[Tricks]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Canada has not had a very coherent foreign policy for some time now. Also, this is the Security Council, but our spending on the military is abysmal. We didn't deserve the seat.

We desperately need a coherent foreign policy. We have three belligerents in Trump, Xi and Putin, two of whom are neighbours. International institutions are fraying.

Maybe focus on some much needed military renewal instead, starting with those choppers.

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

For those who insist that Harper and only Harper is to blame, for everything and for the rest of eternity too apparently, there's this little tidbit. Canada's presence on the world stage is no larger now after Harper's been gone for five years than it was when he was PM, and in some cases it's even diminished further since Trudeau was elected:

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/matt- ... ae7550618/

$1:

After four years of effort and huge sums of money and energy, Canada decisively lost its bid for a UN Security Council seat on Wednesday. It placed third, behind winners Ireland and Norway, and such a distant third that it was all over on the first ballot.

In other words, if Canada’s back, the world hasn’t noticed, or cared.

“Canada’s back,” of course, was the slogan much-loved by the Trudeau Liberals when they defeated Stephen Harper in 2015. It was always nonsensical. Canada remained engaged in the world during Harper’s tenure and continued to hold a high international reputation in surveys. The notion that the Harper years were some dark age in Canadian foreign policy might be true for a small section of Canada’s foreign policy establishment and no doubt is for Liberals, but no one else seemed to have noticed much. “Canada’s back” really meant, for Liberals, that they were back — back at the helm of the country they often seem to think it’s their birthright to rule. Getting the seat on the council would have been the symbolic confirmation of Canada’s (their) “return.”

And … that’s about it. There’s no other real advantage to a two-year term in one of the temporary, non-veto-wielding seats. No one outside of Canada much cares whether Canada has a seat at the table, and to be frank, the Norwegians and Irish have worked harder for it. Both are well ahead of Canada in foreign assistance spending, especially Norway, which is the world’s leader (per capita); Ireland has consistently contributed more than Canada to peacekeeping in recent years. Canada did contribute to the UN mission in Mali, but only after years of dithering, and that contribution was limited and brief. With no disrespect intended to the troops who took part, it was token, and ended as soon as the Liberals could arrange. A persuasion campaign by Canadian diplomats and the prime minister’s personal charm were clearly not enough to compensate for our manifest lack of interest in meaningfully contributing abroad. In fact, the Trudeau government got fewer votes for the seat than the Harper government did in 2010.

Not that it matters. Unless you count the millions of public dollars that Trudeau eagerly spent in campaigning for the seat. And the fact that he compromised Canadian principles, breaking a longtime pattern of not supporting anti-Israel resolutions at the UN while sweet-talking some pretty unsavoury world leaders in an attempt to win their votes. Not to mention the vast government resources he marshalled in pursuing his vanity project, even as Canada was dealing with a pandemic crisis of historic proportions.

No one outside of the Liberal party and Canada’s foreign service establishment is likely to be too heartbroken over this. That’s fair enough, as far as it goes — the UN is dysfunctional and, at least in its current form, obsolete. While some of its individual programs continue to do good work, as a whole, it’s best ignored until massively overhauled. Given its Cold War-era roots and design, such an overhaul might not even be possible. Indeed, Canada would have been better off investing its time and energy in campaigning for those reforms, rather than for a temporary place at the tippy-top of the current broken model.

But we didn’t, and now that our defeat is official, it’s time to ask some tough questions, starting with: Now what?

Seriously. Now what? Given the pandemic and the economic collapse and our minority Parliament, the prime minister could be forgiven an urge to turn inward and focus on domestic issues for the foreseeable future. There’s more than enough to keep him busy here at home.

What is it with the Canadian left, especially the Liberal party, that finds all-things-UN so compelling to them? Like, is being on the diplomatic cocktail party circuit really such a great source of prestige. NO ONE ELSE CARES, so why was it necessary to end up embarrassing the country with this loss just so the Liberals could get back on the invitation list to the upscale parties in New York City? And why is the UN even held in any sort of esteem when, at any given moment, countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a host of other rotten dictatorships, holds sway over where development and aid money gets sent to?

I know it's the Calgary Herald, but talk about a BS partisan article.

Huge sums of money? The government sepnt $2.3 million on the bid. Compare that to the $1.9 million Harper's government spent on a TEMPORARY lake pavilion for the 2010 G8 summit:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pm-def ... n-1.946608

Which do you think had a greater potential for increasing Canadian influence abroad? I can tell you which one I think.

As for the rest of the criticisms, they are completely valid, because Harper cut foreign aid, cut defence spending, cut peacekeeping, and refused to step up for this seat back in 2010. Instead of "Try, try again" Harper and Co. took their ball and went home, and just tagged along with the US in Iraq, launching air strikes on ISIL and contributing a handful of troops to train the Iraqi Army.

