Dip's remarks ill-advised

Editorial

We learn much from overheard conversations. As children, a big impetus in learning to read is so our parents will lose the advantage of spelling things out verbally that they don't want us to understand. But in the public realm, overheard conversations are the stuff of international disputes, as proved by a hub-bub in Israel over comments made by the future French ambassador to the Jewish state.

Boaz Bissmuth, the Paris correspondent for Yediot Aharonot was at a party for French ambassadors in the gardens of the Quai D'Orsay recently where Garard Araud, about to take up the post of French ambassador to Israel, was very candid about his views. (Paris in the summertime, we understand, can really bring one's guard down.)

Apparently unaware that media might be present, Araud called Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a "lout," described Israel as "paranoid" and said the construction of the security fence is an effort by Sharon to "establish facts on the ground."

Afterward, when Bissmuth introduced himself to Araud as a reporter, Araud clarified, first, that he would never have made such impolitic comments if he knew he would be quoted (Whoops!) and, second, that by "paranoid" he meant it in the kindest way, in the clinical sense, which was only logical after everything the Israeli people had been through.

But the comments have sent ripples among the diplomatic chinwaggers in Israel and Europe, with one Israeli official saying Araud's accreditation as ambassador should be refused. Israel's foreign affairs ministry is investigating the affair and has yet to come to a conclusion.

But as remote as the issue might seem to most Canadians, it should ring a few bells for us. An overheard conversation involving a senior member of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's staff earlier this year, in which U.S. President George W. Bush was called a "moron," resulted in a diplomatic row and the staff member's resignation.

An even more glaring example was the off-the-record comment by Brian Mulroney, on a 1984 campaign flight that was headed straight for the biggest victory in Canadian election history, during which Liberal patronage orgies were a top issue. Mulroney assured that, once he won, the trough would still be there, only it would be long-power-starved Tories who would be feasting. Mulroney then punctuated the remark with the sort of crude analogy only Mulroney seemed able to muster, declaring there to be "No whore like an old whore."

The media repeated the remark, which apparently harmed Mulroney not a whit. (See aforementioned biggest victory in Canadian election history.)
In each of these cases, the "greater good" was cited as overriding the need to play the symbiotic game of public figure-reporter, with all its false camaraderie and bathwater-drinking pack mentality.

But the Araud case is different, in that he is a diplomat, the very meaning of which word implies discretion and tact. Should Israel refuse to accept his credentials? They should certainly review the context of his views and historical public statements. Whether they accept him as ambassador will likely open a debate on the limits of expression accorded to foreign diplomats, particularly in places where controversial international events are unfolding.

The Araud affair will open again the recent wounds between Israel and some western European states, and it will no doubt have ripple effects in official Ottawa and Washington, since anything pertaining to the Middle East in any shape always seems to.

But it is not likely to provide a conclusion to the more complex, potentially unsettling issue, which is that public figures often have private views that differ profoundly from their publicly stated straight-jacketed pronouncements. This reality serves to further reduce our trust in the words of our so-called leaders and should remind us, again, that beneath the words, the only true measure of a public figure's credibility is their actions.

Whether Israel will opt to see how Araud's actions reflect his accidentally overheard words remains to be seen. At the end of the day, though, the casual observer can only wonder how someone rises to a particular level of authority and expertise, then blows it by getting caught spouting impolitic opinions. Because "getting caught," after all, is the main difference between Araud and a raft of other mid-level or senior international figures. As bubbe used to tell us, "Don't say anything you can't take back."

^TOP