Gotlieb Is Happy Canadian Foreign Policy Is Now In Line With What The Bush Admin

Notacolony.ca, what party are you voting for this upcoming election?

I don't have access to the original article, so if you could just clarify: is the quoted text really Mr. Gotlieb's words? If so, this is near-treason.

<a href="http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20050502_104489_104489">http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20050502_104489_104489</a> <br />
Interview with Allan Gotleib......<p>---<br>RickW

<p> The Gottlieb article can be currently accessed from <a href="http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotlight/2005/05/11/spotnews_e.html">this site</a>, in the "Canadian Commentary" section.

I can't read the full article either, but it sounds very dangerous.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

So this means we will now become just as murderous as the americans.Hmmm.All this for oil?Sounds strange.

Paul Martin's recent foreign-policy review..........The international policy statement, a 30-page document, took more than 15 months to write...........
A 30 page policy statement and we do not have public acess to it, we need to see this before the next election, whenever that may be. Keep digging people!
(Rural)

Here is where you can download (in pdf format) or read the <a href="http://www.itcan-cican.gc.ca/IPS/IPS-commerce01-en.asp">International Policy Statement</a>.

yes, those are his original words.

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

According to Gotlieb, “Ottawa's final international policy statement had three authors”, whom he refers to as: <p> - Isaiah I, “a hard-nosed realist” who “believes Canadian foreign policy should be based upon the national interest”: "The first duty of government is to protect its citizens." Canada’s first duty is "to mobilize assets, and reputation in the service of a new global role that will serve national interests and contribute to a safer and fairer world." There should be, analyses Gotlieb, “a policy of bilateralism to enhance relations with new, growing giants” and Canada should its “energy resources as a foreign-policy lever”. <p> - Isaiah II, “a romantic who wants Canada to project its ideals and values onto the international plane”: Canada’s international agenda should go towards building "lives of freedom for all people, based on the fundamental human rights of every man, woman and child on Earth." and <p> - Isaiah III, who had “to reconcile the realists and romanticists whose battles have lasted half a century.” He does so “masterfully”, writes Gotlieb “challenging neither Isaiah I's claim that national interest should drive Canadian foreign policy, nor Isaiah II's view that our goal should be a world ‘governed well, both globally and multilaterally.’ Indeed, ‘Unless states act collectively . . . the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer -- and everyone will be less secure.’” <p> Gotlieb concludes that for Isaiah III, “all these goals are in our national interest. We must look beyond our borders ‘to treat the root causes of instability,’ because establishing good governance around the globe ‘will make Canada safer and more prosperous.’” <p> Now, how on earth does Gotlieb make the leap from this: “In other words, Canada's save-the-world mission and our mission to promote the national interest are one and the same” to this: “George Bush and Lloyd Axworthy come together in realpolitik”? boggles the mind. <p> It stands to reason that rich countries should help poorer unstable countries for the sake of a better world. In that regard, Canada calls for “states acting collectively” to treat the “root causes of instability”, or as Gotlieb himself writes: "Our expertise, values and comparative advantage also qualify us to play a lead role in sustainable development, in global warming, in the non-proliferation of weapons, in Western hemispheric affairs and in the extension of good governance." George Bush America’s international policy, on the other hand, is a far cry from such lofty goals. We only have to a look at this <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/stephens05132005.html">tragic chronology</a> or to read about the latest study from Andrew J. Bacevich about the use of military might to back international policy: <p> <blockquote>“Today as never before in their history,” the book relentlessly argues, “Americans are enthralled with military power.” They naïvely exaggerate its effectiveness, overlook its horror, romanticize the military profession, and accept the normalization of war as an instrument of policy. To a degree unprecedented but now taken for granted, <b>the purpose of the armed forces has shifted from defending American territory to projecting power abroad. Clear superiority over potential enemies is assumed to be insufficient; only worldwide supremacy is deemed adequate</b>.<br> <a href="http://amconmag.com/2005_05_23/article1.html">The Lure of Military Society</a></blockquote> <p> Unless I am sorely mistaken, there is NOTHING in the “analysis” that Gotlieb gave us of Canada’s international policy that faintly resembles that of the American juggernaut. Saying so, IMO, is truly base and fraudulent! <p>

What a joke. The government decides that we can now just send troops to... oh say, Sudan, just because we think that would be a good thing, then lo and behold the Sudanese ambassador says, 'no, you're not welcome'. What do we do now? Regime change for Sudan? I'm starting to feel like Minni-me. This doesn't suit Canadians.

No worries there pal, Canadians couldn't care less about Black people getting slaughtered by Arabs. Canadians will only get on top of their high horse and be outraged when Caucasians appear to be oppressing people who have darker skin. We have no moral compass outside of what is the currently politically correct and fashionable way to think, that would require a spine and Canadians don't like anyone who has a backbone unless they're the right shade of skin colour, have the right disability or sexual orientation and are trying to 'stick it to the man'.

American troll alert!

It was a Canadian who did all he could do to keep the genocide in Rwanda from happening. Where was the vaunted America? Oh yeah - licking their wounds from Somalia.

