|
Contributor: comosun
Date: 2003-03-10 20:30:03
Since more than 80 per cent of our export sales are to the United States, one of our long term goals must be, as you suggest, to maintain a good relationship with our neighbor to the south.
Notwithstanding that, there are other avenues we can pursue more vigorously.
As you note in your finely woven thesis, history shows that empires don't last forever. Some scholars argue that the U.S. has already reached the zenith of
its economic power. They point to China as the likely successor - in twenty years or so.
Canada, in my view, would be wise to devote greater resources to promoting increased trade with China.
We have set the stage for this through farsighted immigration policies which have resulted in significant flows of new Canadians from Hong Kong and the People's Republic. These people, with their language skills and familiarity with the Chinese culture, represent an invaluable resource base for marketing goods to and from this vast, unfolding market.
You also allude to the disconnect between the U.S. and the United Nations over Iraq. The Bush administration seems to regard the UN as a debating society, hardly deserving of its attention. We in Canada know full well the UN's importance as a mechanism for maintaining world order based on the premise that war is the failure of diplomacy.
At this writing, it seems not entirely unlikely that the U.S. will launch war
in the Middle East despite losing a critical vote in the Security Council.
The UN will survive the buffeting but it will take years to rebuild its credibility.
Perhaps this is the proper time for Canada to step forward and propose that UN headquarters be moved out of New York to Canada which has long had a reputation as an honest broker and peacemaker.
An initiative such as this would serve to show the world that we are intent on emerging from the shadows of other countries and firmly establishing our own international identity.
-
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-10 22:01:05
"Perhaps this is the proper time for Canada to step forward and propose that UN headquarters be moved out of New York to Canada which has long had a reputation as an honest broker and peacemaker."
Now there's an idea worth pursuing!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-12 21:27:35
YES, I agree 100%. The UN spends a large amount of money in the USA. The Americans have opted out of the War Crimes Tribunal. I wonder why? They don't want to obey any rules but their own. Same reason they have not paid their UN dues. A Canadian was just names to head the War Crimes Tribunal.
Why shouldn't Canada have a more active role in the UN.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-13 02:49:39
Even though i agree that the UN should be moved out of the US, I think Canada would not be a good location - switzerland would be a much better location in my mind.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-14 01:00:43
codco The UN has headquarters in Geneva' Switzerland already. We are looking at the New York site
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-14 12:51:51
I know, i meant we should move all the UN stuff to Geneva, no more New York :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-15 13:05:32
I think we cannot concentrate the UN in one country or continent. Canada is becoming a more neutral, peace seeking country and would be a excellent choice of locations. We may be a small country in numbers but we are very large in size. I look at Canada as one of the important parklands for the world. We need more presence within the UN. We cannot expect or trust the USA to protect Canada's interests.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-17 13:12:24
But why do you think the UN will protect our interests?
The UN has failed in some many places and times over its history that we need to be realistic about what it has achieved to date.
Our government should protect our own interests. That's why we pay taxes.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-17 23:14:49
Our government can't protect us. We have a tiny military. We live right next door to the biggest bully in the world.
why hasn't the UN worked because the USA has not been supporting it financially or morally. So many other countries have not paid their dues either.
It is clear that the UN needs to get some teeth and make many changes and do this without the US on board.
One positive step at the UN was setting up the International Crime Commission.
The USA didn't want to belong to that organization because it doesn't want its military and leaders tried for War Crimes.
It is still a young organization and there have been several changes in major governments. It needs to change to reflect this change; we must accept that the USA as the sole super power doesn't feel the need to play by our rules.
I do not understand why Canada shouldn't have a larger presence in the UN. We may be a small country in numbers but we have a large territory, and many untapped resources to protect.
The UN should carry on and make some serious changes to the way it is run
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-18 13:26:29
I agree with cfallon, the UN will not protect us, it is actually NATO which protects us... But i also think that the UN's role should be changed, but its not the UN structure or rules which must change, its actually the role of the nations which are part of the UN!!! Nations don't stand up for what is right... If they did, it would make a big difference.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: 1419
Date: 2003-04-25 01:56:33
For heaven's sake, don't bring the UN HQ as it exists today to Canada. The UN has existed too long as bureaucracy and has become stagnant and ineffective. We don't need something like their HQ in Canada. Rather, dismantle the UN and re-build a World Coalition that the US and the rest of the world will support and to which they will all pay their dues. Give it a military rapid reaction force that can be deployed quickly to avert civil rights abuses before they escalate into giant genocides. Give it modern media facilities, physical and electronic presences, and new people. With a suitable cost-sharing formula, Canada could offer to house such a force on behalf of the world. (Putting it in Saskatchewan would also help curb the declining population there)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-26 21:26:49
The UN has good framework and only needs to be reworked to bring it up to date of a changing world powers. It does need many changes but to dismantle it and start from scratch is foolish. International relationships are sometimes difficult to establish; we are expecting too much from the UN under its present structure. The UN must be able to enforce collection of all dues coming to it. It needs to be able to enforce its regulations. It does not need 5 permanent countries that are able to veto any resolution. At this time; under the present administration; the only World Coalition that the USA would support is one they have complete control of. This would defeat the purpose of any such organization. We need the UN, with or without the USA on board. If the USA will not return to rebuild the UN; we must make the UN very strong to
counterbalance the uneven power that the present USA has over all other countries. One country cannot be allowed to make and enforce all decisions for the rest of the world.
The American President has great powers that can be used or abused. The present administration is very aggressive and demanding but may not be the worst we could face in future years.
We may either have to join them or become very strong if we wish to protect our sovereignty. I would like to see less American ownership and control of our core assets. I am not in support of allowing more American ownership of our telecommunication or cable companies.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: 1419
Date: 2003-04-30 00:38:02
As many comments have noted, the UN does some good work and the world certainly needs a body like it. But unlike private corporations which renew themselves under competitve pressure or governments which renew themselves under electoral pressure, the UN has no mechanism for renewal and revitalization. Recall the UN was itself a rejuvenation of the League of Nations. Its decline is the just the natural decay of time. The stream of failures of its Security Council to act in a timely fashion over the last decade is the most visible signal that now is the time to dismantle and rebuild a fresh organization. Canada and the world should exploit the non-payment situation to pressure non-paying countries like the US to help rebuild an organization that they would be too embarrassed not to be part of and not to support by paying on time. Tapping our creativity to actually do this would be a dialogue exercise in itself and a suitable follow-on for DFAIT to sponsor when this discussion forum ends tomorrow.
To everyone, thank you for the opportunity to participate. And to the odd US citizen lurking out there, we Canadians don't really want to come across as whining about big brother South of us all the time, but we would rather you regard us as a trustworthy constructive conscience whose advice is hopefully worth listening to.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-30 22:28:14
We do not need to start a new organization again from scratch. The USA at this time is not interested in listening to International voice. This is why the have not been paying for and supporting the UN even though their citizens were strongly in favour of it. We may want to regard the USA as a trustworthy constructive force; Canada serves as a conscience that the present USA government does not care to listen to. I am not whining I am seriously complaining about the present USA administration disregard for the wishes of other countries or even many of their own citizens
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-13 12:39:10
Since something like 25% of US exports come to Canada, we have much more clout than we realize. Since the US is determined to penalize softwood lumber, wheat, steel, fish, etc., Canada should penalize US movies, magazines, newspapers, tv, etc. which are dumped into Canada. Canada should also penalize California wines and vegetables which are also dumped into Canada.
Basically, Comosun, I agree with you. My point is that Canada has to stop rolling over and playing dead every time the Americans bully us. If we have to have a trade war to get their attention, then we should do it. The interior of BC is a basket case due to softwood lumber. Let's retaliate.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-13 15:25:18
Canada has to stop being so paranoid.
Our economy is as big as China's but we still run around deathly afraid of those mean Americans.
