# Canada security council seat



## sean m (19 May 2010)

Hey Everyone 

I was wondering what you thought of Prime Minister Harper's attempts to get our country a seat on the U.N. security council. I think he has been doing a faboulous job at trying to get Canada to become a global power and this proves it. Here is the article.

ZAGREB, Croatia - Canada's bid for a United Nations Security Council seat got a boost from Croatia as Prime Minister Stephen Harper passed through the country's capital Friday, en route to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country is also competing for the coveted spot. 

Saturday's meeting with Ms. Merkel will bring an end to Harper's European tour this week that also took him to Belgium and the Netherlands.

Ahead of his trip to Berlin, Mr. Harper met Friday evening with Croatian Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor, who threw her support behind Canada's campaign to get on the UN's most elite and powerful body. Canada is in a three-way race with Germany and Portugal for one of the two "western" spots out of 10 non-permanent positions on the council.

The Conservative government has been operating a campaign to promote Canada's candidacy leading up to the October vote.

The rotating seat up for grabs is a two-year term that would begin in January 2011.

Mr. Harper, who praised Croatia for the progress it has made in the nearly 20 years it has been an independent nation, said his visit was long overdue.

"I'm really delighted that this is the first visit of a Canadian prime minister to Croatia," Mr. Harper said at a news conference following his meeting with Ms. Kosor. "Croatia has proven to be a true ally of Canada in Afghanistan for example and also in our campaign for a seat at the UN Security Council."

Croatia is similarly seeking a place in an international organization -- the European Union -- and while he was not asked for his opinion on the pending acceptance, Mr. Harper went out of his way to express support for Croatia.

"Canada is obviously extremely supportive of the general policy of the government of Croatia to more fully integrate into the euro-Atlantic community," said Mr. Harper. "Notwithstanding the history of the Communist period, Croatia has really always been, not just today, but Croatia has always been at heart a western country."

Croatia is currently negotiating its entrance into the EU and is hopeful the process will be completed by 2011.

Mr. Harper's visit to the small eastern country of four million people is being viewed by some Canadian-Croats as highly symbolic.

Gordy Samija, a Montreal native of Croatian descent who is now working and raising his family in Zagreb, said Canada's support for Croatia is boosting its credibility on the world scene.

"As a Canadian-Croatian I'm very proud the prime minister is here today," said Mr. Samija. Wearing a Montreal Canadiens hockey jersey, Samija was at the picturesque St. Mark's Square to catch a glimpse of Mr. Harper as he was officially greeted by Ms. Kosor and brought into Government House where their meeting was held. Mr. Samija later got to meet Harper, a huge hockey fan who told reporters Friday he is cheering for the Montreal Canadiens and the Vancouver Canucks because he wants the Stanley Cup brought back to Canadian soil.

Another young Canadian who decided to leave Canada for Zagreb, Mark Mocnaj, said Mr. Harper's visit, as well as a previous one by Gov. Gen Michaelle Jean "speaks volumes.

"It sends a clear message that Croatia is accepted in the world in the community of democracies," said Mr. Mocnaj, who also came to St. Mark's Square to see Harper arrive.

"It's nothing less than historic to have the prime minister visit."

Ms. Jean's visit last October came a few months after Canada lifted the visa requirement for Croatian citizens travelling to Canada, a decision that Croatia's prime minister said Friday was highly appreciated.

The two leaders signed an accord after their meeting to promote travel and youth employment in each other's countries. The agreement will allow for Canadians and Croatians aged 18 to 35 to travel and work in each other's countries for up to one year. Canada has similar agreements with 26 other countries.

Mr. Harper's meeting was one of a series this week with world leaders. In Brussels he met with leaders of the European Union, in the Netherlands, after attending a 65th anniversary of the country's liberation ceremony, he met with Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende and Saturday he meets with Merkel.

The meeting comes at the end of a tumultuous week of market activity and backlash against the financial bailout for Greece and the austerity measures its government has introduced. The bailout is particularly unpopular in Germany where a major regional election is being held Sunday. 



Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=2999974#ixzz0oLwgJM20


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Oct 2010)

Worth thinking about (with further links)--post at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

UN Security Council seat: Beware what you wish for
http://unambig.com/un-security-council-seat-beware-what-you-wish-for/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2010)

See, _inter alia_, here and here.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell: A vivid vivisection :-* of Puerile Paul :rage: at your first _inter alia_, noted in an *Update* at my post above.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2010)

Some of the latest....


> The Canadian government is sounding nervous ahead of a key vote to decide who gets a seat on the United Nations Security Council -- a prize Canada would once have taken for granted but is now in some doubt.
> 
> The United Nations decides next Tuesday which two from Canada, Germany and Portugal will get a two-year temporary seat on the powerful 15-seat council. Germany looks set to succeed, leaving Canada and Portugal in a race for one position.
> 
> ...


More from Reuters here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2010)

Ignatieff acted (spoke) childishly - he is more of a partisan pissant than Harper. In this case he embarrassed himself and his country. A good reminder that a closed mouth gathers no feet.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Oct 2010)

One could note that Canada deserves a 'historical slap in the head' for short-sightedly turning down the fifth permanent seat back in 1946 (which the French gladly accepted after Canada's declination), thinking that by doing so would solidify Canada's political freedom from any pressures to become a nuclear-armed state (notwithstanding its profound involvement in the development of atomic weaponry).  It was linkage to nuclear weaponization (vice power generation) that Canada thought it would avoid, not having the strategic vision to appreciate the powers that the UNSC would grow to hold beyond primary consideration of nuclear armament-related issues.  The Pearsonian 'we're nice guys' mentality would allow only membership in (and significant founding contributions to) the IAEA, the UN agency to track and control fissile material throughout the world.  

