countries.

Behind the Embassy Door is an insider’s view of politics and diplomacy at one of the most crucial periods in the history of U.S.-Canada relations. The North American Free Trade Agreement, negotiated against a background of fierce controversy, was agreed to but not yet ratified and a newly elected Liberal government had promised to renegotiate the deal. At the same time, the separatist government in Quebec was pushing the country to the brink of dissolution with a referendum on sovereignty. This book gives fascinating insight into the role of the U.S. ambassador at a time when seemingly minor remarks and gestures could prove decisive.

This is an extraordinary account of how international relations are conducted at the highest level. It is also a candid account of the everyday life of an ambassador abroad. Blanchard takes us behind the scenes with a number of Canadian and American politicians and public figures, from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to President Clinton, and many of their senior cabinet members and advisers.

Blanchard describes the coast-to-coast trip across Canada that he undertook shortly after his arrival. And he tells about visits to Ottawa by the president, Vice-President Gore, Madeleine Albright, and many others. He recalls how the president’s mother charmed a thousand women and how Hillary Clinton skated on the famed Rideau Canal.

This book offers an unprecedented and frequently surprising look at the intimate everyday workings of a relationship that is unique among nations.

Genres: Canada

404 pages, Hardcover

First published October 31, 1998

Reviews

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

Picked this book up hoping to get more insight into the situation in Quebec from a new perspective, the American one, but left disappointed as the section dealing with the Quebec referendum only made up about a quarter of the book. I haven't read too many political memoirs, but I felt like this fell into the stereotypical mold of one, being both overly positive and lacking depth. Blanchard has nothing but nice things to say about everyone and everything, and no matter what the crisis, in the end it all works out. You get the sense that he wanted to avoid stepping on anyone's toes, and so refrained from giving a frank and honest feeling critique, while also wanting to make sure everyone involved felt noticed, which means he constantly needed to mention the minor characters of his life and give them credit. A good chunk of the word count in this book are adjectives, all of them positive, that he needs to foist around the neck of every person or event he mentions, dragging down the narrative like a weight.

Mid-way through his tenure as ambassador Blanchard was advised to do something concrete, as it would allow him to point to something he had actively done while ambassador other than the more liquid role of political negotiator. Apparently, in the early 90s, airline travel between America and Canada was far more limited due to previous aviation agreements; Blanchard advocated for and headed the Open Skies policy agreement between Canada and America which opened up more options for direct airline travel between the two nations. The consequence of this being, as he writes:

"Within the next three years, U.S.-Canada passenger traffic increased 37 percent, over forty new pairs of cities received direct service for the first time, and traffic levels between many old markets such as Toronto-New York or Vancouver-Los Angeles increased dramatically.....The combined net economic gain for both countries in activity and jobs was estimated in the billions of dollars, and all the airlines entered into creative joint ventures that resulted in better customer service and higher company profits."

I felt that this book in itself was also a way for Blanchard to actively do something as a consequence of his role as American ambassador. Not only could he point to the Open Skies agreement as concrete fruits of his labor, but could also add published author to his accolades. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but I think a memoir written at the end of a career might have been more honest or frank then one written mid-way through a career. In contrast, reading Graham Steele's memoir on his time as NDP's finance minister, his book felt far more honest as he openly talked about how much a dog's job politics is (I recall he candidly included a photo of himself before and after his term of office where he looked like he had aged 20 years in 10) and he even recommended readers not to get into politics unless they absolutely loved public service. That type of honesty is both memorable and valuable to the reader hoping to gain insight from a political memoir.

I felt that the only times Blanchard's honesty shows through was when he was criticizing the ineffectuality of the Canadian bureaucracy. Open Skies was something that the American side almost instantly agreed on, but dealing with the Canadians seemed painful. Blanchard couldn't put a positive spin on his annoyance at the mixed messaging, length of deliberation, and pettiness put out by the Canadian side. It got to the point that Blanchard would need to warn American businessmen about how to deal with Canadians before meetings. Even during the Quebec referendum, the bureaucrats on the separatist's side embarrassed themselves by making a thinly veiled threat to the the American Secretary of State in a public letter, warning the Americans not to meddle in Canadian affairs, all while the head of the separatist party was meeting with the President himself to tell him how much an independent Quebec wants to be friends with America. Blanchard gets the closest to open criticism by calling the politician who penned the letter, Quebec's deputy premier, crazy. However, he also critiques the liberal government at the time, headed by Chretien, for not being effectual in the federalist campaign, as the margin between stay and leave was only 1%. He felt that the liberals didn't provide a good enough cultural reason for making Quebec want to stay, and the razor thin margin meant that the issue of Quebec sovereignty would go on forever.

