Why doeas Canada want a permanent seat on the UNSC?

[Machjo]

I was reading today that the Canadian government is still trying to get a UNSC seat by 2010, or was that 2012, I can't remember.

Either way though, why would we want Canada to have such a priviledged position. I believe all nations should be equal at the UN, so why is Canada asking to be more equal than others? I resent the fact that the US, Chinese, et al. have this privileged position. Do we really want to attract the same kind of resentment towards Canada?

[waldo]

... it's for non-permanent membership - as a part of the rotating 2 year assignments countries take on. There are 2 upcoming seats - both Germany and Portugal are also vying for the membership.

[wyly]

I was reading today that the Canadian government is still trying to get a UNSC seat by 2010, or was that 2012, I can't remember.

Either way though, why would we want Canada to have such a priviledged position. I believe all nations should be equal at the UN, so why is Canada asking to be more equal than others? I resent the fact that the US, Chinese, et al. have this privileged position. Do we really want to attract the same kind of resentment towards Canada?

yup, until the veto of the supreme 5 is removed the UN is forever inefective...I'd have Canada pull out until it happens

[myata]

To voice its resounding, unconditional support to its newlyfound pack? Otherwise, it beats me. Under this government this country entirely lost its distinct voice on the international stage and its presence in the SC would be pointless as it'd echo US position on all issues. Not that it's should be a secret to anybody, by now.

That being the case, I don't think there's much possibility of us getting the seat.

[Topaz]

The way I see right now, it would be unfair to other countries because Canada would always vote with the US which would give the US two votes.

[myata]

If Harper thinks that his new course is a secret to anybody, it'd be the Polichinelle's secret. Countries would hardly want to have an obvious proxy of the US on the Council.

Of course, it's a nice way to simulate an appearance of some international standing, where there isn't any otherwise.

[Moonbox]

Under this government this country entirely lost its distinct voice on the international stage and its presence in the SC would be pointless as it'd echo US position on all issues. Not that it's should be a secret to anybody, by now.

That being the case, I don't think there's much possibility of us getting the seat.

What on earth are you talking about? What have we lost in the last 3 years that we hadn't already lost before?

Get real.

[jdobbin]

Under this government this country entirely lost its distinct voice on the international stage

What examples do you have of that?

[myata]

Independent standing, where people would actually have a reason to listen and respect Canada's position (land mines treaty, ICC, balanced position in Middle East) because it would not necessarily echo that of another country?

[eyeball]

Why doeas Canada want a permanent seat on the UNSC?

So we can be seen strolling along the world's cat-walk.

[bush_cheney2004]

The way I see right now, it would be unfair to other countries because Canada would always vote with the US which would give the US two votes.

It has always been unfair to other countries.....where do you think the "security" in Security Council comes from?

[jdobbin]

Independent standing, where people would actually have a reason to listen and respect Canada's position (land mines treaty, ICC, balanced position in Middle East) because it would not necessarily echo that of another country?

You realize that the balanced position on the Middle East was to recognize the state of Israel from the very beginning and that never changed.

As far as Land Mines went, I have no problem thinking that Canada did its part but we didn't do it independently. There were a lot of individuals and countries responsible.

Likewise, the ICC push began in 1948 by an American and was later brought into the spotlight by Trinidad in 1989.

So, I don't think we weren't echoing other countries. We followed policies that we believed were important to us and because of our economic strength and alliances, our voice was heard.

[Moonbox]

Independent standing, where people would actually have a reason to listen and respect Canada's position (land mines treaty, ICC, balanced position in Middle East) because it would not necessarily echo that of another country?

Some people think that to have an independent voice you have to automatically not agree with anything the US says. Unfortunately Canada can be independent AND agree with the US at the same time. We're probably the two closest and most integrated countries in the entire world. It's not really all that strange that the US and Canada share some VERY similar goals and interests.

I know it got really popular bashing Bush and the (lol) neo-cons, but that doesn't change how close we are to the United States.

We never lost our independent standing. The fact that Canada's foreign policy doesn't mirror your own is simply too bad for you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Independent standing, where people would actually have a reason to listen and respect Canada's position (land mines treaty, ICC, balanced position in Middle East) because it would not necessarily echo that of another country?

Great....another fine example of Canada only having definition in terms of the United States. It must be horrible to always have to characterize Canada in such a way....or to garner "respect".

[myata]

Some people think that to have an independent voice you have to automatically not agree with anything the US says. Unfortunately Canada can be independent AND agree with the US at the same time. We're probably the two closest and most integrated countries in the entire world. It's not really all that strange that the US and Canada share some VERY similar goals and interests.

It was different on ICC though; on land mines treaty; on Kyoto (under Bush); on Iraq; on Middle East. Enough already?

Everything that's coming out of Harper's government now, has to be two steps behind that of the US, according to barking order in the pack.

I know it got really popular bashing Bush and the (lol) neo-cons, but that doesn't change how close we are to the United States.

The fact that Canada's foreign policy doesn't mirror your own is simply too bad for you.

It's nothing to do with my own, just a fact of reality.

Edited September 25, 2009 by myata

[nicky10013]

Some people think that to have an independent voice you have to automatically not agree with anything the US says. Unfortunately Canada can be independent AND agree with the US at the same time. We're probably the two closest and most integrated countries in the entire world. It's not really all that strange that the US and Canada share some VERY similar goals and interests.

I know it got really popular bashing Bush and the (lol) neo-cons, but that doesn't change how close we are to the United States.

We never lost our independent standing. The fact that Canada's foreign policy doesn't mirror your own is simply too bad for you.

I mostly agree. I question Harper's motives on this, though. I have friends in the diplomatic corps and they all agree that Canada's standing in the world has dramatically dropped in the past 3 years, not necessarily because Harper is bad in international relations but because he just doesn't care. He's far more of a domestic PM than a person in office than I think Ignatieff would be. Due to almost his sole focus on domestic issues, it seems to me the only reason Harper would want this is to butress himself politically. It would certainly be a diplomatic victory. The problem is that the SC isn't like hosting the G8...it actually comes with responsibility. Harper has to infuse the Foreign Affairs department with some kind of purpose. It also gives the appearance that he's strong on military affairs (when really that has nothing to do with the SC.) which reinforces the whole arctic thing. If he can pull it off great, but given his shaky preformance on the world stage already, I doubt it.

Edited September 25, 2009 by nicky10013

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A seat on the security counsel is a political feather in anyones cap. The issue is whether or not we deserve that feather.

[Machjo]

... it's for non-permanent membership - as a part of the rotating 2 year assignments countries take on. There are 2 upcoming seats - both Germany and Portugal are also vying for the membership.

Seeing that the UNSC ought to be dissolved altogether, why would Canada want even a temporary membership?

[Machjo]

A seat on the security counsel is a political feather in anyones cap. The issue is whether or not we deserve that feather.

A feather in terms of political power, but not necessarily in terms of moral power.