Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Conclusion: The World We Want

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

Canada: Home of UN

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-13 15:56:14

I think you have a legitimate cause to suspect their motives, given that over their history, like so many other countries, they have failed to live up to the high standards they set for themseleves.

Whether or not Iraq is disarming is probably unknowable. Yes, there are gestures that it has made, always at the last minute. But these gestures, in my mind, reveal Saddam's motives more than anything.

I think America's objections to the war crimes tribunal are legitimate ones. I'm not saying that these concerns cannot be overcome. But the US is the land of frivolous lawsuits, so that they would be paranoid that frivolous accusations be levelled in the ICC or WCT is understandable!:>

Reply to this message

Show in topic

Canada: Home of UN

Contributor: banquosghost

Date: 2003-03-13 20:34:11

Ha! Good point.

The real reason the US is against the World Court is that several prominent American citizens would be among the first called to defend their actions. Congress and The White House know this perfectly well. The US's resistance to airing their dirty linen for the judgement of other's is not unjustified *but* when considered in concert with many other US non-multilateral decisions over the last few years the conclusion that they simply have no interest in true global community is almost inescapable.

Reply to this message

Canada: Home of UN

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-14 14:35:27

But they never really did have any interest in the global community. It wasn't until 1942 that they become seriously active in world affairs. In fact, people still criticise them for that isolationist position.

What's so great about the global community?

Most countries on the planet are despotic, corrupt regimes and their citizens are deprived of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Why do we want to align ourselves with those regimes and form a community with them when we have no idea what their citizens think of this alliance?

Will you really take the World Court seriously when its Lybia's turn to appoint the chief justice? Do you think Lybians will have any say in that appointment - even indirectly?

Reply to this message

Canada: Home of UN

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-03-14 23:31:24

Is not Phillipe Kirsch of Canada the newly ELECTED chief justice of the International Criminal Court May 11, 2003. Not appointed by one country

Reply to this message

Canada: Home of UN

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-03-15 18:31:49

sorry MARCH 11 not May

Reply to this message

Canada: Home of UN

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-03-14 04:28:25

I also have doubts about the ICC, on the other hand creation of the ICC is morally justified.

There are problems though, the ICC is not even setup yet (the statute took effect in june 2002), and there are already 200 complaints!! The statute indicates that it only takes care of cases between june 2002 and later - have there been 200 genocides / war crimes between june 2002 and now??? We will see how the judges rules - i currently have good faith in the ICC, but this good faith is thin. Only time will tell.

Also, even though WWII was a long time ago and our standards have evolved since that time, today the Allies could be put under trial under the ICC, because they did bomb cities to demoralize the civilian population of Germany. I have no real opinion on this, I'm just saying the facts... and I'm just wondering... Is this good, is this bad? Probably today we have other ways of demoralizing the population without resorting to massive civilian bombing...

Reply to this message

Canada: Home of UN

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-03-14 13:08:33

Small 'errata' to my message, it seems the start date of the statute was july 2002 and not june 2002....

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic