Should Canada pursue Islamic Detente?

[August1991]

Nixon pursued detente. Reagan didn't.

Today in Ottawa, King Abdullah II of Jordan will discuss "peace" in the Middle East with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

On Monday, a man in Jordan was sentenced to just six months in prison for the so-called "honour killing" of his pregnant sister.

Somehow, the audio and visual of this message don't seem to fit.

King Abdullah plans to urge Harper -- who is expected to announce that he will resume sending foreign aid to the Palestinian government now that Fatah is in control instead of Hamas -- to join him in pushing for a new peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to further Canadian and Jordanian business ties. These are worthy goals, to be sure.

Link

If you listen to the bureaucrats, they'll talk about "peace process" and explain the subtleties of Arabic opinions. In fact, the bureaucrats want to make a career and if there's no negotiation, bureaucrats have no career.

Reagan refused to meet any Soviet leader. He refused to let any of them come to the USA and he refused to go to Russia. After seven years, Margaret Thatcher finally got Reagan to meet Gorbachev in Iceland. Gorbachev was the leader the Soviets finally chose after all of Reagan's refusals to meet/greet.

Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city.

We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it's our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom.

...

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Ronald Reagan, 12 june 1987

Maybe we should just refuse to meet these Islamic leaders, even the supposedly mild ones.

Maybe our leaders should speak clearly of freedom.

Edited July 13, 2007 by August1991

[KO2]

I would think that communication is helpful to resolve issues.

Not so much at the beauraucratic/government level, as at the general populous level, trade, culture, sports and tourism brings societies together.

I can't see Reagan as the model for future foreign policy.

What is the urge to always go back to the tried. Seldom is it true. It should be considered only if no viable, elegant, timely, plan can be created at the moment.

This way we can move forward , not backward.

We as a species must now more than ever embrace the mindset of "new and improved."

The tried and true has gotten us this far. There seems to be a big bottle neck up ahead, though.

This was not forseen by our former model of doing things. Now is the time to embrace change, not retreat in fear of the new, to stagnant concepts not suitable for today's challenges.

[Topaz]

What can Canada lose by showing the world , especially Islam, that Canada is not the US, who seems to want to rule the world no matter what has to be done to do it. I think the US has cause more unrest in the world and I hope thir next president will have an open mind and try to make right all the wrongs Bush has done. Canada must do what is right for Canada and not what the US wants us to do. I don't believe that Islam isn't 100% wrong or right, but we need to have talks and we need to educate ourselves in the ways of the Middle-East first, before talking. We need to know who these people are and not by what the news or the CIA said they are.

[Michael Bluth]

I think the US has cause more unrest in the world and I hope thir next president will have an open mind and try to make right all the wrongs Bush has done. Canada must do what is right for Canada and not what the US wants us to do.

Do you want the next US President to be really open-minded or just share your views?

Doing what is right for Canada is definitely not opposing everything the US does.

[xul]

Reagan did not refuse to negotiate with his enemies. He just refused to negotiate with Soviet Union, The main enemy of U.S. in his time.

Reagan administration negotiated with Iran Khomeini regime and secretly sent armament to them for the release of American diplomats.

In fact, Bush administration also did not refuse to negotiate with any of American enemies. At first he refused to negotiate with Kim Jong Il, the dictator of DPRK. But as this guy exploded a nuclear bomb, Bush changed his mind.

Perhaps negotiation with terrorism is not easy but negotiating with a Arab King or the dictator in Pyongyang is not impossible. British ruled Arab world a centry depending on negotiationg with their king and not changing their cultural tradition. But Bush administration seems can not rule Iraq several years by beatingdown their king and "establishing" democracy on the wasteland of the war.

Edited July 14, 2007 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

What can Canada lose by showing the world , especially Islam, that Canada is not the US, who seems to want to rule the world no matter what has to be done to do it. I think the US has cause more unrest in the world and I hope thir next president will have an open mind and try to make right all the wrongs Bush has done. Canada must do what is right for Canada and not what the US wants us to do. I don't believe that Islam isn't 100% wrong or right, but we need to have talks and we need to educate ourselves in the ways of the Middle-East first, before talking. We need to know who these people are and not by what the news or the CIA said they are.

Thanks for the chuckle...once again, you are defining Canada and the approach to "detente" with the USA as a foil. Frankly, Canadian detente is an oxymoron given questionable status as even a "middle power" and solid residency in the US sphere of influence driven by economic necessity (85% of exports).