Water under the bridge, but a large portion of Canada's ongoing 'spirit' to retain separation from the more aggressive elements of politicing at the P5 level continues to hamper its case, even for the T10 (temp, non-veto) member nations.

Concur that Cannon should have maintained the moral high ground by keeping things at the state level, and not letting internal politics come into his messaging to the other ambassadors.  That's not to say that Ingantief's comments weren't highly inappropriate, though.

Interesting backgrounder on the current UNSC elections

regards
G2G


----------



## Neill McKay (7 Oct 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> One could note that Canada deserves a 'historical slap in the head' for short-sightedly turning down the fifth permanent seat back in 1946 (which the French gladly accepted after Canada's declination)



Well!  I had no idea about that, and had always wondered how France came to have one.  Thanks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2010)

Results of the first vote of the General Assembly (via CBC reporter covering event) ....:


> Portugal 122 to Canada 114. Canada 3rd. Germany elected


.... and from Reuters:


> And the results are #Germany 128 #Portugal 122 #Canada 114. 2nd round needed for Canada-Portugal


According to U.N. records, Canada's been at the Security Council table six times since 1948, Portugal twice.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2010)

Second round result (winner needs 2/3 votes to win), via QMI Twitter:


> 2nd round: Need 128 to win. Portugal gets 113; Canada gets 78. We're off to third round of voting.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2010)

Ladies and Gentlemen, according to Postmedia News, CBC and the Globe & Mail:


> Canada withdraws from #UN ballot, concedes to Portugal/.





> Canada drops bid for seat on UN Security Council after coming in behind Portugal in second ballot voting Tuesday in New York.


Ladies and gentlemen, it's over!!!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2010)

Why the gap on the 2nd ballot?

Votes for Canada:

1. Almost all of Asia, including China, India and Japan and even Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia;

2. The Anglosphere;

3. Some of Europe - mostly the Northern European nations;

4. A few Latin American and most Caribbean nations; and

5. A small handful of African nations with Chinese paymasters.


Votes against Canada, which, really, are not votes for Portugal:

1. Almost all Middle Eastern, North African and West Asian countries; _our policies towards Israel *are* a problem - so is our current squabble with the UAE, so is our strong connection to the USA_

2. Some other African countries with Arab paymasters; _for the same reason as above_

3. Some Latin American countries, led by Brazil; _because Brazil just plain doesn't like us - we have had and still have too many trade disputes_

4. A handful of Southern European countries, led by France, I think; _the Southern Europeans feel they are too often left out of things_

5. Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Part of Canada. _wooops! He doesn't get a vote. Sorry_

The gap may disappear in the third ballot after some countries have expressed their dissatisfaction with Canada.


Edit: to add - well no third ballot to contest. It is an abomination that two EU members are on the UNSC and Canada is not. We need, now, to organize a lot of payback - especially towards the Arabs and Africans. The aid budget is due for a chop - let the Arabs feed the Africans.


----------



## Rogo (12 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is an abomination that two EU members are on the UNSC and Canada is not. We need, now, to organize a lot of payback - especially towards the Arabs and Africans. The aid budget is due for a chop - let the Arabs feed the Africans.



Correct me, but I thought it was a "Western" Seat Canada was after; leaving this up to competition. A competition that Canada lost.(For better or for worse)  Now I'm as patriotic as the next person and I feel Canada always has and will have a lot of value to offer the international community. Is it really an "abomination" that Canada was beaten by two European Union Members who were after 2 "Western" seats? 

It just strikes me that if your position was reflected as Canada's position, the international community would figure we are having a fit because mommy didn't let us have dessert this one dinner.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2010)

I'm of the opinion of "so what?"

The UN is a corrupt body whith little moral authority, yet presumes to pass judgement upon us, send our young people on dangerous missions and demands handouts while offering very little in return for us as Canadians.

Most international issues are dealt with either bilaterally or multilaterally in various forums and alliance structures, little that is performed at the UN isn't done already elsewhere. Even things which do need international and global cooperation are corrupted by the UN; if you think bac to the SARS epidenmic which crippled Toronto and had the potential to become a devastating global pandemic, recall China refused to cooperate with the WHO, preventing or delaying an effective response. How many other international initiatives are crippled because of this sort of behaviour?

Going for a meaningless "presteige" seat is a waste of our time and resources. Let's focus our time and resources on where we really can be leaders and make an impact.


----------



## Rogo (12 Oct 2010)

I disagree, I feel the international organisation is a fine place to make an impact and allow our leaders in International Relations do their work. 

This is especially true for well balanced liberal democracies, a group of which Canada belongs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> Correct me, but I thought it was a European Seat Canada was after.  Now I'm as patriotic as the next person and I feel Canada always has and will have a lot of value to offer the international community. Is it really an "abomination" that Canada was beaten by two European Union Members who were after 2 European seats?
> 
> It just strikes me that if your position was reflected as Canada's position, the international community would figure we are having a fit because mommy didn't let us have dessert this one dinner.




In the UN's _scheme_ there are five _regions_: Africa, Americas, Asia 1, Asia 2, and Europe. Now, for reasons that are lost in the late 1940s, Canada is 'in' Europe and we would, in the normal course of events, i.e. once every ten years, get one of the 'Europe' seats. But Germany, in its own quest to be a permanent UNSC member, has upset the 'system' and jumps into the election fray even when it is not its turn. That's what they did this time. The African, Asian and American seats all went uncontested - because, as is normal, the countries of the regions decided, amongst themselves, whose turn it was in 2010. Canada and Portugal were both about 'due' for a turn on the UNSC and, in a normal course of events both would have been elected. But Germany, as I said, jumped in and it has a lot of support.

