Printer friendly version of: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/index.php/en/answers/index.php?ac=pqi&qid=3814
 |
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: | annag |
| Date: |
2003-05-01 20:58:59 |
| Answer: |
| I would see an integrated framework with values as primary as making more sense than the “three pillars” approach, especially when some parts of the policy as outlined in the paper are contradictory. Having said this, I think the three interrelated aims the pillars represent are good ones, but in the discussion that follows, elements that may contradict the pillars occur. The Canada-US relationship is complicated, and there is no indication in the discussion as to how our policy should be determined when the US acts in ways that are not conducive to Canadian values and a stable global framework. Similarly, our involvement in international so-called trade deals has threatened Canadian values, global security and prosperity, especially in an equitable way. Our foreign policy needs more coherence. |
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
