|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
View Answers
Question 2: The 1995 Policy Review and SinceAmid recent global changes, should Canada continue to endorse a balanced ‘three pillar’ approach to its foreign policy objectives, or should the current balance be adjusted? |
|
| Contributor: | 1863 |
| Date: |
2003-05-01 01:10:32 |
| Answer: |
The current policy should be adjusted. Your paper states that not only did Canada pursue the NAFTA agreement, but we are actively pursuing the FTAA. The Canadian gov't has helped shape the global economy in its involvement in the WTO which you say 'provide living standards worldwide'. What kind of standards are these; the ones for the poor or working class or those of the corporate CEO or bank manager? Never before have we had such desparity between those that have and those that don't, both within our own country and around the world. Has the global economy given the poor and disenfranchised more power, more food, more security? Quite the contrary has occurred.
You write about a 'rules-based international economic system' which I assume you are referring to the WTO agreements. you refer to 'resolving disputes through rules of law rather than unilateral market power'. What is the case with soft wood lumber? What is the case with MMT and the Ethoyl corporation? What is the case with Pure Springs Water in BC? Have any of these WTO disputes, ruled on by a tribunal in secret and not in any country's court of law, supported the wellbeing of civil society? Are these rules made in the interests of the citizens of any country? NO! They are rulings that have to do with compensating powerful corporations, using tax payers money, because our governments attempted to protect our environment, our resources, our services and our labour force. What is fair or equitable about that? Why would these treaties be an advantage for us, the public? I need to know your thinking on this question. Remember that 'immproved growth prospects for world economy' do not equate to what is good for people and working families. Who or what has given you that idea? The world today is much more unstable and insecure than in any time in the last three decades. I know because I and my colleagues are living in it. We do see the difference! Privatizing and comodifying every aspect of life and putting it on the market for sale is not a helpful approach to people in the world. What is the ultimate aim here? I would like your response and I hope it is different than what you've written so far. |
|
|
|
|
