|
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
|
