|
| Contributor: | 1899 |
| Date: |
2003-05-01 15:36:11 |
| Answer: |
I listed some comments as I read the paper. Following are those comments.
Thanks for the opportunity to participate.
John Higginbotham
Foreign Policy of Canada: comments
http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/en/welcome/index.html
"pillars" for our foreign policy: the protection of our security within a stable global framework; the promotion of prosperity and employment; and the promotion of the values and culture that Canadians cherish.
Canada should remain in the forefront of nations crafting innovative international institutions and adapting existing institutions in ways that enhance their ability to address global problems.
The Canada-U.S. relationship
. Our relationship must not be predicated primarily on economic ties.
It must be based on ethical and moral values that we in Canada accept. The current US administration is basing their actions on values that we cannot condone. For example, the might of the sword. We, I hope will follow the path of diplomacy and acceptance of diversity in the world.
I believe that a well-fed, well-educated, and well-employed society, has neither the need nor the desire to commit acts of violence against others.
On the other hand, people whose well-being is subjugated to the interests of the mighty, whether economically or militarily, will invariably strike out, often violently.
We, in Canada must be very careful in following the lead of the Americans. They, as a people, are proving to be very violent both inside and outside their national boundaries. I do not want Canadians to emulate the US too closely.
Global changes
Free trade agreements accelerate the accumulation of wealth to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Statistics seem to indicate that this phenomenom occurs at the national level and at the international level as between nations. Trade is good. Fair trade that encourages self sustainability of all of humankind is very good. Free trade that pits the multinational corporations against both nations and the people within the nations is proving to be detrimental to the majority of people around the world. Mostly because many multinationals have greater economic power than many smaller nations. The people of the smaller nations cannot compete effectively in the context of such a power imbalance. Philosophically, the corporations are gaining more and more "rights" to make a profit and are subject to fewer and fewer responsibilities. The nations must focus on a wide variety of needs and desires of their people. The corporations focus primarily on making profit for a relatively small number of shareholders. Fair trade that recognises a nation/s right to encourage the expression of values such as environmental, labour, spiritual, and humanistic as well as economic, is much more attractive, and I submit, much less likely to engender resentment amongst the population of struggling nations.
If you are serious about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction then get rid of the damn things. It is too hypocritical to say that the poor nations must get rid of them but allow the powerful nations to not only keep them but to use them. In the most recent example, Iraq, the US chose to use "them" unilaterally without the approval of the United Nations. Bombs dropping from on-high is terrorising; depleted uranium shells may cause long term damage to anyone, including civilians who are in the vicinity of their use.
We survived the cold war because we, the world, had two bullies who feared each other. We now face one bully who has demonstrated little moral restraint to date.
If we are to sanction disarmament, then we must apply that across the board. If we need a police force then success requires that the police force be subjected to rules of law that are equally and equitable applied to the whole of the world. This can be done with an international institution such as the UN. It cannot be done without much resentment and probably retaliation by a self-proclaimed saviour such as the United States of America.
Any successful police force needs to have rules and restraints that control the behaviour of that force. Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the US administration, the US is not a nation based on democracy and the rule of law. Look at the recent US supreme court ruling in the Kim case where the rule of law changes according to one's status. Look at Quatanamo Bay. Look at their rejection of the International Criminal Court. Look at their breach of the NAFTA regarding softwood lumber. Look at their use of farm subsidies that discriminate against developing agricultural nations.
Prosperity
Free Trade
""Canada has derived broad advantages from the NAFTA and other free trade agreements. In April 2001, the Quebec City Summit of the Americas supported growing economic linkages across the Americas, while recognizing democratic freedoms, human rights, and environmental and labour standards as integral to the hemisphere's development.""
I question the above assertions and ask the following questions. 1. What advantages have accrued to the people of Canada? I do not accept that the increase in GDP reflects the well-being of the general populace. Our health plan has deteriorated since the implementation of NAFTA. The disparity of wealth between the lowest 10% and the wealthiest 10% has widened. The security of income has been reduced during this same period-there are fewer manufacturing-level wage jobs and company retirement plans are probably becoming a relic of a bygone year. So the question is "who is benefiting from the free trade ?" It is time to look at FAIR TRADE
2.What evidence is there that environmental standards have been raised as a result of NAFTA? Have human rights and labour standards in Mexico been improved because of the trade agreements? Are there examples of these improvements that have actually improved the lot of the working class or the poor? And democracy! Even in Canada, there has been an increase of SECRECY in all aspects of trade negotiations surrounding FTAA, GATTS, and WTO. Secrecy and democracy are mutually incompatible because the basis of democracy is informed decision-making.
It saddens me deeply to observe that Canada is becoming less democratic, rather than more, in the modern world that is increasingly being defined in monetary terms.
We must be very careful in opening our country to traders and investors. NAFTA was to increase investment and thus the standard of living for Canadians. As I understand the figures, over 90% of investment in Canada post-NAFTA has been to purchase existing businesses rather than to create new ones. If that is true, ask where the profits go and how that benefits Canadians. I repeat that there is no necessary correlation between GDP and general well-being of the populace.
If one measures societal success only in monetary terms, there is no room for considerations of Canadian social policies and quality of life. I can say these things while at the same time acknowledge that economic security is important for the success of Canadian social policies and improving the quality of life for all citizens of Canada. This applies to all the citizens of the planet earth.
""Globalization has brought great prosperity"" To whom has globalization brought great prosperity? Yes, there is an unfortuantly large disparity between countries and within the populace of the countries. The financial crises of the past decade has hurt many people. A few have benefited. This disparity must be addressed on a structural basis if the world is going to know peace. Remember that governments are empowered to serve the needs of all the citizens, individually and collectively; corporations are designed to sever the financial desires of relatively few people as shareholders. The purposes of the two institutions do not always coincide.
""Addressing the needs of the most disadvantaged groups will require continued efforts by international financial institutions - including the International Monetary Fund in designing assistance programs for crisis-afflicted countries, and the World Bank in designing programs to promote development and poverty reduction in emerging markets.""
Again ask the question regarding " the continued efforts by international financial institution", who benefited by their intervention? In some cases it appeared that the large private financial institutions and investors were bailed out while the populace of these nations shouldered the burden. Some even say that the policies of the IMF and WB with their emphasis on opening markets, privatisation, and structural adjustment have exacerbated the problems of developing nations rather than enhanced the quality of life for the citizens. As a critic of these institutions, the name Stiglitz comes to mind.
""The Government of Canada is committed to the continued expansion of a stable, rules-based global trading system""
This policy is indefensible in my mind. The rules are biased to benefit the industrialised nations and their private corporations. They want financial markets to be open to any investor (only the industrialised nations have such markets ready for export to other countries), they subsidise their own agricultural products in one of the few areas where developing countries might hope to compete, and, in some cases where the industrialised nations allow raw resources into their system, they add tariffs to value-added resource products. This latter discourages the development of economic activity in the developing countries while the FREE TRADERS claim to be promoting economic activity.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, these negotiations are done IN SECRET. Absolutely indefensible in a democracy! Somebody is being sneaky and someone else is being taken advantage of and manipulated. Otherwise there is seldom any need for secrecy. Having said this, I, nevertheless, support the policy of removing tariffs and quotas on goods from least developed countries.
I question the amount of foreign aid that Canada gives as a percentage of GDP to developing countries. Even more, I question the ethics of attaching strings to what little foreign aid we give. I find it especially distasteful when the strings include the requirement that Canadian expertise and materials be purchased with the monies donated. That is using my tax dollars to support a private business enterprise at a time when governments allegedly cannot afford to operate utilities, or to support health care. Some might argue that this misuse of foreign aid is thinly disguised corporate welfare.
""The preservation of Canada's natural environment requires economic cooperation with the United States and countries around the world. Better ways are needed to promote environmentally sustainable growth in developing countries while minimizing and fairly distributing the costs of complying with environmental standards.""
These are laudable goals. I, personally, do not believe that unfettered FREE TRADE will accomplish these objectives. What might work is FAIR TRADE with international rules that everyone, including the developed world, honours in the application thereof. These rules would have to be oriented towards enhancing the economic viability of the developing nations while preserving the culture and environment of those nations to the degree that the people of those countries choose to implement them. These rules must not be exploitative of the resources, natural and human, of the developing world. Sadly, I believe that the current proposals being considered at the GATTS conferences and the meetings of the WTO are exploitative in their application and are detrimental to the people of the developing world. Why else would there be the need for such absolute SECRECY in the negotiating process?
It is time that a set of QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS, that are much broader than the GDP, be used to measure how well the people of a nation are doing and thus how well the country is developing. Look at the absurdity of the economics of the US war against Iraq. The US has budgeted over 70 BILLION DOLLARS for the war. They estimate that the cost of reconstruction will be approximately 10 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR…… for 5 years, 10 years,..?? All this money adds to the US GDP. Whose quality of life has this improved? Perhaps the Iraqi people, but that remains to be seen. In the US, the taxpayers will be footing this bill for the war and probably much of the bill for reconstruction. Some private corporations who "win" the contracts for reconstruction will benefit immensely…and will likely dodge much of the taxation burden on their "profits".
It is time that we re-examined what we mean by STANDARD OF LIVING and applied our economic energy, our innovative minds, and our compassionate spirit to the attainment of a civilised quality of life here in Canada and then to other nations in the developing world.
|
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
