thumbnail of 1961 Couchiching conference; Independence and the developing states
Transcript
Hide -
This transcript was received from a third party and/or generated by a computer. Its accuracy has not been verified. If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+.
From Geneva park on Lake teaching this is the 30th annual crew teaching conference a symposium on national and international affairs arranged by the Canadian Institute on public affairs in cooperation with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The theme of the conference this year is diplomacy and evolution and the speakers you will hear this evening are John Holmes president of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs and understood it professor of comparative social politics at the University of Texas. Mr. SEO is the counselor of the permanent mission of Nigeria to the United Nations has been unable to attend and to take part in tonight's discussions as he had planned because of the pressure of work at the U.N. the chairman of this evening session which will consider the subject of Independence and the developing states is Allister Taylor a visiting professor of international relations at Queen's University. Professor Taylor. Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
In the last two plenary sessions we paid particular attention to the emergence of a host of new nations in the post-war world. Much has been said about the role which technology economic planning and the training of leaders can provide in making these new nations both viable and stable. Tonight we take up a related topic the politics of Independence. We propose to examine the phenomenon of nationalism. Its psychology and its structure. A distinguished scholar has declared that in our century nationalism has become the first worldwide force in history to which the peoples of all continents pay home region loyalty. If this is so why is it so. Well that's what we proposed to try to find out. I will start off by looking at some of the overall problems of the rise first in the national and then in the international sphere. Having
raised the questions I shall then shamelessly turn over the problem of trying to find the answers to our two distinguished gentleman sharing the platform here tonight. You know them both well. John Holmes the Canadian Institute of International Affairs possesses a president outstanding for his knowledge of the problems inherent in Canada's relationship with the outside world. We look forward to the examination of nationalism with specific reference to highly developed countries including Canada by the way. Our second speaker made a big hit last night and frankly we expect a repeat performance tonight this year. Andres Philippe is a man of many careers Professor member of the French Resistance Movement holder of numerous ministerial portfolios at one time or another author and the possessor of an intimate grasp of the complex factors at work in new and established States.
He will analyze the psychology of nationalism with particular reference to the turn into a very turbulent part of today's world namely north and equatorial Africa. In 1947 the trusteeship council sent out its first visiting mission to an island paradise in the Pacific. Western Samoa whose leaders had petitioned the UN for a greater measure of self government. As the members of that visiting mission came ashore I believe in fact they had to wait ashore. They saw a large banner on the beach with the following message inscribed good government is no substitute for self-government. The Western Samoans by the way ascribed this these words to Stamboul. Now these words were to be repeated in numerous other parts of the world in the years
that followed. And I came across them in Indonesia in 1949 only on that occasion the author was Abraham Lincoln. But irrespective of authorship this slogan has made a potent appeal to Colonial populations. I suggested to my Indonesian friends of the time that one day they might find equally valid the converse of that slogan namely of course self-government is no substitute for good government. But I made this suggestion at a time when all nationalist efforts were concentrated upon gaining independence and when the crime or DECA meaning freedom had become equated with the promise of the millennium. I can give any analysis of nationalism we can divide a given struggle roughly into what I would call the pre millennia old and the post millennial stages.
The pre manual stage that is the period prior to independence. It is dominated by centripetal forces. The struggle is directed by a centralized leadership. What a collective image is projected before the world. That image is necessary because of the group's insistence upon achieving a separate national identification. And so we find such a group insisting upon their right of self-determination. Of course the Metropolitan power will meanwhile be citing an antithetical principle in the charter the principle of domestic jurisdiction by which sovereignty is enshrined in the famous or infamous as you wish. Article 2 paragraph. So now this evening we are to be concerned primarily with the second or post millennial stage of nationalism and what is its morphology.
First of all we find that with the removal of the Imperial whipping boy. The forces of nationalism have in large measure reversed direction and have now become progressively centrifugal or divisive. Let's see why. As various writers have pointed out the idea of nationality has both a political and a cultural aspect. The political ideal of national unity calls for a strong united state in which order and economic progress can be achieved. But the exponents of the cultural pieces on the other hand insist that the state must reflect the ethnic linguistic and other differences of its various peoples. Now these differences tend to be divisive in character. And when the struggle for independence in a Perl society advances to that point where the departure of the Metropolitan or colonial power becomes imminent.
