This year, I was fortunate enough to work with PAFSO as a summer student to assist with a huge archival project for bout de papier. My main task was to create a digital archive of the magazine, while also picking out articles for an upcoming book project celebrating PAFSO’s 60th anniversary. So, after 10 weeks and only two papercuts, I read, scanned, and catalogued 119 magazines covering approximately 43 years of global events.
Each magazine is like a snapshot of a moment in time offering insight into Canada’s place in the world. Throughout each decade, certain topics dominated the articles – many were unique to their period and others seemed to transcend time. While some decades focused on exactly what I expected, others held plenty of surprises. With this article, I constructed a comprehensive but compact look at our magazine throughout its four decades of existence – read on to understand the world through the eyes of bout de papier!
The 1980s
Mulroney, Globalization and the imminent fall of the USSR
For bout de papier, the 80s were marked by an interest in Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark. Plenty of criticism was levied towards the Mulroney government, particularly surrounding political appointments, the Canada–US Free Trade Agreement, and American dependency. In 1986, Eric Keirans wrote his article, “We Must Protect Our Differences”, where he dissected the basic theories of free trade like David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage which argues that free trade is not truly free. Keirans reflected on Great Britain’s early participation in free trade in 1846 when it was the global power and showed that the United States followed a similar path after World War II when it was the largest industrial power. In doing so, Keirans illustrated the inherent power dynamic of free trade agreements and raised concerns over how the Canada–US Free Trade Agreement would affect Canada’s sovereignty. I also found these concerns reflected in the feature articles from Canadian companies like Ontario Hydro and TVO.
Concerns over the Free Trade Agreement speak to the era. Globalization as we understand it was just beginning, Canada was emerging as a middle power and further establishing its independence from the British Empire, and Western powers were beginning to out-source their labour to Eastern countries. It’s strange to consider how attitudes have changed; while globalization was a relatively new idea in the 1980s, today it is the status quo.
Another important topic during this era was, unsurprisingly, the USSR. In bout de papier, the perceptions of the Soviet threat level varied, but overall, I get the sense that our contributors understood that the Soviet Union would not last much longer, and subsequently there was a focus on international cooperation (or international assimilation depending on how you look at it) through trade and trade agreements. At the time, many countries were cutting ties with the Soviet Union, or gaining their independence from it, and the West jumped on the opportunity to have them join the capitalist international market.
In “Christopher Bertram on Future Foreign Policy Challenges” (1998), Don Page recounts a talk Bertram gave at the Canadian Institute of International Affairs on foreign policy in the 21st century. In his talk, Bertram imagined the international landscape at the beginning of the 21st century. He confidently argued that the USSR would no longer be a threat by the 2000s, noting that Gorbachev’s policies were becoming more Western, and the Soviets were becoming less interested in proxy conflicts. Bertram also remarked that the instability of Eastern Europe in the 1980s was Europe’s greatest security threat and called for North America to pay more attention to the issue. Furthermore, he predicted that nuclear deterrence was going to remain a key feature of international security.
Interestingly, many of the authors and interviewees drew comparisons to the work they had done during World War II and the early years of the Cold War, placing the ongoing situation in the context of their previous experience. In 1987, bout de papier asked four retired Canadian diplomats – George Grande, John Halstead, John Holmes, and George Ignatieff – to read George F. Kennan’s theory on containment and reflect on it in “Containment: Forty Years Later.” This article further demonstrated the changing tides of the 1980s. For example, George Grande remarked that internationally, countries were beginning to understand that security involved more than military power. The retired diplomat also argued that deterrence theory and containment could not be the way forward for de-escalating conflicts.
Overall, the pages of bout de papier indicate that the 1980s were a time of bridge building. Canada-US relations continued to grow (for better or for worse), and the post-WWII emphasis on international cooperation through soft power methods instead of hard military power – a trend that would continue into the 1990s post-Cold War – was ever-present.