Four EU members on the UNSC is, simply, wrong. Half the UN's members have screwed up. But that's OK because half the UN's members *are* screwed up.

This will feed Stephen Harper's anti-UN instincts; Africa will be the primary victim.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2010)

Initial tidbits/message track from the post-walk-away news conference at the UN....
QMI (1):  





> Cannon blames Liberals in part for failure to win UN security council seat.


QMI(2):  





> Cannon: "The diplomatic corps, when they picked up Michael Ignatieff's statement .. the damage was done"


CBC:  





> Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon blames Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's opposition for Canada's loss in UN Security Council seat bid.


Postmedia News:  





> Cannon says #UN vote "not a repudiation" of Cdn foreign policy at newser in NY


----------



## Rogo (12 Oct 2010)

This should make some interesting interviews from Parliament Hill in the next few days.

Sorry I had corrected my earlier statement from European Seat to Western seat...but how is this too different?  

Milnews is it essentially the same thing as you alluded to with you breakdown?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (12 Oct 2010)

Apparently most of our foreign aid in Africa has been pared down to 
Ethiopia
Ghana
Mali
Mozambique
Senegal
Sudan
Tanzania

Is it possible to get their voting record from the UN on this?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2010)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Apparently most of our foreign aid in Africa has been pared down to
> Ethiopia
> Ghana
> Mali
> ...




It should not be - the UNSC 'elections' are supposed to be by secret ballot.

My guesstimate:
Ethiopia _dunno_ 
Ghana _for_ 
Mali _against_
Mozambique _dunno_
Senegal _for_
Sudan _against_
Tanzania _against_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2010)

I agree with Thucydides. The UN has become useless and corrupt. A sinkhole of money, not wisely, nor well, spent.

Anyway, no matter the reason we lost, I'm going to hold Count Iggy 100% responsible. Maybe not because he deserves _all_ the blame, but because he just doesn't know when to keep his pompous cakehole shut. So just for shiggles and my immense dislike for him. ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2010)

Bad: “Softy” Lloyd supported Canada’s UN Security Council bid
http://unambig.com/bad-softy-lloyd-supported-canadas-un-security-council-bid/



> I’m most uncomfortable with anything supported by Mr “Soft on power, soft in head” Axworthy...
> 
> Good:
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I agree with Thucydides. The UN has become useless and corrupt. A sinkhole of money, not wisely, nor well, spent.
> 
> Anyway, no matter the reason we lost, I'm going to hold Count Iggy 100% responsible. Maybe not because he deserves _all_ the blame, but because he just doesn't know when to keep his pompous cakehole shut. So just for shiggles and my immense dislike for him. ;D




If the UN didn't exist we would have to invent it ... come to think of it 'we' (Canada) did help invent it, twice.

The General Assembly, that rejected us for UNSC membership, and the General Secretariat (the staff) are, indeed, irredeemably corrupt but the GA provides a _talking shop_ where everyone, even Chad and Niger, can have a voice equal to America and China. The Secretariat is, essentially, harmless - a huge 'make work' project for thousands and thousands of unqualified people who are 'friends of' someone or other.

The UNSC provides the only (currently) internationally acceptable _authority_ for missions like Afghanistan. Even the USA recognizes that: Why else did George W Bush try so bloody hard to get the UNSC to sanction the Iraq fiasco mission?

The fact, and it is a fact, that the UNSC cannot _manage_ the complex and dangerous missions it authorizes is neither here nor there - it's only important function is to provide a mandate. After it does no one with brains the gods gave to green peppers care what it says or does - unless it withdraws that mandate.

The really important, valuable and useful parts of the UN are the member agencies like ITU, WHO, IMO and so on that provide valuable, even essential service to the whole world in a, generally, fair, open and efficient way.

So: we need the UN but we can and should be very critical of its governance and very selective about how we participate in it. For a start we should withhold some, but a big some, of our contributions to the UN, proper (not to the member agencies) - let the EU and Arabs pay.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Anyway, no matter the reason we lost, I'm going to hold Count Iggy 100% responsible. Maybe not because he deserves _all_ the blame, but because he just doesn't know when to keep his pompous cakehole shut. So just for shiggles and my immense dislike for him. ;D


You have to have something to live for, right?  ;D

For me, time to move on once the MSM cycle is done on this one - FAR bigger fish to fry than this now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2010)

The media and web sites are already full of Bob Rae, Paul Dewar and Stephen Lewis saying *"this is a stinging repudiation of Canadian foreign policy."* The Foreign Minister (Cannon) denies it. *Cannon is wrong, Rae, Dewar and Lewis are right*: much of the world, for a variety of reasons, did repudiate our foreign policy. That's their right, *but*, so long as we are convinced that our policies, towards America, towards China, towards Israel and, and, and ... are morally and politically right, then we should not give a tinker's dam what Austria, Belgium, Chad or Zimbabwe think. They can have their policies and they can _repudiate_ ours all they want. We do as we wish and the devil take the hindmost and Portugal takes the UNSC seat.

Some officials saw this coming - and saw that it was too late to try to change Arab led Muslim minds (35+ votes) or Brazil plus a few votes (15 or so) or EU and EU candidate member's votes (20+ or so votes). The Arabs and Muslims have made their point. The guesstimate is that their opposition will harden Harper's views on Israel vs. the Arabs and, when it is considered in the light of the Arabs voting against us because we support Israel's right to exist, will make more (not most) Canadians lean towards his view.

