No sparks please
Posts: 374 
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
April 15th, 2006, 02:29 AM
Sorry but it's been a very busy week. Mom had surgery, coaching fastball, spring clean up, etc. I'm also trying to do some reading on exactly what our foreign policy is. I don't speak "politician" very well so it takes some time to decipher. After reading the last couple posts though I wonder if we should approach this in two parts: What does the world want Canada to do and then what does Canada want to do in the world? The common ground is maybe a good starting point. The "front row seat" may not be at the big table but maybe it's better to be at the second table with the other middle powers away from cameras. There's a lot more that goes on outside of the spotlight than in it.
Sorry but it's been a very busy week. Mom had surgery, coaching fastball, spring clean up, etc. I'm also trying to do some reading on exactly what our foreign policy is. I don't speak "politician" very well so it takes some time to decipher. After reading the last couple posts though I wonder if we should approach this in two parts: What does the world want Canada to do and then what does Canada want to do in the world? The common ground is maybe a good starting point. The "front row seat" may not be at the big table but maybe it's better to be at the second table with the other middle powers away from cameras. There's a lot more that goes on outside of the spotlight than in it.
No sparks please
Posts: 374
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
April 17th, 2006, 12:52 AM
OK, remember this is for discussion and I am no expert but here are a few ideas.
Cut back funding of NGOs until they provide full accountability of where the money is spent. Those that are funded must open their books on demand.
Pull out of and refuse further UN peacekeeping missions unless the rules of engagement are more robust and reflect the need to make peace. Also the on-site command must be given more leeway to respond in a manner they think appropriate.
With due respect to international law, Canada and other countries of similar ilk must also be ready to respond without UN approval. These situations would be few and far between and would be situations where immediate reaction is needed to prevent genocide or slaughter of civilians and where the state is unable or unwilling to prevent it. International law is meant to protect life and this would be the purpose of these missions. This is similar to the Canadian led UN “responsibility to protect” but the reaction would be much earlier then having to wait for all other “political” preventions to be exhausted.
Though we have our own bill of rights it must be recognized that not all cultures would agree with our view of what is a right. We should respect the diversity of cultures we encounter and their laws. Unless of course that culture promotes the suppression of basic rights: freedom of religion, freedom to speak (without inciting hatred or violence), the rights of children and women to live without fear of being persecuted for being who they are. Living in peace and prospering will in itself bring changes to cultures eventually.
We should continue with our NATO commitments but with a view to form a Pacific / Asia cooperative treaty. The rise of Asian economies has also given rise to some of those states seeking more influence. Canada, Australia, Chile, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea along with the US and others should seek a similar agreement to the NATO one to come to another’s aid and be able to intervene quickly in situations like East Timor. As this new treaty is formed and organized our NATO commitments should be scaled back.
We should, with our neighbours the US, strengthen the defense of North America. Threats posed by states such as North Korea and possibly China with unstable regimes such as Indonesia cannot be ignored.
We must strengthen on a large scale our commitment to show sovereignty in the North. Treaties must be signed ASAP with Denmark. Included in these would be a pact to monitor and defend the waters off both our coasts including the entrance to the “passage”. Anyone entering these waters, including the US, must immediately know they are entering Canada and will be challenged.
And finally Canada with other select so called middle powers should form (for lack of a better term) secondary security council. It may have to be external from the UN just so it could avoid the ultimate bureaucracy it has become. On matters of interventions, this group could approach the UN, as one.
OK, helmet on, fire away..
OK, remember this is for discussion and I am no expert but here are a few ideas.
Cut back funding of NGOs until they provide full accountability of where the money is spent. Those that are funded must open their books on demand.
Pull out of and refuse further UN peacekeeping missions unless the rules of engagement are more robust and reflect the need to make peace. Also the on-site command must be given more leeway to respond in a manner they think appropriate.
With due respect to international law, Canada and other countries of similar ilk must also be ready to respond without UN approval. These situations would be few and far between and would be situations where immediate reaction is needed to prevent genocide or slaughter of civilians and where the state is unable or unwilling to prevent it. International law is meant to protect life and this would be the purpose of these missions. This is similar to the Canadian led UN “responsibility to protect” but the reaction would be much earlier then having to wait for all other “political” preventions to be exhausted.
Though we have our own bill of rights it must be recognized that not all cultures would agree with our view of what is a right. We should respect the diversity of cultures we encounter and their laws. Unless of course that culture promotes the suppression of basic rights: freedom of religion, freedom to speak (without inciting hatred or violence), the rights of children and women to live without fear of being persecuted for being who they are. Living in peace and prospering will in itself bring changes to cultures eventually.
We should continue with our NATO commitments but with a view to form a Pacific / Asia cooperative treaty. The rise of Asian economies has also given rise to some of those states seeking more influence. Canada, Australia, Chile, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea along with the US and others should seek a similar agreement to the NATO one to come to another’s aid and be able to intervene quickly in situations like East Timor. As this new treaty is formed and organized our NATO commitments should be scaled back.
We should, with our neighbours the US, strengthen the defense of North America. Threats posed by states such as North Korea and possibly China with unstable regimes such as Indonesia cannot be ignored.
We must strengthen on a large scale our commitment to show sovereignty in the North. Treaties must be signed ASAP with Denmark. Included in these would be a pact to monitor and defend the waters off both our coasts including the entrance to the “passage”. Anyone entering these waters, including the US, must immediately know they are entering Canada and will be challenged.
And finally Canada with other select so called middle powers should form (for lack of a better term) secondary security council. It may have to be external from the UN just so it could avoid the ultimate bureaucracy it has become. On matters of interventions, this group could approach the UN, as one.
OK, helmet on, fire away..
No sparks please
Posts: 374
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
April 19th, 2006, 12:06 AM
At present I have to agree with you but over the last few months I sensed a change. Guys I work with who had no interest in our military and what they do now discuss it fairly regularly. I hope this is repeating itself across the country as awareness of the present conditions may lead to more support for these types of initiatives. I proposed some fairly involved projects and don't expect them to come to fruition but at least an increase in foreign policy combined with a rejuvenated military might lead to Canada leading internationally more than following.
At present I have to agree with you but over the last few months I sensed a change. Guys I work with who had no interest in our military and what they do now discuss it fairly regularly. I hope this is repeating itself across the country as awareness of the present conditions may lead to more support for these types of initiatives. I proposed some fairly involved projects and don't expect them to come to fruition but at least an increase in foreign policy combined with a rejuvenated military might lead to Canada leading internationally more than following.
No sparks please
Posts: 374
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
May 4th, 2006, 12:56 AM
Way back at the beginning Gunslinger proposed NATO or ANZUS. How about Canada, Australia and similar sized countries becoming an organization of "world cops"?
Sorry I hate polls. My experience with them is someone usually has an answer first and then poses the questions to get their answer.
Way back at the beginning Gunslinger proposed NATO or ANZUS. How about Canada, Australia and similar sized countries becoming an organization of "world cops"?
Sorry I hate polls. My experience with them is someone usually has an answer first and then poses the questions to get their answer.
