# UN Security Council Seat 2020



## FJAG (17 Jun 2020)

An interesting viewpoint from Al Jazeera:



> Canada does not deserve a seat at the UN Security Council
> 
> If allowed into the council, Canada will act as an 'Israeli asset' and contribute to the erosion of international law.
> by Jonathan Kuttab
> ...



See rest of article here: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/canada-deserve-seat-security-council-200616080944071.html

CBC's here:



> Trudeau's long campaign to join UN Security Council winds down as ambassadors vote
> 
> Canada up against Norway, Ireland in bid for 2 non-permanent seats
> Peter Zimonjic, Salimah Shivji, Sarah Sears · CBC News · Posted: Jun 17, 2020
> ...



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-un-security-council-vote-today-1.5615068

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (17 Jun 2020)

We lost. Ireland and Norway got the seats.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7070563/canada-united-nations-security-council-seat/


----------



## CBH99 (17 Jun 2020)

JT must be so sad today!!   :'(


Now Ireland & Norway can chip away, with minimal results, within a dysfunctional council ruled by the Big 5, and accomplish absolutely nothing for their efforts - however noble the efforts may be.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Jun 2020)




----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jun 2020)

Despite him putting his best socks on, must be quite heart breaking for him.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jun 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Despite him putting his best socks on, must be quite heart breaking for him.



He can do a big 'mea culpa' but likely won't. Not the first time he's proven to be a weak link, and it seems to becoming a habit:


Justin Trudeau’s Spectacular Self-Destruction

Canada’s prime minister was once seen as messianic. Now he’s become just another conventional politician fighting for reelection while plagued by scandals and blamed for unfulfilled promises.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/01/justin-trudeaus-spectacular-self-destruction-canada/


----------



## Remius (17 Jun 2020)

Definitely a credibility issue after this.

Play high stakes games and you could pay a high price for it.


----------



## ballz (17 Jun 2020)

"Let's not rush to judgement, everyone. It would have been a waste of taxpayer dollars and national dignity even if we had won." - Jen Gerson


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Jun 2020)

Paul Wells: Believing a win at the UN would fall from the heavens on Trudeau because he wasn't Harper was an expression of the narcissism and shallowness that have characterized this government during much of its time in office

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-un-security-council-rout-canadas-at-the-back/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1592432369


----------



## Haggis (17 Jun 2020)

I blame the Al Jazeera article for scuttling his chances.  Couldn't be anything he'd done at home or abroad that cause it.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Jun 2020)

Another article in Macleans by Scott Gilmore that looks at the reason Canada lost the vote:



> Why Canada fails time and again on the world stage
> 
> Scott Gilmore: The UN Security Council seat loss is more proof that when a real geopolitical crisis finally comes, we have no foreign policy muscle to save us
> 
> ...



 Link


----------



## FJAG (17 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I blame the Al Jazeera article for scuttling his chances.  Couldn't be anything he'd done at home or abroad that cause it.



It's not the article. The article merely states the opinion that is held many many of the unaligned countries in the world who massively favour the position of the Palestinians as against the Israelis. Much of the world sees Canada as a "Zionist apologists".

What I find strange is that the Liberals weren't smart enough to figure that out that even their tiny flip-flop in 2019 (I presume to bolster their image) wasn't enough. The Liberal administration had voted fully against these types of resolutions in the three years prior to 2019.

For example see here: https://canadatalksisraelpalestine.ca/2020/01/18/so-how-did-canada-vote-at-the-un-in-2019-on-israel-palestine-see-for-yourself/

 :cheers:


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It's not the article. The article merely states the opinion that is held many many of the unaligned countries in the world who massively favour the position of the Palestinians as against the Israelis. Much of the world sees Canada as a "Zionist apologists".
> 
> What I find strange is that the Liberals weren't smart enough to figure that out that even their tiny flip-flop in 2019 (I presume to bolster their image) wasn't enough. The Liberal administration had voted fully against these types of resolutions in the three years prior to 2019.
> 
> ...



The UN is high school, and Canada is the slightly weird kid that all the cool kids allow to hang out with them. He spends every dime he has buying everyone ice cream and pop and whatnot, but never gets to go to the epic parties.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Jun 2020)

Quote from article:
“ At this point it is obvious that in order for any of this to change, we are going to need to be hurt. Canada is going to have to burn its fingers on the stove, burn them badly, before we finally take foreign affairs seriously.

What will that look like? I don’t know. Look around the world and at the various international nightmares being visited upon dozens of nations. Refugees, war, disasters, ethnic conflicts—it could be any or all of these at once. Canada’s turn will inevitably come. And when our real geopolitical crisis finally arrives, it will be ugly and traumatic as we collectively realize how many decades were wasted, and how little diplomatic muscle we have to claw our way back the day our luck runs out.”