Overall, the moments where Blanchard drops the mask and critiques the Canadian government are worth reading, but alot of interest gets lost in the travelogue-like positive spin he needs to put on the rest of his experiences. Blanchard was also a personal friend to President Clinton, talking to him many times and hosting him on his visit to Canada, so I'm sure American political fans would enjoy those segments as well. If Blanchard ever writes a more candid memoir of his political life, that would be a work I'd recommend because I did like his voice, but I don't think I'd recommend this particular book to the layperson not interested in politics.

Some quotes I enjoyed:

I had barely arrived in British Columbia when I started being told, by corporate executives and university professors and talk-show hosts, that I was in another world. This wasn't eastern Canada; it wasn't even Alberta, though it shared Alberta's wariness, indifference, or downright hostility toward Ottawa and Toronto. Some called it "British California" or "Hongcouver"; some considered it a part of "Cascadia" along with Washington State and Oregon. Whatever the name, it was booming, bustling, and uniquely beautiful. "Put the rest of the country out of your mind," the movers and shakers said. "We don't need it, we don't want it, we're totally different.
I had heard that everywhere, in fact. Manitoba is different from Ontario; Saskatchewan is different from Manitoba; Alberta is different from Saskatchewan. I had even heard that Edmonton is different from Calgary. "They're Texan cowboys down there," said the Edmontonians, "whereas we're urbane, sophisticated, intellectual, compassionate Canadians." Then the Calgarians would say the same about Edmonton. The only thing they admitted to having in common was an enemy: the eastern power-brokers.
As David Peterson had joked over a beer one night, "The thing that keeps this country together is that everyone hates Ontario. And the thing that keeps Ontario together is that everyone hates Toronto. And the thing that keeps Toronto together is that everyone hates the money guys on Bay Street. And the thing that keeps Bay Street together is that everyone hates lawyers. If you understand that, Jimmy, you'll understand Canada." (Pg. 60)

"Whatever their social backgrounds and differences, Americans are bound by a single national story that goes something like this: Pilgrims came from England to escape religious persecution. Later they were joined by some great thinkers such as Jefferson and Madison, numerous entrepreneurs, and all kinds of fortune-seekers looking for new opportunities. They all decided they were being put upon by England, so they fought a great battle for independence and won. Then, inspired by God Himself, they wrote a constitution that was the best system ever devised by man. It triggered a movement for freedom and human rights around the world. But some selfish, greedy people down south tried to break it all up. We fought a terrible bloody war, the nation was preserved, and Lincoln freed the slaves. Then we brought forth unprecedented prosperity and became the world's greatest superpower. If I as governor had ever stood up and told people, "I'm a Michiganer first and an American second," they would have booed me off the stage. They'd think I was nuts.
Not only do Canadians not share our national story, they don't have one of their own. Rather, they have several. The Loyalists have one; the Quebecois have another; the prairie settlers yet another; the native peoples yet another; the immigrant communities yet another; and so on. Not long ago, a Toronto cab driver offered me a simple solution to all Canada's woes. "The United States government should give every Canadian a million bucks. There are only thirty million of us, so you could afford it. We'd sell ourselves to you, we'd all be rich, and we wouldn't be anti-American anymore. For a million dollars, I think a lot of Canadians would be happy to become part of the United States. I would. " In fact, when I pressed him, he said he'd settle for half a million!
But if Americans have a greater sense of nationhood - and they do - it was immediately clear to me that Canadians have a greater sense of community and security. They feel a greater need to look after everybody in society. The upside is that you'll hear even the super-rich worry about the poor, even if they share the universal dislike of paying taxes. The downside is Canadians need to talk things through, to consult with everybody, to seek a consensus, to find the right compromise, even if it takes years, before a decision is made. Issues and ideas take longer to play out, to the point where they become tedious. Commissions, committees, and government programs have to be established to make everyone feel included, understood, respected, loved, and fully compensated for all the wrongs done them. And the emphasis on community identity, while extremely tolerant of ethnic differences, has fostered a certain social conformity and class-consciousness that makes Canadians less tolerant of individual expression and unorthodox behavior than Americans. (Pg. 70)

