Talk:Foreign relations of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

The U.S. has expressed concern that Canada is an illicit producer of cannabis for the domestic drug market; the use of hydroponics technology permits growers to plant large quantities of high-quality marijuana indoors. Consequently, it has a growing role as a transit point for heroin and cocaine entering the US market

This sounds like the doctrine of the DEA, not exactly a disinterested source. Is there any cite that proves hard drugs are a necessary consequence of marijuana. GreatWhiteNortherner 06:25, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I was just reading this and I am concerned it is not a NPOV summary. SD6-Agent 13:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Removed from multilateralism

"Despite Canada's track record as a liberal democracy that has whole-heartedly embraced the values of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its obvious commitment to global security, Canada has been left out of every major plan for UN Security Council Reform while larger developing countries, some of which represent threats to international peace and security, have received support in their bids."

Removed that last bit, as it isn't specific enough IMO. As is, it's impossible to know which countries constitutes a threat to international peace and security, as this depends on whoever reads it. Bjelleklang - talk 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Committed to Disarmament

I'm concerned that this article is a reflection of how some Canadians wish to think about themselves as opposed to how the country actually behaves. For instance, I see no evidence that any Canadian government has been, broadly speaking, "committed to disarmament." We are members of a military alliance that has for decades deployed nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of its defense, and while the former Liberal gov't joined with some NATO members in pressuring NATO's nuclear members to agree to a no-first-use policy the government of Canada has been very cooperative in terms of the US nuclear strategy over the years. --Ggbroad 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peacekeeping, etc.

Some rewriting will be necessary in the section on Peacekeeping and other military operations by Canadian Forces. First of all, the operations in Afghanistan were only briefly UN-sanctioned and were not considered Peacekeeping, if I remember correctly. Canada's current military operations in Afghanistan are explicitly not-UN and are part of the United States Operation Enduring Freedom (also not Peacekeeping). Recent figures indicate that Canada is now ranked 50th among 59 countries involved in UN Peacekeeping missions, so I think the article needs to reflect that fact and related implications (i.e. the level of Canada's current conceptual commitment to Peacekeeping; UN-sponsored missions vs. US-sponsored missions, etc.). I hope to do some of this necessary rewriting, but it may take some time for me to get to it, so if there are any other editors who would like to start on it that would be great! Pinkville 17:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed --- many of the claims about peacekeeping seem dubious. Is it really true that Canada has, cumulatively, contributed more forces to UN peacekeeping than anyone else? (I doubt it). Is it true that Canada has somehow participate in *every* UN peacekeeping mission? At present, Canada ranks somewhere around 50th in the world in peacekeeping deployments. Check UN websites on this.

In addition, regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, may I point out that Canada was one of only 8 members of the UN to abstain from approving the UDHR in the plenary session? (Humiliated, the delegation rushed to reverse its vote before the General Assembly). --Ggbroad 02:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looking around I can't find any evidence that Canada has contributed more to UN Peacekeeping than any other country, let alone all other countries combined. I'm removing it until it is properly cited from a good source. Sorry. --Ggbroad 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Looked at some hard data from the UN at http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2006/june06_2.pdf Canada currently ranks 53rd in terms of deployments, with a total of 133 soldiers serving in 8 missions, not the 40 that the article claimed. In addition, Canada's total peacekeeping deployment since the beginning of the UN has been about 125,000 soldiers. Given that there are currently over 70,000 soldiers serving on peacekeeping duties worldwide it seems unlikely that Canada has contributed more troops than all other nations combined! Come on, people. This Wikipedia experiment will fail if the articles aren't more credible and carefully cited. --Ggbroad 02:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited first paragraph on Early diplomatic history

in order to make the account more nuanced. Canada was hardly under the jackboot of British imperialism during the last half of the 19th century. Responsible government meant that Canada controlled directly its foreign economic policy. And, if Canada chose to accept the lead of the British government in military/defence/diplomatic spheres, it was because it saw its interests as being for the most part congruent (or even identical) with those of the then global hegemon. This did not mean that there were not specific points of tension that emerged from time to time, or some rejectionists like Quebec nationalists who differed on principle, but that for the most part Canadian development within the Empire was seen by Canada's dominant political classes to be more attractive than development outside of it or, alternatively, annexation to the US. --Pinkythecorgi 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)