Instead of running to a corner, crying our eyes dry and dreaming up retaliation, let's do the following:
REACH OUT to the US construction industry who are our natural allies in the softwood lumber dispute. They are hurt by this issue as much as our softwood lumber producers.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-13 19:57:42
Agreed, however the Americans in charge are refusing to listen to pleas from their own construction industry.
What we have done as our mills go down is to increase the export of raw logs which don't face a duty. So what is happening is that the Americans get our wood, while we lose the jobs.
I think retaliation would get their attention. Rolling over just doesn't work.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-14 00:53:23
I am now, being very careful to buy only Canadian produce and anything else I can. The BC interior is worried about the soft wood lumber now; They will be livid when Campbell finishes giving away our forests. The timber licenses will not be tied to jobs. The companies will be free to export raw logs etc. We are being sold out again by Gordon Campbell. I have tried to get more information. Is he willing to sell our forests to foreign interests like he has our hydro. The Americans want our raw logs; is he allowed to sell our forest to interests outside of BC. BUY and SELL Canadian
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-14 17:06:57
" I am now, being very careful to buy only Canadian produce and anything else I can."
_________________________
Me too. I also wrote places where I have holidayed in the past (Las Vegas, Disney World, etc.) and told them why I'm not coming back. They deserve to know that they are losing money due to policies of their government.
I am also worried about Campbell's privatization schemes, but that's another subject.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-15 12:51:09
Campbell's privatation schemes may be somewhat off topic but I think he will be allowing our unfinished logs (jobs) to be exported to the US. He is selling our assets or control of these assets outside Canada (hydro). This worries and aggravates me. I do not want US companies with control over our BC /Canadian assets. I would like the federal government to step in to ensure that control of Canadian assets remain within Canada.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: ScottR
Date: 2003-03-21 19:33:58
As a citizen of the United States, it's so comforting to read all the great comments from our "friends" in Canada. I guess you folks would feel better if wedged between the impotent country of France and the gutless Germany...rather than this big bad bully to the South. You boo our national anthem in Montreal and take every opportunity to berate our strength. We are the world's superpower by default, Canada! The Soviet Union failed! Perhaps you can blame the U.S. for that, too. As an American, I would love to see the UN out of my country. I would cheer if my country left NATO. And wow...China to replace U.S. as the world super power in 20 years? Isn't China the great democracy that turned its military on its citizens? Right now, I'd rather have Lativa or Bulgaria on our northern border than Canada! And before you dismiss me as some right wing Republican, I am a Liberal Democrat that has grown tired of your constant anti-U.S. comments.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Outwest
Date: 2003-04-15 12:54:10
I think the U.S. is losing their grip too. But I don't think China will pick up the torch, that would be a regression. I think Europe will once again dominate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't build ties with China. And other countries as well, we should have done that years ago.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-18 10:43:53
I think China is using its influence to getting N Korea and the USA talking diplomatically to resolve the dispute there. For that I am grateful. This is being accomplished without threats.
Hopefully a backlash from this rash of invasions will return the American people to a more diplomatic approach after their next election. The USA seems to be on a course to attempt to Americanize Iraq. For all their promises of an Iraq controlled democracy seems to be only lip service. Their purported "choice" for a leader is a man accused of Bank embezzlement or fraud with a 20 year prison sentence (unenforceable in Iraq)
on his record. \
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Outwest
Date: 2003-04-19 18:31:45
Oh come on the U.S. has only been in the country for a month now. DO you expect them to just be able to pick up and leave. Do you realize what would happen. In that short time period you've made the assumption that the U.S. is trying to "Americanize" Iraq. What is your proof. And was this gentleman convicted during the Saddam era? If so, who says the charges are legit? What other reasons do you have to make such allegations? I'd like to hear them, because I don't think a one month time period is enough to make that call clearly.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-19 22:09:15
I do not believe the USA should be allowed to give out long term contracts on Iraq's oil reserves. The USA should only contract out emergency work that It is paying for to rebuild that which they damaged in Iraq invasion.
The Man is Chalabi; he has not lived in iraq since l958. He was convicted in Jordan. He is seen as an outsider by most Iraqis.
