It was Canadian Thanksgiving this past weekend but Canukistan has one less thing to be grateful for today – it failed to get a UN Security Council seat for the first time in 50 years of trying.
Alas, (eh?), Canada lost out to Germany and Portugal in the Western group (with India, South Africa and Colombia running uncontested for the other three seats.)
The Harper government, ridiculously, is blaming Liberal opposition leader Michael Ignatieff for the humiliating loss. This makes somewhere between zero and negative sense.
Instead, there are several factors to blame for this – the EU is a united front whereas Canada needs to lobby hard in the UN. Additionally, the electoral process seems to be pretty sketchy – and heavily dependent on gifts by suitor countries. (Apparently we went with vials of maple syrup. Way to go, guys.)And, as the Globe and Mail points out, the government hadn’t exactly had run a gung-ho campaign in order to secure it.
But it’s also a fact that Canada has been engaging the world in a very different fashion over the last few years. Where as it was once associated peacekeeping and Lester B. Pearson, it has been actively building up its airforce, accusing the Russians of invading our airspace, actively worked against climate change (and now on my way to work I have to pass around 20 billboards beside London City Hall that basically accuse Canada of systematically raping the earth with its tar sands.) I’m not saying that I necessarily disagree with all of the above, (no one likes hippies) but our national response/PR could have been much better.
Additionally, as former UN Ambassador Robert Fowler pointed out in a damning critique at the beginning of this year, our African policy is basically non-existent. The days when it could be said that the UN was embedded in Canadian DNA are clearly over. (I wonder if we’ll be taking the peacekeepers off of our $10 bills now?)
So, let’s be clear. I do understand the UN vote, but I find myself unsatisfied for another reason: There are going to be four EU countries represented on the Council. Is this at all fair? Or a good thing for the UN? I have my doubts.
But UN Security Council reform is a topic for another day…year… decade….
“There are going to be four EU countries represented on the Council. Is this at all fair? Or a good thing for the UN?”
Fairness and avoiding pathology as criteria for decisions in the UN? Oh boy, I needed a laugh. Thanks, SC.
(Seriously though, if the UK and France still have permanent seats on the S(ecurity) C(ouncil), is the main legitimacy gap really in the temporary seats? Don't even get me started on the HR Council.)
Actually, I was wrong. There is going to be five if you count Bosnia and Herzegovina as well.
It just bothers me because, with all respect to Portugal, it doesn't exactly have the strongest record of peacekeeping or development. I really think this was a pretty damning verdict of the conduct of Canadian foreign policy – although I agree that UN politics can be stomach turning.
The bigger risk is Canadian disengagement from the UN, which would be somewhat understandable under the circumstances, but probably not a good thing.
Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.