|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-19 14:23:31
...continued from my previous message
" 5. (you probably mean 6) For this,if need be, Canada must come down from the high pedestal of being a 'developed' economy, a G-7 country and a close ally of US. A more modest image of itself--a la Pearsonian style--in terms of both capabilities and self-image will make Canadian foreign policy more pragmatic and achievable. "
I am not sure what you mean by a "more modest" "Pearsonian style" of capabilities and self-image for Canada. You must be mistaken because even though Pearson was unassuming he was an outstanding diplomat and politician and not at all modest in achievements. While Canada was more a part of the British Commonwealth at the time, it was internationally more prominent in Pearson's time than it is now. Lester Pearson was even awarded a Nobel Peace prize in 1957. Pearson also got along a lot better with President Kennedy than Chrétien is with Bush; this despite the fact that Kennedy also had to bring the world to the edge of the precipice due a close-range missile threat in Cuba. Pearson also presided over the highly-successful Auto Pact deal with the US.
Canada has great relations with all its neighbours. India, OTOH, has varyingly poor relations with all of its neighbours - Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bangladesh as well as Sri Lanka. India had recent wars with both Pakistan and China. India maintains very large armed forces and nuclear weapons whereas Canada has almost no armed forces. India also grapples with a great deal of internal religious and cultural strife. This is not to say that India is not a great nation with unlimited potential. However, I believe the suggestion that you outlined is very flawed. Canada does not want to go the route of becoming belligerent to the US just because it wants to court other middle nations. The good relations between Canada and the US has made North America a good place to live. It has been the preferred destination for many people from India and Pakistan. Any other relations Canada considers must be realistic and involve a good understanding between partners. You need to start by using more accurate pictures of our respective country's geopolitical conditions.
I grew up with many Indian friends and have fond memories and a fair understanding of the cleverness, diversity and richness that Indians contribute. However, India's geopolitical predicament has been a handicap to its development. In this regard India must recognize that Canada has benefited from its own advantageous position in North America. Due in great part to our past stability and good relations with the US, Canada *is* a more developed nation and one which has been able to divert its energies into social and economic welfare as opposed to containment of internal and external strife.
The current Canadian government's unfortunate distractions (and confused loyalties elsewhere) has left Canadian policies on the US unclear - they remain basically as unclear as they have been throughout the last 6 months. This uncertainty will at least cause Canadian-US partnerships to pause, to the disadvantage to both countries. If both governments do not clarify and mend the uncertainties soon they may contribute to a downward trend. Like India and other countries, Canada needs to build a stable positive environment close to home before it can be sure of success in developing farther-flung relations.
Finally, I am not sure how your suggestions will deal with the "new exigencies" you mention but if you should mean that Canada can avoid being labeled a "crusader nation" by browning up to questionable régimes then you will be sorely disappointed. The strife that is in the Middle East and South Asia are very much woven into the divergent and extreme cultural and religions practices of those areas. Canada can serve as a model of a successful tolerant society by continuing to allow its people to evolve a more enlightened and equal Canadian society but lending support to other nations with intractable cultural and religious problems is not the way to go for Canada. The "new exigencies" for Canada have more to do with educating Canadians of the new security requirements of our southern neighbour. This basic requirement leaves the US with limited room for bargaining with Canada. It has nothing to do with a misalignment of trade. Until people recognize that security ranks much higher than trade then we will only continue to waste our time with the Americans. I suppose this will all change after the first nuclear/bio/chemical weapon fallout reaches Canada from the US. We have a quaint little Canadian term that might aptly suit the complacency that some Canadians currently still have. It's called "Lotus Land".
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-19 17:13:17
"The US will mostly remain polite to Canada and try to conduct business with us. The reality is that they will gradually withdraw their enthusiasm and they will begin to look elsewhere to replace a partner that no longer appreciates their primary concerns... a close partner or spouse whom you can no longer trust for security..."
I respectfully disagree with your statement, even though they might wish to replace us as main trade partner, i don't think that will be quite possible... They tried turning to Mexico, and that is a failure.
As for your stance on 'security' and loyalties, i know your stand on the Iraq conflict, but 'security' has nothing to do in objective terms to the Iraqi threat. In the US Government's view, Iraq might be a threat one day, and if we follow this stance we could say 'if' all the time for any perceived threat, and we would be a littly puppy following the US blindly. If your term 'security' is broader and related to our lack of secure borders, our complasency towards basic security, yes in that case our opinions are the same...
Also, the term loyalty is a very bad term... What does loyalty mean? For you it seems to mean blindly follow the US? Canada should only be loyal to itself and international law. Of course we should avoid direct clashes with any of our major partners (US, EU, etc), but we should not be 'loyal' to them...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-20 09:18:28
1) Security is the issue. We may disagree on how much our security is at risk, or how much our allies' security is at risk, but you must accept that security is the issue for people who think Saddam must be stopped.
2) Loyalty never means blindly following the US. Loyalty means making independent assessments and providing that assessment to the US, even if it runs counter to their opinions.
Canada has turned its back on democracy and human rights. It has joined China and Russia and France in the pursuit of what? Who knows...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-20 20:19:24
"Canada has turned its back on democracy and human rights."
Presumably this means that had we chosen to saddle up and ride off with Buddy to blow up Iraq we would be a more democratic country demonstrating a stronger committment to human rights.
Irrespective of the clearly expressed will of the majority of Canadian citizens. Irrespective of the will of the majority of the citizens of the rest of the world excluding the US and maybe Bulgaria.
