|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
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: 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
|
Voir en contexte du sujet
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