The breakdown [in negotiations] reflected, in my opinion, a difference of style between Canada and the United States. Canadians prefer to negotiate. Whether they are any good at it is another matter. They want to deliberate for days, if not weeks or years. They're also hopeless, helpless, shameless nitpickers. Under the guise of negotiation, they've been nitpicking themselves to death over the status of Quebec. And they're horribly cautious about making any deal with the Americans, just as I think Quebec's nationalists are almost biologically allergic to a deal with English Canada. Americans, in contrast, are deal-makers. We like to cut quick deals. In that regard, we're more entrepreneurial, more innovative, more creative. Things move faster in the United States. (Pg. 127)

Canadians are particularly sensitive about their culture - or what we in the United States call popular entertainment. It's something that we Americans dominate worldwide. So, when you're a nation one-tenth the size living next door to the United States, you would naturally demand to have your own TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, movies, plays, and books. How else can you preserve a sense of nationhood or a national identity without strong, independent vehicles of culture and communications? That's why Canada insisted upon - and got - a cultural "carve-out" from NAFTA, meaning that Canada could take actions otherwise prohibited by the agreement in order to preserve and protect its cultural programs. As part of the deal, however, the United States kept the right to retaliate on an equivalent basis whenever Canada invoked the carve-out.
Yet laws and policies designed to promote or shield Canadian culture still risked running afoul of the spirit, if not the letter, of free trade, especially as the Canadian government found it easier and cheaper to try to keep American products out of the country than foster home-grown material and institutions. At that point American businesses started complaining that such laws and policies had nothing to do with cultural issues and everything to do with commercial protection. And since entertainment is the United States's number-one export, our government is reluctant to allow any country to raise barriers against it. The Canadian situation in itself might not be a big problem, but there was a fear in Washington that a soft line regarding Canada would set a precedent that France, Germany, or China could use against us. (Pg. 141)

It always amazed and appalled me how much power the bureaucrats have in Canada. They're referred to by journalists and academics, often with respect, as mandarins. Canadian cabinet ministers don't like making decisions that are at odds with the information and judgments supplied by their departments. Ministers, as good politicians, set the target, but they too often seemed to submit to the advice of their underlings on how to meet it. I found it particularly disheartening when newly appointed ministers took the fall for mistakes made by some bureaucrat months, even years, before they assumed office. No U.S. politicians would ever tolerate such nonsense. In Canada, one could say, politicians easily become captives of their officials. In the United States it's more likely the officials who become captives of the politicians. (Pg. 165)

It was a win-win proposal and it made sense, but the negotiations dragged on for more than twice the time it had taken us to get the Open Skies agreement. There wasn't much motivation on either side of the border, except among the people of Ottawa and (by extension) the staff in our embassy. "This is a testimony to two phenomena prevalent in, but not unique to, Canada," I moaned in my journal after nine months of talks. "One, the less important the issue, the more difficult and acrimonious negotiations become. The lower the stakes, the more petty and bureaucratic the tactics. It's because it's left to mid-level and lower-level bureaucrats who are often afraid to make decisions and resentful of their powerlessness. They seek revenge on their opposites across the table. The second phenomenon is that Canadians have a completely different sense of time than Americans. They expect and really want to take much longer to accomplish most everything - and they do. And nowhere is that more obvious than with the securely employed government bureaucrat." (Pg. 175)

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

So much of the work that goes on in U.S. Embassies around the world is deeply misunderstood. Thanks to Bond, Bourne, and a host of other creative licenses taken by Hollywood, diplomats appear to be engaged in only two things: sipping champagne in swanky receptions, or engaging is dramatic gun fights and car chases around exotic foreign cities. Alas (and thankfully), tis not true. But with those preconceptions firmly rooted in people's minds, it is hard to hold the public's attention to let them know the exciting and fascinating work U.S. Foreign Service Officers actually do on a regular basis.

But Ambassador Blanchard has done a commendable job in this intimate account of his time as the Ambassador of Canada from 1993 to 1996. Open and astute, Blanchard's account describes a critical period in U.S.-Canada relations as NAFTA was being implemented, Quebec held its referendum on sovereignty, and both countries began adjusting to the post-Cold War world. Indeed, many of the issues the U.S. Embassy encountered during his tenure continue to reverbrate in U.S.-Canada relations.

Read more at http://znovels.blogspot.com/2013/07/b...