Canadian Seat on U.N. Security Council

[Bonam]

Yes, it makes considerably more sense. I don't personally consider a spot on the security council to be of any real importance, to be honest. Virtually every vote depends on the permanent members who have vetos, and even they aren't really the right members for the job. If you wanted representation you'd have the US, Russia, China, India, South Africa and Egypt as the permanent members.

Why those six nations in particular? I mean the US, Russia, China are already permanent members so it's obvious why. India represents about a billion people so that makes sense too. But Egypt and South Africa? Seems kinda arbitrary. Anyway, I'll be blunt, as a Westerner, I'm just as happy to see 3 of the 5 permanent members being Western powers. The rest of the chambers of the UN are already dominated enough by third world rabble.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Bonam

[naomiglover]

why would Ignatieff actually make a bizarre speech to the the U.N. saying that the Conservative government doesn’t deserve the Security Council spot?

I am no fan of Iggy, but he's correct to say that the Conservative government does not deserve a seat at the United Nations Security Council. When the Harper government decided not to condemn Israel after the Goldstone Report which concluded that Israel committed war crimes during its attack on Gaza, he showed his true colours. Respect for international law and human rights should be a priority. Harper lacks that.

[Argus]

Why those six nations in particular? I mean the US, Russia, China are already permanent members so it's obvious why. India represents about a billion people so that makes sense too. But Egypt and South Africa? Seems kinda arbitrary. Anyway, I'll be blunt, as a Westerner, I'm just as happy to see 3 of the 5 permanent members being Western powers. The rest of the chambers of the UN are already dominated enough by third world rabble.

Well, I didn't put a ton of time into it, but I figured there ought to be representation from all areas of the globe. I chose Egypt and South Africa as representatives of, respectively, the Arab world and Africa (and yes, I'm aware Egypt is technically in Africa). Egypt is the most important nation in the Arab world and South Africa is the most powerful and organized state in Africa.

Now if you want to do it based on making the organization work I'd agree that it should be almost entirely western oriented nations.

[Argus]

I am no fan of Iggy, but he's correct to say that the Conservative government does not deserve a seat at the United Nations Security Council. When the Harper government decided not to condemn Israel after the Goldstone Report which concluded that Israel committed war crimes during its attack on Gaza, he showed his true colours. Respect for international law and human rights should be a priority. Harper lacks that.

You really are a one-trick pony, aren't you? To you, as long as someone hates Israel like you do they can do no wrong. If they have any doubts about how evil Israelis (jews) are then they're evil too.

I guess by your standard Iran is most deserving of a seat on the council since they hate Israel almost as much as you do.

[Slim]

When the Harper government decided not to condemn Israel after the Goldstone Report which concluded that Israel committed war crimes during its attack on Gaza, he showed his true colours. Respect for international law and human rights should be a priority. Harper lacks that.

This here is what I expect Harper's politics to look like. He won't condemn Israel because politically it would alienate his 'base' and give him no real benefit. Morality be damned, it's all politics.

Of course, if ethics were of any concern in politics, things would be a different story. Alas...

[Slim]

You really are a one-trick pony, aren't you? To you, as long as someone hates Israel like you do they can do no wrong. If they have any doubts about how evil Israelis (jews) are then they're evil too.

I guess by your standard Iran is most deserving of a seat on the council since they hate Israel almost as much as you do.

Now Argus, that's not what she said at all.

[Argus]

This here is what I expect Harper's politics to look like. He won't condemn Israel because politically it would alienate his 'base' and give him no real benefit. Morality be damned, it's all politics.

Of course, if ethics were of any concern in politics, things would be a different story. Alas...

First, I think Harper genuinely supports Israel. He isn't doing so for political reasons. He has always supported Israel. The Tories, in whatever incarnation, have always supported Israel. I've only ever heard it suggested this was because of the votes over the last four years or so. Before that, no one ever made that suggestion.

