The UN Security Council has five permanent members. These are the United States, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, China and France. In addition there are 10 non permanent members. Right now these are Bosnia and Hersegovina, Uganda, Lebanon, Gabon, Nigeria, Turkey, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Austria.
Canada was rejected this year, Germany getting the seat instead. Opposition forces in Canada said it was an humiliating defeat for Prime Minister Harper. Apparently he lost the support of the Middle East for continued support of Israel. I don't know what this says about Germany. But I'm not sure being rejected for companionship with Bosnia, Uganda, or Lebanon is really the "humiliation" that Canada's opposition said it was. Australia was rejected a few years back tool
Canada and Australia have both been major peacekeepers, at home and abroad. I don't know the number, it's far too many, of Canadian soldiers who have died serving the United Nations as peace keepers. There is no doubt that Canada has earned it's place in the security council if security is really what the council is primarily about.
However, what distinguishes the principal members of the Security Council is that they are the world's principal arms dealers. Canada's record as an arms dealer under Harper or the opposition is not what it could be but then Canadians collectively don't think 'war for profit' is the way that the future should be taking.
In contrast if one considers the Security Council from a business perspective, it's members have indeed been the most warring lot on the planet. This isn't to choose right or wrong but simply to look at it all from a "market" perspective. Germany was chosen over Canada so that Japan and Germany are on the security council which excludes Canada. If it's about business, and I'm not saying it is, then clearly Canada can't compete with the likes of those already front and centre on the security council. It's amazing that Israel and Iraq aren't already on the Council, from a strictly business perspective.
Prime Minister Harper applied for the Security Council as the Opposition would have applied if they were on top when the option to apply came up. It's a thing that happens every 10 years. What I don't see is that being rejected is an 'humiliating defeat'.
The sad thing is that the rejection of Canada, it's military having proved itself over and over again as the greatest of Peace Keepers, is a kind of barometer of the continued hawkishness of the UN Security Council. Without Canada we can anticipate more war and more product sales. The greatest hope we have for the Security Council is the membership of Mexico and Brazil. Canada gave the world hockey. The Latin American countries gave the world Dance.
Maybe the Security Council should get out of business.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Excellent insight, Bill. It just might be more humiliating to be included with that bunch.
Any stick serves to beat a dog. The Opposition claims that it is due to Canada's excessive warlikeness under the feared Stephen Harper that we have suffered this "humiliating" defeat. Meanwhile our military was so rusted out due to neglect there wasn't enough steel left to beat into a usable plowshare let alone live up to our treaty obligations to our allies in NATO. And we couldn't defend our shores against mighty Denmark. But that was not humiliating, apparently.
This is all so ludicrous it cannot be what is really going on. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Excellent article, Bill.
Post a Comment