— Sven Bellamy Features Editor Michael Kergin Michael Kergin, Canada’s Ambassador to the United States, talks with CUP in an exclusive interview about his career, Canadian foreign policy and Canada-US relations post-September 11. By Radha Subramani, The Strand TORONTO (CUP)—Michael F Kergin is the Canadian ambassador to the United States. Prior to taking the posi- tion on October 19, 2000, he had worked for the Department of External Affairs in Cameroon, Chile, Cuba, and at the United Nations. Ambassador Kergin was born in a Canadian military hospital in Bramshott, England, on April 26th, 1942, and is a graduate of the University of Toronto and of Magdalen College at Oxford University. The following is a recent interview with Ambassador Kergin. CUP: Which college did you belong to at U of T? MK: I was at Trinity College. I spent four years there and had a good time. CUP: What were some of your favourite memories of your time there? MK: You make a lot of really good friends there. I was not in residence...but I enjoyed my time there just because of meeting people from other parts of Canada. Trin is small, so you get an opportunity to know people; whereas University College in those days—probably still is—very large, and it’s harder to get to know people well. CUP: History and Languages were your two majors at U of T. Did you always know you wanted to be part of the Foreign Service? MK: I didn’t really know what I wanted to do, frankly. After Trinity, I went off to England and studied at Oxford. I did Philosophy, Politics and Economics there, which is also a good preparation for the Foreign Service, I guess. But it was really that I wasn’t terribly good at Mathematics. I was never a very good student actually. I got through okay, but I didn’t know quite what I wanted to do. I had thought about going into business and in fact, I had applied to Shell Oil...1 was quite fortunate because the Shell people said, “Look, we're interested in people who have some government background and we'll hold the job open for you at Shell for a couple of years. If you want to go into the Foreign Service, and it doesn’t work out, you can always come back.” © page 16 So I entered the Foreign Service. Three days after I joined the department I went off to New York where I joined the UN General Assembly in 1967. This was right after the Six Day War in Israel. I had such an interesting time there that I never went back to Shell. I just stayed with the Department. CUP: What have some of your best experiences been during your career? MK: I’ve always been a bit of a field person. I’ve spent almost two thirds of my career being outside of Ottawa. ] joined the Foreign Service...because I was interested in foreign cultures, and getting to know how other societies worked. If I look back, I think the most interesting times I’ve had are when I’ve been able to get out into the field and get to know the country. What I really enjoyed about [my posting in Cuba] was just going out in a car and driving out to the country, because the country is very different from the capital. People’s views in the rural areas, they were very commu- nist and socialist, and [it was] a different type of person than was in the city. When I was in Chile, from 74-77, we had a lot of prob- lems with people who were politically oppressed. We had a lot of immigration programs to help them get to Canada and I worked with some of the NGOs—religious groups. You got into the barrios, the poor working sec- tions. It’s just getting that sort of feel for a country from the grassroots up that I found the most interesting part of my career, when I look back on it. Those are the things that I retain as my interesting memories. CUP: The staff of the Canadian Embassy in Washington are perceived as operating in a small compact world full of bright people, playing at the centre of Canadian poli- cy and leading it as a response to their perception of American needs. Can you comment on that statement? MK: Well, I tend to think that anyone who gets into the Foreign Service has to be pretty bright to start off with so I don’t know whether Washington has a monopoly on brightness. But certainly in terms of Canadian foreign policy, [Canada] is significantly, highly affected by what the United States is doing. Not only Canadian foreign poli- cy, but also Canadian domestic policy is also incredibly affected by what goes on in Congress... This is not an issue of undercutting our sovereignty, it's just smart because what the United States does, given the size of the relationship, will inevitably have an impact on our own issues. So therefore, being in Washington and being ahead in terms of information and insights as to what is happening in Washington puts us in a situation of being able to report back. We're sort of a forecaster of events; we can establish what trend lines are being set up in terms of policymaking in the United States and that has a cred- ible impact. The Embassy is one of the conduits by which this infor- mation goes back to Ottawa. So, we do have an integral role, because as Canadian policymakers are looking at their options, they have an interest in how it might affect the relationship with the United States. So I think there’s some truth to the fact that more than many embassies, this embassy gets involved in policy decision-making in Ottawa by virtue of the fact that the United States has such an impact on the policy-making in Canada. CUP: Many people are disparaging of Canada’s attempts to guide world affairs. Maureen Appel Molot from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs told Mike Trickey, “it is probably time Canada quit present- ing itself as a leading actor on the world stage” (Ottawa Citizen, June 17, 2002). Do you think these people a speaking the truth, or do you think that they are simp| accepting and promoting a self-deprecating Canadi attitude about our place in the world? MK: It’s very often circumstantial. In the 50s, becaus Europe was, financially, in very poor shape, the thir world was still under colonial domination; by circum stance, Canada was a larger player, comparatively speak ing. Now, we've got the independence of India, we've go the Chinese resurgence, we've got Latin America, wit Brazil, and of course the EU. There are more players i the game. So, by contrast, Canada might not appear a: high profile. But that doesn’t mean that what Canada has been con tributing internationally in terms of creative policies ha in anyway diminished or is in any way less relevant of les important than what people were doing in the 50s an 60s. I suspect that when you're in the Foreign Service, 2 years from now, people will be talking about Axworthy a a pioneer, and say that people at this stage aren’t doin very much. We go through these cycles, a tendency t look at the past through rose-tinted glasses. I’m a gre believer that every generation gets smarter and learn from the mistakes of the previous generation. I thin there are smarter people coming into the Foreign Servi than when I came into the Foreign Service, and I woul venture to say that the people who came into the Forei Service in the 60s and 70s were better than the people i the 50s and after the Second World War. I think we ten to improve with time, and I think it’s a bit of a bad ra for Trickey to say we're doing nothing and that we've los the Pearsonian age. CUP: How do you think Canada can begin to change thi “outdated” perceptions that were given in the survey th was commissioned by the federal government to find o why Canada’s share of foreign direct investment has bee: : falling in the last decade, despite the free-trade agreeme with the US and Mexico? (Dean Beeby, Montre Gazette, July 8th). MK: Well, that’s a bit along the lines of getting your me sage across. How do you get the people who are othe wise occupied in their respective society to pay attentio to what they think is something unimportant in Idah for example, where a large factor of the land doesn't fa tor into their own interests. [Idaho] is the heartland America, they don’t see Canada as being very relevant t their needs, and American investors are quite happ investing in America or China or India, with their hu populations. When they think of Canada, they think it as a state of the Union. It’s very tough to fight that co cept. I think one of the most effective ways—and I must sa I was very skeptical of this earlier one—is the Tea Canada trade missions. I’ve been impressed at how whe they've been well-organized and prepared by the co sulates, that they do manage to get some very key bus ness people out in their respective jurisdictions, and PM or premiers will come down. We've done region Team Canadas—and we do have a set of meetings we established and a set of contacts for that to take place. does leave quite an impression; all of a sudden people say “Oh I didn’t know much about Canada, but obvious they are well-organized with very effective technologies; They get exposed to Canadian progress and achiev ments. I think that is probably not a bad way of trying t break through the ignorance barrier, which we're all face with down here.