The reason some people think the UN is a good thing is that it allows smaller countries like Canada to gain influence without resorting to bombing or invading a neighbour like dictatorships. It also provides a valid forum to engage said dictatorships and despots instead of attacking them, or as is often the case, just ignoring them.

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Canada has not had a very coherent foreign policy for some time now. Also, this is the Security Council, but our spending on the military is abysmal. We didn't deserve the seat.

We desperately need a coherent foreign policy. We have three belligerents in Trump, Xi and Putin, two of whom are neighbours. International institutions are fraying.

Maybe focus on some much needed military renewal instead, starting with those choppers.

Very true - for close to 30 years, we've coasted on defence spending, cut foreign aid, and spent too much time following in the US footsteps. We need all sorts of new hardware, from fighters to patrol aircraft to destroyers and frigates.

Unfortunately, too many Canadians would prefer a hefty tax cut or subsidized daycare. As I've said many times, Canadians only have themselves to blame because we keep voting in the same types of knuckleheads who promise big change but never deliver.

[Thanos]

The G7, NATO, NORAD, the various trade deals, and the Five Eyes are by far much better avenues for increasing Canadian influence and prestige than the UN could ever be. Just because you're in some kind of love with the myths wrapped around the UN doesn't make those myths real.

[Zipperfish]

Tricks Tricks:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Canada has not had a very coherent foreign policy for some time now. Also, this is the Security Council, but our spending on the military is abysmal. We didn't deserve the seat.

We desperately need a coherent foreign policy. We have three belligerents in Trump, Xi and Putin, two of whom are neighbours. International institutions are fraying.

Maybe focus on some much needed military renewal instead, starting with those choppers.

Our foreign policy is walk softly and carry a 1953 stick duct-taped together.

[MeganC]

I thought sticks were illegal in Canada?

[DrCaleb]

Assault sticks are illegal, yes.

[MeganC]

[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Assault sticks are illegal, yes.

Not all, only if they're black and hold over five nails.

[bootlegga]

rickc rickc:

Well actually the USA is seen by much of the world as having a totally unqualified asshat who sexaully assaulted dozens of women before becoming President as their leader. A leader who's favorite pastime seems to be getting shitfaced, sexually assaulting women, while hanging out with his rich white buddies. That pretty much sums him up. Exactly what country where the majority of their inhabitants are not white, would vote for such a fratboy asshat to perform any function at the U.N. other than sweeping floors? Trump has admitted to sexually assaulting women. He has admitted that it is him paying off porn stars on numerous occasions. The whole world sees him for the unqualified loser that he is, yet its somehow Trudeau's fault that Mr. Bankruptcy is not loved worldwide.

Could you be more pathetic? Try taking some responsibility for your own actions for once. You voted this asshat in office after knowing what a total loser he really was. Do not try blaming anyone but yourselves when the rest of the world calls you out, and holds you accountable for your bad decisions. This is not 1939. Apparently there are actual consequences for sexually assaulting women these days, outside of the USA that is.

Fixed that for you, noticed you had some misplaced nouns and factual errors.

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

The G7, NATO, NORAD, the various trade deals, and the Five Eyes are by far much better avenues for increasing Canadian influence and prestige than the UN could ever be. Just because you're in some kind of love with the myths wrapped around the UN doesn't make those myths real.

The problem with all those institutions is that Canada is almost always the smallest player at the table, and therefore easy to ignore by larger countries.

I know conservatives hate the idea, but the notion of a middle power is exactly where Canada should sit if it wants anything more than a very junior role in world affairs.

Of course, if you're cool with the mediocrity Canada has become, than yes, we should just stay the course we've followed since the 1980s.

[Thanos]

And the Liberal idea is what? Not put in the work yet expect a seat at the alleged big kids table? Exactly what huge international initiatives has this country engaged in since the departure of Demon Harper that entitled us to a upwards move in status?

You're trapped in some kind of a good party vs bad party mode. If Canada's diminished then it's a national failure that has nothing to do with party boundaries.

[herbie]

Oh Jesus the same people who condemned Trudeau going after a seat are 'blaming' him for failing to get one? Go back to hating everything UN.
It was a cheap way to get some world influence, but it didn't happen. So what?

You'd rather he'd have spent those pennies on defence when you're still at home in the middle of a $264 billion Covid19 deficit? Yeah, that's really going to be top priority. Get real FFS.

[Thanos]

Getting on the Security Council was of the absolute lowest priority to most Canadians. This was something that the upper elite in the Liberal party was obsessing over and pretty much no one else.

[PluggyRug]