My guess is that in the EU only Britain, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden (six of 27 members) voted for us - breaking what France and Italy hoped was a block vote. I also suspect that Norway and Iceland also voted for us but that the rest of Europe, including Russia, voted for Portugal. I also think we got most of Asia's votes, maybe even Indonesia's.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess is that in the EU only Britain, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden (six of 27 members) voted for us - breaking what France and Italy hoped was a block vote. I also suspect that Norway and Iceland also voted for us but that the rest of Europe, including Russia, voted for Portugal. I also think we got most of Asia's votes, maybe even Indonesia's.



Thereby, if true continuing the two thousand year old tradition where the Free/Uncooperative Germans (Franks) continue to side with those Mediterranean tribes against their fellow Northerners (Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, Goths, Swedes, Swabians and Vandals - not to mention their later incarnations as Vikings and Rus.)  On one side an unruly mob that occasionally forms a confederacy for short term advantage and elects their kings until they are no longer of any use to them. On the other side an unruly mob convinced, no matter how often they get disappointed, that one day the messiah will come and take all their troubles away so that they can continue not working.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ignatieff acted (spoke) childishly - he is more of a partisan pissant than Harper. In this case he embarrassed himself and his country. A good reminder that a closed mouth gathers no feet.



It hasn't even been a week and the "Liberal" Press have already forgotten this.  Blame Harper.   :


----------



## HavokFour (12 Oct 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It hasn't even been a week and the "Liberal" Press have already forgotten this.  Blame Harper.   :



They may have, but I sure as hell haven't. And for those nations who we send aid to that have voted against us, I hope they like the taste of dirt.

Yeah, I'm angry.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2010)

I think the _Globe and Mail_'s editorial cartoon says it all:






Brian Gable
The Globe and Mail


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2010)

According to Postmedia News....


> Canada's historic loss in its bid to win election Tuesday to the United Nations Security Council came despite written promises of support from 135 countries, Postmedia News has learned.
> 
> The total, which comes from senior government insiders, would have been more than enough to assure Canada's victory in the ballot.
> 
> Canada withdrew from a run-off against Portugal after twice running second to the diminutive European state ....


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm angry.



You are angry because Canada did not win a temporary, non-veto seat on a mostly ineffective council ?

To each their own i guess.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2010)

I don't think the anger is about a seat in the UN, but at the shenanigans of the Liberals, NDP and the MSM.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator: Quite.  Plus a seat, had we got it, that would have caused frequent and divisive Canadian political and pundocratic, also ethno/religious, uproar about Canada's position on all sorts of things about which we have little real interest and almost no influence.

Again, suck it up.  We are not a serious internatonal player and there is no objective reason why we should be.  Time we learned to live with, and handle, the truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOYGbM3nK9k

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2010)

Paul Heinbecker (see my earlier comments here) has been all over the media crowing "I told you so" - which, in fairness he did - and making two points, one good and one bad:

1. The voting in UN secret ballots is always problematical. Unnamed officials say we had 135+ 'promised' votes - enough for an easy first ballot 'win.' We got less than 120 on the first ballot and less than 80 on the second. Heinbecker is correct to remind us that promises from anyone, even allies, are, essentially, worthless.

2. Our foreign policy is "out of step," especially on Global Warming (a European _cause célèbre_), Africa and Israel. On a purely factual basis he is, of course, right; we are out of step with much of Europe, almost all the Muslim states and most of the 'third world' on all three issues. But the real point is: *are we out of step with our good, moral, traditional Canadian values*? Heinbecker appears to believe we are. I do not. 

Climate change is a reality for which e.g. Kyoto is not the best or even a good answer. Our position is, roughly: _"we will get on board when the big guys (America, China, India and Europe) decide what to do - until then our best option is to try to avoid adding to the problem while not taking precipitous but ultimately futile action that does nothing but send good money after bad."_ That appears to be good, solid, traditional Canadian pragmatism to me.

Africa is a HUGE problem that must, ultimately, rely upon either the UN deciding to exercise and authorize _Responsibility to Protect_ (R2P) or the Africans, themselves, taking themselves in hand and sorting themselves out. Until then even charity is, largely, wasted. That, too, is traditional, morally sound, Canadian pragmatism, in my opinion.

Canada is very much on the "wrong side" of the Arab/Israel debate. Most of the world, the majority determines the "right side," is firmly in the Arab camp. So is DFAIT, as an institution, and it has been ever since people like Peyton Lyon convinces successive governments (Trudeau and Joe Clark) to shift away from Canada's traditional, even handed, fair treatment of both the Arab and Israeli positions and towards a biased, _realpolitic_, pro Arab position - towards which most of the world was moving. Lyon _et al_ cloaked their bias as standing up for the "little guy" but, in reality, it was, mostly, good old fashioned Eurocentric anti-Semitism disguised as policy. That position, the "right side" position, was and is immoral and "out of step" with Canada's traditional values.

Heinbecker _at al_ appear to believe that since most of the world is foolish and craven we should be the same in order to "be in step." I disagree.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Oct 2010)

UN Security Council: The world needs more Canada?
http://unambig.com/un-security-council-the-world-needs-more-canada/

Plus duelling "editorials" in the _Globe_.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (13 Oct 2010)

This morning I provided a comment to the online CBC story. It garnered "Disagree with this Comment" votes at about 3:1.

That the majority of those who respond to CBC comments disagree with me, I find assuring; I'm still OK   :nod:


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly (13 Oct 2010)

I'm inclined to agree with the comments disparaging the U.N.  In the immortal words of Humphrey Appleby: "The UN is the accepted forum for the expression of international hatred."
What good is an organization that, amongst other glaring omissions, denies a venue for the  voice of Taiwan's 23 million people?