The 1990s
New ideas and a new golden age
At the risk of sounding like my parents, the 1990s were a great time for Canada. They were also a very busy time internationally. The Golden Age of Diplomacy was in the 1960s, but from what I read in bout de papier, Canada achieved plenty of diplomatic success in the post-Cold War decade, even with budget cuts. The focus on trade agreements as a form of international cooperation continued into the 90s, and Canada embraced its soft power potential. For instance, in “The Upper North Side: Canada in New York,” Kevin O’Shea and Bernard Etzinger outlined how they hosted events at the Canadian Consulate to promote Canadian culture and trade, making Canada seem cool to New Yorkers in the process. Furthermore, Canada established economic relationships with up-and-coming economic partners like Latin America and Asia Pacific (Prime Minister Jean Chrétien even dubbed 1997 Canada’s Year of Asia Pacific). David Bickford reflected on the economic rise of Latin America in “The Americas on the Brink.” He examined Canada’s relationship with the area, as well as the country’s 1990 admittance to Organization of American States (OAS).
Additionally, Canada became one of the key advocates for international human rights. In his article “Canada in the New World Disorder” (1997), J.H. Taylor posited how Canada’s international role might change in the aftermath of the Cold War. The author noted that Canada had already demonstrated a willingness to participate in human rights conflicts and believed that would remain the case going forward.
The 1990s was also characterized by the integration of new countries into Western Systems, but in bout, there was a greater focus on UN peacekeeping operations aimed at establishing democracies. With the fall of the USSR, the Soviet satellite states and countries with Soviet relations were newly open for the West. In Peter Zalite’s article “Latvia in Transition: the Price of Freedom” (1999), he looked at how Latvia had to rely on external sources to help establish a functioning democracy and integrate its economy into the international system. He also flagged an interesting disconnect – since there were so many newly independent states, external actors were overwhelmed, and did not have the resources to offer tailored solutions that truly reflected the situation in Latvia. Instead, external actors relied on policies that worked in other countries. Zalite argued that applying a “catch all” approach to democracy establishment made Latvia vulnerable – if the foundation was poor, anything built on it would crack. Furthermore, Zalite argued that by imposing policies and institutions that did not suit the needs of the country, Western powers would add fodder to anti-Western sentiments.
While many articles spoke to the importance of establishing democracy in newly independent countries, others questioned the practice outright – I found these writings particularly helpful in better understanding the current West/East conflict. I’m sure we all agree that democracy and human rights are ideal, but when an external power comes in and imposes it on another, what does that do to the country’s sovereignty? Cindy Kleinman wrote an article in the early 2000s titled “Sovereignty in the Age of Cholera” (2001) where she examined this exact predicament and argued that human rights are often used to justify these international interventions – a theme that is still prevalent today.
Non-government actors (like NGOs or transnational corporations) also came into focus in the 1990s – their role on the international stage was a frequent topic of discussion in our pages. In his article, “World Conference on Human Rights: Vienna, June 1993” (2002), James R. Trottier reflected on the large presence of NGOs at the Vienna conference. Trottier explored how NGOs impacted conference dynamics, noting that Canada advocated for their inclusion and supported NGOs during event.
The 1990s also saw the first mention of the environment and environmental policies in bout de papier. The UN’s Earth Summit and its outcomes were related back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the 1992 summit was focused on sustainability in the post-Cold War era. In John Bell’s article “The Earth Summit” (1993) he recalls Maurice Strong’s (Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) closing remarks. In many ways, Strong’s comments encapsulated the decade – he stated that international cooperation (diplomatic and economic) and sustainability had been forever changed.
Writers also focused on domestic matters, showing a new concern for different minority groups. Same-sex couples were a newly common topic (LGBT+ had seemingly not yet entered the popular vocabulary). Authors examined problems related to the alienation of same sex workers in the workplace, the lack of safe spaces for minorities within the government, and spousal benefits for same sex partners.
