UN Security Council Vote - Oct 12

[Michael]

http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f4819d23970b-320wi
notice all the empty seats for Harper's speech at the UN? :lol:

For anyone curious, two seats on the UN Security Council are up for election on October 12th.

Canada, Portugal and Germany are all apparently campaigning hard for the seats (two year term).

This is shaping up to be rather interesting political issue here in Canada, given that A) Canada has NEVER lost one of these campaigns and B) PM Harper has said many nasty things about the UN over the years (he'd fit very well inside the US Republican party with most of his foreign policy views - very pro-Israel, anti-UN and always pro-war).

Anyway, the upshot of this is that Canada really ought to win one of these seats, given Canadian diplomatic history, tradition and contributions to the UN. If Canada wins the seat, no one here will notice or really care. However, if Canada loses the election, that will be HUGE political failure for Harper's Government.

No upside, and plenty of risk, for Harper at the UN

Stephen Harper is no John Bolton, George W. Bush’s U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who was so skeptical of multilateral institutions he once said it was a mistake for the United States to grant any validity to international law.

Still, the Prime Minister has made it clear he is no fan of the UN. During his meeting with Shimon Peres in New York today, he told the Israeli President he was disappointed with an “unbalanced” UN Human Rights Council report on the attack on a flotilla of ships off the coast of Gaza. The Human Rights Council mission said Israel’s military response was “disproportionate and brutal” and violated international law.
...
Domestic fall out will occur if Canada loses — an embarrassment that would hand Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff a very large stick with which to beat Conservative foreign policy. “The real news would occur if Harper managed to ruin our 1.000 bating average, not if he manages to maintain it,” said Mr. Heinbecker.

As Ms. Frechette put it: “If we lose, it will be a real diplomatic humiliation.”

Source (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/23/john-ivison-no-upside-and-plenty-of-risk-for-harper-at-the-un/#ixzz10TYIKydn)

[Greendruid]

You almost should have had a separate post with the image. What an embarrassment. I don't know what past UN attendance on our leaders' speeches have been like but this is really quite pathetic. I have more people listen to me speaking about skeletons than Harper has speaking about world politics and Canada's position within that. Is this indicative of our perceived irrelevancy by the world community?

[Michael]

You almost should have had a separate post with the image. What an embarrassment. I don't know what past UN attendance on our leaders' speeches have been like but this is really quite pathetic. I have more people listen to me speaking about skeletons than Harper has speaking about world politics and Canada's position within that. Is this indicative of our perceived irrelevancy by the world community?

I think that picture says more about Harper than Canada.

[Americano]

I think that picture says more about Harper than Canada.

Harper does represent Canada.

[Zarquon]

Harper does represent Canada.
We (India)all love Canada, especially in Punjab;)
The UN seems to have lost its import post-cold war in general.
As for why attendance was so low? who knows? maybe given the general lack of interest by member states in everything except major events and issues, they chose not to bother with Harper's sales pitch.

[Michael]

Harper does represent Canada.
No, Harper represents Harper and he's very polarizing.

There are previous photos of the same session an hour earlier listening to a speech from a Swiss delegate (full house).

To be fair, the article does speak of some of the earlier speeches that morning running a bit late so Harper was speaking close to lunch time and that may account for the empty house.

Bottom line is that many UN delegates bailed on Harper's speech. That's symbolic and potentially significant. There are several such indications that Canada may lose the Oct 12th vote and if it does, it will be 100% blamed specifically (and appropriately) on Harper.

If I was a UN delegate, I wouldn't be voting to let a Bush-worshipping warmonger onto the UNSC regardless of which flag they were waving.

We (India)all love Canada, especially in Punjab;)
The UN seems to have lost its import post-cold war in general.
As for why attendance was so low? who knows? maybe given the general lack of interest by member states in everything except major events and issues, they chose not to bother with Harper's sales pitch.

As I noted above, there are photos of that same chamber from an hour beforehand and it was a full house.

And yes, Canada certainly has many longstanding relationships with many countries around the globe and is generally considered one of the most popular countries at the UN - and normally speaking - a shoe-in for a UNSC seat whenever they run for one. That's why this is an issue here in Canada as it looks like Canada's campaign is anything but a shoe-in, with the potential to lose out to Portugal, which normally carries a fraction of the diplomatic weight Canada does.

Seriously, Harper's opinions of the UN and international law aren't all that much different than Bolton.

