Thursday, October 12, 2006

A Principled Foreign Policy

The Canadian Coalition for Democracies placed a full page ad in the Globe and Mail and other papers today outlining a "principled foreign policy" for Canada.

And by principled foreign policy, the CCD means doing something other than bashing the Americans at every opportunity.

It's good stuff.

If you missed the ad you can read it here.

7 comments:

Miles Lunn said...

Certainly blind anti-Americanism should never guide Canadian foreign policy, but neither should blind pro-Americanism. I feel the Canadian Coalition for Democracies takes sometimes a simplistic approach. I obviously support democracies over dictatorships, but I do realize that sometimes you have to negotiate with dictatorships. The main thing is any aid going to countries with dictators go strictly to NGOs which will deliver the aid to the people, not to the government. We should also not be afraid to condemn human rights abuses by any country including even the United States, Israel, or Britain. We should also oppose any resolution on Israel that is not even handed and fails to recognize its right to exist. We should never assist in putting a dictator in power, even if it is replacing another dictator from another. Finally military action should not be used in the name of spreading democracy since it rarely works, it should only be used for self-defence.

I support a principled foreign policy that is not based on blind anti-Americanism, but I feel the Canadian Coalition for Democracies is taking a rather simplistic approach to foreign policy.

Flavrflav said...

Miles, with all due respect, it appears that your vision of foreign policy is painfully simplistic.

You say that military force should only be used for self defence. What then is your definition of self defence?

Pre-emptive assaults are ultimately motivitaed by self defence, and can save more lives than imprudent turtling strategies.

With mounting global threats, Canada must stand strong and unwaivering in its commitment to freedom. I for one am glad that Paul "Mr Dithers" Martin is no longer at the helm

Miles Lunn said...

Pre-emptive assaults are ultimately motivitaed by self defence, and can save more lives than imprudent turtling strategies.

What defines a threat and not. My worry is if we allow pre-emptive strikes, we will have endless wars since countries can always make up reasons to attack another. In the case of Iraq, there was absolutely no threat to the United States and was a war based on lies. I don't support such foreign policy and neither do most Canadians. I proud the Liberals stayed out of Iraq and relieved Harper wasn't Prime-minister in 2003 since we would have been involved.

With mounting global threats, Canada must stand strong and unwaivering in its commitment to freedom. I for one am glad that Paul "Mr Dithers" Martin is no longer at the helm

The mounting global threats is largely propaganda by the Bush administration. Terrorism exists, but it does not create the level of threats some make it out to be. The United States is the most powerful country and cannot be defeated on its home soil by any country. Standing up for freedom is a simplistic approach. We should instead stand for self-government and sovereignty of nations. We should promote freedom at home and let other countries manage their own affairs instead of telling them how to run things.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I missed something, but Miles what is it that makes you pro-American exactly?

Miles Lunn said...

Maybe I missed something, but Miles what is it that makes you pro-American exactly?

I am not talking about being pro-American per se. One can pro-American in terms of liking the ideals the United States stands for while vigorously disagreeing with their current foreign policy. My problem is with those who believe our foreign policy should be in lock step with the United States. I don't believe we should blindly follow any country. The main thing is to ensure our disagreements are done civily.

Anonymous said...

Who exactly is "blindly" following the U.S. Miles? And in either doing so, or not, why must Canada be civilized about it's own direction? Quite honestly I think we've been practicing marshmallow diplomacy for too long, unless of course you'd like us to take a cue from NDP Jack?

Miles Lunn said...

Who exactly is "blindly" following the U.S. Miles? And in either doing so, or not, why must Canada be civilized about it's own direction? Quite honestly I think we've been practicing marshmallow diplomacy for too long, unless of course you'd like us to take a cue from NDP Jack?

In 2003 in a speech to the House of Commons, Stephen Harper said never again should we not be at war when the Americans and British are. This goes against the idea of an independent foreign policy. Our foreign policy should be based on trying to resolve conflicts peacefully and promoting democracy internally through peaceful methods.