Following the editorial by Alexandre Sirois, published on Monday May 301, which cites a recent report on Canadian national security, I would like to make a few clarifications. Indeed, the report mentions in the introduction the so-called “famous” sentence of Senator Raoul Dandurand pronounced before the League of Nations on October 2, 1924: “We, Canada, live in a fireproof house far from flammable materials. »
Posted at 1:00 p.m.
The authors of this report (including the French-speaking co-director) allude to this statement, which in my opinion is totally out of context and for which they seem to accuse Dandurand of being unserious, even of a certain naivety on national security issues. They attribute to Dandurand the sin of isolationism which would have deluded our country until… today and the war in Ukraine. However, nothing is more wrong.
For those who have carefully studied the work of the senator, this interpretation is truncated and reducing it to a simple quotation is both disrespectful of his work and constitutes bad faith.
Need we remind you that Dandurand, as a Canadian representative to the League of Nations, was an unconditional supporter of compulsory arbitration of disputes and the imposition of sanctions against aggressors. In vain, he tried to have a protocol adopted during the 1924 session committing the states to adopting this path – something many of them, including the Canadian government, were reluctant to do. Dandurand thus had to officially express Canada’s hesitation to commit itself to taking military measures against any possible aggressor. This position explains in the political context of the time the allusion to the “fireproof house”.
Moreover, this sentence, according to historians, reflected a real situation where the countries of North America did not face the same reality as the Europeans faced with the prospect of war (it ironically still evokes the situation which currently prevails with Ukraine). The “fireproof house” was an opportunity for the senator to recall Canada’s privileged geographical location and the need for it to become even more involved. Moreover, Dandurand denounced on many occasions, until the outbreak of the Second World War, the general lack of concern for the salvation of Europe and particularly the position of disengagement (excessive isolationist) of the United States. throughout the 1920s-1930s. Finally, he was one of the senators most in favor of Canada’s entry into the Second World War. Far from being an isolationist, Senator Dandurand was in reality a fervent interventionist, but by resorting if possible to means other than a direct military engagement, such as judicial means and those of coercion.
Saying and writing therefore that Dandurand’s attitude was akin to complacency is an easy myth that certain analysts take up at their convenience without really trying to know the richness of Dandurand’s thought on international relations.