Harper's strong stance on Israel

On Parliament Hill today, Prime Minister Harper has some strong words about Canada's support for Israel, including a likely hint at why we lost a temporary seat on the UN Security Council.

"Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because history shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israel mob tell us all too well, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are in the longer term a threat to all of us."

The prime minister acknowledged that his position is not popular with all governments and organizations, including members of the United Nations and the Francophonie.

"And I know, by the way, because I have the bruises to show for it, that whether it is at the United Nations or any other international forum, the easiest thing to do is simply to just get along and go along with this anti-Israel rhetoric, to pretend it is just about being even-handed, and to excuse oneself with the label of honest broker.

"There are, after all, a lot more votes -- a lot more -- in being anti-Israeli than in taking a stand. But as long as I am prime minister, whether it is at the United Nations, the Francophonie or anywhere else, Canada will take that stand, whatever the cost."

I have to say, this is strong leadership.

More on the UN Security Council vote...

Our crack team of reporters have learned that the UAE sought to sink Canada's bid and that possibly the U.S. snubbed us by not lifting a finger to campaign for their closest neighbour.

Wait. What? The U.S.?  Aren't they our friends?

I can perhaps understand the UAE as recent disputes about airlines and airbases came to light last week, but the U.S.? Say it ain't so?

In fact, U.S. State Department insiders say that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice not only didn’t campaign for Canada’s election but instructed American diplomats to not get involved in the weeks leading up to the heated contest. With no public American support, Canada lost its bid to serve. That gives the EU more than 25% control of the body and a strong voting block to ensure EU priorities become global priorities. -- This was the second time a high profile ally could have used U.S. help yet Rice chose to stay silent.

So the question I posed yesterday was not what's wrong with Canada, but what's wrong with the U.N.?

I'd now like to change the question to: "What's wrong with the United States?"


h/t Iceman

You can't spell undo without the UN!

In light of Canada not being voted onto the United Nations Security Council by the General Assembly yesterday, here's the background and other comments.

The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday elected Colombia, Germany, India, Portugal and South Africa to serve on the Security Council for two-year terms, beginning 1 January 2011.

They will replace Austria, Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Uganda, whose two-year terms come to an end on 31 December.

To be elected to the Council, candidate countries need a two-thirds majority of ballots of Member States that are present and voting in the 192-member Assembly. The seats are allocated on the basis of geographical groupings.

Colombia, India and South Africa ran unopposed and were elected to represent their respective regions, having received 186 votes, 187 votes and 182 votes, respectively, in the first round of balloting.

The two available seats from the Western European and Other States category were contested by Germany, Portugal and Canada, with Germany winning one seat with 128 votes in the first round. The contest between Canada and Portugal went to a second round but then Canada withdrew paving the way for Portugal to win the remaining seat, with 150 votes.

The five countries elected today will join Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon and Nigeria, whose terms on the Council end on 31 December 2011. The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

You can read more on how it all works here on Wikipedia.

Ok, so I'm not happy that we didn't get on again but not surprised that we didn't.


That said, on a global political scale, I've never been a big fan of the UN or any non-sovereign undemocratic umbrella organization for that matter, especially the Security Council (UNSC) with the permanent members getting a veto.  I mean, look at the two countries who are on it:

• USA: democratic republic and the shining light of democracy
• UK: democratic constitutional monarchy
• France: democratic republic
• Russia: former communist and now semi-democratic republic with a history of justice issues
• China: communist with a history of human rights abuses, justice issues, and vast economic interest around the world

So let's look at this more closely when it came down to the vote for the last spot for the Western Europe and Others Group between Canada and Portugal.  My bet is that while Canada used to get voted on before, Arab and Muslim nations, including many African, European, and South American didn't give support primarily due to Canada's increasing and unwaivering support for Israel, coupled with the fact that we appear to be so closely tied with the US and the UK already.  But I think there's more to it.

So what does this say about Canada?  It's a bit of egg in the face, but other than that by history, every ten years or so, it was sort of our turn to be on it again.  It's not that Canada is still not a strong voice in international affairs, it's that in the last ten years, there are a slew of other countries that have seen growth and development.

So what does this say about Stephen Harper as Prime Minister?  It's not for a lack of trying but I don't think voters are going to change their support at all based on this issue, especially conservative ones.  Even then, the last time we were on the UNSC was in 1999/2000.  So since then, a lot has happened geopolitically wouldn't you say?  Would a different gov't in Ottawa have changed any of that?  Perhaps, but I doubt it.  I doubt it because it's not that Canada has really changed, but that the world has changed. Dramatically.

Many people have a view that the UN is a happy rainbow of nations that gets together often to try and do good things for impoverished people and nations around the world, and does peace-keeping missions in war-torn areas.

The reality is that it's record is not very good.  The list of places in the world where the UN did NOTHING to stop genocide, to stop war, to stop famine, is endless and far outweighs where it does any good.

The UN has become a sandbox for dictators, for crappy quasi-nations to beg, and especially for anti-Israeli banter.  The UN Human Rights Commission membership is a total joke, admitting China, Libya, Uganda, and Cuba. Seriously.


So the more important question is, with Canada and our strong history of supporting democracy and human rights around the world, in not getting its usual turn on the UNSC, I ask you, what does this actually say about the UN?