|
Contributor: steve
Date: 2003-01-22 21:29:08
Implicit in this dreadful document sent to us by Foreign Affairs is the thought that the government, on our behalf can go out and preach some fuzzy values to the rest of the world and avoid spending money on our military and on foreign aid. We are at the bottom of the heap in foreign aid and military spending in an age of increasing interdependence. We are not the great peacekeepers nor helpers of the third world. We are pontificating freeloaders. Therefore we have no voice. All the rest is just waffle.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: CdninCali
Date: 2003-01-23 01:52:54
Could it be we need to start spending more of the Foriegn Aid in our own country?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-09 00:06:40
Could it also be that we suffer from something akin to the "Stockholm Syndrome" and can no longer distinguish the difference between captors and liberators?
Our history with this emerging imperial entity tends to distort our ability to see our relationship clearly. On the one hand we are partners and on the other hand we are competitors and on yet another hand we are threatened and on still another hand we are superior. Not all are true at all times or in all things and yet all are sometimes true in some contexts.
Some have noted that there are Americans who feel hurt and betrayed when experiencing the kind of knee-jerk anti-Americanism that can sometimes be manifested by some Canadians. I know some Americans who are disturbed by what they perceive as knee-jerk jingoistic Pro-Americanism in some Canadians.
We have this curious problem. It's rather unique in the world's history. We are the next door neighbour of the mightiest nation the world has ever known and for all intents and purposes we are indistinguishable from them and yet we are not them.
We can make it clear to the rest of the world that what is more important to *us* is our similarity to the USA or we can make it clear that what is more important is our difference. Or for that matter all the similarities and all the differences all at the same time. But we should unquestionably be making sure that whatever the articulation is it is *ours*. If we merely parrot the USA *or* merely contradict the USA we are finished as a
player at the table. Whatever we do has to be perceived as neither a subservient parroting nor a simpleminded contradiction
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: canuckabroad
Date: 2003-01-23 09:12:40
i'd agree with steve's comments on this one. i'm a canadian living in europe and previously have lived in australia. while the Irish are going ballistic about the threat to their neutrality due to US war planes landing at Shannon and the Aussies are preparing to send troops to the Gulf to assist the americans, canada sits on the fence - Why? The current govt has adopted a holier than now attitude towards the USA, a type of don't bully us, like they are bullying who, Ireland, Australia? Its embarassing to try and defend our govt policy when the pure economic facts are that the USA is Canada's biggest trading partner - over a Billion dollars a day. Any smart business person would recognize this and attempt to improve relations with such a good customer, instead the leaders of the Great White North hold the US in contempt. Listen I'm no fan of George W, but if we push to hard the US may say enough and the glowing economy which Canada enjoys could soon go the way of Ireland's Celtic Tiger.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rmk
Date: 2003-01-24 08:44:54
Well said. I have lived in the U.S. for the past few years and have come to appreciate that country. Although they may be clouded in their judgement sometimes, they always do what they feel is right for their country. It's time our government (and Canadians) realized that the most important international realtionship they have is the one south of the border. Mr. Chretien, while he has done some good things, needs to get out of the way. He has handled U.S. relations very poorly since Mr. Bush has taken office. Make the right decision or just go away.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: ls
Date: 2003-01-24 15:53:43
I spent six years in US and five years in Canada, and now in US again. Yes, US is our beggest trading partner, yes, our economy depends (too much) on US. However, that doesn't mean we follow US policy. You befriend your friend not by simply following his steps. You empower the business relationship not by bowing to every request from your business parter. If you lose your own integrity, at last, you will fall down, let alone any prospority of the economy. We should take care of own problems first, fixing our healthcare, fixing our welfare, fixing our jobs, fixing our downgraded living, rather than following US on intervention of the mess of other countries at the price of Canadian lives. Canada has a good international reputation, let's keep it that way. I see no reason for joining this war by US. I see no need to flatter our neighbor too much.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rmk
Date: 2003-01-27 13:41:59
I am not suggesting that we lie down and let the U.S. take us wherever they go, but what I am suggesting is that we take a harder look at our relationship with them. We are able to concentrate on social issues because we don't have to spend as much money on our military. Being a close ally of the U.S. gives us that option.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: dsteve3
Date: 2003-01-23 10:50:27
We are in a very difficult position, which makes it that much more important. If we waffle (their Liberals, dears - waffling is what they do best...) we spoil our shot at sending a clear and responsible message to the world, and forcing those aggressive parties to either show their hand or fold.
There is a government in the Whitehouse that acts like an entity independant from the nation it governs. The U.S. constitution is one of the most thoughtful, protective and enlightened documents in the history of the world. But if its not protected by the people, it might as well go the way of my college diploma(...)
The media is gone. They don't report, just regurgitate. But not here in Canada! We still have our voice and our heart. When the PC signed the Free Trade deal (good and bad, helpful and hurtful), did we really agree to allow the Americans to tell us how to run our energy policy? According to a Toronto Star article from the weekend before last, our energy resources are now apart of their "security" concerns. That scares me witless, how about you?
A waffling Canada right now is all that Heir Bush needs to further the agendas of "Who-Knows-Whom" and we need to make GREAT BIG SOUNDS of "well, there may be some problems..."
