"If any Canadian woke up this morning," Robert Silver wrote in yesterday's Globe and Mail, "still under the mistaken impression that Stephen Harper is some kind of political strategic genius, surely to God the result of the UN Security Council vote has put that once trendy canard to rest once and for all."
Canada was rewarded yesterday with the same kind of shrug Mr. Harper has shown the United Nations during his entire time in office. His two speeches in the last couple of weeks marked the first time he had addressed the UN since he first came to office in 2006. During the last UN Climate Conference he was conspicuously absent. And he has pointedly let it be known that his time is better spent chatting up the locals at a northern Tim Horton's.
The Harperites reacted to their defeat by claiming the members of the General Assembly are less "principled" than the Government of Canada. But, once again, Silver had their number:
I say other than unwavering support for Israel and indifference towards Africa, can you articulate those unpopular but principled positions? Moreover, did those principled positions suddenly become popular in the last 24 hours in a quickly shifting public opinion environment? Surely Harper had some clue before the vote that Canada's foreign policy couldn't carry two thirds of the countries?
And that is the point. The Prime Minister didn't see it coming -- just as he didn't see the Great Recession coming. When he was re-elected, he forecast a "small surplus." On the day Canada's bid for a Security Council seat failed, Jim Flaherty announced the biggest annual deficit in Canadian history -- $55 billion. And historians pointed out it was 63 years ago to the day that Lester Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to defuse the Suez Crisis.
The day after the Security Council defeat, Allen Gottlieb -- who served both Conservative and Liberal prime ministers in Washington -- noted how the Foreign Affairs Department, located in the building which bears Pearson's name, has slipped into obscurity during the Harper years:
In Ottawa, power and influence have shifted away from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council. Afghanistan and climate change are handled by agencies outside of Foreign Affairs. Three deputy ministers report directly to the Prime Minister on foreign and national security affairs.
And, of course, the Harperites blamed Michael Ignatieff for the loss. "Not being able to speak with one voice as a country had a negative impact on Canada's bid," said Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. That statement completely ignored the letter which Harper sent to The Wall Street Journal after Jean Chretien politely refused to join George W. Bush's Coalition of the Willing: "For the first time in history," Harper wrote, "the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need." He was certain that Canadians were on his side; they were, he said, "overwhelmingly with us." Such was not the case. Once again, he missed the boat.
The Tory propaganda machine has told us repeatedly that the Prime Minister is blindingly brilliant. It becomes more apparent with each passing day that Mr. Harper is simply blind. The General Assembly served notice yesterday that they get it.
10 comments:
blind is a great description...and what the heck is the rest of the Conservative Party's excuse...for letting the blind lead them into folly?
I do think it is time that we stood up for Canada and by this I mean the Canada that has respect in the World. Canada that is a team player. Canada that is progressive. Canada that is a Peace Keeper. Canada that is compassionate. A Canada that is a leader because it has the policies that others like and want to follow. A Canada that not so long ago was the best place to live in the World...
Stephen Harper's Canada is not my Canada...
Your comment, Colette, is a ringing endorsement of a Canada which Mr. Harper wants to bury.
As John Ralston Saul has written, our core is Metis. We believe in widening our circle of citizenship -- something which the United Nations also stands for.
It is not surprising that the UN has rejected Mr. Harper and what he stand for.
Let's not jump to conclusions about the real significance of Canada's failure to secure a seat on the Council.
No less a luminary than David Frum wrote one day ago in the National Post that Canada's failure was due to political machinations in the EU and had nothing to do with our country. Furthermore, Mr. Frum stated, Canada's continuing support for Israel is only appropriate. Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East.
Another notable, David Van Praagh, went on record this morning in The Globe and Mail, explaining that the UN is not the principled international body it once was, but over the years has been corrupted by the old Soviet Union and now Red China. No less an authority than James Bolton, former USA ambassador to the UN, would agree with that assessment of the UN, I'm certain.
Please don't blame our Prime Minister for the failure of this new UN to award Canada the seat it deserves. This UN is not the UN of fifty years ago.
I agree that the UN is not the organization it was fifty years ago, and that navigating its labyrinths is not as easy as it used to be.
My point, though, is that the Prime Minister has taken little interest in the UN.
Whatever its flaws, the United Nations was meant to act as a forum for working out international disagreements through reason and debate and not through force of arms. Mr. Harper has little use for parliamentary debate. It should come as no surprise that he has little use for the UN.
Given that attitude, the only thing which is surprising is that he did not foresee this outcome. And the larger point of the post is that the Prime Minister has trouble foreseeing lots of things which aren't that difficult to foresee.
No less a luminary than David Frum wrote one day ago in the National Post that Canada's failure was due to political machinations in the EU and had nothing to do with our country.
Frum shot his wad a long time ago. Mr. "Axis of Evil" knows next to nothing about the issue. His association with one of the worst presidents the US has ever know left him with a reputation which makes his opinion irrelevant.
Another notable, David Van Praagh, went on record this morning in The Globe and Mail, explaining that the UN is not the principled international body it once was ...
Notable journalist. So far we have yet to have reference to an actual diplomat. The trouble with Van Praagh is his suggestion that the UN was somehow diluted by Khrushchev's rantings. I'm left wondering if he would rather the Soviets had simply left the UN and solved their disputes in the manner threatened by Nikita? Of course the Soviets ran ram-shod over the place. Better there than on the central German plain.
No less an authority than James Bolton, former USA ambassador to the UN, would agree with that assessment of the UN, I'm certain.
Do you mean John Bolton? If you do, I would suggest that your opinion is rather slanted since Bolton was one of the most reviled individuals in the worst presidential administration the US has ever known.
Harper is totally to blame. And while you may consider him a prime minister, he's not mine. The world was right in handing down an assessment of the Harper regime. Simply put, they talk big and deliver nothing.
I think the whole thing was deliberate--that ol' Steve wanted to lose the seat. Peter Van Loan's close timing of his announcement, strengthening trade agreements with Israel just about confirms all of that.
Steve may have been blind about recession, but this whole losing the seat thing was all vintage Steve the master tactician chess move.
Perhaps, CK. It's true, I think, that Harper is fixated on Israel. But, if he knew he was going to lose the vote, why the two speeches in such close proximity?
And, remember, he made no bones about the fact that he was pitching for votes. It all was too little too late; but he did push hard just before the vote.
Your last sentence gets to the heart of the matter, Dave. The Harper propaganda machine is a boastful operation.
And it dispenses hot air. The General Assembly served notice that, in their estimation, Mr. Harper isn't the real thing.
And the claim that it's Ignatieff's fault leaves the last bad taste in the mouth of the whole sorry affair. Harper can't even put a decent spin on the result, beyond blaming the opposition.
I couldn't agree more that Harper's Canada is not my Canada.
I was impressed with Colette's comment, Chris. It would appear that the wider world has sized Mr. Harper up pretty accurately.
The question is, when are Canadians going to decide that his time is up.
Post a Comment