|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
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: 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
|
Show in topic
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
