bout de papier, Vol. 19, No. 3 (2002-2003) — Fall/Winter 2002/2003 // Automne/Hiver 2002/2003, p. 2
Utioners of foreign policy constantly ne of the issues with which the practistruggle is identifying Canada’s place in the world. At first glance, this issue may seem a little trite, appealing to the apparent Canadian national past-time of navel-gazing. But Canada is probably unique in the industrialized world in being pulled in so many different directions simultaneously. It is a constant struggle not to spread ourselves so thinly that we end up accomplishing not much at all.
Canada is perceived as having a major influence on the setting of the international agenda, thanks to our membership in the world’s most exclusive club, the G-8. Yet we are perceived as having a minor influence on our most important trading partner, as anyone who has an acquaintance with the exasperating saga of softwood lumber might attest. We are a senior member of two of the most disparate clubs in the world, the Commonwealth and la Francophonie. We are a country of the North Atlantic, as a result of our history, geography and founding history. We are a country of the Americas, drawn together through ties of geography and common interest. We are a country of Asia, as a result of immigration and trade. We are a country of Africa, a product of our links through progressive development policy and migration. We are environmentally aware. We are pretty darn good at peace and security issues. We have a talent for analysis on global economic issues. We are a proudly multicultural country with more substantive links to more parts of the world than virtually anyone else. Yet we are at the lower end of the league tables on population, with a foreign service resource base (both fiscal and human) to match. Canada has a lot of specialized “value added” to contribute to the world, but has demonstrably finite resources at its disposal to deliver. We can’t be like more homogeneous nations, like the Netherlands or Norway, who have the luxury of being able to select a small range of partners on whom to concentrate. So how do we identify our niches?
Le sujet a fait et fait encore couler beaucoup d’encre. Dans le présent numéro de bout, nous avons le privilège de compter plusieurs articles portant sur cette question profonde, mais pourtant souvent oubliée. Le remarquable tableau que Hector Mackenzie brosse du contexte dans lequel le Canada crée sa niche dans le monde contient beaucoup de matière à réflexion : il faut absolument le lire pour comprendre les éléments avec lesquels les spécialistes du service extérieur doivent jongler pour établir les politiques et les priorités. L’interview inspirante de Clyde Sanger avec Sheila Watt-Cloutier illustre l’interrelation de pressions variées sur la politique étrangère — dans ce cas, les affaires circumpolaires, l’environnement et le droit international. D’autres aspects des diverses pressions sur la politique étrangère ressortent dans les critiques de livres dans le présent numéro — sur le commerce et la mondialisation (critique de Randle Wilson), le renseignement (critique de Kurt Jensen et David Peel) et le maintien de la paix (critique de James C. Langley).
We are indeed fortunate to present extracts from the autobiography of one of Canada’s premier diplomats, and current Lieutenant- Governor of Ontario, James Bartleman, which is also reviewed in this issue by Ross Francis. The extract covers part of Mr. Bartleman’s formative years as part of the aboriginal community of post-war Port Carling, Ontario, and how these influences shaped the outlook of one of Canada’s most influential diplomats.
In this issue we mark the passing of three colleagues — Donald Anthony Moorman, Ormond Wilson Dier and Robert Louis Rogers — who have earned both the respect and the admiration of their colleages. Ambassador Rogers’ advice on the structure of instruction messages is the kind of strategy that, I suspect, is not taught at our foreign service institute.
Roger Lucy’s work on Flavius Priscus provides yet another fascinating insight into fifth century civil service, proving once again that there are, indeed, some constants in the universe. And, of course, A Aalto has provided another confounded, er, sorry, confounding puzzle.
We hope that what you see in this issue of bout will be thought-provoking — sufficiently so for you to be in touch with us with your views and reactions. We can be reached by e-mail at [email protected], or by standard mail at the address listed in our masthead.
View the original scanned pages / Voir les pages numérisées →
Originally published in / Publié à l’origine dans bout de papier, Vol. 19, No. 3 (2002-2003) — Fall/Winter 2002/2003 // Automne/Hiver 2002/2003, p. 2. Read the rest of this issue / Lire le reste de ce numéro →
