• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada security council seat

sean m

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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


 
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
 
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
 
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.

Canada competes for a seat once every decade and has always succeeded. Failure would be a blow for a country that has long prided itself as being one of the U.N.'s biggest backers.

Yet, since Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper took power in 2006, Ottawa has adopted policies that have irritated some of the countries -- notably in the Middle East and Africa -- that could normally be relied on to vote for Canada.

Harper has in the past shown ambivalence toward the United Nations and diplomats say Canada's effort to win a seat this time started later than usual and expended fewer resources.

Many predict Canada will win by a narrow margin but stress that this is not guaranteed.

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon took time out from an address to foreign ambassadors on Wednesday to criticize Michael Ignatieff, leader of the main opposition Liberal Party, who questions whether Canada deserves a Security Council seat.

"One of the few persons who believe that Canada should not sit on the Security Council, unfortunately, is the leader of the opposition, Mr Ignatieff, who has shown himself to be unable to put the interests of his country above the interests of his party," Cannon told the envoys.

Participants described Cannon's comments as "weird" and "very unusual", noting that foreign ministers are supposed to leave domestic politics out of speeches to ambassadors.

"We're getting close to the vote and they are clearly feeling the heat. The speech was designed to cover their backs so, if they don't win, they can blame Ignatieff," one person who had been in the room told Reuters on Thursday.

Asked about the comments, a spokeswoman for Cannon said: "The fact that Mr Ignatieff has opposed Canada's bid for the Security Council is not exactly an A+ for the bid."
....
More from Reuters here.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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


 
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?
 
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?
 
drunknsubmrnr said:
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?


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
 
Back
Top