[Michael]

Here's the same chamber an hour beforehand for Obama's speech...

http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f4818079970b-320wi

And here it is for the President of Switzerland...

http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef013487a18441970c-320wi

These are the two speeches that preceeded Harper's speech.

[Michael]

Well, Canada officially 'withdrew' its candidacy after the second ballot showed that Canada was losing in the voting very badly (surprising no one) - trailing in third place by a huge margin.

Portugal and Germany now have seats on the UNSC.

Canada's loss here is historic. Canada has won election to the UNSC every single time they stood for election and won it cleanly on the first ballot every time. By tradition, Canada stands for a UNSC seat at the beginning of each decade and has done so since the UN was founded.

Listening to the Harper Government make excuses here, there is no wonder why Canada lost this election. The Harper Government has officially blamed comments made by the Opposition Leader that Canada under Harper doesn't deserve to win. Apparently the Harper Government wants people to believe that a bunch of UN delgates from Africa and Southeast Asia actually know (and care) what the opposition leader's name is, let alone hang on his every word.

Fact is, I knew Canada was going to lose this election several weeks ago as it is no secret that Canada's increasingly and militantly pro-Israel political policy under PM Harper and the Conservatives was athema to the vast majority of UN delegates.

I can't say I blame the UN - I wouldn't vote to let one of Harper's cronies onto the UNSC. USA already has a veto there. Why should the USA get two votes on the UNSC? Everyone knows that any Harper appointee to the UNSC would just take their marching orders from Washington because that's how Harper and the Canadian Conservative party does business.

Nice to see that Harper's words are biting him in the ass now. This is a huge political embarrassment for Harper. The UN is extremely popular in Canada and Harper just pissed on it.

For those of you unfamiliar with Harper's UN politics, suffice it to say that former US Ambassador to the UN (under Bush) Bolton would be very comfortable with Harper's views on the UN.

Here's some news articles on the topic...

Canada loses bid for UN Security Council seat

OTTAWA — In a stunning swipe Tuesday at Canada's foreign policy shift under the Conservative government, United Nations voters rejected Canada's bid for a seat on the prestigious Security Council.

After trailing in two rounds of balloting at the UN General Assembly in New York, Canada withdrew its bid for a Security Council seat.

As recently as two weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pitched Canada's candidacy for the Security Council to the 192 member countries at the UN.

But despite depositing bottles of maple syrup on the desks of voters Tuesday and bringing in some uniformed Mounties as part of a last-minute pitch for support, UN voters soundly rejected Canada's bid for a seat.

In six tries — about once every decade since the creation of the United Nations — Canada had never lost an election to the Security Council.
Source (http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2796258)

Canada withdraws from race for UN council seat

NEW YORK, N.Y.— Bruised on the second ballot by its Portuguese rival, Canada called an abrupt halt to its bid Tuesday to rejoin the United Nations Security Council — the country’s second international black eye in as many days.

Canada’s UN Ambassador John McNee made the surprise announcement after the second ballot gave Portugal 113 votes and Canada just 78, both short of the 128 votes required for victory, but reflecting a widening margin.

On the first ballot, Germany claimed the other available seat with 128 of 191 ballots cast. Portugal came second with 122 votes, while Canada collected 114.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office wasted little time assigning blame for the disappointment, placing it at the feet of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

“I would say a big deciding factor was the fact that Canada’s bid did not have unity because we had Mr. Ignatieff questioning and opposing Canada’s bid,” Dimitri Soudas, Harper’s communications director, said in an interview.

“That was a factor that played ultimately against Canada because people outside of Canada were saying, ‘Well, Germany and Portugal have a united front, their opposition and their governments seem to be fully, 100 per cent behind this bid.’

“Canada did not have that required advantage. We had an opposition leader that opposed Canada and clearly was not in it for Canada on this one.”

Source (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/873910--canada-portugal-battle-for-remaining-un-security-council-seat)

Canada not shoo-in for UN seat

OTTAWA - The world will decide whether Canada deserves a seat on the prestigious United Nations Security Council on Tuesday.

Long a beacon of human rights, tolerance and diversity, Canada is no longer considered a shoo-in for one of two rotating seats up for grabs on the UN's top body.
...
Onlookers say Canada's pro-Israel stance, which began under prime minister Paul Martin but deepened under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has irked many Middle East countries and European allies.

A lack of action of climate change has also further alienated the Europeans, as well as many island nations concerned they will soon find themselves under water.