The self-consciousness of particular groups is intensified as indeed are the group tensions which have hitherto been held in check by the imperial arbiter. With the actual departure of the Metropolitan power the centrifugal ism inherent in cultural nationalism demands that the principle of self-determination once more be implemented. But this time for internal purposes. Now this brings me to what I think is a serious dilemma that is bound to affect the politics of into big independent states. When political self-determination is carried to its ultimate conclusion it can lead. Still in the main will be terminated. To a determinism which with its insistence on unitary and conformity effectively denies the right of self-determination to any nonconforming elements in the given cause called activity thereby perhaps even paving the way for detail to
Tarion rule from the center. On the other hand. The centrifugal forces inherent in cultural nationalism can unless they too are checked lead to a fragmentation of the national state to the point where it ceases to be either politically or economically viable. Now surely this dilemma lies squarely at the heart of many of the Congo's present problems for example or to take another that of Indonesia where we find centralism in Java contesting separatist movements in the outer islands. But is this problem unique to newly established States. Last week's founding convention of the new Democratic party wound up by stripping its manifesto of all mention of the word national. The word federal instead has to take its place. Perhaps Mr. Holmes
will tell us whether this signifies the triumph of cultural over political nationalism in Canada because often you're 1961. This problem relates I think to to a still larger setting namely the politics of internationalism. Does the morphology of internationalism parallel that of nationalism to be more concrete. Is there such a thing as a pre millennial stage of internationalism when governments are propelled by the centripetal forces of wartime Kolob or co-operation to create a league of nations. Or again a United Nations each of which alas instead of producing the millennium seems and I underline the word seems only to set in motion a counter chain reaction of centrifugal forces marked by Dittos and references ad nauseum to Article 2 paragraph 7. Again are there also parallels in the way in which international
alliances take shape. For example a major difference between the Warsaw and natal group lies in effect the Natal is an association of autonomy States and this permits considerable freedom of action for its individual members. Perhaps we might cite France's been in that category. MR. So we would agree. In contrast the Warsaw Pact seems much more political by because of I mean much more politically integrated because of a monolithic control which substitutes determinism epicenter for any self determination on the part of its members. With of course the obvious exception of the Soviet Union itself. Now many Canadians have long advocated making NATO's something more than a military alliance by implementing its provisions for Economic Cooperation. These have remained a dead letter.
Meanwhile however we find not only a growth in economic rate regionalism which is Britain's coming negotiations to join the common market but in addition the first step has lately been taken by the Common Market governments themselves to work towards closer political. A few affiliations does all this mean that economic factors in today's world are predominately centripetal in their direction. If so is some kind of political union inherent in economic regionalism. What would be the political implications for Canada say if the common market were to be expanded into a North Atlantic Free Trade Area. This raises a terrible question. What are the pressures operating within newly independent countries both for and against the creation of larger economic and political
units. Is their hard won independence so jealously guarded as to preclude their giving up any real sovereignty. On the other hand it's economic. If you can amik necessity leads in the direction of a larger group. Will this not ultimately bring about a common market and other forms of economic conciliation even political affiliation in underdeveloped continents. In short Miss utility can we expect to see a United States of Africa emerge. Well as you see I've raised points galore for our to speak frankly. I do it without any apology for I take refuge in Thurber's dictum. It's better to ask some of the questions than to know all the answers. And now ladies and gentlemen Mr. John Holmes. Thank you
Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen our chairman has suggested that we would examine the psychological aspects of the politics of Independence. I think it is indeed at least a problem of ambivalence and sometimes I'm inclined to think it's a case of advanced schizophrenia. The heart of the problem as I see it is this the glorification of Independence has become one of the prescribed idealisms of our time. But unfortunately however this idealization of Independence conflicts with other idealisms of our times and induces a great big international neurosis. A low independence has managed to maintain a good reputation among idealists sovereignty is now getting a bad name. This confusion I think may be traced to the fact that we are expediting the number of independent states addicted to sovereignty. While we view increasingly with concern the need for international collaboration and the extension of
world order. As a result good people all over are pressing for the independence of dependent peoples. But in the second half of their speeches they demand that we all surrender our sovereignty like our worldly goods to speed the way to the kingdom. We suffer I think from the abstractions of political philosophers and political moralists. Independence and sovereignty are in themselves neither good nor bad. And it isn't necessarily good to achieve one and surrender the other. It all depends on the use to which independence is put and the purpose for which sovereignty is surrendered. We have reached the stage when simple incantations about freedom and independence are as Edith Cavell said about patriotism not enough. The real problem lies in the application of these principles to the contradictions of real life the politics of independence in the age of independence should be concerned more with practice and less with preaching. But I don't very
