|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Les trois piliersThank 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. Ce forum est bilingue, et les participants peuvent rédiger leurs commentaires dans la langue de leur choix. |
|
|
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
|
Voir en contexte du sujet
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
