Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Security

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

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: RCGGILLIS

Date: 2003-04-03 10:41:02

Fleabag,

I must say that despite your references to Milton (which I must admit that when I hear of Paradise Lost, I think of what America stands for and what it currently is - which could also be applied to the UN), I do disagree with your assessment that the United Nations must be the body of a global new order. Looking at the recent history of the UN, I will say my faith in that organisation has wavered.

First, we fail to see any action taken during the Kosovo conflict. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find anyone that claimed it was an illegal action by NATO. We can also look at the conference on racism held at Durban, South Africa as an example where some nations and special interest groups high-jacked the agenda. With Libya now the Chair of the Human Rights Commission, I must question some of the recent decisions of the UN.

However, even the militia that you proposed has some flaws. Looking at the nations of the UN, the only powers with enough military hardware as well as capital, tend to be the western powers, China and Russia. An international police force would thus use these resources, but be controlled all nations. That places an unfair burden on the larger powers of the UN, and leads to the question as to why they would be willing to become part of that type of system.

I do agree the veto system needs some revisiting, but I would not expect the larger powers to sign over sovereignty to the UN. The veto protects their own national self-interest. How one can over come this particular question is a challenge, for I cannot see any western style democracy turning over its ability to make decisions to an un-elected body - even looking at Canada, what would we have to gain by doing so? Likewsie, we cannot simple go back to the old international congress idea that was used at the end of the Napoleonic wars. The solution must be in the middle. Coalitions of the willing maybe an avenue worth looking at in more depth.

Finally I disagree that we need 'impartial world police force'. What is a ideal is an international coalition that is willing to stand up for what is right, which means they must be partial to some sort of world system. As I stated above in the Thoreau quote, of which I left out the first line - Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something. That should be the foundation of Canadian foreign policy. If the UN fails to stand for something, then we cannot simply stand for the UN, but rather, we must stand with and for its ideals. These ideals are reflected in the founding principles of America. As such, we should stand with and for America can and should be.

Reply to this message

Show in topic

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: Fleabag

Date: 2003-04-07 23:09:37

Dear RCGGILLIS:
I concur with Paragraph 1, with the note: The 'hijacking' of the Human rights commission was indeed a tragedy. The chance to discuss important issues were lost to fanaticism. Partly, though, the blame must also be placed on the US and Israel because of their stance on 'ethical relativism'.
I do agree that my proposal for a 'worldwide militia' is simplistic, only though, because it was a theoretical suggestion. Much more thought would have to be given, but in principle, I think it would be a good idea to visit.
The veto concept in the UN must also be re-visited, because 'ethical relativism' dictates the vote and/or veto.
Lastly, the paragraph about morality... It would need to be assumed that the highest morality has or would be achieved if one is to aim above it. I don't think we've come that far as a species yet. 'Standing up for what is right with a coalition of the willing' is directly dependent on what one believes and is therefore subjective. If, for example, a democratic vote was taken throughout the world about whether 'ethical relativism' or the right of soveriegn nations to use, say, religion, as a basis of national law, you would lose. Religion is far more widespread that the notion of democracy. What is right, for now, and forever, must include the basic rights to existence, for all, and that notion is far simpler than many believe. Ethical relativism must be replaced by what is right for all, not the few.
I agree that the 'foundation of the US constitution' is what they, and we, could stand for. However, Equality, Freedom, and Justice for all has been usurped by Profit, Greed, and Ethical Relativism for the powerful.

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-08 14:40:07

I entirely agree with you... But
personal interest is still the top priority for everyone... Maybe one day countries will be ready for a change, and take the fate of the whole world into account. I do have strong hope....

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic