bout de papier, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1995-1996) — Winter 1995–96 // Hiver 1995-1996, p. 2
All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” T.E. Lawrence. “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom”.
Some weeks ago I attended (purely in a stand-in capacity, you understand…) a meeting at which a large number of directors of divisions that deal predominantly with trade relations were present. At one point in the discussions, someone said, as an aside,, “Of course we all know that Canadian foreign policy, these days, is just trade policy… “9 The comment was greeted with amused nods of acknowledgement and the conversation moved on.
I took the comment as a flippant one. Now I’m not so sure it was meant that way. It seems that I’ve heard twenty variations of the same comment in the last month, from the mouths of supposed “high flyers” throughout the Department.
Now there is no doubt that Canada, more than any other country of the G-7, must export to stay alive. The achieving of favourable conditions for Canada to trade abroad — for example through agreements of the kind discussed by Randolph Gherson in his thought-provoking article in this edition — is an extremely important part of Canadian foreign policy, and should remain so. But events in October 1995 showed that you can’t hold a country together just by talking about trade stats and jobs. You can’t run a foreign policy that way either.
Just as important to the country as those who negotiate agreements so that we can sell more goods and create more jobs in Canada are those who implement our immigration policies and so mould the face of Canada. Just as important are those who, through our development programmes, seek to bring a modicum of prosperity and stability to benighted parts of the world (incidentally creating more markets for our goods…). Just as important are those who look to Canada’s physical security in a time of geopolitical earthquake.
But first among equals are those who live the dream, who act it with open eyes. It is a dream that has for these past fifty years allowed Canada to play a role in world affairs that is out of all proportion to the size of its population or its historical heritage.
The dream is the United Nations. The UN is a bureaucratic Tower of Babel on the banks of New York’s East River that consumes millions of dollars a year, provides a stage for the rantings of tyrants, agonizes over commas, periodically (some would say regularly) fails spectacularly to achieve the high-flown goals of its June 1945 Charter – and yet. And yet it has also brought health to millions and saved millions more from starvation. It has quite likely averted more than one nuclear war, braked a dozen conventional wars, prevented others.
Canadians are intensely proud of our historical role in the UN, our ongoing involvement in peacekeeping missions. In a November visit to Ottawa, Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali noted that “Canadians are foremost in all the world in their support for the UN”
Is it just out of self-interest that we do this? Certainly, the UN is our best available means of assuring the survival of the planet. But somehow, I don’t think most Canadians see it that way. They want Canada to be part of making the world a better, not just a safer place. There are worse names to be called than “the Boy Scout of the World”.
In this issue, a special tribute to the United Nations, Lieutenant General Maurice Baril wrestles with the dilemmas of peacekeeping vs. peacemaking; Captain Peter Winfield tells us what it’s actually like trying to stop people from killing each other in Bosnia; Bill Barton (a UN legend in his own time) assesses the UN at Fifty; Adele Dion marks another milestone in the gradual but still too slow emancipation of the world’s women with her description of this year’s UN-sponsored Beijing conference.
Lawrence of Arabia would have approved of all of them.
Like the United Nations, bout can only do what its members (i.e. the members of PAFSO) want it to do. The articles we publish — and we do print, in one form or another, most of the items we receive — are either commissioned by our volunteer board or are sent in unsolicited. If you don’t like the articles, please either write a letter or (better) write an article of the kind you would like to see in bout. Coming up in our next issue: Peter Boehm’s behind-the-scenes exposé of Halifax, and David Edwards on the Land of King Zog.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1995-1996) — Winter 1995–96 // Hiver 1995-1996, p. 2. Read the rest of this issue →