much the way I love my subject for discussion is even the politics of independence many conjure up in most minds the politics of consonance newly experiencing independence. I think it's advisable for us to scrutinise with due humility first the politics of countries great and small which have long since known independence and exercised sovereignty not least of all our own country. Canadians of course to achieve independence gradually and painlessly and have acquired some maturity in the exercise of sovereignty but nevertheless we are sensitive and touchy in the preservation of our independence is a theme still dear to voters and politicians alike. It is I think a preoccupation which too often diverts us from constructing the substance of a healthy national life. Economic political and cultural. It encourages dark suspicions and the tendency to blame our incapacities on the interference of others. So if examination is healthy for countries as well as for
people. But in Canada today an almost obsessive introspection I think is robbing us of that easy confidence necessary for us to play the roles for which we are fitted in the world of art and commerce and diplomacy. People do not become great by deliberately pursuing the unique rather than the universal in spite of our considerable contributions to world politics. Canadians constantly succumb to the temptation to emphasise our status and neglect our function to insist upon the forms of equality and the right to be consulted rather than on being worthy of consultation. This is been our weakness I think ever since we sallied out into the world half a century ago and we are going to be greatly surprised if it afflicts younger nations and we. I think perhaps the neurosis of Independence is attributable partly to the frustration of striving for the unattainable. First small or middle par.
The enjoyment of absolute sovereignty if it ever was possible is certainly out of the question now because of the exits in seas of commercial interdependence and nuclear defense. Our recognition in Canada of this very obvious fact of life I'm afraid is has too often obscured by our preoccupation with the overweening influence of one large neighbor. But our international life is no more circumscribed than that of Australia or Italy or Japan. Our Canadian neurosis I think is also compounded by this conflict of idealism as I mentioned above. We feel guilty for caring about our sovereignty. We feel in need of constructive nationalism. But the books tell us that nationalism is wrong by the books of course are written by Americans and Frenchmen an Englishman whose national character and institutions would dominate rather than be submerged in ANY an agglomeration of states which they join. But the surrender
of sovereignty may or may not be in the interest of world peace. The case for surrendering sovereignty is arguable in some cases if it's a question of handing it over to a world organization or even more so if it's a question of forming regional federations in Western Europe West Africa or Latin America. But sovereignty isn't the general advice of which we should purge ourselves. And it's not necessarily an act of merit for countries to readouts their sovereignty purposely rather than to exercise it vigorously in the cause of righteousness. I have no doubt at all for instance that it's been a good thing for all concerned and the world in general that the manifest destiny of the United States on this continent was resisted so that Mexico and Canada survived. The political and cultural life of the planet has been diversified thereby. And in our contemporary infatuation with unity I think we are going to forget the diversity can also be a virtue. And while praying daily as we all must I
think for the increasing strength and prosperity of the United States Mexican people and Canadians can without presumption recognize that they have their own missions as middle powers to fulfill the cause of world order requires one or more large and strong free nations. But it also requires variety in states heterogeneity in dissent room for maneuver a subtle relationship among independent governments of all kinds and sizes rather than the perilous rigidity of bi polarization. Oh Admittedly the politics of independence do tend to increase world tensions. Independents can in fact be an instrument of internationalism rather than nationalism. I think independence for Canada is not good when it induces in us a jealous regard for status. A chip on the shoulder attitude towards our British partners and the carping your responsibility in our criticism of the United
States for the exercise of our independence is good when it is used effectively to do those things we can uniquely do to create an international force in the Middle East strengthen the United Nations in the Congo or prevent the Commonwealth from dividing on racial lines over South Africa. The cure for our neurosis about independence isn't to abjure it but to make good use of it. Now we smaller newer countries of course have no monopoly of the shoddy or political aspects of Independence. The neurosis in its most aggravated form is probably to be found in great powers China for instance. France brooks no interference from the United Nations even in their support of the European community. The concession of Independence may be more apparent than real. With all due respect to Mr Filipe and the good people of France who I'm sure sincerely yearn for European unity. I must confess that from this distance the attitude of their leaders sometimes looks more like that of Europe.
