Over the years, when Britain has run for elected positions at the United Nations, it has consistently won them. However, the example of Canada this month suggests that if Britain had to run for a Security Council seat, it would almost certainly have lost – certainly in the aftermath of the Iraq wwar. UN members, a motley crowd, can take sermons from consistent moralisers, but get impatient with those such as Tony Blair who preach international law but do not practice it.
The UN General Assembly recently finished electing five temporary members who will sit for two years on the Security Council. The event is interesting on a general level, since many of the countries proposed for new permanent seats will all be there as elected members. India and South Africa were elected unopposed to join already sitting Brazil and Nigeria among putative permanent members. Germany, another would-be permanent, won a contested election. Portugal’s defeat of Canada should be a wake-up call for the Canadian electorate – although it is unlikely to disturb the isolationist reveries of Stephen Harper and his right-wing government.
Since the beginning of the UN, Canada had been on a par with Sweden as the very model of a modern UN member and had been almost automatically elected to any position in the organisation. That was not just because the Canadians were polite or that the Mounties had nice red uniforms. It was based on an independence of spirit that could stand up to London and, more importantly, Washington, when it came to issues of principle.
In times past, Ottawa had defied its giant neighbour to establish relations with China, and later maintained trade, travel and diplomatic links with Cuba. Before Harper, Canada supported pillars of international law, such as the international tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court, and pioneered the articulation of the Responsibility to Protect, which established principles for genuine humanitarian intervention that avoided acting as a cover for aggression. Canada’s stand on the Middle East was an exemplary statement of international law and accepted UN decisions, which refused to recognise the annexation of the territories, declared settlements to be illegal and called for an independent Palestinian state.
And then Harper and the new breed of rebarbatively reactionary Canadian conservatives took over. They began by emulating George W Bush at almost every level and in some ways went further. Canada showed hostility to Russia and China, more it would appear on atavistic Cold War grounds than any deep concern for human rights, since Ottawa developed an American-style expediency on that subject. Its troops in Afghanistan handed over prisoners to the CIA and its officials did nothing at all about Canadian citizens kidnapped in New York and sent for torture in the Middle East or held in Guantanamo.
Sixty years of Canadian practice were reversed. The country that almost invented peacekeeping stopped contributing blue helmets. The inherent isolationism of many conservatives was reflected in retrenchment of foreign missions and foreign aid. Some Canadian diplomats suggest that Harper and company scarcely noticed until the last moment that the Security Council candidacy was coming up, did little or nothing to prepare for it and seemed insouciant of how conservative policies have tarnished Canada’s reputation.
Amazingly, Harper continues to pander to Bushism even though Bush has gone. There could be an expedient argument for kow-towing to a neighbouring superpower, but Ottawa does not seem to have noticed the last presidential election in the US. At a time when, if you believe the conservative squawks in Israel and the US, Barack Obama’s administration is being Muslim, anti-Semitic and vicious towards Israel, the Canadian government has continued to act as if Israel can do no wrong. We are not talking about the humming and hawing from Britain and other European states, which dislike Israeli behaviour but always find an excuse to abstain on votes about it. Canada has recently opposed any scrutiny whatsoever for Israeli actions.
While the official Canadian Middle East policy on its foreign ministry website has not changed, executive decisions have profoundly altered its application. The government has withdrawn contributions to the UN Relief and Works Agency, which feeds and educates Palestinian refugees. It defunds grants to NGOs that investigate Israeli human rights abuses. And whatever you think of the principle, what government with any sense of diplomacy signs a trade agreement with Israel days before asking for non-aligned votes?
The government blamed Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the opposition, who had suggested overall government foreign policy would cost the seat. He later discounted the Middle East issue, but it was certainly a major factor. However, faced with a reactionary, vicious, neo-conservative-inclined Canadian Israel lobby there is little opposition even from the opposition to the proposition that Israel is always right.
Ironically, the defeat of Canada vindicates a long-standing Canadian proposition: that no additional permanent Security Council seats should be created, rather that more elected ones are added with the option for renewable terms. Perhaps Ottawa’s defeat will send a message to other aspirant powers about the need to listen to others.
