Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Security

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic

The Role of Memory

Contributor: banquosghost

Date: 2003-02-23 21:30:50

Vox said "We must be able to consider multiple and possibly conflicting impressions. In addition, to be effective, we must also be able to resolve the conflict inherent in these impressions or we might be reduced to endless debate and self-doubt."

Under different names debate and self-doubt are two of the cornerstones of western democracy. So while it's true that that we need to be able to "consider multiple and possibly conflicting impressions" the task shouldn't be undertaken with the aim being one of eliminating either debate or self-doubt. In human affairs there's no such thing as certainty and debate, to be real in a democratic sense, must be open ended in all senses.

I also concur with your reminder of the curse of memory. These memories are almost always racially based. It takes a concerted multi-cultural effort to overcome these curses. Ireland is a good example. So, on the other hand, is Rwanda. So is some of our own experience in Canada. Quebec, First Nations, Metis, Chinese, Asian Indians to name a few.

Is enlightenment a goal of foreign policy?

Reply to this message

Show in topic

The Role of Memory

Contributor: Barretm82

Date: 2003-02-23 23:56:08

..."Is enlightenment a goal of foreign policy?"...

In realistic terms the answer is no. With that said, I am no saying it shouldn’t be.

Take the policy of China; U.S, France, and Russia, what do the foreign policy of these countries have in common? Answer; the goal of their foreign policy is to further their own counties interests. Period.

Interestingly enough though, Canada does have an exceptional role when it comes to enlightenment on the world stage, it seems that we have been the offstage brokers between competing interests.

Perhaps it is partly due to our very capable debaters, and perhaps stong debating is a result of our cold winters and networked computers. ;)

Reply to this message

The Role of Memory

Contributor: Barretm82

Date: 2003-02-24 01:32:07

-edit-

In realistic terms the answer is no. With that said, I am not saying it shouldn’t be.

Reply to this message

The Role of Memory

Contributor: Vox

Date: 2003-02-24 14:10:19

I think I understand why people feel enlightenment should not realistically be a goal of foreign policy.

I never actually said that it should - go and read my message again. Those words are not part of my posting. I believe we often read into what is presented to us. Sometimes we may be correct to assume but other times we may not be. The fact that people have assume that may mean that the idea is also partly theirs.

So just what did I mean about enlightenment and do I think enlightenment should be a goal of foreign policy? I apologize and I would like to give a proper answer but I must balance my life and attend to other matters at the moment. I will try to comment later in the evening.

Vox Canadiana

Reply to this message

The Role of Memory

Contributor: Vox

Date: 2003-02-24 21:35:13

Okay, to answer your original questions:

My original allusion to enlightenment was simply with regard an individual's personal enlightenment. I feel that people develop more effective and lasting policies when they contain deep insight into the stakeholders' "mind space". Our 3 Pillars approach seems to embrace the concept of enlightening others of our values but what about being enlightened about other peoples' values? When diplomats meet and work with one another across the gulfs of races, cultures, ethnicity and customs, is there something more lasting and binding than simply a satisfactory arrangement with regard to our respective country's interests? Do they just talk "at" one another and stick to their own agendas?

This would lead me to ponder your suggestion that enlightenment (might) be a goal of foreign policy.

I have never been satisfied with perpetuating the "grind". Especially given the UN/NATO/EU squabbles of late, I would think there has to be something more effective than "the grind" and the all too familiar failures. Our approaches are so often reminiscent of zero-sum games. Is this really just "grindingly slow" growing pains? And do we really have that much time?

I think mutual enlightenment should be a parallel goal in foreign policy-making. If we mean to live in peace then we need honourable policies and others need to deeply understand where we all come from. In a sense, consistent and positive memory of who Canada is an aid to Canadian foreign policy. Having said this I realize that a persistent problem has always been whether the other countries will reciprocate and how to effectively manage cheaters and miscommunications. I'm still actively researching this but in general I believe there is no acceptable future but enlightenment.

Vox Canadiana

Reply to this message

The Role of Memory

Contributor: Barretm82

Date: 2003-02-25 18:49:04

Vox, you pose some very thought provoking questions. I will have to take some time to examine the whole subject.

First off, a client of mine requires that I leave the city for at least week or so.
After that, I will get back to the forum and put some time into the subject and try to get a thoughtful response posted.

Regards;
Steve

Reply to this message

The Role of Memory

Contributor: banquosghost

Date: 2003-02-25 20:46:22

I wasn't challenging your use of the notion of enlightenment as much as I was exploring one of the themes that seems to emerge every so often...that of an "enlightened foreign policy" or an "enlightened social policy".

Classical Buddhist notions of enlightenment would mitigate against what proponents of enlightened government policies of this or that would seem to desire. Acceptance of suffering is a hallmark of this version of enlightenment, probably not an indication of what it's supposed to infer in regards to policy. I rather think the word enlightened in the context of government policy is more likely intended to refer to The Enlightenment, the period of western history which saw the emergence of rationalism and empiricism. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html

Maybe that's just me. :-)

Reply to this message

The Role of Memory

Contributor: Vox

Date: 2003-02-26 22:42:09

Thank you for your explanation. I actually did not view it as a challenge but more as a thoughtful and reasonable question. I also wanted to see if people were interested in the idea. So the questions that ensued were not surprising to me.

I had purposely only alluded to the word because the word itself was not a key concept to discuss (although its meaning in the context of memory was). The word "enlightenment" has much broader meanings to me while the application of the word in the topic's context would be seen initially to be more limited. My meaning of enlightenment is not of the empirical sense Western thinking often associates with the works of Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire,...etc. It includes those ideas while also going beyond them. It must because many foreign policy issues also involve people either not of or not convinced of Western thought.

I agree that wording poses a very real challenge whenever people from different backgrounds or experiences try to discuss complex issues. A key word can have significantly different meaning for each party. I fondly recall an experience I had in grad school where I literally spent 6 months working with 7 other people to simply agree on the meaning of the words "strategy" and "strategic". LOL!

Vox Canadiana

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic