|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Three PillarsThank 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. |
|
|
Contributor: simms
Date: 2003-03-04 13:55:03
The current softwood debacle proves only that our biggest trading partner is only interested in free trade when it is to its benefit. This is made even more obvious by the US position on steel import tarriffs with regard to the EU.
It is obviously imperative that Canada should be involved in "various multilateral relationships" -- indeed, as a small nation, we have little choice.
However, it is equally obvious that we should avoid entering into relationships in which effective decision-making power is largely in the hands of a single gigantic "partner". The FTAA is one example of such a relationship.
As for the "threat" of Iraq ... my personal opinion is that our government should avoid taking cues from the American corporate media system when assessing geopolitical issues. Any reasonable person can see that the "threat" posed by Iraq is entirely a media construct, carefully crafted to scare the American populace into accepting the Bush administration's plan for the effective takeover of the world's 2nd largest oil reserves.
On the Iraq issue, as on all important issues of global scope, Canada should act within the framework of the largest "multilateral relationship" ever established, namely the United Nations.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 16:20:25
1) Of course, the softwood lumber dispute hurts the US construction industry. So, the question here seems to be whose lobby is more influential here. Its not really the US bullying Canada, but parts of the US bullying parts of Canada and parts of the US.
2) I don't think its obvious that the FTAA has been a bad deal for us.
3) I don't think that Bush et company want control of Iraqi oil reserves. Perhaps they don't want those reserves in the hands of people who will use them for destructive purposes, but that's entirely different.
4) If the UN is multilateral but undemocratic - why should Canada be involved? I mean, if 5 countries are permanent members of the Security Council from 1947 to the end of time, regardless of how other countries develop and grow, there's nothing democratic or fair about it. Why is France a permanent member of the Security Council for the next 300 years? Doesn't India warrant a seat? Or Brazil?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-05 06:21:22
>Why is France a permanent member of >the Security Council for the next 300 >years? Doesn't India warrant a seat? >Or Brazil?
We could say the same thing with all permanent members of the security council, why do you concentrate on France?? Why not the UK, or the US? Why Russia? Russia is no longer a power in the world... As for France and the UK, they are at the same level (GNP, military spending, etc..), so if France goes, why not the UK?
I think if the security council must be changed one day, it should be done by completely removing all permanent members - or changing the vote system where these countries would have more than one voice, but could no longer do a veto, not by removing only some countries...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-05 09:56:55
You are correct - I shouldn't focus purely on France. The UK is questionable too. Maybe it should be 1 permanent member per continent with a veto power and that each continent gets to elect the member every 10 years or something.
Also, I agree, maybe its not so much the membership, but the powers they could exercise.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-05 17:03:18
I agree with you on that, one veto per contient would be a good balence.
I must also admit that my facts were wrong (I think not a lot of people know about this) ... I was watching a documentary a few hours ago on the UN, and I found out that the UN general assembly also has the power of the security council (with a 2/3 majority vote)!
So its more democratic than i thought!
This is taken directly from the UN site
(http://www.un.org/ga/56/about.htm):
Under the "Uniting for peace" resolution adopted by the General Assembly in November 1950, the Assembly may take action if the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity of its permanent members, fails to act in a case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. The Assembly is empowered to consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Members for collective measures, including, in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression, the use of armed force when necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
p.s : This resolution was proposed by the US being they were tired of always being vetoed by the USSR.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
|