This, but how traumatic and how ugly? The world has been crappy since the big flash of 45, and everything seems fine (apparently).


----------



## Stoker (17 Jun 2020)

"Trudeau's defeat became somewhat inevitable yesterday after India said they would not support Canada's bid. This came in spite of Trudeau assuring the Indian prime minister that he would vote in favour of their country having a seat at the table.

Indian government officials explained to the Hindustan Times that Trudeau did not have a basic understanding of international diplomacy: "reciprocal arrangements [were] in place with Ireland and Norway even before Canada entered the UNSC race."


Do you think his Indian Mr. Dress-up trip to India contributed to India not supporting Canada?


----------



## Xylric (17 Jun 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> The UN is high school, and Canada is the slightly weird kid that all the cool kids allow to hang out with them. He spends every dime he has buying everyone ice cream and pop and whatnot, but never gets to go to the epic parties.



I take a slight different approach to that metaphor, as I consider Canada in the feminine (as I do with most every nation whose name ends in a soft vowel).


If the UN is a high school, Canada is the daughter of two of the teachers, whose divorce is the subject of local legend. She tries to be friendly with everyone, but all anyone sees is her self-appointed bully of a boyfriend, the United States.

Perhaps a bit crass, but I think it gets the point across,


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jun 2020)

Xylric said:
			
		

> I take a slight different approach to that metaphor, as I consider Canada in the feminine (as I do with most every nation whose name ends in a soft vowel).
> 
> 
> If the UN is a high school, Canada is the daughter of two of the teachers, whose divorce is the subject of local legend. She tries to be friendly with everyone, but all anyone sees is her self-appointed bully of a boyfriend, the United States.
> ...



You've summed it up quite nicely.


----------



## Baz (18 Jun 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Do you think his Indian Mr. Dress-up trip to India contributed to India not supporting Canada?



No.

Stuff like that is just fodder for the masses.  Countries don't make decisions on things that may affect their geopolitical decisions based on fluff.

Or am I the one living in a altruistic haze?


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jun 2020)

Baz said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Stuff like that is just fodder for the masses.  Countries don't make decisions on things that may affect their geopolitical decisions based on fluff.
> 
> Or am I the one living in a altruistic haze?



You'd be surprised. 

'Gravitas' can be everything at the global diplomatic level.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Jun 2020)

The Mr. Dress-up picture may not have been the basis for their decision but it may have caused them to take a second look at Canada's leadership and ask the very relevant question: is that all their is?  The entire trip depicted a leader with a very sophomoric outlook.  Not one who could look at a global situation, evaluate the options and make a wise decision.  The trip depicted a leader in whom wisdom is sadly lacking.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2020)

To be honest it has more to do with:

Minimal trade, 1% total I think?

More importantly, inviting a convicted Khalistani terrorist to a diplomatic event, and the perception that Canada is being influenced by Pakistan.

The dress up incident is not the catalyst for this whole mess but it adds to the indifference that India feels that Canada is giving them. 

 https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/indiacanada-relations-frigid-due-to-pakistan/1807852


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Jun 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> More importantly, inviting a convicted Khalistani terrorist to a diplomatic event, and the perception that Canada is being influenced by Pakistan.



:nod:

This


----------



## FJAG (18 Jun 2020)

Thoughtful article from The Guardian:



> Canada’s failed UN security council bid exposes Trudeau’s 'dilettante' foreign policy
> 
> Second failed attempt to win seat raises questions about messaging and clarity in Canada’s foreign policy, experts say
> 
> ...



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/18/canada-loses-bid-un-security-council-seat-justin-trudeau

 :cheers:


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jun 2020)

Start of a post (several further links):



> He Did Worse than Harper! Justin Trudeau’s Vanity Quest for UN Security Council Seat Crashes and Burns
> 
> The estimable Matthew Fisher (tweets here), one of Canada’s journalists most familiar with the world’s realities, has a look at the PM’s noble (hah!) quest in a piece at Global News (with video):
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Jun 2020)

I really don't understand why a security council seat even matters; anything of substance gets hammered, undercut or otherwise vetoed by one of the permanent members, as one of them will inevitably not like it. The UN is generally a bit of useless pomp and circumstance that happens to occasionally do some good things regardless.  We don't really do much of anything, and I'm not really sure what our foreign policy is once you get past the platitudes. The ships deployed with NATO don't really have any direction other then mark time, and while we did a lot of training with other navies and whatnot, they put us in a box in the Med where thousands of refugees are dying trying to escape the civil wars in Syria, Libya and elsewhere with no ability to do anything proactive to actually help. Showing 'a presence' looks good on paper I guess but if we're all talk and no action as a country, why would anyone care what we think at the UN?