Quebec, la francophonie, and the Canadian identity were also discussed due to the rising tensions and the 1995 Quebec referendum. James Reed wrote an article, “Alone in North America” (1992) reflecting on the Conference on Canadian Foreign Policy (1991) where academics and representatives questioned Canada’s and Quebec’s, role internationally. His article drew on many different perspectives and highlighted the vast complexities of Canada–Quebec relations. Reed recalled words from Ivan Bernier, a representative from the Centre québécois de relations internationales. Bernier referred to Quebec as having “quasi-diplomatic” representation – a unique feature in Canadian diplomacy. This perspective invoked the view of Canada as a cultural mosaic, but what I find more interesting is that it recognized the importance of Quebec’s French character and allowed for Quebec to have some international recognition for its efforts in preserving its language and culture.
If the 1980s were bridge building, the 1990s were bridge maintenance and damage control. Canada continued to build and maintain its international position, and domestically began to reconcile with minority groups. As far as damage control is concerned, the fall of the USSR caused a massive restructuring of Eastern Europe and Soviet allied states which called on the West to assist in the rebuilding and plan for a stronger, more collaborative future.
The 2000s
9/11 out of focus?
As I reached the 2000s, I expected to enter the War on Terror era and anticipated that bout de papier would focus heavily on the Middle East, but that was not the case at all. To my surprise, I didn’t see any mention of 9/11 in the 2000s volumes. While the Middle East was a hot topic prior to the events of September 2001, afterwards, it seemed as though the topic was being tiptoed around.
In hindsight, it’s possible that speaking about 9/11 directly after the event would have been premature as its repercussions were unfolding in real time. Even though this critical conflict was overlooked in the pages of bout de papier, it seemed as though 9/11 still indirectly shaped the pages of our magazine. Instead of focusing on the Middle East, bout de papier authors took interest in the multifaceted Canada–US relationship, examining topics like Canadian–American economic relations, American views on Canada, and Canadian independence from the United States.
Conflict was also still a primary area of interest with many authors focusing on the topic through the lens of peacekeeping. Oftentimes, our writers seemed to make the case that UN peacekeeping operations had failed to adapt to the changing dynamics of conflict. Lester B. Pearson created the UN peacekeepers in the 1960s, when country versus country conflict reigned supreme. But as the globe shifted toward intra-state conflicts in the 1990s and 2000s, many worried that peacekeeping was ill-equipped for the times.
In “Peacekeeping: The Dynamics of Structural Rigidities” (2000), Stephen Moffat, Ulric Shannon, and Alan Bones offer a clear explanation of this difference. In its simplest terms, their view was that inter-state conflict had political or territorial motivations, whereas intra-state conflict was often economically motivated. The authors argued that negotiation was not as effective in economically motivated situations, as the instigator could thrive in the instability they created. Another key difference was that in inter-state conflicts, UN peacekeeping operations assisted in negotiations as a neutral third party. By contrast, UN peacekeeping in intra-state conflict became far more complex and slow moving: in addition to being involved in negotiations, the UN also became involved in rebuilding institutions, a complicated mission requiring cooperation from multiple organizations and departments.
Authors still demonstrated concern about environmental issues and Canada’s geopolitical positioning in the world, and some worried that Canada was not maximizing its soft power capabilities.
Many 2000s articles also examined the secret service and intelligence, with some authors providing a historical analysis on the role of the Foreign Service in intelligence operations during World War, as well as the historical intelligence relations between Canada and the US. To me, this perhaps reads as another way that the unspoken events of 2000s shaped the pages of bout de papier.
Overall, there was a distinct shift in tone in the 2000s – the institutions for peace were losing the unflappable image they had constructed in prior decades, and the pages of bout de papier were coloured with a degree of pessimism.
