update...Harper

?Impact · April 18, 2016

Has a white north American ever run that outfit.

No, lot`s of white guys but never a North American. The UN Secretaries General have been:

1946-1952 - Trygve Lie (Norway)

1953-1961 - Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden)

1961-1971 - U Thant (Myanmar)

1972-1981 - Kurt Waldheim (Austria)

1982-1991 - Javier Perez de Cuellar (Peru)

1992-1996 - Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt)

1997-2006 - Kofi A. Annan (Ghana)

2007-present - Ban Ki-moon (South Korea)

It is also interesting to note that none of them have been from the permanent member countries of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States)

The Secretary-Generals of the League of nations (predecessor to the UN) were from either the UK or France.

Edited April 18, 2016 by ?Impact

nerve · April 20, 2016

Well, there is an opening coming up for Secretary General of the UN and the panel is currently interviewing potential candidates. Harper is available as is Obama but I wouldn't bet on Harper.

that is funny.

I think Bernie Sanders has more cred than either of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders

Even that is funny.

Edited April 20, 2016 by nerve

Michael Hardner · April 20, 2016

From the UN.. to Bernie Sanders... let's take it back to Harper.

Moonlight Graham · April 20, 2016

What he did he did because he thought it was the best for his vision of Canada.

No not always, I think he served for himself over the interests of Canada on many occasions. That's why we kicked his arse to the curb.

jacee · April 26, 2016

Harper hates the UN.

And I think it's mutual.

He'll be looking to his business buddies for work.

.

overthere · April 26, 2016

Harper hates the UN.

And I think it's mutual.

He'll be looking to his business buddies for work.

.

Harper is not alone in disliking what the UN has become, which is an entity that is very, very far from the enlightened world body of peace and justice as first envisioned. For example, the seat on the Security Council that Harper did not pursue, and the same seat that Trudeau is so eager to buy. Because that is precisely how First World countries gain that seat: money. Cash. The cost is about $1 billion per year, for about 5 years, and it is paid to poor countries to buy their votes. It is paid over and above the normal aid packages. Yep, 'Canada is back'. What an achievement.

Is there any reason for a retired PM not to go back to work?

Campbell, Mulroney, Chretien - all of them worked after leaving office. Would you prefer that they go on welfare? Or do you favour the rich dilettantes like Trudeau, Martin and Trudeau? Being PM is reserved for the wealthy and those who inherit? How very progressive.

Harper kept his job as a MP.

waldo · April 26, 2016

For example, the seat on the Security Council that Harper did not pursue, and the same seat that Trudeau is so eager to buy. Because that is precisely how First World countries gain that seat: money. Cash. The cost is about $1 billion per year, for about 5 years, and it is paid to poor countries to buy their votes. It is paid over and above the normal aid packages. Yep, 'Canada is back'. What an achievement.

another fine bit of revisionism! Harper most certainly sought that UNSC seat... Germany won the first balloting and "Harper's Canada" was so far behind Portugal that they withdrew from subsequent balloting rounds... and it was Portugal that secured that second/last available seat.

care to offer up a cite that supports your claim... show how/where Germany/Portugal paid your declared "$1 billion for 5 years... buying poor country votes".

.

Harper kept his job as a MP.

that's right... after all, nothing like Parliamentary Privilege to avoid l'affiare Duffy! Here's a little waldo factoid for ya: 3 MPs have yet to speak, to go on Hansard record within this latest Parliament... 2 are rookie MPs... the other is Harper! :lol:

.

overthere · April 26, 2016

another fine bit of revisionism! Harper most certainly sought that UNSC seat... Germany won the first balloting and "Harper's Canada" was so far behind Portugal that they withdrew from subsequent balloting rounds... and it was Portugal that secured that second/last available seat.

care to offer up a cite that supports your claim... show how/where Germany/Portugal paid your declared "$1 billion for 5 years... buying poor country votes".

.

that's right... after all, nothing like Parliamentary Privilege to avoid l'affiare Duffy! Here's a little waldo factoid for ya: 3 MPs have yet to speak, to go on Hansard record within this latest Parliament... 2 are rookie MPs... the other is Harper!

.

Correct. The total for support from Sahel countries was about a billion per year above and beyond the usual aid from First World countries.

We were outbid.

Trudeau will make sure that does not happen again.

The UN is a place of commerce. Support is bought and sold. Poor countries sell their votes to rich ones. You know, just like they sell legal residency, very private banking and passports/citizenship. Waldo, did you have quaint notions of some other process?.

So you equate volume of words in the Commons with effectiveness at representing your constituency. Interesting metric. Do you have a cite for that?

Edited April 26, 2016 by overthere

waldo · April 26, 2016

Correct.

So you equate volume of words in the Commons with effectiveness at representing your constituency. Interesting metric. Do you have a cite for that?

yes - I am correct to bust your Harper Conservative revisionism attempt! I note you have no cite to support your unsubstantiated opinion - carry on.

as for the waldo factoid on the 'mute Harper', I equate the very fact he hasn't said a single word during this session of Parliament to it being symbolic of the charade he's carrying forward. Are you seriously suggesting Harper will play this out on through to the last sitting of this current Trudeau Liberal government up to the next election... that he will show up for (most of the votes), as he has done so far... and that's it? He won't sit on any committees, he won't bring forward any bills, he'll simply walk in/out of that back door entrance (he's so conveniently situated directly next to)... and that's all it takes to be an MP? Clearly. Mr Harper, the citizens of 'Calgary Heritage' thank you for your service!