[ScottSA]

What can Canada lose by showing the world , especially Islam, that Canada is not the US, who seems to want to rule the world no matter what has to be done to do it. I think the US has cause more unrest in the world and I hope thir next president will have an open mind and try to make right all the wrongs Bush has done. Canada must do what is right for Canada and not what the US wants us to do. I don't believe that Islam isn't 100% wrong or right, but we need to have talks and we need to educate ourselves in the ways of the Middle-East first, before talking. We need to know who these people are and not by what the news or the CIA said they are.

I hope democracy was really a good idea. When I read insipid shite like this, I have my doubts.

[KO2]

Maybe Democracy isn't a good way to govern the human race?

It always seems to devolve into something else when put into practice.

[xul]

Democracy likes a computer, it is a good thing and a powerful tool to its owners who have enough knowledge and skill to run it.

But if the owner, such as a five years old kid, has less ability to operate it, it will become a chaos when the little finger thrums over its keyboard. Perhaps the best way is to give him some suitable toys and wait him growing up.

Edited July 15, 2007 by xul

[ScottSA]

Democracy like a computer, it is a good thing and a powerful tool to its owners who have enough knowledge and skill to run it.

But if the owner, such as a five years old kid, has less ability to operate it, it will become a chaos when the litter finger thrums over its keyboard. Perhaps the best way is to give him some suitable toys and wait him growing up.

You're in China, right? Is that the rational the venerable leaders use to avoid democracy there? Once all 700 billion Chinamen and women get Phds, the government will turn over power to the people, but not a moment sooner? Sounds reasonable. Of course if the rabble in its currently ignorant state gets uppity and starts building paper mache statues of liberty and stuff you can always run over a few hundred of them with tanks.

[xul]

You're in China, right? Is that the rational the venerable leaders use to avoid democracy there? Once all 700 billion Chinamen and women get Phds, the government will turn over power to the people, but not a moment sooner? Sounds reasonable. Of course if the rabble in its currently ignorant state gets uppity and starts building paper mache statues of liberty and stuff you can always run over a few hundred of them with tanks.

At that night, I was not inside the tanks but outside of them. I was trying to avoid them.

Whom do you think were in these tanks? The dictator or top officials of communist party? No, they are farmers. I mean at that time they had a army uniform on their body and were called soldiers , but before they enrolled army and after retired from army, they are farmers. In a developing country, being a famer usually means poor, low educated and ignorant. In fact, I can come here and talk with you because most of them really didn't want kill us, so they fired to the sky. This is based on the fact that farmers in China have been no longer illiterates as those in Arab and Afghanistan since communists rued my country, though they are not well educated. They did not understand what is democracy but they knew killing a guy without arm is not a good thing.

You might also compare China with some "democracy" developing countries. You may say:"The chairman of China is unelected." I agree with this but I can also argue with you that most of Chinese national leaders come from civilian families and they can not keep power legally more than ten years but the top leaders of those "democracy" developing countries are always come from several wealthiest families, just like those ruling families in some kingdom. All of those are caused that those "democracy" developing countries have a lof of poor and illiterate people, they sell their votes to the wealthy people only for a meal. But in China, no one dare to try to descend the national power to his family member, because our people will say:"No!" These are caused that most Chinese educated well than those developing country. Of cause, China is not a democracy country because most Chinese do not educated as well as developed country such as Canada, that's fact.

Edited July 15, 2007 by xul

[Bonam]

The current King of Jordan is actually a really really reasonable guy, especially when it comes to international politics. He's also one of the most pro-western leaders in the Arab world. Western educated and a member of the British armed forces, he even acted in a Star Trek episode! I wouldn't dismiss his recommendations without fair consideration. It might even be in Canada's interest to follow his recommendations just to keep or improve our relations with Jordan, and to bolster the image of King Abdullah II and of Jordan in the Arab world, whether or not it actually helps the Palestinian peace process at all.

[mikedavid00]

Maybe we should just refuse to meet these Islamic leaders, even the supposedly mild ones.

I agree. That would be a great thing that would show the world the direction we need to go in. Becuase we DO need to go in that direction.

What will happen to Harper in the polls?

And if that happened maybe local muslims would try to kill him because for sure there would be a fatwah issued against him from the middle east. I'm being serious.

[mikedavid00]

What can Canada lose by showing the world , especially Islam, that Canada is not the US, who seems to want to rule the world no matter what has to be done to do it.

Lol!!!

Man you know you're a canadian when..