The Americans no longer understand the terms "conflict of interest" and "appearance of impropriety". We need to reaquaint them with these terms, in light of the Whitehouse crew and their shady reputations. Irony of ironies, its the Loyalists who will have to remind America of its Indepenance proclamations.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jeremoo
Date: 2003-01-23 11:24:44
The suggestion that Canada hasn't a voice to be heard due to our lack of overwhelming military forces is simply ridiculous. That we don't need bombs to influence our neighbours is something to be proud of.
To me, it is important to lead through example. By encouraging ethics in business and trade and by re-affirming our commitment to the advancement of human rights.
I am quite glad that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade sees the advancement of Canadian Values as a completely separate issue from military spending. They are separate issues and should not be tied together so tightly.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Newman
Date: 2003-01-24 10:59:09
Well, which is it then? Millitary or foreign aid?
The U.S. spends $400 billion per year on its millitary and next to none on foreign aid. The result? The whole world hates or fears America and its citizens still don't feel safe.
Canada can't afford both, and doesn't need one of them. We don't have any enemies yet, but if we continue to follow in the U.S.'s footsteps we will soon. Cut millitary funding and give it to Africa to help fight AIDS.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rmk
Date: 2003-01-24 15:23:08
The U.S. give billions of dollars to a number of countries, most of whom have terrorist networks and hate the West. They provide over $60 billion dollars a year (not counting disaster relief, volunteers, etc) in foreign aid.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Robert
Date: 2003-01-25 16:47:45
While we should never impose our values on others, there are times when we must intervene in another country's affairs. There are times when we must stop listening to reason, and start listening to our conscience. With the leadership our country now has, we are virtually ignored by the rest of the world. Canada seems to be seen as a child which sits at the metaphorical "kiddy table" while the grown ups deal with real issues. Canada must shed this image. It's true that we have no real enemies now, save for our own incompetence. But should we fear to make enemies? Should be bend before the anger of another country at the cost of doing what is right? When did we become a nation of cowards? There is no cowardice greater than inaction when action is clearly required. We give token support in a fight against people who would hurt innocents to obtain their objectives. We cling to old allegiances and turn a blind eye to the real issues of the world. Canada must regain it's former will to do right. We must harden our hearts against the anger of our enemies, or our friends, and move forward regardless of the cost.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: edikz
Date: 2003-01-29 22:56:32
If your conscience does not follow reason, then rather you should re-examine your conscience, otherwise you are in an irrational world, unpredictable and illogical, and are not in any position to make a contribution to a more humane world. Of course, you would be siding with the toughs of the world, and you might feel safer, but you are more cowardly than if you followed reason. Otherwise, what are you following? Gut feeling?!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Robert
Date: 2003-01-30 16:23:40
edikz
The point I was trying to make slipped completely over your head. You seem to think that I would blindly side with a stronger nation in order to protect ourselves. Does this not seem logical to you? To ally yourself with the side that would win a conflict? No, this is not what I am saying at all. The point I am making is this : We should do what we feel is right, regardless of who would side with us. Even if our allies would be angered by our actions. You seem to be encouraging some sort of Machiavellian society, though. One where we do all things in order to gain power and protect ourselves. We should not wait for popular support to move in and protect a people or country in distress. The world is never black and white, there are no absolutes. We must stop letting others tell us what to do, and listen instead to demands of our own people, and our collective conscience.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-07 16:14:45
The "next to nothing" on foreign aid is a geographical reference to that fact that the US is next to us, right?
How can we criticize the US when our foreign aid is pathetic. Even if we boost our foreign aid, it will get wasted on marketing campaigns designed by Liberal corporate sponsors aimed at showing Canadians how sweet and wonderful we are.
Ironically, if we gave money to Africa to fight AIDS, we'd be following America's lead - since Bush is the only western leader who has put money on the table to fight this problem.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: smonc
Date: 2003-01-28 13:38:39
Surely Steve you forget the amount of time money and energy it takes to ensure a peaceful household.
More young Canadians then ever are helping overseas, and peaceful pontificating has become an olympic event,
might as well win the gold.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: ninja
Date: 2003-02-14 12:46:35
I agree with you. Trying to "shape the world" by preaching the so-called Canadians values (by the way, who sets those values)is not the way of attracting respect from other powers.
Canadian foreign policy should be more focused, intervening in specific areas, in order to make a genuine difference in the fight against the world's misery.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: ninja
Date: 2003-03-04 16:08:49
Steve, You are so right. The idea that Canada could shape the world through supposed-to-be-Canadians values is indeed hypocritical. It is time that Canada does foreign policy and stop revising it.
Canada should invest in ODA at 0.8% of GDP (UN ratio) but in a selective manner by focusing on urgent needs (Africa, Latin-America). Spending on military perhaps, but I beleive reallocation could do the job. To much bureaucracy, not enough services.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 16:45:19
I agree, but would go even farther:
Focusing on Africa AND Latin-America is still too general. I think we should focus either on a single country for a 5-10 year period OR focus on a single issue (e.g., primary education) for a 5-10 year period.
And we have to be careful that increased spending in foreign aid doesn't translate into Ottawa-based jobs for political cronies of the governing parties.
Reply to this message
|
|
