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.
