Canadian Seat on U.N. Security Council

[capricorn]

It seems that peoples gain a lot of influence in the UN by having a lot of small states all having the same agenda. For example, the Arab bloc and its supporters.

Maybe the US should look into getting a UN vote for each one of its 50 constituent states? Kind of like the EU gets 27 votes

Good points bonam. The end game for European states is to build strength within the UN to push through measures that are to Europe's advantage. Obviously, Canada had sufficient support within the WEOG to make the short list for a UNSC seat and this resulted in 3 countries (Canada, Germany and Portugal) being nominated for a seat. Traditionally, 2 nations would be nominated and both would be voted in. But in this case, European nations and their backers lobbied hard to make sure Canada finished third. Simply put, we are situated on the wrong continent, unlike our 2 winning competitors.

[Sir Bandelot]

The end game for European states is to build strength within the UN to push through measures that are to Europe's advantage. Simply put, we are situated on the wrong continent, unlike our 2 winning competitors.

Canada is seen to be very much in the pocket of the United States, thereby making us a parrot voicing primarily US interests, which are sometimes contrary to the interests of "old Europe".

[Smallc]

Yes....like in Iraq.

[capricorn]

Canada is seen to be very much in the pocket of the United States, thereby making us a parrot voicing primarily US interests, which are sometimes contrary to the interests of "old Europe".

What do you mean by "old Europe"?

[Topaz]

The government didn't campaign hard enough and Harper has made some mistakes in foreign affairs especially how he handled the birth control of African women. There were many countries angry at him for his thinking, plus the debate with Dubai, his treatment of Canadian Muslims coming back into Canada and list could go on. But this guy never admits to anything, just blames other things and people. It not the end of the world because we never got the seat but it does show that the Tories aren't good at foreign affairs, keeping the debt down,trying to work with the oppositions for the good of Canadians, no it all about HIM.

[capricorn]

The government didn't campaign hard enough

I agree. That maple syrup handed out to voting delegates should have been forty proof. None of that tame stuff.

and Harper has made some mistakes in foreign affairs especially how he handled the birth control of African women.

Nothing like telling other countries how to control population growth. That's always a sure winner.

There were many countries angry at him for his thinking, plus the debate with Dubai, his treatment of Canadian Muslims coming back into Canada and list could go on.

Aw shucks. I want to see the rest of the list.

It not the end of the world because we never got the seat but it does show that the Tories aren't good at foreign affairs, keeping the debt down,trying to work with the oppositions for the good of Canadians, no it all about HIM.

Harper and the Tories must be doing something right, otherwise why won't the Liberals pull the plug on the longest running minority in Canada's history? Beats the hell out of me.

[Saipan]

Canada is seen to be very much in the pocket of the United States, thereby making us a parrot voicing primarily US interests, which are sometimes contrary to the interests of "old Europe".

This is North America. Not Europe.

Europe doesn't give a shyte about our interest. They remember only when they need us. Like fighting some European war.

[Topaz]

I agree. That maple syrup handed out to voting delegates should have been forty proof. None of that tame stuff.

Nothing like telling other countries how to control population growth. That's always a sure winner.

Aw shucks. I want to see the rest of the list.

Harper and the Tories must be doing something right, otherwise why won't the Liberals pull the plug on the longest running minority in Canada's history? Beats the hell out of me.

The journalist say it not that important to the guy who lost his job, would it be to you?

[Saipan]

The government didn't campaign hard enough

To sit next to some dictators? I'm proud we don't. And every time we piss off Red China it makes my day

Harper has made some mistakes in foreign affairs especially how he handled the birth control of African women.

How many he made pregnant?

There were many countries angry at him for his thinking

The people or their dictators?

his treatment of Canadian Muslims coming back into Canada

Coming from WHERE? Are they really Canadians? Is there evidence?

[YEGmann]

... so how did Canada, previously, gain the votes/seat? What's changed?

It is funny how the media and the opposition haven't asked this simple question.

We heard a lot of "never before!" "why now!" But nobody asked "how did we get the seat before?" David Frum from NP tried to analize this problem but wasn't heard.

The answer is very unpleasant for Harper's critics: "Before there was no competition. The number of incumbents was equal to the number of seats." Countries changed on a convention. This time the EU decided agressively to change the convention. Germany interferred with large donation (i.e., bribes) to "right guys". This happened so close to the vote that it was too late to produce reliably favourable environment for Canada. Nevertheless our Dep of Foreign Affairs managed to obtain enough written commitments from representatives. Unfortunately for us, with the vote being secret, some Arab countries received a brilliant opportunity to punish Canada for our pro-Israel policy. To cheat the enemy is an honour in their mentality. And the EU block acted in its own interests. Canada simply did not have a chance. The mistake of the Foreign Affairs was not to report the gravity of the situation to the media. They hoped or wanted to believe that the written commitments were worth something. They should have known that the UN is a corrupt organisation. There is no honesty there any more.

It can be concidered as a fact that the United States voted "pro" Canada.

[Sir Bandelot]

What do you mean by "old Europe"?

Old Europe is a GWB reference that enraged the Europeans at the time he said it, but it basically means the central European powers.

[Sir Bandelot]

This is North America. Not Europe.

I'm saying, the decision was political (of course!) but I think it has to do with maintaining a balance of power. There's probably nothing Canada could have said or done at this point, to persuade them to vote in our favour.

[Oleg Bach]

We don't need the UN - The great Canadian experiment is a success..we have all nations living here and all nations are represented...WE ARE THE UNITED NATIONS.........the big UN - is but a pretender to the throne..we have done more good in so far as relations between nations..what real good has the UN done? What do we see for the future of the UN? I see nothing!

[capricorn]

The real question here is why do so many people seem to care? Actually really care? What, after all, is a vote at the UN? It is at best a morally weightless gesture. More frequently it is a transaction freighted with duplicity and hidden design, purchased or traded for ends ulterior to its purpose. It is in other cases the stooge response of a debtor country to its creditors. And in yet others, it is a counter or an expression of unbending prejudice or ideological hostility.

No self-respecting country will feel "embarrassment" from "losing" such a vote. You can only feel real embarrassment if you've been declined or rebuked by someone or some institution you respect. Not getting Hugo Chavez's support? Not winning over China, which has a Nobel Peace Prize winner in its gulag? Not winning over Iran, as it threatens the monstrous stoning, which it may commute to a "merciful" hanging, of a woman for having sex? Not winning over Libya, Sudan or Saudi Arabia? How is any of that an embarrassment?

There's something of what the Australians used to call the "cultural cringe" in some Canadians' attitudes toward the way the so-called world community views us. It's as if there is a need for an occasional pat on the head from the big, outside world to confirm our moral stature, or secure our sense of complacency as a decent, right-acting country. We really do seek the "gold star" of world opinion with an avidity that speaks a lack of mature self-confidence. Mature nations have the confidence of their own ideas, their own positions and their own policies. They do not crave external confirmation.

And they certainly do not put any store on the machinations of that degraded body, the United Nations, as an institution that has the slightest ability to lessen our honest regard for ourselves, or the honest regard of other nations of the world, who over the years, have truly come to know us. From Holland to Haiti, we have nothing to be ashamed of.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Cares/3680686/story.html

[bush_cheney2004]

Old Europe is a GWB reference that enraged the Europeans at the time he said it, but it basically means the central European powers.

It certainly enraged Europeans, but I recall the incident for Sec'y Don Rumsfeld, not "GWB".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2687403.stm

[Saipan]

Old Europe is a GWB reference that enraged the Europeans at the time he said it, but it basically means the central European powers.

In Prague?

[jbg]

Well, should Canada get a seat on the council and if not why not - well maybe we are not anti Israeli enough for the U.N. But really. 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? Well, maybe because if we don't get it, he could then rail at the gov't for not being good enough for the U.N. One has to wonder what if Iggy has any brains at all.

The better question is why Canada and the U.S. are in that sad excuse for a failure in the first place.

[Radsickle]

Canada got slapped in the face by the UN for a number of reasons; for Harper's opinion of it back when he wanted to rush into Bush's Iraq war too, for Harper's regressive stance on reducing greenhouse gases, for his general derision of the UN as an obsolete organization, and for his general stupidity. The UN is quietly showing us how far we've fallen since general Harper took the helm.

Stevie makes a couple of hollow speeches to the UN general assembly recently, after ignoring and deriding the organization for decades, and expects to have a seat reserved for him at the big boys table? Dream on, Stevie.

We need an international perspective. What is the international alternative to the UN, Oleg? There isn't one. The UN's the best we've got.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Radsickle

[capricorn]

The UN is quietly showing us how far we've fallen since general Harper took the helm.

I think it's more that the UN is showing us how it has degenerated since Pearson's days.

[Radsickle]

I think it's more that the UN is showing us how it has degenerated since Pearson's days.

I think you're wrong. Canada has degenerated, not the UN. The UN was a good idea that has only become better for the majority of the world... except for those who want to profit from criminal invasions like Bush's.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Radsickle

[Smallc]

I think you're wrong. Canada has degenerated, not the UN. The UN was a good idea that has only become better for the majority of the world...

Yes, every little tyrant gets their own seat. What a wonderful idea. The UN is fine. The UN General Assembly...not so much.

[Radsickle]

Yes, every little tyrant gets their own seat. What a wonderful idea. The UN is fine. The UN General Assembly...not so much.

What's the difference between the UN and the UN General Assembly?

And what would be a better way of harnessing world opinion and coordinating world-wide actions?

(there is none)

[Smallc]

What's the difference between the UN and the UN General Assembly?

The UN has many different organizations within it that do very good work. The UN General Assembly is the collection of countries....some of which are not democracies and don't deserve to be there.

And what would be a better way of harnessing world opinion and coordinating world-wide actions?

I'm sorry, how much action do you think that many of these dictatorships actually provide?

[Radsickle]

The UN has many different organizations within it that do very good work. The UN General Assembly is the collection of countries....some of which are not democracies and don't deserve to be there.

It would be an ideal world if every country were a democracy but better to include every country in the spirit of democracy than exclude those who haven't evolved yet. Democratic ideals are far better served by inclusion rather than exclusion.

The dictatorships naturally get blacklisted. (kinda like Harper was)

Edited October 19, 2010 by Radsickle

[Smallc]

The dictatorships naturally get blacklisted. (kinda like Harper was)

Do they, really? It doesn't seem that way at all. The UN is a wonderful idea....but it doesn't work as intended when Syria gets the same vote as Canada.