Democracy isn't the exclusive property of the US, something they get to validate as real or false. In fact there are many US citizens who would today strongly argue that their democracy is under attack from within their own borders by some of their fellow Americans. I have an American acquaintance for example, a historian in Virginia, who has for months been telling his non-US friends to boycott the US and it's products and to work to convince their governments to do the same because in his opinion the US has now gone beyond the pale. He's not alone by any stretch.
People are said to "vote their aspirations". If public opinion polling can be compared in any way to the process of voting then Canadians have let their aspirations be known by saying that they would only join in this attack if it was sanctioned by the UN. That's a strong statement of faith in democratically exercised multi-lateralism, noisy and time consuming as it usually is, and a strong expression of a fundamental democratic principle.
You appear to have scorn for both.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-21 01:10:26
..."Canadians have let their aspirations be known by saying that they would only join in this attack if it was sanctioned by the UN...
A U.N. that continues to refuse to investigate current China atrocities, that didn't act in Africa which 800,000 people were butchered and didn't sanction use of force to stop the killing of Muslims in Kosovo. Not to mention putting Libya in charge of human rights violations. Then let us toss the dog and pony show of the last 12 years with Iraq.
The Criminal court has been puttering around with Slobodan Milosevic for 2 years and now Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic of Serbia is DEAD, he was killed by Milosevic’s cronies for turning them over to the U.N. criminal court.
I'm getting rather disgusted with the precious U.N. security counsel... I’m sick of good people dieing because of U.N. incompetence. How long are we going to put up with this? It is time for change at the U.N.
So go ahead, try to change my mind…
Steve.
Canadian.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-21 10:05:57
I have scorn for both. I never have before, but I do now.
I feel the UN security council has been revealed to be bogus and ineffectual. A council is not democratic if there a permanent members of it. If our parliament had permanent members, then I would suggest to you that we were not a democracy. The representatives of memeber states represent there goverments, not their people - except where the governments are elected and accountable to its citizens.
I feel that Canadian public opinion is wrong on this issue. I think the error of the opinion is driven by a mis-trust of the US and a total lack of understanding with regards to oil politics.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-21 11:06:27
Steve, I don't think you're mind is changeable on this and cfallon I don't think I'll convince you of anything either. So let's abandon multi-lateralism as we now understand it and set out on a brand new road that's just like the old, old road. Sort of a radical darwinist, unregulated market of foreign policy. Let's get out of NATO, out of the UN, maybe out of the WTO since it's probably tainted too.
OK. Now what?
We're now a small power and a small economy without an international voice and no functional alliances save one.
Dream come true.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-21 13:18:46
I agree, i think our opinions are too entrenched, i think its useless discussing the issue further!
The only thing we must do is get the facts straight.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-21 15:14:54
..."OK. Now what?
We're now a small power and a small economy without an international voice and no functional alliances save one.
Dream come true. "...
Banquosghost, your point is made & understood, I'm just venting in difficult times.
With that said, after this war, perhaps create a thread and we could all look and agree on what works at the U.N. and keep those aspects of the system.
Then we could discuss & identify the processes that don't function and perhaps attempt to rethink them now that the Cold war years are over.
Yes that would be a difficult process, but we all might as well start somewhere and now (after Iraq war) seems like the time to try.
However I’m not directly in the political process so I’m a bit of an outsider and may not have the insight others here may have of the U.N. and its nuance. I'm not sure if there is a least a paper that has some true insights to the current U.N. situation.
-I have to get back to work,
-bye for now;
Steve.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-23 17:25:54
cfallon; I do believe that in Canada we do have a senate that is appointed for an unlimited time period. Do we not? Guess that means we are not democratic in your eyes? Why do we mistrust the USA? I don't think the mistrust is so much of the USA but of the present administration. Do you not believe that we have reason to be wary
Do you not think most of us realize that it is a very complex problem.
We just do not agree on who and how it is handled.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-24 13:46:12
You are right, the unlimited time period that we bestow on our senators is a little ridiculous and not very democratic.
Yes, you are right to be wary of the US. But so wary that we turn our backs on the values that Canada used to stand for: democracy, liberty and peace?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-24 23:39:23
Canada does stand for democracy, liberty and peace. We are standing up for those values, not turning our back on them.
I don't think it hurts to have elder statesmen to smooth transitions and to be there for advice. Would like to believe they are chosen for their wisdom and not just political appointees. I do prefer our system with an opposition to bring forth everyone's views: in the USA the other party has no power or voice. We are finding out how a government without an opposition in place can act in B.C.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-25 12:43:22
Fatmomma, I like our system too. I would like an elected senate. I know what you are saying about the political situation in BC and it is a shame. No matter what side of a debate you are on, we need both sides to voice their opinions strongly to make sure we keep the other side of the debate in check.
But, Canada has sided with anti-democracy on this issue. Yesterday, in the house of commons, Bill Graham said that the government decision on Iraq was in sync with public opinion.
But one of the most important checks in a democracy is a check against mob rule - that's why we have leadership.
Mob rule is not democracy.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-26 13:34:37
"Mob rule is not democracy. "
What a cliche - if we don't have the same opinion as the US, we are considered a mob, otherwise its called democracy?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-26 21:47:06
in sync means it is the same/together
Where do you get mob rule ?
Do you think a governments decision is mob rule just because it is the same as its citizens? That is how democracy is supposed to work.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-21 11:59:14
Codco1:
You have misread some of my words. Please reread carefully, paying attention to the sentence structure and reassess your mistaken interpretations.
In addition, look for key words in your claims that either do not exist in my messages or were used with a different intent.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