.

PIK · April 27, 2016

Harper has made 91% of the votes. And harpers main reason is who we would have been on the board with. Look at some of the UN committees and see who sits on them. The UN has been hijacked by the corrupt yrs ago. For some reason people still think the UN is the same as the one during the Pearson yrs. Those days are long gone.

Smallc · April 27, 2016

Harper has made 91% of the votes. And harpers main reason is who we would have been on the board with.

What are you talking about? Harper tried for a seat and failed. First time in Canadian history.

Argus · April 27, 2016

What are you talking about? Harper tried for a seat and failed. First time in Canadian history.

Because we defended Jews. Stop defending the Jews and we'll win the next one.

overthere · April 27, 2016

What are you talking about? Harper tried for a seat and failed. First time in Canadian history.

Refused to pay above and beyond the usual aid packages.. That is how it works now. In previous decades, the larceny was much more muted.

Let us consider how that conversation goes, with some of the poorest countries in the world, run by despots in their third or fourth decade of cornholing their own people and amassing huge personal futures. They have little income, little exports and opportunities for some serious cash are not frequent.

Two scenarios:

1) President for Life Dos Santos(Angola, one of 8 African sub-Sahel countries with leaders 'serving' more than 25 years), we are from Canada and want your vote because we are diverse, worthy and it is our turn to matter to ourselves. Can we count on your support at the UN? Yes? Oh that is so wonderful.

2. President for Life Dos Santos "hello? hello? Is this Bank Suisse? Have you received a large wire transfer today? Yes? Thank you. Bye bye.

Guess which one applies in 2016? Many impoverished countries sell refuge for dirty money, passports and citizenships for people who have the cash, registration for ships never seen in their ports if they have ports, and votes in the UN.

To think otherwise is just incredibly naive.

PIK · April 27, 2016

Well most people here are, when it comes to the UN . Harper stood up to them, and now we have trudeau who wants to be loved by everybody and he will say yes to everything and they know it.

Argus · April 27, 2016

1) President for Life Dos Santos(Angola, one of 8 African sub-Sahel countries with leaders 'serving' more than 25 years), we are from Canada and want your vote because we are diverse, worthy and it is our turn to matter to ourselves. Can we count on your support at the UN? Yes? Oh that is so wonderful.

2. President for Life Dos Santos "hello? hello? Is this Bank Suisse? Have you received a large wire transfer today? Yes? Thank you. Bye bye.

Lest anyone think this is paranoia...

Yet, consider the following: in December 2009, Russia offered the island state of Nauru $50 million in exchange for its extending diplomatic recognition to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the two separatist provinces in Georgia. In 2008, Iran paid $200,000 to the Solomon Islands in exchange for future votes against Israel in the U.N. General Assembly. In 2003, the United States pledged millions of dollars to Angola in connection with a U.N. Security Council vote that would have paved the way for the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/HLI104.pdf

waldo · April 27, 2016

Refused to pay above and beyond the usual aid packages.. That is how it works now.

already asked once... still waiting for your cite to support this (now repeated) claim. Still waiting!

.

waldo · April 27, 2016

Well most people here are, when it comes to the UN . Harper stood up to them

examples?

.

Smallc · April 27, 2016

Because we defended Jews. Stop defending the Jews and we'll win the next one.

Defending Israel has been a longstanding and continued policy position.

Argus · April 27, 2016

Defending Israel has been a longstanding and continued policy position.

Since Harper's election, yes.

Prior to that Canada preferred to abstain whenever one of the dozens of anti-israel resolutions the Islamic bloc pay to get pushed through every year comes up to vote.

Smallc · April 27, 2016

Since Harper's election, yes.

Prior to that Canada preferred to abstain whenever one of the dozens of anti-israel resolutions the Islamic bloc pay to get pushed through every year comes up to vote.

That's a completely revisionist view.

Argus · April 27, 2016

That's a completely revisionist view.

I think you mean to say "accurate".

Smallc · April 27, 2016

I think you mean to say "accurate".

The Liberals always overwhelmingly supported Israel. The difference is that the Conservative support was nonsensically unconditional.

Argus · April 28, 2016

The Liberals always overwhelmingly supported Israel. The difference is that the Conservative support was nonsensically unconditional.

The Liberals did NOT support Israel at the UN. They abstained many, many times because they knew the Islamic Bloc had bought enough votes to win, knew the resolutions were meaningless, and didn't want to irritate the Islamic bloc. Most European countries did the same.

Smallc · April 28, 2016

The Liberals did NOT support Israel at the UN. They abstained many, many times because

Because, believe it or not, sometimes Israel is wrong. If you support them, and you want to have some semblance of credibility, you can only really abstain. Canadian governments for decades have supported Israel. It simply went to the extreme under Harper. I was always against blind faith.

Argus · April 28, 2016

Because, believe it or not, sometimes Israel is wrong. If you support them, and you want to have some semblance of credibility, you can only really abstain. Canadian governments for decades have supported Israel. It simply went to the extreme under Harper. I was always against blind faith.

Every year the Islamic bloc introduces dozens of ridiculously one-sided resolutions, mostly identical to the ones they introduced and passed every year for the past thirty or forty years. Because most of the world doesn't give a damn the cost of bribing little countries to vote for them is small, and the Muslims and their antisemitic supporters in the West (and on this web site) then get to trumpet how the world condemns Israel yet again. I think Harper taking a stand by having us vote against those stupid resolutions was a good thing. And if it pisses off the Islamic Bloc, then that's a double score.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Argus