The Globe and Mail (Canada)
April 24, 2010 Saturday

Don’t let diaspora politics twist Canada’s foreign policy;
Ethnic disputes elsewhere should stay elsewhere, although this is
often easier said than done

by JEFFREY SIMPSON

Ujjal Dosanjh, a former NDP premier of British Columbia and since 2004
a Liberal MP, said something sensible and brave this week.

Mr. Dosanjh was physically assaulted in 1985 after he denounced
religious violence in the Sikh community. Recently, he and another
Sikh-Canadian politician were told to stay away from an annual Sikh
festival in Surrey. Always a voice for moderation, Mr. Dosanjh
observed this week that religious intolerance remains a problem in
parts of that community. Separatist extremism for an independent
Punjab is stronger in some Canadian Sikh communities than in the
Punjab itself, he said.

Multiculturalism, he warned, can be dangerous if "there is no
adherence to core values, the core Canadian values which [are]: That
you don’t threaten people who differ with you; you don’t attack them
personally; you don’t terrorize the populace." His comments about Sikh
extremism provoked several death threats against him.

Multiculturalism has greatly enriched Canada, making it a more
interesting, vibrant and outward-looking country. But multiculturalism
can be dangerous if diaspora politics twist Canada’s foreign policies
to suit ethnic demands.

For starters, Canadian federalism has had, and will likely have again,
its own unity problems. The last thing Canada needs to encourage, or
be seen to be encouraging, is the breakup of other multiethnic or
multilingual federations.

Except under circumstances of mass oppression or systematic denials of
human rights elsewhere, Canada should want non-unitary states to
remain together. That means Canadian governments should not give in to
ethnic pressures here from groups that want separate states carved
from within existing ones. At the very least, Canada should wait until
events play themselves out in these sorts of places, and not rush to
sanction secessions or breakups.

Sometimes, it appears Canadian politicians understand this lesson.
When thousands of Tamils descended on Ottawa demanding that the
government do "something" to stop the war in Sri Lanka that their side
was about to lose, and to support an independent Tamil state,
politicians from every party kept their distance.

No political party in Canada supports those in the Sikh diaspora
calling for the creation of an independent Punjabi state, or
Khalistan. That such voices continue to be heard in the Canadian Sikh
community, and that some Canadian-grown terrorists who favour
Khalistan might be living here, was raised by India’s Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh when he met Prime Minister Stephen Harper last fall.

Ethnic disputes elsewhere should stay elsewhere, although this is
often easier said than done. Remember that in the 19th century, lots
of Irish immigrants to Canada agitated for an independent Ireland. A
few radicals associated with the radical Fenian movement, seeking an
independent Ireland, lived in Canada. One suspected member of that
group assassinated Thomas D’Arcy McGee, a father of Confederation.

Certain groups harbour collective memories of things done to their
ancestors and want the Canadian government to take sides in historical
disputes. The Armenian diaspora is particularly mobilized to press
governments to denounce the events during the collapse of the Ottoman
Empire and World War One, even though what happened did not involve
Canada, and does not involve Canada today.

Unwisely, the Harper government took a position recognizing the
Armenian "genocide," then somewhat altered its position, then changed
it back again. Today, elements of the Armenian diaspora around the
world are very loudly and unhelpfully condemning efforts by Turkey and
Armenia to talk about settling their many disputes – a classic case of
diaspora politics having a wholly negative influence.

Absolutely no good can come from Canadian governments and parliaments
passing retrospective judgment on historical events that did not
concern us because diasporas here are exercised about them. If that
ever became the norm, terrible events about which governments and
parliaments could pass judgment would never end, nor would the
disputes about them in Canada. Such retrospective judgments make it
harder for ethnic conflicts to be forgotten in Canada.

Moreover, Canada was present at the creation of "peacekeeping" and has
participated in many overseas missions to keep warring parties apart,
whether in the Middle East (Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip) or
Cyprus or the Balkans. We ought to know from experience overseas what
ethnic conflict can breed, and how unhelpful it can be to take sides
in many instances.

Perhaps the most intense split of all is that between Israel and
Palestine, at least in terms of length and breadth. Supporters of
Israel and the Palestinians argue their respective cases, and put
their opposing narratives of history and current reality, before the
Canadian government and public. Supporters of both sides quarrel at
universities where anti-Israeli groups have drowned out voices they do
not like in institutions where free speech is supposed to be
respected, indeed cherished.

Both sides want Canadian governments to accept their narrative, and
vote at the United Nations accordingly. Previous governments had tried
to maintain some semblance of a balanced position in this entrenched
dispute, always supporting Israel but urging a two-state solution. The
Harper government, by contrast, has tilted unconditionally toward
Israel.

If Canada ever had a small bit of credibility in the region as an
honest broker, or at least a country both sides could talk to and be
understood, those days are over, at least for a while.