Here is the entire article so, for once, you may have some idea of what you are talking about:

The three prophets of foreign policy

For 50 years, realists have battled romantics over Canada's role in the world. It took a visionary to meld the two views, says former diplomat ALLAN GOTLIEB

Why does a Canadian cross the road? According to the old joke -- "to get to the middle." Thanks to Paul Martin's recent foreign-policy review, the notion of "Canada as a middle power" and the joke are both obsolete. If the international policy statement has no other outcome, we should be grateful that this central tenet in our foreign policy has been expunged. The international policy statement, a 30-page document, took more than 15 months to write. A careful reading explains why.

A century ago Germans scholars detected, through an exhaustive deconstruction of text, that the Book of Isaiah was written by three different authors, whom they named Isaiah I, II and III. Analysis also shows that Ottawa's final international policy statement had three authors, who worked mightily to weave a single narrative. This was no easy task: Isaiah I and II represent conflicting schools of Canadian foreign policy.

Isaiah I, a hard-nosed realist, believes Canadian foreign policy should be based upon the national interest. Isaiah II is a romantic who wants Canada to project its ideals and values onto the international plane. Isaiah III is the skilled draftsman whose job is to reconcile the realists and romanticists whose battles have lasted half a century.

The first Isaiah -- whose sensibility dominates the introduction, which is signed "Paul Martin" -- states categorically, "The first duty of government is to protect its citizens." It's time, the prophet exhorts, "to mobilize our assets, and our reputation in the service of a new global role that will serve our national interests and contribute to a safer and fairer world."

Isaiah I's contributions, a triumph for the realist school, assert that basing foreign policy on the national interest has profound implications. In a ringing declaration, he pronounces: "The first priority of the Canadian Forces will be the protection of Canada itself." Canada is not immune, he writes, from a terrorist attack. Indeed, "North America has become a theatre of operation in its own right." Challenges to our sovereignty and domestic emergencies (from terrorists, drug traffickers, infectious diseases, ecological damage) can no longer be seen as creating only "a residual requirement" for our armed services. Our "regional destiny" demands that we build "a competitive economic space that facilitates the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people and enhances the quality of life of all North Americans."

When Isaiah I looks at Canada's global role, he teaches "that any successful framework of global governance incorporates power as well as rules." He argues for a policy of bilateralism to enhance relations with new, growing giants, and says we should use our energy resources as a foreign-policy lever. The prophet of realism gives a final trumpet blast: The chance to re-energize our global role "can only be seized through a clear-eyed understanding of our national interests, and strategic reinvestments in our military, diplomacy, commercial policy and development programs."

Isaiah II, whose romantic idealism competes for dominance in the statement, insists that Canada must put forward its international agenda "to build lives of freedom for all people, based on the fundamental human rights of every man, woman and child on Earth." This prophet reaches great rhetorical heights with "Much of the world's population is essentially powerless. . . . Canadian values dictate that we cannot allow their suffering to continue," and urges that Canada "intervene if necessary to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe."

Isaiah II is pleased with our values and achievements. Because of "our understanding of the DNA of governance" and because "Canadians are out there doing fantastic things in the world," Canada must play "a leadership role in helping people in regions of conflict regain stability and build lasting peace." In one breathtaking pronouncement, Isaiah II states Canada "will mobilize the international community . . . to stop the ethnic cleansing and massive abuse of human rights in the Darfur region of Sudan." (The prophet does not discuss how.) Our expertise, values and comparative advantage also qualify us to play a lead role in sustainable development, in global warming, in the non-proliferation of weapons, in Western hemispheric affairs and in the extension of good governance. The prophet proclaims we will commit "to extending human rights and human security throughout the world." In a declaration worthy of George W. Bush, the prophet pronounces: "Our ultimate goal is to foster commitment on human rights, democracy and the rule of law that places individual citizens at the heart of society." Now, that's visionary.

How to reconcile the views of Isaiah I and II? The government called on the skills of Isaiah III to bring about consistency and coherence (future scholars may speculate that this author was a female academic in England, writing on Canada's role in the world).

The third Isaiah does so masterfully, challenging neither Isaiah I's claim that national interest should drive Canadian foreign policy, nor Isaiah II's view that our goal should be a world "governed well, both globally and multilaterally." Indeed, "Unless states act collectively . . . the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer -- and everyone will be less secure."

For Isaiah III, all these goals are in our national interest. We must look beyond our borders "to treat the root causes of instability," because establishing good governance around the globe "will make Canada safer and more prosperous." In other words, Canada's save-the-world mission and our mission to promote the national interest are one and the same. George Bush and Lloyd Axworthy come together in realpolitik.

Isaiah III has repackaged Isaiah II's millenarianism in the wrapper of realism. We don't know what concessions Isaiah III extracted for this favour. But one might guess: Gone is the emphasis on international law, so popular in recent foreign-policy statements; gone is the Chrétien-era doctrine against using force without UN Security Council authorization; gone is mention of treaties such as the Landmine Convention, where Canada has proclaimed its leadership. Gone are hints of anti-Americanism.

Isaiah III, if we owe this to you, we thank you. Allan Gotlieb, Canada's ambassador to Washington from 1981-89, delivered the C.D. Howe Benefactors Lecture 2004, on Realism and Romanticism in Canada's Foreign Policy.

"near-treason"???????????