The Harper government's early decision to refocus aid away from Africa to Latin America wasn't looked upon too favourably but another former Canadian UN ambassador Paul Heinbecker said aid budgets increases and the maternal health initiative have tempered criticisms.

Heinbecker said a key consideration may be Canada's contribution to the maintenance of peace and security - a criterion on which the UN charter says members should be judged.

While Canada is involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, it hasn't done much for a decade on the UN military mission front, he notes.

Source (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/10/11/15656416.html)

Btw, the first and last news articles come from Canada's rightwing media outlets (the ones that normally carry water for the Conservative Party). The second article comes from Canada's flagship liberal media outlet.

[WFCY]

Somewhat familiar. Yes Bolton kinda guy.

so, LOL Harper. Go fuck yourself- or I guess sucking some more uncle Sam cock is the only resort. Enjoy our cheeseburger cum while you are at it.

I'd love to see some repercussions for this guy's support for war in Afghan and Zionism. He is not Tony Blair, but he certainly aspires to be one. And should be stigmatised for doing so.

[Michael]

Somewhat familiar. Yes Bolton kinda guy.

so, LOL Harper. Go fuck yourself- or I guess sucking some more uncle Sam cock is the only resort. Enjoy our cheeseburger cum while you are at it.

I'd love to see some repercussions for this guy's support for war in Afghan and Zionism. He is not Tony Blair, but he certainly aspires to be one. And should be stigmatised for doing so.

Yes, I'd like to see Harper kicked out of office. Heck, I'd settle for just an internal Conservative coup to replace the guy. Either one of the two most likely Conservative contenders for the job would be far less obnoxious than this guy.

Unfortunately, Canada is going through a bad patch of lousy political leadership material for the last few years - with no end in sight. This has affected all the political parties with only the NDP having a leader that is generally liked and fairly successful with his party (Jack Layton), but they are the unofficial 3rd party up here so that doesn't matter. Given the modern trend where all political and policy expertise is focused entirely in the PMO (Prime Minister's Office - aka 'the White House'), the leader of the governing party has ALL the power.

So the ONLY way to realistically get rid of Harper is to replace him with Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Liberals) who, essentially, is an old school New England style Republican who has spent 90% of his adult life living in the USA (teaching at Harvard). Unfortunately, Mr. Ignatieff scores about 2/10 on the political charisma scale - actually lower than Mr. Harper's 3/10 charisma score! :lol:

Seriously, think about the 2004 US Presidential election - Bush was highly vulnerable but won because he was running against John Kerry. Same game up here, except John Kerry looks like a REALLY STRONG candidate compared to the snoozefest that is Michael Ignatieff.

Btw, Ignatieff, while at Harvard, penned a couple of fine essays to justify and support the US invasion of Iraq and the Bush policy of rendition. He has since publicly repudiated(1) these positions, but I can see the rightwing attack campaign coming against this guy a mile away. They are going to tear him to pieces (rightly so, he makes a BIG target of himself with his liberal internationalist/humanitarian pro-interventionist past - exact same 'intellectual' school as Tony Blair's defense of the Iraqi adventure!

Note(1): Has this word been replaced by "refudiate" in the American political lexicon? :lol:

[Michael]

Here's a link that confirms what I said about Harper blaming the leader of the opposition and the reality at the UN...

... But despite recent rumblings among member nations about Canada's decidedly Israel-friendly foreign policy, a shortage of aid to Africa and Harper's perceived indifference to the UN, the federal Conservative government almost immediately laid the blame for the loss at the feet of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon insisted that Ignatieff's comments last month questioning whether Canada had earned a spot on the council almost single-handedly put the boots to Canada's hopes. Cannon denied any knowledge that other issues might have played a role.

"I do not think that this is a repudiation of Canada's foreign policy," he told a news conference.

"Canada ran a campaign based on principle; we ran a strong campaign. Unfortunately, back home in Canada, the leader of the opposition determined that Canada does not speak with one voice."

Several ambassadors who emerged from the vote made no mention of Ignatieff's remarks; one had never even heard of him.

Instead, African ambassadors, in particular, pointed to a series of Canadian stances on issues ranging from African debt relief to the Conservative government cutting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and accusing it of having terrorist links.

Source (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101012/national/un_canada)

Our hyper-partisan PM Harper has a tried and true formula for everything... "noun, verb, blame Ignatieff". It is beginning to wear pretty thin. Ignatieff isn't the PM and doesn't run the country and most people in Canada haven't even heard of him or know who he is.