----------



## IGA (13 Oct 2010)

I've got no problem with countries like Iran and their stooges or Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, UAE or a whole lot of others not voting for Canada. Don't want their votes don't want to be associated with them in any way. The games they are playing I don't mind being the last kid picked. I will sleep just fine tonight knowing Canada does'nt have a seat on the SC.        PS  That goes for alot of European countries too


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Oct 2010)

If Edward's assessment on where the votes went is reasonably accurate, and if the vote is a referendum on Canada's foreign policy, I'm satisfied that most of the UN members who matter supported us in the referendum.  I see no reason for Canada to bend its policies to suit the will of most of the remainder.  It would be like a person feeling unfulfilled if he didn't have the respect and admiration of Fisk and Chomsky.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Oct 2010)

There's also Fast Eddy Said:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006849.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010092.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008017.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2010)

There is _may be_ an important upside to this. Perhaps Canadians will start to care a bit about foreign (and, by extension, defence) policy. Perhaps the _commentariat_, especially the journalists, will start *thinking* about foreign and defence policy instead of just acting - as about 99.9% of journalists do - a _stenographers_ for retired, bitter, partisan, second rate senior officials like Paul Heinbecker.*

It would be nice - but probably it's just a pipe dream - to have Stephen Harper lead that debate and, supported by the strength in his front bench, _engage_ Canadians - not just Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Paul Dewar but _opinion leaders_ and students and _Taliban Jack_ Layton's 'ordinary Canadians,' too.

Given Prime Minister Harper's propensity to put tactics well ahead of strategy I suspect that we will not hear a coherent explanation of the government's _grand strategy_ from the government - in part, because there is none, I fear. We will have to rely upon others to present the government's case for it - because it will be roundly and well attacked by Ignatieff, Rae, Dewar, Heinbecker, Lewis _et al_.

IF Harper is as smart a political tactician as e.g. Lawrence Martin thinks he is then he would make Peter Kent - a skilled communicator (the essential skill that made both Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean so trusted and popular) - his point man on a foreign policy debate to deflate the criticism, at least, but, also to make the government's case, to _neuter_ foreign policy as an election issue.


----------
* Let me be clear: Paul Heinbecker is a charming, intelligent, politically _savvy_ fellow who 'knows' Ottawa and UN New York in the way only real 'insiders' can. He offers a lot of useful insights into policy and politics. He is, however, just plain wrong in his (and Trudeau's) strategic 'vision.'


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is _may be_ an important upside to this. Perhaps Canadians will start to care a bit about foreign (and, by extension, defence) policy. Perhaps the _commentariat_, especially the journalists, will start *thinking* about foreign and defence policy instead of just acting - as about 99.9% of journalists do - a _stenographers_ for retired, bitter, partisan, second rate senior officials like Paul Heinbecker.*



Or not:



> *Canada’s loss at the UN*
> What’s your reaction?
> 
> Thucydides
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2010)

Part 1 of 2

OK, but some folks, like Andrew Steel,* are trying, as in this opinion piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/andrew-steele/canadas-grand-strategy/article1755298/


> Canada’s grand strategy
> 
> ANDREW STEELE
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2010)

Part 2 of 2

Canada had a considered, coherent grand strategy that was enunciated in 1947 by the Minister of External Affairs and later Prime Minister Louis St Laurent in the famous Grey Lecture.St Laurent also had five principles which are expressed below in his own, first person, words:

1.	*Our external policies shall not destroy our unity*. No policy can be regarded as wise which divides the people whose effort and resources must put it into effect. This consideration applies not only to the two main cultural groups in our country. It applies equally to sectionalism of any kind. We dare not fashion a policy which is based on the particular interests of any economic group, of any class or of any section in this country. We must be on guard especially against the claims of extravagant regionalism no matter where they have their origin

2.	*Political liberty*. This is an inheritance from both our French and English backgrounds, and through these parent states it has come to us from the whole rich culture of western Europe. It is a patrimony which we ourselves have enlarged by working out on our own soil the transition from colony to free community. These are days in which the vocabulary of political thought has been so debased that there are many familiar coins that one hesitates to lay on the counter. I make no apology, however, for speaking to a Canadian audience of political liberty because I know that this phrase has content for us. I know, also, that we are all conscious of the danger to our own political institutions when freedom is attacked in other parts of the world. In the complex series of events which twice in a generation has led us into war, we have been profoundly influenced in our decisions by the peril which threatened the democracies of western Europe. From our joint political inheritance, as well as from our common experience, we have come as a people to distrust and dislike governments which rule by force and which suppress free comment on their activities. We know that stability is lacking where consent is absent. We believe that the greatest safeguard against the aggressive policies of any government is the freely expressed judgment of its own people. 

3.	*Respect for the rule of law* has become an integral part of our external as of our domestic policy. The supremacy of law in our own political system is so familiar that we are in constant danger of taking it for granted. We know, however, that historically the development of this principle is a necessary antecedent to self-government. The first great victory on the road to freedom was the establishment in early modern times of the principle that both governments and peoples were subject to the impartial administration of the courts. Only then could the further step be taken by which the people gave their consent to the laws by which they were governed.

4.	*Human values*. I know that we live in an age when it is fashionable to speak in terms only of hard realism in the conduct of international affairs. I realize also that at best the practice of any policy is a poor approximation of ideals upon which it may be based. I am sure, however, that in our national life we are continually influenced by the conceptions of good and evil which emerged from Hebrew and Greek civilization and which have been transformed and transmitted through the Christian traditions of the Western World. These are values which lay emphasis on the importance of the individual, on the place of moral principles in the conduct of human relations, on standards of judgment which transcend mere material well-being. 

