|
Participant: Nafey
Date: 2003-03-18 10:20:41
Canada has had very sound bases of its foreign policy in what is called middle power liberal internationalism. This had stood well for Canada during the Cold War. Post-Cold War some attempts were made to make liberal internationalism respond to the new exigencies. But, I suppose, the human security agenda was too ambitious and too interventionist for many in the developing countries accept it. Canada needs to consider the following:
1. Canada needs to strengthen its multilateralism; and not subject it to US dictats.
2. Economic and trade relations with US under NAFTA need to be separated, as never before, from other foreign policy pursuits.
3. May be it is time to re-experiment with the 'third option': promote multipolarity both at the political and economic levels; develop closer trade relations with Latin America and the Caribbean; develop closer trade as well as political relations with Asia-Pacific through APEC; look for likeminded partners especially from among the emerging powers/markets.
4.May be focus on building closer political and economic relations with countries such as India, Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, South Africa, and Brazil.
4. I am from India and one who is very keen on closer relations between Canada and India. I sincerely believe that Canada,alongwith some of the above likeminded countries including India must work to promote a new international understanding.
5. 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-19 07:21:09
". Canada needs to strengthen its multilateralism; and not subject it to US dictats. "
I think the current Canadian government is going in the right direction by stating that in the current situation the Iraq war has not justification. But in all cases, the government must be careful not to infuriate our US allies too closely, we really rely heavily on them. The current Canadian approach is once again the correct one (Continue the war against terrorism, and not participate in any war related to Iraq)...
"Economic and trade relations with US under NAFTA need to be separated, as never before, from other foreign policy pursuits. "
I utterly and absolutely agree, NAFTA should be entirely independent on Foreign Policy of either Canada or the US. Actually any trade agreement shoud be independent of foreign policy, except maybe for the cases of horrible human rights violation.
"May be it is time to re-experiment with the 'third option': promote multipolarity both at the political and economic levels; develop closer trade relations with Latin America and the Caribbean; develop closer trade as well as political relations with Asia-Pacific through APEC; look for likeminded partners especially from among the emerging powers/markets. "
I think Canada will always remain the US's main trading partner, that will probably never change, due to geographic considerations. The current Canadian government should first try to make more trade agreements with the EU (that is what they are trying to do), and then or in parallel work hard to make more trade with emergent countries, as you suggested. The important thing is to decrease (as much as possible) our economic dependence on the US.
"...I sincerely believe that Canada,alongwith some of the above likeminded countries including India must work to promote a new international understanding"
I agree with you, but do not forget that Canada is not a non-aligned country, and i think it will never be (We are in NATO after all, we share more values culturally with the US and Europe than with emerging countries, etc)... We need to dialogue with non-aligned countries so that we can close the gap between our differences of views, but i don't think we should become a non-aligned country.
"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. "
I think we should stay in the G7, because we can promote more liberal trade with emerging countries, i think that is the best place to do this (we are one of the rare G7 countries which wish to remove with insistence, trade barriers with Africa).. But i do agree that we think of ourselves as more important than we actually are (this is a sad fact... I'd like it if we had more voice internationally)...
Due to our geographic location and our shared fondamental values, we will always be a close ally of the US, even though i agree with you Canada should not be scared to publibly disagree with the US government... We are an independent country after all.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-19 14:22:35
Nafey, I would like to reply to the points you made in your message. I will break up my message into 2 halves as it is long:
"1. Canada needs to strengthen its multilateralism; and not subject it to US dictats. "
Multilateralism should be considered if it makes sense for Canada. No country should pursue an ideal just because the ideal is there. Quite often ideals are promoted because of other people's interests. I don't think Canada has ever been subject to "US dictat(e)s". Canadians prefer to make our decisions based on our interests. Our relations with the US has worked well for Canada.
"2. Economic and trade relations with US under NAFTA need to be separated, as never before, from other foreign policy pursuits. "
I'm not sure what you mean by separated from other foreign (policies). All foreign policies have impact on one another. While we may foolishly believe this to be achievable on paper one can never discount the human factor. If a country cannot trust its trade partner with security issues then the lower priority issues of economics and trade will suffer. Have you never heard of "Maslow's hierarchy of needs"? Perhaps you need to be more realistic about this fact of life. This is the reason why so many people do not "get it" when they complain about the way the US is behaving. You as an Indian should "get it" since you live under the umbrella of Pakistani nuclear missiles. Would India entertain sweet trade deals with Pakistan while it is under the threat of Pakistan supplying a steady stream of Islamic terrorists across the border?
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. If our positions were switched Canada would do the same. A lack of trust in the most basic issues like security is POISON for any relationship - just ask yourself what you would do if you have a close partner or spouse whom you can no longer trust for security. I am not talking about a friend in another town you never see. I am talking about someone you share your "home" with. Wake up...the whole world completely changed after 9/11.
" 3. May be it is time to re-experiment with the 'third option': promote multipolarity both at the political and economic levels; develop closer trade relations with Latin America and the Caribbean; develop closer trade as well as political relations with Asia-Pacific through APEC; look for likeminded partners especially from among the emerging powers/markets. "
Multipolar approaches to global political interests should be considered as a legitimate means to achieve desirable result *but* not pursued blindly as an end in of itself. It is unwise and possibly reckless to subordinate a country's practical interests in deference to some ideal that may suit parties other more than Canada.
" 4.May be focus on building closer political and economic relations with countries such as India, Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, South Africa, and Brazil. "
I believe Canada already is forging closer ties with these countries as well as others. There are regular "Team Canada" government/business teams that visit the various world regions including Asia.
" 4 (you probably mean 5). I am from India and one who is very keen on closer relations between Canada and India. I sincerely believe that Canada,alongwith some of the above likeminded countries including India must work to promote a new international understanding. "
Closer relations and better understanding between all nations are highly desirable. This should be especially important to Canada in its tradition of playing bridging roles.
....continued in the next message...
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: acoles
Date: 2003-03-28 18:55:28
Vox,
Thank you for saving me the time of having to express the same valid points you have.
With all due respect to Nafey, I have no economic or realistic comprehension of how those suggestions are remotely possible.
When are Canadians going to remove the chip on our shoulder regarding the U.S.? The GDP purchasing power of the U.S. is now over $10 Trillion. Canada will suffer the 'lack of U.S. enthusiasm' you speak of.
How many companies tell a customer who buys 85% of their product to 'go away - we don't like what you do anymore?' - Chretien just did it.
With all due respect to forging new partnerships with other countries: As you mentioned Vox, 'Team Canada' and other private business organiztions took the lead some years ago. The economic reality lies in the size and purchasing capabilities of those markets. Collectively these markets have no measure compared to the U.S. size and power.
Finally, to echo; separating foreign policy from trade relations has the realistic potential of Canada invading the U.S. An absolute impossibility.
I'll finish up because you have eloquently stated the facts of our realistic world.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-12 00:59:21
I must reply to but 1 sentence, Vox,
and it is your quip, "Wake up... the whole world changed after 9/11."
That is to (sic) utter nonsense.
The sad truth is, that animal instincts still dictate 95% of human existence. Mankind is the only species that could possibly, or want to, manipulate future beliefs into 'guided Darwinism'.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-14 15:43:23
Sorry, fleabag, 95% of human existence is guided by animal instinct? So what?
I mean, if monkeys and humans share 99% of the same genetic material, by your logic, we'd expect very similar behaviour - but alas, no! Its completely different.
So, maybe that 5% is CRITICAL.
The world did change. I changed. People I know changed. The US changed. We are watching the changes unfold before us.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-15 00:56:57
What I mean by the 5% is that which still eludes us, so yes, it is critical.
Secondly, the US has not changed it's goals in about 100 years. Situations change, but not attitudes. That is the unfortunate part.
What changed? What was done differently before that is not being done now? The US has acted on the international stage for it's own benefit. Some Iraqi's, in this case, may be better off for a short time. That is not why the US acted the way it did, but they will play it up in the media for all the mileage they can. Until the truth comes out, that is.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-15 08:44:02
There is some views that suggest the re-building of Iraq will be very lucrative and could be being used to kick start the US economy. The USA is handing out many long term contracts all going to USA companies even the coalition countries of Britain and Spain have been shut out so far. By what right is the USA handing out long term contracts in Iraq;divvying up their oil fields. Shouldn't only short term emergency rebuilding contracts be their limit. That is why it is extremely important for the UN to become involved quickly to safeguard Iraq's rights for future control of their own country. How does this "liberate Iraq" if the USA holds the purse strings to their oil income?
