|
Participant: moderator
Date: 2003-04-14 13:20:56
This web site will remain open until May 1st to receive Canadian views on
how our future foreign policy should be shaped. The Minister's paper sets
out 12 questions, and the web site adds question 13 which asks about the
paper and Dialogue itself. Please answer the questions, if you have not
already done so. Do your friends, family, co-workers know about this
opportunity to have your views heard? The forums have been very lively and
quite informative on some topics, however is it possible now to focus more clearly on shaping Canada's foreign policy, along lines of the questions in the Dialogue paper?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-14 13:34:02
Well, for us who have already answered the questions, is it useful to repeat our answers in the forum? (Just a question)...
[ Thanks codc01 - it is useful if you can take the topics that you have discussed, and focus in on the questions posed (or not posed, but which you believe should be posed ) in the Minister's Dialogue paper. The point is that to ensure that the views of citizens count in this Dialogue on the development of Canada's foreign policy, we invite you to focus your exchanges on the questions animating the Dialogue. If you consider that significant questions have been overlooked, by all means add those.
If you have not yet had a chance to answer the questions, we do encourage you to go into the answers section and make your views known. Thanks - The moderators ]
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 11:20:03
1. Which values and interests should bear most fundamentally on Canada's foreign policy? How can Canada's foreign policy better reflect the concerns and priorities of Canadians?
I wonder if we may be better served if we define what democracy isn’t (With a Canadian Slant) as opposed to what democracy is when dealing with nations making that transition. "To tell someone that we know best and this is how they are going to do it seems to send the wrong message about democracy."
I would consider creating a policy document that would clearly define what democracy is not, then using this as a guild line we should be able to get those non-democratic nations “closer” to what democracy is with a Canadian/American perspective.
As far as reflecting the concerns of priorities of Canadians, one fundamental factor we have to continually deal with it the separatists in Quebec City, these 3 million people have an overt influence on our decisions, also the 11 million people in Weston Canada who are clearly alienated.
In another 5 years I ponder if we would see a separatist party of Canada? This party would represent separation of the West and Quebec? If Canada is to exist our government must work to address these issues so we speak with one voice again, I am unsure how to achieve this right now, (perhaps more authority to the provinces on sticky issues like Gun Registry, Language, etc), but with some work perhaps we could figure it out.
Also the days of a non-elected Senate is nearing an end, either change happens or Western provinces will eventually turn to the U.S. for a democratic system. Also the idea of provincial “fire walls” against heavy handed Eastern Canada Federal authority is certainly a powerful leverage point that Western Canada will eventually employ if Canada continues the status quo. (Again, this gets back to speaking as one voice in Canadian foreign affairs).
Steve
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 11:26:46
1. Which values and interests should bear most fundamentally on Canada's foreign policy? How can Canada's foreign policy better reflect the concerns and priorities of Canadians?
I wonder if we may be better served if we define what democracy isn’t (With a Canadian Slant) as opposed to what democracy is when dealing with nations making that transition. "To tell someone that we know best and this is how they are going to do it seems to send the wrong message about democracy."
I would consider creating a policy document that would clearly define what democracy is not, then using this as a guild line we should be able to get those non-democratic nations “closer” to what democracy is with a Canadian/American perspective.
As far as reflecting the concerns of priorities of Canadians, one fundamental factor we have to continually deal with it the separatists in Quebec City, these 3 million people have an overt influence on our decisions, also the 11 million people in Weston Canada who are clearly alienated.
In another 5 years I ponder if we would see a separatist party of Canada? This party would represent separation of the West and Quebec? If Canada is to exist our government must work to address these issues so we speak with one voice again, I am unsure how to achieve this right now, (perhaps more authority to the provinces on sticky issues like Gun Registry, Language, etc), but with some work perhaps we could figure it out.
Also the days of a non-elected Senate is nearing an end, either change happens or Western provinces will eventually turn to the U.S. for a democratic system. Also the idea of provincial “fire walls” against heavy handed Eastern Canada Federal authority is certainly a powerful leverage point that Western Canada will eventually employ if Canada continues the status quo. (Again, this gets back to speaking as one voice in Canadian foreign affairs).
Barretm82@hotmail.com
Attn; Steve.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 13:12:16
"Also the days of a non-elected Senate is nearing an end"
I think its not only westerners which want Senate reform , but a lot of other people all across the country. I'm not sure about the EEE concept of the senate, but the senators should not be named by the PM, at least not for life.
"the status quo. (Again, this gets back to speaking as one voice in Canadian foreign affairs). "
What, you want complete chaos like the EU in foreign policy? A strong centralized system for foreign affairs and defence is a necessity...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 15:15:16
..."What, you want complete chaos like the EU in foreign policy? A strong centralized system for foreign affairs and defence is a necessity... "...
I want a strong centralized system for foreign affairs and defense, I am saying if we do not address Western Canada, Quebec and Central Canada by getting them closer together speaking as one voice again, we risk losing the country or becoming ineffective on the world stage.
We have Separatists in Quebec, and now we have a movement of Separatists in Western Canada; we have to continue to address this problem or risk the country comming apart.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 15:30:26
Ok, i misunderstood your point, i agree entirely with you...
Reforming the senate and another meech lake accord would do it i think :)...
(Easier said than done)...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: russilwvong
Date: 2003-04-22 19:39:47
Question 1 asks what interests and values Canadian foreign policy ought to be based on.
The fundamental principles described by Louis St. Laurent in his 1947 Gray Lecture have held up pretty well, in my humble opinion:
1. National unity
2. Political liberty
3. The rule of law
4. Human values and moral principles
5. Acceptance of international responsibilities
I find it curious that the dialogue paper never mentions national unity, which is clearly a vital Canadian interest. (For Canada to have participated in the recent war in Iraq would have threatened national unity, for example.)
St. Laurent also emphasized the importance of particular relationships to Canada:
1. Britain and the Commonwealth
2. The United States
3. France
Today, Canada's relationship with the US has clearly eclipsed its relationship with Britain. This raises some tough questions: how can Canada manage its relationship with the US, without becoming excessively dependent?
I would suggest that Canada ought to be firm on matters of vital national interest, but that it ought to refrain from opposing or criticizing the US on matters where it is unlikely to succeed. As St. Laurent said:
"We have, of course, been forced to keep in mind the limitations upon the influence of any secondary power. No society of nations can prosper if it does not have the support of those who hold the major share of the world's military and economic power. There is little point in a country of our stature recommending international action, if those who must carry the major burden of whatever action is taken are not in sympathy."
Canadian diplomats ought to be realists rather than romanticists. As Escott Reid noted, "In the event of war, we shall have no freedom of action in any matter which the United States considers essential." Even in peacetime, Canada's freedom of action is limited.
Reinhold Niebuhr's aphorism -- "May God grant me the courage to change the things I can, the serenity to accept the things I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference" -- seems apt here.
I'd recommend that any Canadian participants who are interested in foreign policy take the time to look up and read the Gray Lecture ("The Foundations of Canadian Policy in World Affairs"). I'll see if I can get permission to put it up on my website.
Some other recommended reading:
Robert Bothwell, "The Big Chill: Canada and the Cold War." Good overview of Canadian diplomacy during from the end of World War II to the end of the Cold War.
Greg Donaghy, ed., "Canada and the Early Cold War, 1943-1957." Full text available on the DFAIT website.
Hans Morgenthau, "Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace." The bible of power politics.
Russil Wvong
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Répondre à ce message
|
|