On the other hand, the Liberals position is considerably less open and obvious. For years now it's looked like they've been trying to play both ends against the middle, and that most of what they've done has been for domestic political reasons, as opposed to any particular ideological or moral concerns with the middle east. I remind people, because many don't seem to understand it, that there are far more Muslims in Canada than Jews, and that their numbers are growing quite rapidly. If Harper actually wanted to act for purely venal political reasons he would condemn Israel in order to help curry favour with what might be considered a natural constituency - Muslims, who, by and large, are anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, strongly anti-crime, and believe in "traditional" values. Instead he's been a staunch defender of Israel, not even trying to play the political game the Liberals have been doing for decades. This has definitely cost him votes and support from Muslim.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Argus

[Slim]

First, I think Harper genuinely supports Israel. He isn't doing so for political reasons. He has always supported Israel. The Tories, in whatever incarnation, have always supported Israel. I've only ever heard it suggested this was because of the votes over the last four years or so. Before that, no one ever made that suggestion.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his base started changing their opinion on Israel, he would too, regardless of what he personally believed. If it meant the election, I doubt he would hesitate for too long to change his official stance.

I remind people, because many don't seem to understand it, that there are far more Muslims in Canada than Jews, and that their numbers are growing quite rapidly. If Harper actually wanted to act for purely venal political reasons he would condemn Israel in order to help curry favour with what might be considered a natural constituency

You assume two things: that all Muslims are against Israel, and that all Jews are pro-Israel. How many are ambivalent?

Also, and this is the biggest flaw to that argument; you aren't counting on the majority of the population that is neither Muslim nor Jew. I daresay that those people are the Conservative base, and they are by far pro-Israel. I think that's a logical assumption.

Muslims, who, by and large, are anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, strongly anti-crime, and believe in "traditional" values. Instead he's been a staunch defender of Israel, not even trying to play the political game the Liberals have been doing for decades. This has definitely cost him votes and support from Muslim.

I'm sure that trying to cozy up to the Muslim minorities would end up costing him a lot of support from his base, so it's not hard to see why Harper wouldn't bother with that

[capricorn]

Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs under Chretien's government, likes Harper's accomplishments on the world stage.

Lloyd Axworthy parks his red Liberal colours at the door when it comes to his country's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Axworthy liked what he heard in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's two speeches to the UN last month. If Canada manages win another term, the former Liberal foreign minister says, "I'd be glad to send him some of my old notes."

---

He's excited about what Canada can accomplish, sounding upbeat about what the Harper Conservatives have done recently to elevate the country's profile on the world stage, including its pair of summer summits and the prime minister's child and maternal health plan.

Axworthy said he sees similarities between his own "human security" agenda that he pushed as foreign minister and Harper's signature G8 initiative to bring down the death rate of poor children and mothers in the developing world.

"You don't have to use the words human security. It is a reflection of the same view that there are a lot of vulnerable people in the world, who are not given the protection of the laws in their own countries," said Axworthy.

"It's two years that could really be a very innovative time for Canada coming out of the G8 and G20 and other initiatives."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/canada-fights-domestic-political-wars-in-un-security-council-race-104710589.html

Here's a bit of background on Lloyd Axworthy as Cabinet Minister.

When the Liberals returned to power in 1993 under the leadership of Jean Chrétien, Axworthy became one of the most important Cabinet ministers. After the election, he was given responsibility for the vast new Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), and launched a major overhaul of employment insurance.

Axworthy's true interest was in international relations, and in a 1996 cabinet shuffle, he became Minister of Foreign Affairs, where he excelled, becoming a strong advocate of Canada's tradition of multilateralism. His greatest success was the Ottawa Treaty, an international treaty to ban anti-personnel land mines. He also campaigned against the use of child soldiers and the international trade in light weapons.

In 1999, Axworthy supported Canada's involvement in NATO's bombing campaign of Yugoslavia over the issue of Kosovo. The 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was NATO's and Canada's most controversial act as its first deliberate non-defensive aggression against another sovereign state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Axworthy

[Argus]

You assume two things: that all Muslims are against Israel, and that all Jews are pro-Israel. How many are ambivalent?

I've never met one that wasn't anti-Israel, but I suppose anything is possible. However, all Muslim leaders seem to fixate on Israel, and they're the people the politicians are listening to.

Also, and this is the biggest flaw to that argument; you aren't counting on the majority of the population that is neither Muslim nor Jew.

These people largely don't have a big stake in what Canada's foreign policy is towards Israel. The majority of conservatives however favour Israel.