The Americans do not need to broadcast American TV stations to show the Iraq people how a "Free Broadcast" works.
The Iraqi people should be consulted on what form and leaders they wish.
The UN would provide more open involvement for Iraq to form an Iraqi government.
They should quit antagonizing Iraqis by raising the American Flag on Iraq soil; then shooting those that protest.
The USA purported reason for invading Iraq was because they claimed that Iraq posed a threat to America. There has been no Viable evidence of this.
The theme song re: "operation Iraq freedom" only came AFTER their decision to invade Iraq.
my main points are:
Iraq leaders should be allowed to select their own interim government
NO LONG TERM CONTRACTS on Iraqi oil reserves given out by foreign interests.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-21 10:17:05
1) Absolutely, the USA will do a better job giving out contracts than Saddam. Also, Russia, France and Germany should be kept out of Iraq. Afterall, Iraqis will associate them with the old regime which they used as a cash cow to fatten up their coffers. I agree, these contracts should terminate quickly to allow a real Iraq government to negotiate as they see fit.
2) So far, you must admit, the US has done alot to involve the locals. I worry too about Chalabi, but in fairness, he isn't that bad a guy.
3) The UN should be involved minimally. They are only interested in keeping their expense accounts busy and not too concerned with Iraqis in general. Let them work on humanitarian relief.
4) Canada should be there already. It should have JTF2 combing the land and RCMP officers helping to build security forces that can offer the citizens peace of mind.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-21 20:18:45
Saddam is no longer in power. Any long term contracts should be signed by Iraq government.
The locals don't think so. Only the Kurds; Arabs are complaining about Kurds trying to take their homes in N Iraq.
The UN would get more respect and trust from Iraqis. Iraqis very suspicious of the USA and their interest in Iraq Oil fields.
Canadians should not go until the UN is in control; why should our men risk their lives cleaning up the American cluster bomb booby traps.
Chalabi not a bad guy? just an embezzler and no following in Iraq.
Anyhow should be picked by Iraq leaders not American.
Iraq seems to have many warring factions; I think the USA will need all the help they can get to bring them together under one leadership; It should be done as quickly as possible before they start fighting seriously.
Get these leaders talking to each other instead of stirring up their followers.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-22 09:45:36
I'm not sure about Iraqis view of the UN, I've heard comments that they still have the image of Saddam and Kofi Annan smoking a cigar together burned in their brains.
I think the Iraqi suspicions of US intentions are VERY RATIONAL and will be dispelled over time as that is not the US intention. If the worst thing the US encounters is suspicion that it wants Iraqi oil, then things will work out swimmingly for the US and Iraq alike.
I think the US is best suited to rebuild Iraq because the US understands the importance of religion to a country more than the UN (which is a God-free organization).
I think that Chalabi is more newsworthy to those who want this rebuilding to fail. Whether they want him, will be for them to decide.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 13:57:59
I will wait and see.
Do you truly believe that keeping out UN weapons inspectors of Iraq will lend credibility to any WMD's that the Americans find?? If you do beilieve so, once again, i will not understand, unless its for revenge or planting evidence there is absolutely no reason of keeping the UN out for weapons inspections.
If Americans find massive WMD's now, without UN backing, i will not believe them for one second, and most countries will not either. But i don't think thats the goal of the US government anyways, their goal is to say to the American public (not to the world) - you see we found WMD's.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-23 13:23:50
Personally, I don't care if they find WMD. I know this is a terrible thing to say for people of a "let the UN run the world" bent, but I don't think the UN rubber stamping a WMD find will give the US any credibility. The US will never be credible in many people's eyes and I would encourage the US to ignore those people. Why? Because they tend to have nothing constructive or positive to bring to the table anyway.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-23 22:15:23
You have nothing constructive to say if that is your view. Anything the USA does right or wrong is okay with you. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. The US will regain its credibility when it elects a more reasonable and sensible government.