Same why all seem obvious. The British however insular their emotions have done more than any other great power I think to dilute traditional notions of sovereignty and independence in the world at large. Nonetheless it is quite obvious that British independence in defense and trade remains a poignant theme of British politics. The Russians in accordance with the principles of Leninism take a strictly ad hoc. You all sovereignty to the Soviets and those countries whose causes they are for the moment espousing and a minimum to others. It's a pragmatic approach all right but hardly one which encourages a sane attitude towards independence on the part of new countries. I think perhaps it could be said that the tears which the Russians shed for the ravaged independence of little states are not necessarily those of the crocodile.
This recurring conviction of great cars that people in lesser countries want to be liberated is not always hypocrisy. Often it's just honest delusion. Even benevolent great Tarzan aberrations of this kind. I think from the days of Benjamin Franklin to Big Bill Thompson our neighbors in the United States suffered to some extent from the illusion that Canadians wanted to be liberated from the British yoke. However it's it is the Russians of course bewitched by their false prophets who are the most dangerously delusional. The Americans are wracked by conflicting good impulses as usual having invented independance in 1776 and federation. Shortly thereafter. They tend to see both these principles as instant cures for other people's needs while their congressman of course fiercely guard their own sovereignty. They have a weakness for grandiose plans for the internationalization of sovereignty in Europe or Africa. Of course all those cool Europeans have a habit of blaming Americans for converting a lot of contented Africans
and Asians to this independence racket. This is of course a gross distortion. The United States did play an important role in popularizing the idea of independence. But I think Europeans too often forget that the United States has accepted the consequences of its missionary zeal in the support which it has given to these new countries. Well the United States can be ruthless towards the sovereignty of smaller states when its eyes have seen the glory and it has convinced itself that a moral issue is at stake. Nevertheless its record for respecting the sovereignty of others is on the whole remarkable for so great a power. One of its problems I think is that of reconciling in its own turbulent conscience the principles of a democratic world order of states to which our Americans are earnestly dedicated with the practical necessity of grasping the reins as one of the two great powers of the world. Now having recognized that the aberrations of Independence politics are not restricted to those who only recently
experienced this heady wine we might now have a look at some of the manifestations characteristic of the new countries of Asia and Africa. The states too of course are bedeviled by their own kind of paradox in attitudes to independence and sovereignty. They are foremost in demanding strong international action to defend them from imperialists and to give them economic aid without any interference in their economic policies. But they are the same at the same time warily jealous and preserving their sovereignty so recently attain. They don't even seem to recognize and trust the power which they have acquired in the United Nations. So accustomed have they been to the capacity of the imperial powers to impose their will that they are slow to recognize in the United Nations and international authority which is something more than an instrument for perpetuating Western domination. I think we have to recognize that the politics of Independence everywhere require a
certain kind of ash. We Northerners are impatient of this sort of thing in Africa. Or we tend to look upon it is unseemly for the young and too expensive for the recipients of charity. Its gaudier manifestations disturb us for reasons its hard to understand sometimes I think its because they involve the wearing on state occasions of bizarre plumage or top hats with unsuitable Rayment rather than something appropriate and sensible like a Busby. You know the fact that the politics of new states throw up leaders with a tendency to strut on the international stage in a manner out of keeping with their age and wealth seems also to be a source of irritation. Europeans forget easily that they have continued to produce the most absurd and the most barbarous structures in the history of man. We are impatient likewise of the fact that Africa has broken up in small pieces and the Africans are dilatory and putting them together.