I'm sure that trying to cozy up to the Muslim minorities would end up costing him a lot of support from his base, so it's not hard to see why Harper wouldn't bother with that

The Conservative base wouldn't care if he cozied up to Muslims but it wouldn't look kindly on changing Canada's foreign policy to please them. Then the Conservatives would be no better than the Liberals.

[Saipan]

But I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his base started changing their opinion on Israel

I would.

What could be the reason btw??

You assume two things: that all Muslims are against Israel, and that all Jews are pro-Israel. How many are ambivalent?

Not all Moslems are terrorists, but all terrorists are Moslems.

Also, and this is the biggest flaw to that argument; you aren't counting on the majority of the population that is neither Muslim nor Jew.

And we all are very much affected by high cost of terrorism. 'Specially those who travel.

I'm sure that trying to cozy up to the Muslim minorities would end up costing him a lot of support from his base

From any base. Why would he do that?

Edited October 12, 2010 by Saipan

[Slim]

I've never met one (Muslim) that wasn't anti-Israel, but I suppose anything is possible.

Careful not to generalize too much. We should probably say early on that 'anti-Israel' does not necessary mean 'hate and despise anything Israel'. There's a difference between wishing death and destruction upon Israel and disagreeing with its politics.

And I would doubt the majority of Muslims would fall into the extremist camp. I believe that would be a fair view, yes?

However, all Muslim leaders seem to fixate on Israel, and they're the people the politicians are listening to.

... they are?

These (non-Muslim, non-Jew) people largely don't have a big stake in what Canada's foreign policy is towards Israel. The majority of conservatives however favour Israel.

Just because you don't have a stake in middle-east politics (a direct stake, that is) you will always have an opinion, it seems...

Anyway, you aren't refuting my logic here. Or was that your intent? To recap, I was arguing that Harper going against his base supporters by condemning Israel's actions would cost him more votes than it would gain him.

The Conservative base wouldn't care if he cozied up to Muslims but it wouldn't look kindly on changing Canada's foreign policy to please them. Then the Conservatives would be no better than the Liberals.

What? Dude, I'm from Alberta. If Harper suddenly decided to try and win over the Muslim community (and I mean really win it over, not pay political correctness a lip service) there would be such a backlash he'd lose all credibility from a TON of supporters. Conservatives here would see it as a betrayal.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his base started changing their opinion on Israel

I would.

What could be the reason btw??

You misunderstood. Read the rest of my sentence:

"But I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his base started changing their opinion on Israel, he would too, regardless of what he personally believed."

Not all Moslems are terrorists, but all terrorists are Moslems.

Wow. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

And we all are very much affected by high cost of terrorism. 'Specially those who travel.

Okay, that's an incorrect assumption, and it has nothing to do with my argument, but I'll approach it nonetheless.

So what 'high cost' of terrorism is there? Statistically the chance of you dying from a terrorist attack is marginal, at best. Why waste time worrying about it?

[Argus]

Careful not to generalize too much. We should probably say early on that 'anti-Israel' does not necessary mean 'hate and despise anything Israel'. There's a difference between wishing death and destruction upon Israel and disagreeing with its politics.

I think you forget just how passionately people in some countries (ie, non western ones) feel about their political issues. Let us just say that most adult Muslims in Canada are not FROM Canada, and have far more passionate beliefs with regard to Israel than most Canadians.

And I would doubt the majority of Muslims would fall into the extremist camp. I believe that would be a fair view, yes?

Depends on your view of what constitutes an extremist. For example, a lot of people were calling Conservatives extremists for opposing same-sex marriage. Muslims, particularly from the source countries where Canada gets most of its Muslim immigrants, are far more rigid in their opposition to homosexuals - period. By Canadian standards does that not make the majority of the Muslim community "extremists" on that subject?

I'm not saying most are extremists in the sense they're likely to support terrorism - although, according to the polls, a sizeable number do.

Just because you don't have a stake in middle-east politics (a direct stake, that is) you will always have an opinion, it seems...

Yes, but you're less likely to become inflamed by it.

Anyway, you aren't refuting my logic here. Or was that your intent? To recap, I was arguing that Harper going against his base supporters by condemning Israel's actions would cost him more votes than it would gain him.

Depends in what his reasons were. I can easily see situatios where condemnation of Israel would be acceptable to me and other conservatives.

