Should Canada become a World Cop?
- Thread starter Lineman
- Start date
Re: RE: Should Canada become a World Cop?
Exactly! If we follow the failed isolationalist policys of the United States all we will become is isolated and easily picked off by the BIG power (US). With the election of Stephen Harper and the wholesale adoption of the made in Washington neo-conservative package this isolation is well underway in an official manner, those Canadians who expect to shine on the international stage because of closer ties to the US are dreaming, just consider softwood lumber, beef, and the erosion of the public sector. You can't get stronger by selling out to the man you can only get weaker.
Machjo said:
Exactly! If we follow the failed isolationalist policys of the United States all we will become is isolated and easily picked off by the BIG power (US). With the election of Stephen Harper and the wholesale adoption of the made in Washington neo-conservative package this isolation is well underway in an official manner, those Canadians who expect to shine on the international stage because of closer ties to the US are dreaming, just consider softwood lumber, beef, and the erosion of the public sector. You can't get stronger by selling out to the man you can only get weaker.
Re: RE: Should Canada become a World Cop?
Easy to control and spy on, and it's perfect phoney PR, which of course has worked on you like magic.
Jay said:
Easy to control and spy on, and it's perfect phoney PR, which of course has worked on you like magic.
Re: RE: Should Canada become a World Cop?
The UN only provides a guise of "together we stand, united we fall". The UN is only as powerful as it's members. Cooperation is optional, the UN isn't a final authority unless states allow it to be.
darkbeaver said:
The UN only provides a guise of "together we stand, united we fall". The UN is only as powerful as it's members. Cooperation is optional, the UN isn't a final authority unless states allow it to be.
Okay, so we talk about a nation serving its own interest
and perhaps a nation can
serve its own interests even better under peace and
care for all, using the auspices of the UN.
Nice.
But it still doesn't speak to a statement I posted
earlier:
No comfortable Western democracy will ever shed its
sons and daughters' blood to police the world, except
for rebel America.
The rest of the Western World is too self centered
about losing its own entitlements and earnings to
shed blood and guts on anything but its own comfort.
They'll wax moralistic on Dafur but not ever take
the leadership and the guts to do it.
They'd be surprised and honored by America if any
other country did so.
and perhaps a nation can
serve its own interests even better under peace and
care for all, using the auspices of the UN.
Nice.
But it still doesn't speak to a statement I posted
earlier:
No comfortable Western democracy will ever shed its
sons and daughters' blood to police the world, except
for rebel America.
The rest of the Western World is too self centered
about losing its own entitlements and earnings to
shed blood and guts on anything but its own comfort.
They'll wax moralistic on Dafur but not ever take
the leadership and the guts to do it.
They'd be surprised and honored by America if any
other country did so.
Unfortunately I see the "lefties" have found this thread and in typical fashion have tried to turn it into their never ending babble of Anti Americanism. Darkbeaver give it a rest. The discussion is about how Canada and other middle powers might approach becoming more involved in world matters without, hopefully, the baggage of the top ten powers. If you can't constructively contribute then find another thread for your rants.
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming....
The problem I have with the UN is it's Government by committee and I do know the bigger the committee the longer you'll have to wait for anything constructive. You will never make everyone happy. In the meantime while everyone takes a turn posturing and posing people die.
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming....
The problem I have with the UN is it's Government by committee and I do know the bigger the committee the longer you'll have to wait for anything constructive. You will never make everyone happy. In the meantime while everyone takes a turn posturing and posing people die.
True points, Lineman.
However, I'm not one of those conservatives who
wish any more for the UN than what it already is.
The UN is a place the world needs when it arrives
at a critical mass of consensus.
It is the perfect forum for such a situation.
It isn't often, nor should we realistically expect
this critical mass of consensus often.
But when it happens, the UN is the best venue for it.
Other than that, world government is an idea
for a mad scientist who vows to rule the world.
And now on to your idea about Canada's place
in the world, and what it should do in the world.
I think Canada is particularly suited to take the
lead in the vacuum of leadership on Dafur.
Maybe it should have had some cojones to step on
the Rwanda disaster as well.
But a warning.
Once you play out there, it is inevitable some dirt
will smear on you, no matter your best intentions.
But sitting home on a comfortable couch and
clucking righteously at the idiocy and horror of the world
has no honor either.
That last remark wasn't aimed at you Lineman, but
rather aimed at those who are passively righteous,
enjoying their entitlements.
However, I'm not one of those conservatives who
wish any more for the UN than what it already is.
The UN is a place the world needs when it arrives
at a critical mass of consensus.
It is the perfect forum for such a situation.
It isn't often, nor should we realistically expect
this critical mass of consensus often.
But when it happens, the UN is the best venue for it.
Other than that, world government is an idea
for a mad scientist who vows to rule the world.
And now on to your idea about Canada's place
in the world, and what it should do in the world.
I think Canada is particularly suited to take the
lead in the vacuum of leadership on Dafur.
Maybe it should have had some cojones to step on
the Rwanda disaster as well.
But a warning.
Once you play out there, it is inevitable some dirt
will smear on you, no matter your best intentions.
But sitting home on a comfortable couch and
clucking righteously at the idiocy and horror of the world
has no honor either.
