In Marlet August 17, 2006 issue, Dan Ben-Aron, the author of "AIDS conference shunned by Harper" article, Mr. Harper is known for his lack of words, which very noticeable from his decision of "not attending the Toronto conference. The source says Mr. Harper decision not to attend a major international humanitarian conference in Toronto is consistent with the views of Canadian politicians and their constituents." (p5)
I agree. I think it is also partially Liberal problem, because Liberal had been in office for so long. I feel that it just another political game, so I laughed so hard. It is Canadians problem.
Google: conciliator: someone who tries to bring peace
Conciliators do not:
Make decisions for disputing parties;
Make judgments about who is right, who is wrong or what the outcome of the dispute should be;
Tell people what to do;
Make rulings;
Force parties to participate in the conciliation process.
"Canada as peacekeeper is no longer valid…[Scott] Taylor, who has been a professional soldier, war correspondent, and bestselling author of five books on the Canadian military, doesn't buy Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 'we don't cut and run' stance on Afghanistan. 'We have more of a reputation of cutting and running than we have of staying the course" The Epoch Times, August 24-30th issue.
Google: stance: position: a rationalized mental attitude
According to The Epoch Times, Canada's foreign policy is changing to align more with our neighbor country, United States. Apparently, in July 19, 2006 issues of National Post's article, "Neutral stance rejected--Opposition criticizes Harper's tough talk" echo this comment: the Interim federal Liberal leader and former foreign affairs minister Bill Graham was quoted, "Canadian are becoming more align with America, that Canada needs to keep some distance so it can be part of a diplomatic solution to the Middle East conflict," after he heard Mr. Harper repeated his defense of Israel's right to live peacefully, condemning the violence of Hezbollah terrorists and speaking out against the suffering of innocent people in Lebanon and Gaza -- responsibility for which he laid squarely at the feet of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas, the terrorist organization that forms the government of the Palestinian Authority.
Agree and disagree.
I totally disagree with the following aggressive and judgmental comment of Mr. Harper. "Hezbollah's objective is violence. Hezbollah believes that through violence it can create, it can bring about the destruction of Israel. Violence will not bring about the destruction of Israel ... and inevitably the result of the violence will be the deaths primarily of innocent people."
There are more than one ways to express our opinion. I would like to see Mr. Harper would be gentler to others in his speech. We have the right to express them, but not at the expense of others; HOWEVER, I do feel that a leader of a country shall offer vision for citizen when the opinions are scattered. Surely, government needs to listen and respect all citizens' right, including freedom of different opinions, but leaders exist because they have a role in providing guidance when we face uncertainty. We voted and entrusted our government to make prompt decision when we are in crisis or in needs of unity.
MOREOVER, we need to make a stance even we are peacemaker. If A says he is protecting animal right and trying to make peace between human and animal, that is a stance. People probably will not claim that when A is trying to defend the right of the animal, that A is being unfair. We all can handle our own problems, but when our life is threatened, we need people to support us. And it is perfectly fine too to take neutral, as long as we really communicate to both sides of the parties.
And actually, all the objective goals started with subjective ones. Use last example, A really loves dogs, so he/she starts to work in a pet clinic. The original goal is subjective. The objective goal might be trying to build the bond between his clients and his dogs.
September 22, 1862: President Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation, granting freedom to slaves in areas of the South in active rebellion on 1 January 1863. He took his stance.
"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was the pioneer […] of Satyagraha — resistance through mass civil disobedience strongly founded upon ahimsa (total non-violence) came to be one of the strongest driving philosophies of the Indian Independence Movement, and has inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world" Wikipedia.com
Gandhi took a stance.
Not getting involved or offering a stance when someone is surely in needs of representation of his/her interests is not really a peacemaker. Expressing our stance needs not to be violence and we will not know what the result might be when we haven't tried to stand up for what we believe. Even if we are unsure what our stances are, we could have tried a timeout and at least protect the basic human right such as mutual respect when the two country or individual are negotiating-- Just because someone is wrong, that doesn't give another person right to label others such as "axis of evil" [1]
At a matter of fact, we all take a stance.
[1] Side notes remarks: The United States hasn't protested Israel's use of American-supplied F-16 fighters and Apache helicopters against the Palestinians, according to Seattle Post Intelligencer Tuesday, August 28, 2001 By Helen Thomas SYNDICATED COLUMNIST