What? Dude, I'm from Alberta. If Harper suddenly decided to try and win over the Muslim community (and I mean really win it over, not pay political correctness a lip service) there would be such a backlash he'd lose all credibility from a TON of supporters. Conservatives here would see it as a betrayal.

Why? What would you expect him to do to try to win over Muslims? Unless you agree that Muslims are fixated on Israel to the exclusion of other issues he ought to be able to try to win them over with solid conservative policies.

[PIK]

Who cares what the muslims think, I no longer do, the muslim faith is not compatible with this country and I am sick and tired of changing the country to suit them or any other religion.

[Shakeyhands]

Who cares what the muslims think, I no longer do, the muslim faith is not compatible with this country and I am sick and tired of changing the country to suit them or any other religion.

I didn't know we had made any changes to accomodate Muslims. This isn't good at all! Because I must have missed the changes, can you point them out for me?

[waldo]

voting round 1 of 2... Canada in last place after 1st vote at UN

Germany has been elected to a seat on the United Nations Security Council, while Portugal came in second and Canada last after the initial round of voting at the UN General Assembly

Germany received 128 votes, one more than the two-thirds required. Portugal received 122 and Canada 114.

Canada is in the running for one of two temporary seats along with the other two countries. Germany was widely expected to take one seat on the first ballot, so now Canada is up against Portugal on a second ballot. In total, 192 UN ambassadors will cast their votes in secret. Support from two-thirds of the countries in the General Assembly is required.

Canada will also be trying to guard against an unprecedented loss — the country has never missed a chance to sit on the powerful body. Canada has been on the Security Council six times, roughly once a decade, since the 1940s. The country's last term ended in 2000.

whaaa! Apparently Harper Conservatives already have attack ads ready to roll in the event a UN seat is not forthcoming... blaming Ignatieff for 'the loss'. Who knew an Opposition leader had such a far-reaching significant worldwide influence.

of course, timing... is everything. Insiders surprised by Israel trade announcement ahead of UN seat vote

International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan has announced a bid to strengthen the trade relationship with Israel — a move whose timing could affect Canada’s bid to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

The 192-member General Assembly votes Tuesday for five new members of the 15-member council — with Canada locked in a close three-way race against Germany and Portugal for two seats reserved for Western powers.

Since Arab and Muslim countries either control or have varying degrees of influence over a majority of the votes in the assembly, Van Loan’s announcement has the potential to lose Canada support in the ballot.

The so-called Arab and Muslim “automatic majority” has for years sought to isolate Israel at the world body, and denounces moves it considers to be pro-Israeli.

“Sometimes even the government works in silos,” quipped one. Others expressed privately that Van Loan’s office might have waited a day or two

now..... some, but certainly not waldo, might suggest a purposeful scuttling by Harper Conservatives... in line with the complete disdain they have shown for the UN these last four years. Or is it just an example of the much hyped PMO/Harper control misfiring?

[nicky10013]

Canada loses it's bid for the seat. Goes to show how respected this government is abroad.

[Shakeyhands]

Canada loses it's bid for the seat. Goes to show how respected this government is abroad.

More like they picked up their marbles and went home. I was surprised by the numbers on the ballot. Someone did a poor job.

[nicky10013]

More like they picked up their marbles and went home. I was surprised by the numbers on the ballot. Someone did a poor job.

Either way they lost. I mean, they lost on the second ballot, but not by the required 2/3rds. They realized they were bound to lose the next ballot by the 2/3rds so rather than be humiliated by actually losing they vote, they pulled out, which really is only slightly less humiliating.

[nicky10013]

From Don Martin of the National Post

The world apparently wants less Canada.

Inexplicably, there’ll be no seat on the United Nations Security Council for Canada, an historic slap in the face for a country doing more than its fair share in the UN-sanctioned Afghanistan conflict, with a long history of UN peacekeeping to its credit.

To give two European countries the temporary seats and deny Canada its rightful claim to one of the two-year chairs is a vote of non-confidence in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s foreign policy.

Candid and plugged-in diplomats will tell you the seat is meaningless unless you’ve got a clear agenda to advocate before the council. Other than Canada’s strong pro-Israel position, it lacks a clear vision about its role in the world beyond the Afghanistan deployment’s termination next summer.