5.	*Aaccept[ing] international responsibilities*. I know that there are many in this country who feel that in the past we have played too small a part in the development of international political organizations. The growth in this country of a sense of political responsibility on an international scale has perhaps been less rapid than some of us would like. It has nevertheless been a perceptible growth: and again and again on the major questions of participation in international organization, both in peace and war, we have taken our decision to be present. If there is one conclusion that our common experience has led us to accept, it is that security for this country lies in the development of a firm structure of international organization.

St Laurent’s ideas and ideals are a bit different in style and substance from either Steele or Friedman because they lead to an  _idealistic_ strategy that is firmly grounded in political domestic political realism.

I will offer my own thoughts later.


----------
* Andrew Steele is a government relations and political consultant in Toronto. He was previously senior advisor to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. He also served as Chief of Staff to the Ontario ministers of Environment, Government Services and Management Board. Described by the National Post as a "hard-nosed political veteran," Andrew has played a role in more than 25 closely-fought campaigns in Ontario, British Columbia, the United States, and on the municipal and federal scene in Canada. In the private sector, Andrew designed and analyzed public opinion surveys and interpreted focus groups at one of Canada's top market research companies.
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/andrew-steele/


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Oct 2010)

... and a not unexpected revelation:

UAE lobbied against Canada's UN bid


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Oct 2010)

Taking the "O" out of WEOG:

The UN Security Council, Canada–and the curse of the EU
http://unambig.com/the-un-security-council-canada-and-the-curse-of-the-eu/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You are angry because Canada did not win a temporary, non-veto seat on a mostly ineffective council ?
> 
> To each their own i guess.



That's what I was thinking.
Could someone please explain to me what the big deal is?

Isn't the only people who give a shit about what the UN says basially the "Illegal and unjust war! You just want oil!" crowd?  (Until someone points out that the UN sanctioned whatever then they are just a puppet of the establishment..)

What perks are we missing out on not getting a seat?


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> That's what I was thinking.
> Could someone please explain to me what the big deal is?
> 
> Isn't the only people who give a crap about what the UN says basially the "Illegal and unjust war! You just want oil!" crowd?  (Until someone points out that the UN sanctioned whatever then they are just a puppet of the establishment..)
> ...


None, IMO. The whole org has been hijacked by nations such as Libya, North Korea etc.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2010)

Steele's 5 points are entirely too focused on the US.  Limiting to 5 for simplicity and appeal, I would ditch at least #4 (at the end of the day, most "international institutions" are window dressing when rubber hits roads) and replace it with something acknowledging the importance of expanding our trade and relations with Europe and Asia.


----------



## GK .Dundas (15 Oct 2010)

OK if you want a seat on the security council ! Give me about 1.5 million in used bills plus a budget for roughly 150 $200.00 hookers,If you want a permanent seat it'll cost extra...and no I'm not joking I probably could get us a seat that way. Rather sad when you think about it.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Oct 2010)

Once people move beyond the belief the nations will always act methodically and with pattern and purpose and that our 10 years of lobbying should have swayed the vote, then one realizes that any nation (through a small cadre of influential movers and shakers) can be just as influenced by their peer nations like a kid getting "into the group" on the schoolyard.  It just happens on a larger scale than most people are used to.  :nod:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Oct 2010)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> OK if you want a seat on the security council ! Give me about 1.5 million in used bills plus a budget for roughly 150 $200.00 hookers,If you want a permanent seat it'll cost extra...and no I'm not joking I probably could get us a seat that way. Rather sad when you think about it.



Unfortunately, that's more or less the way things happen in the UN. The only thing it would cost more than a $1.5 million. The International Olympic Committee is even worst.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Steele's 5 points are entirely too focused on the US.  Limiting to 5 for simplicity and appeal, I would ditch at least #4 (at the end of the day, most "international institutions" are window dressing when rubber hits roads) and replace it with something acknowledging the importance of expanding our trade and relations with Europe and Asia.




Agreed. The USA - because, if nothing else, of wealth and proximity - needs to be at the top of our priority list but it cannot, must not be our exclusive focus. I agree with two of Steele's points about the USA:

1. We need to 'erase the border' for trade and commerce and people; but, simultaneously

2. We need to enhance our political independence from the USA.

The latter means that we need to be more active in, especially, Asia.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Oct 2010)

Just a couple of comments regarding the Andrew Steele article.



> 1. Independence from the Americans
> 
> Everything from Canadian content rules in radio broadcast to the ownership structure of critical industries is about maintaining a separate cultural identity. The impact has been to create a hybrid between the global export U.S. culture of People Magazine and Glee, with a localized and satirical Canadian sensibility that plays off of and enhances our own identity.



What Steele doesn't mention trying to maintain a separate “identity” cost Canadians – literally. Whether its airlines, cell phone providers or internet providers, Canadians are held hostage by a bunch of monopolies that rip us off all in the name of protecting our identity. 



> The methods by which we maintain that separate identity – and even what that identity is – remain in debate, but the necessity of remaining independent culturally and politically is rarely questioned.



Are Canadians all that different from the U.S.?  When I was growing-up in Saskatchewan I could identify more with someone from Montana or Arizona than I could with a fellow Canadian from Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes. The reason being is that the history of Western Canada is similar to what happened in the Western U.S. Not on the same scale, but, still similar.  Even today, many of my friends have been to the States, but have never been east of the Man/Ont border. 

And when in Europe most locals on hearing me speak thought I was American. Heck, even most Americans thought I was from Kansas because I had a “mid-Western' Accent. Interestingly, the only ones who recognized my Canadian accent were Brits. 



