Family diplomacy
| Author | Lorna Lloyd |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200506000109 |
| Published date | 01 March 2005 |
| Date | 01 March 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
LORNA
LLOYD
Family
diplomacy
Canada
and the Commonwealth
office
of
high
commissioner
•
tIE
OFFICEOF HIGH
COMMISSIONER
emerged becauseBritain and the
fully self-governing
dominions-Canada,
Australia, South Africa,
New Zealand, Newfoundland (until 1934) and
Ireland-were
engaging in diplomacy well before the dominions had become sepa-
rate international units. Such a development did not fit into the
diplomatic system. Diplomacy was, and usually still is, understood
to be
"[tjhe
conduct
of
relations between sovereign states"
and
is
therefore restricted to states enjoying constitutional independence. I
Yetnot only did non-independent parts of the British empire engage
LornaLloydis
senior
lecturer
in international
relations
at
Keele
University.
Thisisa
completely
revised
and
rewritten
version
of
a
University
of
Leicester
DSP
discussion
paper
(no.
57). I amgratefulfor the
Canadian
faculty
research
awardthat
enabled
meto
research
this
article
by
conducting
interviews
in Ottawaand
scouring
the
Canadian
national
archives.
All
correspondence
and
interviews
were
conducted
ona
non-attributable
basis,
but I am gladto be ableto
acknowledge
that
those
who
helped
me
include
Sir
Nicholas
Bayne,
Michael
Berry,
Gordon
Brown,
Harry
and
Pamela
Carter,
Louis
Deluoie,
Greg
Donaghy,
KentDum
Kenneth
East,
Fredrik
S.
Eaton,
David
Farr,
Sir
Robin
Feams,
Royce
Frith,
John
Hilliker,
Vivien
Hughes,
DonaldS.
Macdonald,
David
Mclntyre,
Hector
Mackenzie,
RoyMaclaren, Sir
Peter
Marshall,
Sir
Humphrey
Maud,
Russ
McKinney,
Roy
McMurry,
Arthur
Menzies,
Geoff
Murray,
Bill
Peters,
RadziahAbdul
Rahim,
Benjamin
Rogers,
Si andMary
Taylor,
David Totbill.f.H.
warren,
Bob
Wolfe,
Bill
Young,
and
members
of
Canada's
(then)
Department
of
Foreign
AffairsandInternational
Trade,
the
Commonwealth
secre-
tariatand the
Feo.
In aJdition,
special
thanksaredueto Sir Brianand Lady
Barrier,
Norman
Hillmer,
Alan
fames,
and Basiland
Elizabeth
Robinson.
In
rewritin$,
the
article,
I
was
abletodraw on
fUrther
research
on
Commonwealth
diplomacy,
funded
bya
Leverhulme
fellowship.
1
G.R.
Berridge
and
Alan
James,A Dictionaryof
Diplomacy,
znd ed. (london:
Palgrave, 2003),69;
Alan
James,
Sovereign
Statehood:
The
BasisofInternational
Society(london:
Allen
and
Unwin.
1986),
22-31.
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Winter 2004-2005
Lorna
Lloyd
in
what
was recognizably diplomacy
with
the
mother
country,
but
they also developed between themselves distinctive diplomatic prac-
tices long before the 1931 statute
of
Westminster (which gavethem the
right to obtain sovereign statehood).
Canada's attitude to the office reflected its relationship with Britain
aswell as the nature
of
the evolving empire and Commonwealth.'
One
of
the hangovers
of
colonialism was considerable touchiness in some
dominions about the slightest suggestion
of
dominion subordination
to
Britain.
It
rubbed
off
on the office
of
high commissioner inasmuch
as the distinctions between high commissioners
and
ambassadors were
interpreted as indications that high commissioners (and by implica-
tion the states they represented) were second-rate. Once, however,the
dominions could fully
stand
on their own international feet
and
decolonisation was under way, the Commonwealth was swiftly trans-
formed,
and
in 1948 high commissioners gained equal status
with
ambassadors. At this point, high commissioners began appreciating
their exclusivity and their very real advantages over foreign agents.
The
obvious benefits
of
the office did
not
long outlast the heyday
of
the
new Commonwealth, which was over by the early 1960s. Yetthe office
survives.
I
INTRA-IMPERIAL
ASSERTION:
THE
ESTABLISHMENT
OF
THE
OFFICE
OF
HIGH
COMMISSIONER
Intra-imperial contacts
of
adiplomatic kind began when the overseas
colonies of settlement needed representatives in London to encourage
and supervise emigration. Nova Scotia, for example, was at least inter-
mittently represented from 1762.
Other
appointments followed, and
by the time
of
Canada's Confederation (in 1867), most self-governing
colonies had appointed part-time agents to speak for them in London
and to promote their interests, especially in respect
of
immigration
and
economic matters.
In 1868, Canada took intra-imperial diplomacy a step further by
appointing SirJohn Rose as "aquasi-official representative'? to Britain.
2Thisis true of the other dominionswhoseattitudes are
touched
onin
Lorna
Lloyd,
"What'sin a
name?
The
curioustaleof the officeof high commissioner," Diplomacy
&Statecraft
(March
2000):
47-78;
and
Lloyd,
"'Us andthem': the
changing
nature
of
Commonwealth
diplomacy,"
Journal
of
Commonwealth
and
Comparative
Politics
39
(November
2001): 9-30.
3
David
M.L.
Farr,
The
ColonialOfficeand
Canada
2867-2887
(Toronto:
University of
Toronto
Press,
1955),
21.
112
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Winter 2004-2005
To continue reading
Request your trial