The 2010s and 2020s
Familiar issues
From the perspective bout de papier provides, the 2010s were also defined by conflict. There was a renewal of interest in the Middle East as our contributors were starting to examine the events that followed 9/11 from a place of greater distance. Some contributors spoke to their experience in the Middle East during the 2000s and 2010s. For instance, in Richard Kohler’s article, “Bob Fowler’s Season in Hell” (2011), he offers a summary of Fowler’s book Season in Hell: My 130 Days in the Sahara with Al Qaeda, walking readers through Fowler’s experience over those 130 days. Pakistan came into focus in this context through Lieutenant-General Talat Masood’s article, “Pakistan and the Aftermath of 9/11: What the West Fails to See” (2011). Masood offered a look at Pakistan’s history and highlighted the fragility of the institutions within the country.
In the same vein, democracy promotion was also a key feature of the 2010s editions of bout de papier, especially in the Middle East and Islamic Africa. Ben Rowswell offered his perspective in “Democracy and the Digital Revolution” (2012), where he examined social media as a tool for democracy promotion.
Much like in the 1990s, authors once again examined the role of third party actors. In the article “Private Military Companies Under International Law: Combattants or Civilians?” (2013), Peter McRae argued that the status of private military companies existed was lacking in clarity, and he offered several solutions this problem. Notably, he suggested Canada take on this dilemma to re-assert itself as a leading diplomatic power.
Finally, that brings us to the 2020s.
Even though we’re nearly halfway through the decade, it’s hard to discuss this period without speaking about the pandemic. So far, a key focus of bout de papier has been the impact of COVID-19 on those working abroad. Many authors wrote about the trials and tribulations of the pandemic, relating their experiences working under constantly changing circumstances. However, others focused on positive aspects. In “Hello from Delhi” (2023), Martina Stvan touched on both sides, walking readers through some of the unforeseen perks of lockdown in India (like low levels of air pollution) but also providing a breakdown of the organizational skills required to help Canadians leave the country at the height of the pandemic.
The Middle East remains one of the most discussed geographical areas; however, China also came into focus in the 2020s, especially following the Two Michaels incident in 2021. In Jeremy Kinsman’s article, “A Saner, Less Fragmented World in 2021” (2021), he highlighted how Western attitudes towards China were souring. He also discussed the fragmentation of international institutions while pointing out that Canada had an opportunity to play an active role in their rebuilding.
In the 2020s, authors also began to focus on democratic backsliding, which I find particularly interesting when contrasted to the 2010s, a period where writers focused on democracy promotion. In “The Decline of Democracy in the World: The Crisis and Its Implications” (2021), B.G. Ramcharan used China and Russia to highlight this backslide, suggesting democratic societies could provide greater support to democratic activists in these countries. This calls back to Kinsman’s article, and further underlines the need for cohesive collaboration through international institutions to remedy democratic backsliding.
I would be happy to continue writing about bout de papier and what I learned by reading through its pages, but I’m afraid I’ve already gone well beyond my word count. Before I started at PAFSO, I had a very small understanding of what diplomacy meant in real terms. The extent of what I learned through my international relations class was “when two countries like each other, they establish embassies.” Through bout de papier, I was able to recognize different facets of diplomacy and their evolution over the years, whether that be Cold War containment theory, fear of free trade, or democracy establishment and promotion.
While bout de papier’s writers navigated a vast array of topics, concepts, and geographic areas of focus, throughout its four decades, one idea remained consistent: our world is entirely intertwined. Globalization is not a new feature, and not too long ago we learned just how connected we all are, even while six feet apart. International cooperation is truly the throughline this magazine’s history.
Our contributors have never been shy about providing a critical eye to our international practices and institutions. However, their work has also shown that while these practices may not always succeed and these institutions may not operate as effectively as they should, Canada must renew and maintain its commitment to diplomacy. My hope is that bout de papier will continue to be one effective institution in a better more cooperative world. So now, please continue to use these pages as a platform to explore new ideas, to present fresh critiques, and of course, to continue logging the history of PAFSO and Canada’s Foreign Service.