> 2.     Political unity of Canada
> 
> The second challenge for our country is unity.
> 
> While some like to shrug off the impact of Quebec independence on Canada, it is painfully obvious that it would shrink the country, isolate our Atlantic provinces, and leave Canada with diminished prospects and scope at best. From currency devaluation to opportunity costs, the financial impact would be severe. As East-West trade became more difficult, our dependence on North-South trade (and the United States) would soar. Quite possibly, succession would lead to further fragmentation, economic instability, reduced standards of living, or even war.



So true. Anybody, whether from Quebec or the ROC, who thinks that Quebec separating would have not enormous repercussions especially politically or economically is daydreaming.  



> 4. Strong international institutions to counterbalance U.S. hegemony
> 
> Basically, there are “great powers” in the world, like the United States, China and – arguably – countries like Russia or India.



I disagree to what Steele regards as a “great power.” To me a great power is a country/alliance that is able to project its power (militarily, politically and economically) around the world or a good portion of it. By that definition the United States is a “great power.” China, on the other hand, I would define it as a regional power. Its influence is growing, especially in Africa, but it will be years before its considered to a be a great power. However, China has a wide variety of problems including internal instability arising from increasing, poverty, corruption, pollution, demographics (more men then women) and external tensions with neighbours; all of which will have a impact on China's future.  

You could make the argument that Russia is a great power, but it also has numerous internal/external problems. No way would I consider India to be a great power. Its a regional power like Brazil and South Africa. 

Interestingly, Steele makes no mention of the EU.



> Canada is a textbook “middle power” and as such, follows the textbook on being a middle power. We attempt to strengthen international institutions where “middle powers” can use our soft power influence and reason to preserve international order through gradual reform, rather than radical global change.



When I hear someone speaking of “soft power influence” I think of Teddy Roosevelt and his saying “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick.” Soft power only works when you have power (military and political) behind you to back you up.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2010)

For people who really want to "do something", Canada is a member of dozens of organizations which actually have th ability to take action and have some clout in the world. Let's focus on getting more bang for our bucks in the:

G-8
G-20
Commonwealth
OAS
WTO
NATO, and
NORAD (among others).

If we want to get new friends, setting up an "Angosphere" association, or a council of democratic nations (both of which can be cut and pasted out of many of our existing memberships) wold provide a series of forums of nations with common interests and institutions (an Anglosphere group would share the principles of British Common Law to a large extent, for example) without the risk of being derailed by hostile parties or bit players like Libya or the DPRK.

An Anglosphere association is a pet idea of mine (as many of you know), and would give Canada a global reach, encompass many of the largest and most powerful nations on Earth (the US and India would be charter members) and have the political, ecoomic and military muscle to actually be a potent force in the world. A powerful and active Anglosphere would also serve to counterbalance other groupings (the EU, the "Sinosphere", Russia, the Arab block etc.) as well as allowing us to gradually shed alliances and groupings which seem to have reached their past due date.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Oct 2010)

Thucydides, don't forget IMF and World Bank...arguably even more influential/effective than the UNSC by a wide margin.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Oct 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Thucydides, don't forget IMF and World Bank...arguably even more influential/effective than the UNSC by a wide margin.


Hell, the crazy guy who plays guitar on the corner of Ontario & Clarence is arguably more influential/effective than the UNSC.

The difference is I don't despise him


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Oct 2010)

“A diplomatic game worth losing” (Mr Coyne on top form)
http://unambig.com/a-diplomatic-game-worth-losing/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Monsoon (15 Oct 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> “A diplomatic game worth losing” (Mr Coyne on top form)
> http://unambig.com/a-diplomatic-game-worth-losing/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Seriously? A Milnet post with no content linking to a blog post with no content other than an extract from and a link to a Maclean's article? Why not just post the Maclean's link here? Oh, that's right - because you're shamelessly promoting your blog.

Nothing wrong with that of course, but please do try to add some value when you post here.


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2010)

Actually, Mark has added far more value than most here....promoting his blog....yep...if that's what it takes to get the message out......good solid info, in any format is appreciated.


----------



## Chappie (16 Oct 2010)

We have no seat for now. 
Some say it's a good thing and others say it isn't. 
What would you say if you were the one asked to make the decision back in the day when Canada was offered the 5th permanent seat on the SC?
Also what is your reasoning behind your choice?
My choice would be to accept a seat in hopes that we could have a stronger voice in the UN


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2010)

As far as I understand (Prime Minister) King's reasoning - and my understanding is, most likely, deeply flawed - he wanted, desperately, to withdraw from the very divisive issue of international affairs. National unity was a big problem in 1945 - the conscription crisis wounds were raw – and Québec was extraordinarily _isolationist_, far, far more than it is today.

The _potential_ UNSC _permanent_ seat would have committed Canada to the sort of active internationalism that Louis St Laurent enunciated, as Canada’s foreign policy, just two years later. But two years healed a lot of wounds and there was a vast gulf between St Laurent – then in his prime – and King, already ‘failing’ at the end of the war.

(In his last days in power King opposed St Laurent but to no avail. Prime Ministers were, then, much less powerful than they are today. King was _primus inter pares_ but it was clear to all Liberals, and to King himself, that he was well past his _best before date_ and that he would have to give way. It was equally clear that St Laurent could beat George Drew’s Conservatives and retain power for the Liberals while many other contenders might not. Thus, St Laurent was, pretty much, free to set and implement a coherent Canadian foreign policy, including e.g. NATO, which King opposed. But, despite their strong disagreement on foreign policy, King remained St Laurent’s biggest supporter. He appears to have trusted St Laurent’s judgement in all matters – even when he, King, disagreed.)

