Stand by for yet another national embarrassment
Should we give a damn about the UN Security Council?
The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson takes note of all the reasons Canada is unlikely to win a temporary seat on the UN Security Council. Some of them are new (the Harperites' "right-or-wrong policy" on Israel, "coolness toward Beijing," the perception of less interest in Africa, and a general antipathy towards the UN), and some of them are of a Liberal pedigree (the Kyoto debacle, opposing more permanent members on the Security Council). "Still," Simpson insists, Canada has a shot at it if the government puts up a decent campaign, which it should, and it would be "highly embarrassing" if it didn't. At no point does he explain why we should so desperately want to take our place on a body that currently includes Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica and Panama. (No foolin'-Costa Rica and Panama!)
Indeed, the National Post's Jonathan Kay suggests we shouldn't care, because "everything of significance that the [Security Council] does is controlled by the five permanent members"-and after Moscow and Beijing deploy their vetoes, it actually does precious little. "Liberal-era foreign policy careerists" and others whose "status and livelihoods revolve around the empty formalities of Turtle Bay" will object, of course, and insist that tolerating certain UN members' strident anti-Israeli rhetoric is the price one pays for being a good global citizen. Kay sneers: "If only Stephen Harper had the maturity of Paul Heinbecker"-whose recent statements he takes to task-"he'd know that such toxins must be swallowed so that Maple Leaf-festooned backpackers can bask in warm smiles as they traipse through Europe and the Middle East."
No comments:
Post a Comment