Liberating Iraqis and/or their oil fields was not the stated goal for invading Iraq; it was supposed to be to find and destroy Iraq's WMD which obviously was done by the UN in 1998 as stated by a former UN inspector former US marine and weapons inspector; Scott Ritter.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-16 09:00:53
Scott Ritter is not credible, I would suggest you look into his history, it is rather disgusting. He has no credibility.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-16 21:28:23
That's your opinion. I find the Americans are good at trying to discredit anyone that criticizes the government. They do their best to discredit Ramsey Clark too.
Scott Ritter is looking very credible now. Where are all those WMD. They don't even have adequate basic military equipment and their military has no training or discipline. All Saddam had was his big mouth.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-18 17:51:01
Fine Barrett, you do not like Ritter. How about checking out Veteran Intelligence professionals for Sanity
It is a group of 24 former intelligence officials from the CIA, State Dept
there are several sites. They do not support the invasion of Iraq
Start at this site; attention to terrorism section
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003113.php
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 14:08:31
Well I have looked at the link you left and it doesn't seem to work. I checked the website and couldn't find the article. Perhaps you could give more directions to find it. Thanks.
As for Ritter, did you look into his history? Do you know what he has been convicted for?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-21 17:06:13
Sorry, I missed a number. They are "Veteran Intelligence Professional for Sanity". 24 ex cia, state department, etc USA
"http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20030113.php
I think you can get more information regarding them on search
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-15 11:27:43
What's changed is that the US has changed the idea of what is in their own interest.
100 years ago, the US was far more isolationist.
12 years ago, the US thought it could use the UN as a means to bring nations together and act in concert. As you recall, Bush Sr. was the first president to seek UN approval for its actions.
6 years ago, the US realised the UN was not going to be a place where things got done. So, they skipped it and attacked Serbia via NATO.
2 years ago, the US realised that there was a deep well of hatred that had organized into an active network of terrorists seeking mass destruction of the US. The result: a massive loss of casualties, a massive shock to the economy, and the destruction of one of the great symbols of North American culture.
Let's watch the next two years unfold.
I hope and think that Bush will push for peace between Palestine and Israel - a peace that involves "painful concessions" from Israel (in quotes, from Sharon).
I think alot of positive things will come out of Iraq and Iran.
I hope Canada wakes up and takes part in what has always been its foreign policy mission: BRING FREEDOM, MAKE PEACE.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 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
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: ninja
Date: 2003-03-25 21:09:27
Multuralism has the virtue of retrenching its proponents around core values, culture and economic interests.
I doubt Canada will be able to sustain global multilateralism like it did during the Pearson era. Globalization is creating regional interests which means that Canada should concentrate its efforts in the broad american continent because it lies at our security, economic and cultural interests.
Free trade in the America is a fact and Canada should promote a more socialy responsible economic integration by sustaining grass-root initiative such as the people summit in Porto Alegre. Moreover, on the security side, much of the challenges will also come from the south. Immigration, drug trade and state faillure are issues that need to be dealt with. We don't have the capability to be everywhere, so we need to focus.
Latin-America is a natural target if Canada wishes to develop a more regional approach to foreign policy simply because we share more, culturaly and economicaly with Latin-America thta with the rest of the world.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-26 04:03:43
"because we share more, culturaly and economicaly with Latin-America thta with the rest of the world..."
How did you arrive to this conclusion? Factually speaking, we share much more economically and culturaly with Europe and the USA than with latin America.
But i don't disagree that we should favor trade with latin america, but i think more trade with the European Union should be our present top priority...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Montag
Date: 2003-04-16 17:03:04
Totaly agree with codc01.
This war aint against Irak but against the Europe Union.
Irak made a profit jump of 20% in 2000 just by switching from US$ to $Euro. 10 more countries just entered the UE this week. Culrurally, we are well positionned to trade with this new emmerging giant.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-22 09:41:26
I do not agree that we share more "culturally" with Europe than with Latin America. I travelled to El Salvador and was amazed at how much we share with this country.
I think more trade with the European Union could be very dangerous because we expose our economy to the dictates of Brussels - who are far more protectionist than our American counterparts.
Répondre à ce message
|
On se revoit à http://www.dialogue-politique-etrangere.ca
|