After all, the United States has its hands full steering the United Nations to its side so what hope does a middle power have in influencing global affairs.

But to withdraw to Portugal? A bankrupt country of negligible impact on the international security stage? Whose officials thought Canada should win?

The government blame game will shift to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff for his trash-talking of Canada’s bid, but that’s bogus finger-pointing. For a myriad of reasons, each only known to the voting ambassador of the 190 ballot-box countries, the UN General Assembly decided Canada was not worthy of a coveted seat.

Clearly, Canada was sabotaged by the “rotten lying bastards” effect that an Australian ambassador discovered after being assured Down Under had plenty of support only to be voted off the ballot by turncoats in the ballot box.

But that’s cold comfort to a Harper government who thought it had strong foreign affairs credentials — and lost a global vote of confidence in its performance.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/12/don-martin-tories-prepare-the-excuses-as-un-sinks-security-council-bid/#ixzz12ASuoQRH

[myata]

I can't see it as being anything else but the vote of confidence, though Harper's boys would without doubt try to put their usual partisan spin on it. Hard to lead others when you so firmly think little, think narrow, think self centered ideological interest. Not like after these years there remains any doubt that this is all Conservatives' international policies are about.

[nicky10013]

I can't see it as being anything else but the vote of confidence, though Harper's boys would without doubt try to put their usual partisan spin on it. Hard to lead others when you so firmly think little, think narrow, think self centered ideological interest. Not like after these years there remains any doubt that this is all Conservatives' international policies are about.

Bingo. I love how the government is trying to blame Michael Ignatieff for this. I don't think they realize that by blaming him, they're saying that he has more international clout than our PM. Now, as much as I'd like to believe that, it's just not true.

[Argus]

Canada loses it's bid for the seat. Goes to show how respected this government is abroad.

Respect from the likes of these people we do NOT need.

I agree that its just silly politics trying to blame Ignatieff. Nobody in the world even knows who he is, and even those who do certainly wouldn't let his bleatings influence their votes. No, the blame is politics just like Ignatieff's reaction.

Canada didn't get the required 2/3rds vote for a council seat because, pure and simple, it has a spine. Canada used to be "neutral" in the whole middle east thing for fear of offending anyone (including Muslim voters back home) but Harper has Canada actually voting according to moral standards, showing integrity. There are some 60 Muslim counties in the U.N., and they can almost always manage to buy several dozen more votes from poor, third world countries who don't care about most of what goes on anyway. It was almost a foregone conclusion that the Muslim world - which cares about nothing and no one but their everlasting hatred of Israel, would not want a friend of Israel on the United Nations.

But there's no reason for Canada to be embarrassed about being dissed by that lot. These are the people to whom Sudan's president is an Islamic hero, after all, and who see nothing wrong with Libya heading up their Human Rights group.

And you can be sure that if the United States had to face a vote for the security council there would be no way in the world they'd get the 2/3rd support either.

[TimG]

I can't see it as being anything else but the vote of confidence.

Really? A vote of confidence by who? A bunch of corrupt despots? Why should we care?

It am very happy that Canada lost. The UN is a joke and does not deserve the time of day. I know the liberals would not have "lost" because they would have sold out Canada's interests and every opportunity in order to curry favour with the corrupt officials that make up the majority of the UN.

Edited October 12, 2010 by TimG

[punked]

Bingo. I love how the government is trying to blame Michael Ignatieff for this. I don't think they realize that by blaming him, they're saying that he has more international clout than our PM. Now, as much as I'd like to believe that, it's just not true.

Well that isn't what they are saying. What they are saying is Ignatieff plus Harper is worth more then Harper minus Ignatieff and if Igantieff was a true leader in Canada he would have sucked up his pride and saved this fight until the bidding was done.

See what they are saying is Harper is worth say 10 points, and Igantieff is worth 2 points. Canada needed to make to 11 to get the seat because Igantieff wasn't Canadian enough to endorse Canada's bid we didn't get to that 11 points and thus he lost us the seat. That is the argument. Is it right or not, we will never know really but it probably isn't. Doesn't mean it isn't a good point. There is always plenty of time to Bash Canada after we may have lost or won an important seat, there was no need to start before hand. Only a terrible leader would do something to handicap the people and country for his own gain.