King was a tired, timid man, his decision – pretty much a split second decision,* I think – reflected the man, not Canada’s _near and mid term_ interests.

Had we been on the UNSC, rather than France, I suspect that Security Council reform would have been a reality by the 1970s. It would have been abundantly clear, circa 1971, that Canada was not a great power, ditto Britain. The ‘change of Chinas’ that occurred in 1971 would, I guess, have resulted in a new, smaller, UNSC: three permanent, veto power, members: China, USA and USSR and two tiers of temporary members – a small number (also three?) of long term (five or ten year terms) members with veto powers and a larger number (eight or ten?) of short term (two years term) members without veto powers.

On the other hand, had we had a UNSC seat and given our socio-economic situation in the 1950s and 60s, we _might_ have acted like a leader in the world – spending more on defence and foreign affairs, for example, and it _might_ have been harder, maybe even too hard, for Trudeau to emasculate the country in 1969/70.

On balance, King and Trudeau reflected what _most_ Canadians appear to believe: we are a small, even poor nation that doesn’t want to be ‘out front’ in the world. Looking back, St Laurent was a political aberration: a forward looking, outward looking, _strategic_ leader who put Canada first. There were almost none like him in the past and none of his successors, up to and including Stephen Harper, have come anywhere near him in character, intellect or _vision_. Pity.

_________
Edit, to add:

It was a "split second decision," I think because, as I understand it, the offer was only "on the table" for a terribly brief period. It was a quick "take it or leave it" offer from the US and UK. I'm not sure if the offer came from Roosevelt and Churchill (possibly at or after the 2nd (1944) Québec  Conference) or from Truman and Atlee in 1945 but it appears, to me, that the offer was serious but fleeting.



Edit: typo


----------



## Chappie (16 Oct 2010)

So in a way it might have pushed us to mature since we needed to grow into our SC shoes. 
Could it be that the US and UK offered it as a courtesy and did not expect us to seriously accept? 

I like your 2 tier idea.  :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (16 Oct 2010)

Chappie said:
			
		

> Could it be that the US and UK offered it as a courtesy and did not expect us to seriously accept?



A "Courtesy", yes.  Not a courtesy in a derogatory way.

Canada was not the "Bit Player" that it is today in WW II.  We had the third largest Navy in the world, a quite credible Army, and the RCAF was a thousand times what our Air Element is today.   

[Edit to add]  Canada also had a more robust and professional Diplomatic Corps and Dept of Foreign Affairs.  Much of that professionalism has been lost today, with Bureaucrats more often being the norm rather than Diplomats.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Oct 2010)

Mr. Campbell, you give yourself far less credit than you deserve.  I think you've described the situation in 1945 very well.

regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2010)

Gerry Nicholls:



> *FYI -- My take on Canada not getting a seat on the Security Council -- who cares?*
> 
> Here's what I wrote on my blog:
> 
> ...


----------



## Chappie (18 Oct 2010)

Thanks for the info. I need to work on my history.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Oct 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell, you give yourself far less credit than you deserve.  I think you've described the situation in 1945 very well.
> 
> regards
> G2G



You answered a question that has bugged me for years: "Why did France get the UN seat and not Canada?"


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2010)

Astounding cheerleading by the WSJ!

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/wsj-on-un-vote-way-to-go-canada/



> *WSJ on UN vote: “Way to go Canada”*
> October 20, 2010 — BC Blue
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly (21 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The USA - because, if nothing else, of wealth and proximity - needs to be at the top of our priority list but it cannot, must not be our exclusive focus. I agree with two of Steele's points about the USA:
> 
> 1. We need to 'erase the border' for trade and commerce and people; but, simultaneously
> 
> ...



While I agree that the US should not be our exclusive focus, and we need to project our influence in Asia, I fail to see how we can, nor why we should, enhance our political independence from our Southern neighbour. It seems quite obvious that we have our own agenda, and that for the most part our American cousins respect that. I think the most beneficial attitude we can display is that of a co-operative partner, but one with our own sphere of influence.


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2010)

For the most part, Americans consider Canada just an extension of their own country....they don't know, nor pay attention to our differences ....


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Oct 2010)

One way of looking at restructuring the UN Security Council
http://unambig.com/one-way-of-looking-at-restructuring-the-un-security-council/



> ...
> And what about the NGA, eh?..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... Votes against Canada, which, really, are not votes for Portugal:
> 
> 1. Almost all Middle Eastern, North African and West Asian countries; _our policies towards Israel *are* a problem ...._


_

Reviving the necro-thread with this tidbit from the National Post/Postmedia News - highlights mine:






			.... Canadians should expect no thanks from the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, the world’s biggest Islamic coalition, for already deploying a frigate and six fighter jets to help enforce the internationally authorized no-fly zone over Libya — and for announcing Thursday two maritime patrol planes will be added to the deployment.

A senior Islamic official said Muslims would be skeptical of Canada’s intentions, “if asked.”

“The first answer would not necessarily be that Canada is there to save civilian lives,” the official said, asking not to be identified in keeping with diplomatic protocol at the UN when giving “background” interviews. “Canada would be seen more as helping the Western alliance.”

Fine. So *what would it take for OIC members to think more positively about Canada?

The official replied that Muslim countries would need to see Canada meet the “test” of decisively swinging toward supporting the Palestinian cause in key votes at the UN.

“Then we could reasonably say, ‘Well, these (Muslim) countries wanted Canada out, but, in fact, Canada could have been useful,’” the official said

Therein lies what will be confirmation for some about the real impulse behind the OIC’s rejection of Canada last October: It was all about Israel *....
		
Click to expand...

_


----------