There are some good reasons for the trend towards petty States with declamatory leaders. The areas which have been transformed into independent states in Africa and to some extent in Asia have little natural unity in such circumstances and with only rudimentary experience in government the politics of Independence are bound to be simple and direct. These fledgling countries need strong government and administration as uncomplicated as possible so that they may create nations out of what may still be little more than artificial jurisdictions of tribes. For such situations the balances of federal responsible government and loyal oppositions which even we Canadians in our late adolescence find barely manageable might be unduly sophisticated. How messy is this tends to leave the map. It might be better that new states learn the arts of government on a small and local scale first. If this endeavor can be accompanied by a arrangements for collaboration with other states in foreign
relations currency postage or other administrative matters so much the better. Of course a reduction of the excess independence flourishing in Africa could be achieved by old fashioned European Medicines. The gobbling up of neighbors known as Levens around manifest destiny or people's democracy. But such methods now are frowned on by the United Nations. Furthermore I'm afraid they're dangerous to world peace. Largely because of the incorrigible habit of the great powers of taking sides. And this taking of sides is unfortunately based less on the interest of the inhabitants in amalgamation than on quick decisions as to which parties are pro-Western or Moscow trained or imperialist lackeys. Pressure from the Western powers on Africans to unite is likely to be suspect I think even when it is disinterested. For a variety of reasons therefore the West should leave this question of African Union to the
Africans limiting our role to two functions. We can adjust our economic policies to assist African experiments in collaboration and we can work through the United Nations to prevent aggressors inside and outside Africa from playing fast and loose with the independence of Africans. The habits of the great powers have not surprisingly encourage the enthusiasm of newly independent countries for neutralise them. Even countries which are nearing their 100th birthday are affected by this yearning. The Western powers tended at first to consider neutral ism as immoral but I think the inevitability of neutral ism has induced more tolerance of this attitude and the new United States administration has very wisely gone so far as to recognize that there are advantages in leaving a large mass of peoples in a non Cold War state. This change of heart
has led to much healthier international understanding and a reduction of frustration. So far so good provided we don't proceed to sentimentalize neutral ism into a positive virtue like innocence or chastity or neutral ism which is an exaggerated form of independence is like sovereignty to be judged on its results. Mr narrow sees no positive virtue in neutral ism and rejects the term for his country. Neutrality meaning a kind of isolation from the front line of the Cold War is a sensible practical policy for most new and powerless States. But there's a danger I think that neutral ism will become a new dogmatism just as contrary to the spread of law and order as the fanaticism of extreme cold warriors for it's one thing for a country too weak to follow a policy based on par to find a place outside the contest between east and west and even to use its influence as an objective peacemaker.
That kind of neutrality is an ameliorating factor in the international situation. It's another matter however when the touchstone of a country's policy is the avoidance of a stand on any issue on which the great powers are divided. For example I believe that the African states which resisted the introduction of Cold War attitudes into the Congo were quite right. On the other hand States which withhold support from the secretary general not because they disagree or disagree with him but because his person is a subject of dispute between the Western powers and the Russians are I believe wrong. In the latter case neutralise him becomes Neil ism. The rejection of choice and the rejection of progress. Independence means freedom of choice. It was reported I recall last summer that some Congolese interpreted independence as the right to drive on the wrong side of the road. Now there's bound to be an element of perversity in the policies of newly independent
countries and for reasons which are not merely perverse. Furthermore they're bound to be eclectic in their economic and political policies. It's not surprising that the Asians and Africans or even the Latin Americans are less dedicated than we to the belief that only western models are good models. The practices of capital formation are of party political formation which are appropriate to Bay St. or the Ottawa Coliseum. Maybe quite irrelevant for an illiterate country on a subsistence economy. As a wise young Australian Mr Headley bull has written in a recent book no one way of life especially favored by God history or nature and in the long run all are bound to be superseded. We need not be too upset if the leadership principle is practiced more vigorously and more fantastically in new countries than seems to us compatible with democracy. At the same time in our tolerance and fair mindedness we should continue to insist.
