|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
Excerpt |
Contributor |
Date |
|---|
| view |
Canada is a country of immense resources and should not be worried about trade. We import beef yet we are rich in beef. These manipulations are purely economic and only add to the coffers of a few while making the whole world poorer.
Security is not a consideration in a world where our technologies |
1941 |
2003-05-02 01:13:01 |
| view |
April 30, 2003
The Honourable Bill Graham
Minister of Foreign Affairs
A Dialogue on Foreign Policy
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2
Dear Minister Graham,
I am pleased to contribute to this foreign policy dialogue o |
CanadianCouncilofChurches |
2003-05-01 21:50:01 |
| view |
The Government of Canada needs to rethink its “three pillars” approach—namely, the promotion of prosperity and employment, the protection of our security within a stable global framework and the protection of Canadian values and culture. We need to ask what kind of global relations make Canadian pr |
CCIC |
2003-05-01 21:11:17 |
| view |
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 th |
annag |
2003-05-01 21:01:38 |
| view |
In consideration or recent global changes, it would appear that Canada should adjust and expand the "Three Pillar" approach in order to take into consideration some of these changes. Protection of our security within a stable global framework should take into consideration our special relati |
1903 |
2003-05-01 20:50:44 |
| view |
The "Three Pillars" approach seems overly simplistic and selfish. Employment is an internal issue, not necessarily a global one. I would applaud the protection of resources, the respect of individuals, and the assistance of other nations in need. I agree with the promotion of prosperity, |
1905 |
2003-05-01 20:50:24 |
| view |
Yes, with qualifications.
The pillars should support and re-inforce each other.
Protection of our security and promotion of prosperity should not conflict with promotion of the values and culture that Canadians cherish.
This will have implications for what means we take to protect our secur |
1900 |
2003-05-01 15:41:19 |
| view |
: 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.
Of these three pillars we would benefit by:
promoting the protection of EVERYONE'S SECURITY in the world. We |
1899 |
2003-05-01 15:01:17 |
| view |
Peaceworks prefers that the three pillars of foreign policy be:
Human Rights
Sustainable Development/environmental preservation
Demilitarization
The human rights of individuals are routinely placed in jeopardy by military activity. Active warfare destroys the civic structures w |
1897 |
2003-05-01 15:01:04 |
| view |
I do not agree with the three pillars approach. Security is viewed too narrowly. I would be more interested in seeing security include food security (ensuring there is enough food for all Canadians and for all inhabitants of the world, and that that food be safe to eat--that is to say not geneticall |
efuchs |
2003-05-01 13:55:59 | |
|
|
|