A great many Americans do not support this invasion. There are several cities refusing to accept the Patriot act which gives the USA Federal government too much power to snoop into private affairs like what books you read or which internet sites you visit. McCarthyism type witch hunts will begin again.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-25 08:55:46
Look, I don't think that anything the USA does is okay with me. But, right now, in my opinion, the most dangerous forces swirling about the world is anti-americanism. I am specifically thinking about anti-americanism in Europe and Canada. I think it is irresponsible to attribute sinister motives to their actions which only contribute to the image of them being bullies, etc. Worse still, I think anti-americanism is a cover for anti-semitism which I am afraid is on the rise.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-26 15:58:23
I am neither anti American or anti semetic. I am against the aggressive actions by both the present America and Israel governments. There are many American citizens and Jewish people who feel the same way. I very much admired Rabin who was a true peacemaker. Mr. Sharon and Mr. Bush prefer to use military force and give lipservice to diplomatic relations. These governments are very self centered and do not wish to work with international interests. Mr Bush said America is not peacekeepers; they are peacemakers. Peacemakers have not lasting positive effect on world affairs if peacekeeping is not followed up.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-29 11:59:41
Fatmomma, I would never question your position on these things - we've talked enough to know that your opinion is based on the best intentions.
I would only suggest that before you attack Bush/Sharon with the full force of your considerable intelligence and web-surfing skills :) that you consider:
For Bush, that not only did 9/11 scare the pants off most americans (and frequent travellers to that great nation like me) but it was quickly followed by:
anthrax attacks, the shoe bomber, the beltway sniper. All of which seemed to most of us, as news came along, to be part of this coordinated terrorist activity. Of course, it was not all part of the same problem, but it sure has been a SCARY 1.5 years.
for Sharon: you liked Rabin, but he was assasinated. Regimes like Saddam regularly call for Israel's destruction. Hezbollah does attack from Lebenon. Suicide bombers make you questions every facet of your like, should you go get a coffee? or will that lead to your death? should you get on that bus or will it kill you? should you go to that lecture on post-modern feminism or will you be blown to bits? Again, its pretty SCARY.
I know, WAR will not erase the FEAR. But the world is certainly safer with the Taliban gone and Saddam gone. It will be even safer with Kim Jong-Il gone and Syria's Baathists gone. It will be much safer when every human feels they have the opportunity to live a satisfying life. But oppression will make that impossible.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-29 23:21:07
But cfallon the Taliban are not gone; they are still very active in
Afghanistan; Osama bin Laden is not gone; and as far as we know; neither is Saddam. The terrorist attacks you mentioned plus the Oklahama one you missed all occurred from within the USA. Even most of the terrorist that attacked the World Trade Center were legally within the USA. Most except the world trade center were American citizens. I believed the USA had a right to hunt down the terrorist leaders of the terrorist attack on the WTC; I just wished they had remained in Afghanistan and completed the job before turning their attentions elsewhere.
I believe they should take a good look at some of their government policies to see where the anger from within and outside is coming from. America seems to have many angry unrational people. I am thinking of the numerous attacks within their schools. While Canada is not immune to such people; we do not seem to have as much here as in the USA.
As far as Israel and Palestine goes; I believe it goes both ways. There is fear and anger on both sides with innocent family members being killed.
I believe the heavy favoritism the USA has shown Israel is somewhat responsible for the hatred and mistrust of the USA in Arab and Muslim countries.
Hopefully this will be settled soon then perhaps these middle eastern countries will get on with running their own countries more amicably.
I realize there are many views and probably a lot of validity on both sides. It was nice wrangling with you; you are one of the contributors that made me work.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-30 15:37:30
I want to express the same feelings about discussing these issues with you: its been very nice to have you challenge my thoughts and correct my misconceptions.
This website re-affirms how fantastic a country Canada is.
I think we have very similar values and ambitions for the world and I hope we can collectively make a positive contribution.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 13:52:45
"Canadians should not go until the UN is in control"
I agree, or at least until a government if formed...
A sad truth about history is that only a strong dictator is able to hold a country with very different factions together ... And if that dictator falls, unless someone has strong as him replaces him, countries fall into chaos (Yugoslavia, Iraq, all civil wars in Africa...)
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