The more I think by example and by predication that the principles of political freedom have been hard won over thousands of years that they are all too easily extinguished and very hard to recapture. Perhaps we should make the point more effectively if we talk less about the free principles of the West and recognize that the doctrines of freedom are today just as much the heritage of the people of India or the Ivory Coast. Freedom is not something which was granted to Asians and Africans by the wise men of the West. It was fought and then go seeded for Africans and Asians did learn about democracy from Western books and from western example. But in their revolutions of independence they have added a new dimension to our common heritage. By undermining the discriminatory discriminatory nature of our practice and also of our preaching they have broadened the base of freedom. In the case of the Commonwealth for example
I think we must no longer consider our Commonwealth principles to be the products of Britons Canadians and Australians as we tend to do. There is as much of Gandhi as of Balfour in them now and the Commonwealth would be entirely meaningless in Africa today if our principles had not grown in this way. The politics of independence in the new continents are likely to be turbulent for many years to come. They can be undisciplined and dangerous to world order but they are also of course a liberating and creative force precarious and auspicious. Like all revolutionary movements there is danger not only in the moonstruck behavior of new nations but also in the tendency of the older nations to panic in the face of these unsettling forces. Nostalgia for the stability we seem to have when these forces were bottled up still drives northern countries into an acronym stick attitude. Granted a United Nations of 100 members is not the ideal instrument we
would have wished. We must however make the best of it in order to do so. Look for its advantages. Every nation is unique and each one has a contribution to make. Not only to the cultural life of the planet but to the diplomacy of the United Nations in the very diversity of United Nations membership. There is a kind of vitality which resists petrifaction. If we are to avoid anarchy of course we shall all have to accept limitations on the absolute exercise of our sovereignty. But it is by combination and agreement for specific purposes that we extend the rule of law. Whether this is an agreement to adopt the jurisdiction of the international court or to limit the number of seals which we catch in the North Pacific. The best way to Utopia is to speed up this process of limiting our sovereignty by contract by the extension of international regulatory institutions in the fields of Commerce and production and control of ours. But to imagine
however that we would exit or size the conflicts endemic to this wildly unsymmetrical planet by surrendering our sovereignty to an international governing body is I'm afraid one of the unfortunate heresies of good people today. But good people must give up their habit of ignoring nasty realities like force and violence and conflict in the passions of independence and wishing them away and pious formalise. Or they will be more like Pharisees and prophets. If we are to make progress we must begin with the world as it is the independence and sovereignty of states and the ungovernable politics which attend them are a part of the world as it is. Some of the sting can be removed from these politics. If Canadians and other junior breeds relaxed their fear of being pushed around and think of Independence as opportunity rather than as something to be everlastingly protected against interference.
Thank you. Was I not take pleasure in calling on Miss you to comment on what is being said as far and to comment in particular on conditions in North and equatorial Africa. It's usually if you mean Mr Chairman I would begin a rather crude confession of S.. I say that I think that independence of the nation is an absolute necessity and a conscience and freedom of the individual and I believe that sovereignty of the national state is the
biggest Gunja order same freedom of the. Indeed we are in contradiction because at different times we have to work on different levels. I dis same time but I would say for a short time. I would give my example to wind up some of my friends immediately after 1940. We have been launching the French underground movement. After one year and a half in the underground I went to England and I felt it too I joined to go and a free French movement first to as I am glad to see the French underground joining the Free French to fight the Germans. And I told him no. The French underground movement is not
fighting the Germans. He dictatorships with the help of cabin keys. Wow I meant same rights and same consideration as of the beginning. It was one of the principle of our underground movement being a fight we got up against a fact Larry in Europe. That we died of cost and we did a lot of people for whom the fight was a nationalist fight. So that before going to our fight for the unity of Europe we had to win to independence of my country. It is only when one can give himself to something
higher and we had to get the independence and asked us to fight. My duty to Europe and we had to keep popping up to the nation with a set of friends with whom we had been fighting but by pure nationalities spit something that he could use that in the present time in the fight for the unification of Europe of the European movement in France had been the same people of the underground movement which showed that there was some logic in it. And here again I missed that. I'll fight at the present time for the unity of Europe. Acting in mixed activity with people who are inspired by the failure to pay off Europe I said the best way to fight the Russians and
essentially as anti-communist a unique deal for Europe because to create a European nationalities. I'm already knowing that I keep to watch the United Nations which carry God with the greatest contempt they show you. But nationalities is beginning to develop in Europe. Some other ones to make up your own balls to be on the B train between Russia and America. Senator I think we have to be cautious before speaking of false order to avoid being weakness. In a few years when I'm thinking of the unity of Europe I am thinking off in Europe we should be strong enough to have its own policy inside of the i 20 to
have trains to have some influence under policy of our American friends with the push even during a long time goes you know we we don't like to be able to see you go on like this we thought. But we do hope never to be forced to use this as a way to have a close association community be equal partner with our American friends. But now we are fighting for European unity already has different elements with different and conflicting ideas and when we realize we need to tabulate because what inspires us is quite different. If I look now at the countries from Africa I think that DS is exactly the same problem.