That last remark wasn't aimed at you Lineman, but
rather aimed at those who are passively righteous,
enjoying their entitlements.
A little dirt under the fingernails usually means you've been out working.
I am curious though at just what Canada's interests would be. Surely our economic interests are not to feed our consumption of raw materials, we have plenty of our own. Politically, the previous government reduced any influence we had in global affairs so this could use some work (once we figure out what it is we want to influence). I can only contribute to what I am familiar with and building foreign policy is not one of them. I have a general idea of what direction I would like my country to take but as to how, well thats why I started this thread. There are much more qualified indivduals here who could contribute on that topic.
I am curious though at just what Canada's interests would be. Surely our economic interests are not to feed our consumption of raw materials, we have plenty of our own. Politically, the previous government reduced any influence we had in global affairs so this could use some work (once we figure out what it is we want to influence). I can only contribute to what I am familiar with and building foreign policy is not one of them. I have a general idea of what direction I would like my country to take but as to how, well thats why I started this thread. There are much more qualified indivduals here who could contribute on that topic.
Well I have referred to some things but something with a little clarity will take a bit more time than I have right now so I'll try and provide that after some thought.
Thanks
Thanks
lineman...
When i walk into the streets of Beirut , Dubai or Tel Aviv , people find it very hard to understand your policy when you're a peace keeper because you are not taking sides.
I will give you an example ... People in Beirut want to know why Canada ( Paul Martin) calls Syrian's occupation of Lebanon a peace mission while Syria humiliated ,abducted and killed lebanese civilians for 30 yrs.
The beirutis think that Canada doesn't even feel what they are going through while everyone else in the world including the US is taking a very strong stand with them.
So..
SOFT POLICY = NO POLICY
Rachelle
When i walk into the streets of Beirut , Dubai or Tel Aviv , people find it very hard to understand your policy when you're a peace keeper because you are not taking sides.
I will give you an example ... People in Beirut want to know why Canada ( Paul Martin) calls Syrian's occupation of Lebanon a peace mission while Syria humiliated ,abducted and killed lebanese civilians for 30 yrs.
The beirutis think that Canada doesn't even feel what they are going through while everyone else in the world including the US is taking a very strong stand with them.
So..
SOFT POLICY = NO POLICY
Rachelle
Good post, Canadian with a hyphen.
You've exposed a blindspot the Western Left world has,
thinking these people will think them friends.
And to be fair, the rightwing's blundering shotgun
approach also makes a few over there not be so sure
of the Western rightwing world.
Together both left and right in the Western world
are really outsiders knowing little of the nuance
and details of that world.
You've exposed a blindspot the Western Left world has,
thinking these people will think them friends.
And to be fair, the rightwing's blundering shotgun
approach also makes a few over there not be so sure
of the Western rightwing world.
Together both left and right in the Western world
are really outsiders knowing little of the nuance
and details of that world.
Another example for u Jim on what the Mideast wants from Canada.
I have heard it many times...
we don't want anything from Canada ,also we DO NOT WANT any canadian politician to make a stupid statement about our country.
It is dumb not to know ,it is dumber to know and ignore the people's will.
in my opinion...Canada needs to take a front row seat
( it seems like it is all about front row seats in today's world ,Isn't it?) as well as creating a STRONG and CLEAR foreign policy...
Remember, WHO is speaking up for the country is a major thing too.
it doesn't matter how many gold and silver medals France gave to Bill Graham and Pierre Pettigrew ... WERE THEY THE RIGHT PEOPLE ? NO.
It really bothers me when Lebanon's Prime Minister or Lebanon's foreign affair minister has an American and European tour that does NOT include Canada.
It also bothers me when i listen to mideastern media that runs a 3 mns. clip about any politician from USA, England or France and 30 second clip at the end of their newsnight about a Canadian minister...
Comeeeeeeee on , is that too hard Jimmoyer?
plus , where are you Lineman?
Rachelle
I have heard it many times...
we don't want anything from Canada ,also we DO NOT WANT any canadian politician to make a stupid statement about our country.
It is dumb not to know ,it is dumber to know and ignore the people's will.
in my opinion...Canada needs to take a front row seat
( it seems like it is all about front row seats in today's world ,Isn't it?) as well as creating a STRONG and CLEAR foreign policy...
Remember, WHO is speaking up for the country is a major thing too.
it doesn't matter how many gold and silver medals France gave to Bill Graham and Pierre Pettigrew ... WERE THEY THE RIGHT PEOPLE ? NO.
It really bothers me when Lebanon's Prime Minister or Lebanon's foreign affair minister has an American and European tour that does NOT include Canada.
It also bothers me when i listen to mideastern media that runs a 3 mns. clip about any politician from USA, England or France and 30 second clip at the end of their newsnight about a Canadian minister...
Comeeeeeeee on , is that too hard Jimmoyer?
plus , where are you Lineman?
Rachelle
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.
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..
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..
I'm all for it Lineman. I feel no desire to niggle away
at the little details, because overall I like the direction
you propose.
at the little details, because overall I like the direction
you propose.
Not that anything would come of it but the research made for some interesting reading. Thanks for your opinions and patience.