DFAIT logo partnership The logo for the by design elab, an independent research development and production think tank specializing in online forums for policy development, incubated in 1997 at the McLuhan Program at the University of Toronto
DFAIT Home Site Map Help Policies Partners Feedback Netcast Français
 
Welcome
Message from the Minister
Dialogue Paper
Answer Questions
View Answers
Discussion Forum
 
FAQ | Newcomer tips | Civil Rules | Participate

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.

  All Topics |  Start Topic  | Next Topic

Axworthy Article

Contributor: jwitt

Date: 2003-04-29 17:25:10


If anyone is interested in having one last round before the forum closes, check out this article by former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy. I think most of you will find it quite interesting and pertinent. He makes some extremely good points but may have taken some things a little too far (like we all do when trying to make a case).

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030429/COAXWO/TPComment/TopStories

Reply to this message

Axworthy Article

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-30 07:23:39


I'm quite neutral on this topic actually. We need to be a sovereign state in all cases, but the missile defence system would be a simple extension of NORAD, no??? In that case i have no problem with it.

But if what Mr. Axworthy writes is true in the case where our military would be completely interoperable and dependent on the US, then my answer is a reolute no. At long as our dependencies to the US stays the same, i don't have any problem with the anti-missile defence system.

I DO have a problem with the fact that the ABM treaty was scraped to make way for this anti-missile system. Maybe we should simply refuse because of this (we are not the kind of country to scrap treaties...).

Reply to this message

Axworthy Article

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-05-01 08:32:10


I'm wondering a lot what is the position of Paul Martin regarding foreign policy, I've read in the newspaper that he wants better military (I agree), that sometimes countries must act without UN approval (he cites Rwanda, i agree with him, but i just hope he does not go too far, for example Iraq).. and a real change in the relationship between the US in Canada (thats ok with me, as long as its not a relationship which is too warm and we do the same as the US does, if it means a relationship where we try to moderate US positions and we accept compromise on some issues, thats perfect for me)...

I guess a wait and see approach is the best thing to see what will happen...


Reply to this message

Axworthy Article

Contributor: jwitt

Date: 2003-05-01 16:52:36


I think he's interested in stronger ties to the US, hence missle defence and a better military capacity as you stated. You are correctly concerned about him taking it too far though. I think he is probably shrewd enough to avoid the perception of that, but reality may be another matter.

Reply to this message

Axworthy Article

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-05-01 21:54:26


I am not to comfortable with Paul Martin
stand at the moment. Sounds like to close ties with the USA.

Reply to this message

Axworthy Article

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-05-01 22:09:06


Just wanted to say goodbye to codco. It was good to have someone who shared many of the same views as I did. I am going to miss this forum. I enjoyed our discussions and being pushed to do more research. I hope they have more
forums like this one.

Reply to this message

  All Topics |  Start Topic  | Next Topic
 
Top of page ^ | Contact Us | Privacy | Printable Version | Email to a friend