These countries now seated in a sense of independence because for years they have been through domination and rage and destruction of human dignity of human dignity has to be recognized as a member of the group because he's in the group that the dignity of the man the night and I think fueling and craving sorry dependence of a free nations is something he did expect and progress of the individual. I believe that my duty is to help them even when he's at the price of some difficulty in my own
country. But we know also that tragedy. Got Dave heated in a CCG of independence at a time when the state sovereign state does not correspond to any reality anymore and that when they get independence it empty and day you realize that you know to to build something that I have to go further than independents to get together amongst themselves sociate themselves some people and perhaps some of the people who don't need to be felt they have been changing their mind. Something which I've heard from a friend who is now in the Senate guarding the high capacity and he said independence means a century through to Coronel out to take the professionals.
Now this is perhaps why I'm in imminent independence has been realized through negotiation and has been built in friendship. It is possible to get the independence of the nation and at the same time to begin with the other to be separate national not state enough to solve the problems which are problems. I get praise and. That is the case of Algeria where again dependence has to be taken by you violence and the result will be much more difficult to build. After a week of collaboration and Becky it will be a match marked difficult to administer itself because when a dependence comes through negotiation and discussion
the man becomes a politician. Is a good diplomat can be a good administrators. Wendy I've been a house fighting leader which got me out is a wall hero and the war hero was to be very much respected. But after a while he's not very good at ministry. Yes Tracie decoration and pensions and if possible to be replaced by some other to do deal real constructive where and when the wishes of the nation have not been good intelligent enough to make the transition quickly and on a friendly way. The result is a situation which remains very difficult very bad for everyone. Is that social problem. What I believe is the most important thing is not the one man
tries to attend to it because I never really think that changing so quickly before we are right to the end. A lot of changes and the problems different but the world we are building did not end. We are supposed to pass you practically every day you know to to act so cold and my hope is that we succeed to realize every independence which is the only way for the individual to find freedom and try to national states which in the present conditions are too similar to solve the problem and the ideals of a nation. Block
of the giving to freedom of the soul of Baghdad. Thank you gentlemen for your contribution in the rather brief time remaining. I think we should be asking for questions from the floor I'm sure that a great deal has been given is by both speakers and there should be questions aplenty. Yes. I would like to divide again with two speakers first for Mr Hong. Another major what has been described as the revolution of
hierarchy may be an overcomer. In other words we can raise living standards by importing foreign capital. But to what extent is this implication to many economics. And possibly politically in the US. The second car or possibly Mr. Foley turning to the young developed economies. They have all promised the millennium in order to gain political power. Now in the post-millennial state governments feel they must make good. But can they resist the pressures to cater to the demand for consumer goods etc.. Or can they be expected not to be tied to the wheel of any particular ideological chariot unless perhaps of the Holy God. Well to sort this one out it's rather lengthy The first part I
believe was addressed to Mr. Holmes. I cheerfully pass it to the terminal I think but it will be only too happy to pass it back to Mr. Holmes. As I understand your asking whether in the light of this revolution of rising expectations which grips people all over the world whether they're in highly developed or underdeveloped countries whether by giving in to this urge for rising living standards we're willing to rape to import foreign capital and will the importation of such capital perhaps diminish our sovereignty. I think if that is the question and I'm afraid it is. This gets us back to a recent controversy including the two gentlemen in Iowa as to the propriety of importing
large amounts of foreign capital. And if there was a viable alternative I don't profess to be an economist and certainly at that stratospheric level in any case. I think however that it is a problem which Canadians are becoming very much concerned with and I think that we are speaking quite personally of course that if we do want to retain more of our economic sovereignty and with a retention of political sovereignty then we do have to consider this this dilemma which apparently is thrust upon us. For my part I would I would advocate the stimulation of both the private and the public sectors of our own economy. I think it can be done through developmental funds and in other ways. I should be charged with perhaps the Canadian nationalist at this point. I think
one can be in a larger context a Canadian internationalist and still maintain this sort of thing on the basis that unless we are strong economically we cannot play a good strong tangible affirmative middle power role in the world of international affairs. Mr. Holmes have I answered the question and taken it away from you most eloquently said everything I could have said. Now there is a second part to that question if I if my memory serves. Would you repeat that for Mr.. From his or the question really the same sort of question about it. I think the second part of the question is related to the few years which are expressed in many underdeveloped countries of the replacement of political couldn't yet is economy neocolonialism.
That's where we hear very often. Now I think there is something true we need and I said it yesterday night. It's quite clear that the anger David upcountry cannot collect the private capital from outside the country. Independently of their own kind of economy they're Brockman we'd be a way of blocking them pushy BBT of people. I oversaw things that there is some danger in purely by agreement. Because there is too much difference of strain and three by agreement. Date me be clear. Imposition of the will of the former colonial country of the other one. That's reason why I'm in favor of measures like negotiation and organizing. But on the other hand
I think that new countries must evolve to develop the idea of self-sufficiency of being a loon and making their own development independently from the other countries because they fail and they develop a spirit of nationalities Mannix a new phobia which we deny any place CBP of evolution in freedom of the individual owners of their own country. I have a question on this. Yes. Mr. Chairman I have a question for Mr. Holmes who had something to say about it being more important in his view that Canada should attempt to perform a function in the international sphere rather than achieve status merely and wondering if he can give us any recent examples of where it appeared that
the unity and international councils was merely attempting to make a name for herself rather than then doing something. R R. Whether he could indicate some opportunities that might lie on the horizon for Canada at the United Nations to perform effective and useful function rather than merely getting a little credit or attention to us. I think really what I had in mind in what I was saying I was really thinking more of the adage of the Canadian people rather than the attitude of government which is of course responsive to the attitude of the Canadian people. I think that I'm more concerned really about the kind of debate one hears not only the editorials but writers and commentators who seem to be overly concerned about the fact that the Maple Leaf should be there planted on the table.
This is perhaps a long tradition of ours it goes way back of course to the struggle for. For status in the Commonwealth. And when we got the status we weren't quite sure what to do it sometimes but I would like to see in a country more concerned with the specific kind of policies that kind of the might pursue rather than are simply insisting that kind of the must play an active role in disarmament. We have to have a good deal more consideration of the very very difficult problems of such a proposal would be. You've been listening to part of the evening session of the 1961 cooch ing conference broadcast live from the conference hall on the shores of Lake near our region on Terry Jones the conferences arranged by the Canadian Institute on public affairs United States cooperation with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation sessions continue until next Friday. This year there has been a change in the starting time of some of the evening
sessions so those planning to attend or to hear the broadcasts should consult the radio listings of your local newspaper for the exact time of the sessions and the broadcast will begin very soon. Transcripts of the papers presented and the discussions which follow will be available about two months at the conference ends from the University of Toronto press for all five Ontario prices $2. That address again University of Toronto press Toronto five on Terrio tomorrow evening at 8:00 Eastern Standard Time. We should again be broadcasting direct from the conference hall. Your subject will be the realities of war. Bob Wilson speaking this is CBC Radio the Trans-Canada network.
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
Series
1961 Couchiching conference
Episode
Independence and the developing states
Producing Organization
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-5717qt2s
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-5717qt2s).
Description
Episode Description
The third program from the 1961 conference focuses on independence, nationalism, and developing countries.
Series Description
The 1961 Couchiching Conference, a summer symposium on national and international affairs put together by the Canadian Institute on Public Affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, assembles for its 30th annual meeting. The theme of the 1961 conference was "diplomacy in evolution."
Date
1961-08-07
Topics
Global Affairs
Environment
Public Affairs
Subjects
Forums (Discussion and debate)
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:59:44
Credits
Host: Wilson, Bob
Producing Organization: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Producing Organization: Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
Speaker: Taylor, Alastair MacDonald
Speaker: Holmes, John
Speaker: Philip, Andre_
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 4987 (University of Maryland)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 01:00:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “1961 Couchiching conference; Independence and the developing states,” 1961-08-07, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed July 20, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-5717qt2s.
MLA: “1961 Couchiching conference; Independence and the developing states.” 1961-08-07. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. July 20, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-5717qt2s>.
APA: 1961 Couchiching conference; Independence and the developing states. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-5717qt2s