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jun 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Start of a post (several further links):
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/06/18/he-did-worse-than-harper-justin-trudeaus-vanity-quest-for-un-security-council-seat-crashes-and-burns/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Preachy indeed. Finger wagging and "holier than thou" proclomations are not foreign policy. 

And as for JT's idiocy "Canada is back" I have news for him - Canada never left.


----------



## mariomike (18 Jun 2020)

Interesting observation from Reply #10,



> Losing the Security Council seat is not a catastrophe. It will be greeted with a lot of shrugs, and go largely unnoticed by the public. The Conservatives will howl in outrage, but they howl about even the tiniest things, so it is impossible to tell if they actually care. Tomorrow, we will move on, because the loss just doesn’t hurt.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jun 2020)

PETER McKENNA: Trudeau’s failed UN Security Council bid — explained

Back in March, there was no shortage of critics breathlessly predicting that Canada’s bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council would fail miserably.

They pointed to Canada’s lacklustre efforts in international peacekeeping and climate change, an inability to showcase its multilateralist credentials and Justin Trudeau’s failure to push our candidacy in foreign capitals. We now know that their prognostications were right on the mark.

It is worth mentioning, though, that because of the novel coronavirus pandemic and a cratering global economy, this was no typical UN vote. The world of cascading crises made it exceedingly difficult for Ottawa to orchestrate a full-blown international campaign, to participate in the critical face-to-face meetings — and necessary diplomatic horse-trading — to secure a country’s support and to engage in the 11th-hour politicking sometimes needed to seal the deal.

Still, the Trudeau Liberals were confident that Canada would eventually prevail when the contest went to a second ballot. To add insult to injury, Canada lost on the first ballot (garnering only 108 votes) to Ireland (which secured 128 votes) — receiving fewer votes than UN-skeptic Stephen Harper’s failed bid in 2010 (which notched 114 votes). 

(There was never any doubt that Norway would get the nod for the other seat from the Western European and Others Group or WEOG geographic bloc.)

The Liberal government attempted valiantly to put the best possible spin on what was undoubtedly an embarrassing defeat. As Trudeau remarked: “We forged new partnerships, we strengthened existing friendships and we laid a solid foundation for an even greater collaboration in the future. …Getting the seat was never an end in itself.”

So, why exactly was Canada unsuccessful again? What made this UN campaign little different from the disastrous 2010 outcome?

Notwithstanding the final result, it goes without saying that Canada’s UN Ambassador, Marc-André Blanchard, did a superb job of leading Canada’s team effort in New York. He had obviously worked hard at courting the various UN ambassadors from numerous countries and capitalizing on his networking over the last few years and his likable demeanour. 

Even though the balloting is secret, it seems obvious that the regional voting blocs in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific generally did not come through for Ottawa. Much like the failed Harper bid, many of these countries chose to desert Canada at this critical moment.

Part of the problem is Canada’s placement in the WEOG geographic bloc, which is highly competitive, not always friendly toward Canada and loaded with attractive European candidates. It should properly be situated in the more hemispherically compatible Latin America and the Caribbean grouping. Perhaps this is something that Canada will look into changing in the coming years.

Moreover, one should not forget that both Norway and Ireland had been working on their Security Council bids for more than 10 years, while Canada had been actively engaged on the file for only four. In addition, those successful countries spent more money on their respective campaigns when compared to Canada’s $2.3 million outlay.

Some commentators have suggested that China, in light of its enormously strained relationship with Ottawa, pressured member states in the developing world to vote against Canada. Maybe. But I don’t think that was a key explanatory factor.


What we do know is that there’s no disputing the fact that Canada’s international engagement lately — on the development assistance front and the climate change issue — did not serve to bring sufficient numbers of member states to our side. They simply weren’t convinced that we were doing enough on both counts.

Similarly, our record on international peace support missions — especially when compared to the stellar performance of Ireland — left a sour taste in the mouths of UN members. And they were less than impressed with Canada’s relatively small personnel contribution to the admittedly challenging Mali mission in Africa, the short duration of its commitment and its unwillingness to extend its participation in the face of multiple UN requests.

Yes, of course, domestic politics were at play here for Trudeau — reaching back to his 2015 pledge that “Canada is back” on the world stage. There is no doubt that he had expended a great deal of diplomatic capital in trying to secure this UN seat. That is why this unsuccessful bid is a significant blow to his prime ministership, his personal political standing and Canada’s reputation internationally.

The failed bid highlights the fact that our middle power status does not have the cachet that it once had. Indeed, the most difficult realization perhaps to come out of this is that Canada’s voice in the world matters a lot less than many of us had come to believe.

Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.

https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/opinion/local-perspectives/peter-mckenna-trudeaus-failed-un-security-council-bid-explained-464849/


----------

