Conservatives Prevent Canada from Serving with the UN Security Council

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government failed to earn Canada a seat on the UN Security Council. This failure marked the first time since the council’s inception that Canada has not been elected to serve as a non-permanent member. This failure distinguishes Harper’s Conservative government from prior Canadian governments.

It’s not clear exactly why Canada was not elected to the council again because the voters do not provide reasons for the way they voted. Many people have speculated; the Conservatives have offered excuses. I’m going to list some of the possible reasons here, insofar as I’ve seen them reported.

After withdrawing from the vote, Conservatives immediately blamed opposition leader, Michael Ignatieff, for the loss. The Conservative line was essentially that because Ignatieff had publicly criticised Conservatives’ track record and approach of foreign policy, the UN members paid attention to Ignatieff and voted against Canada. The Conservatives’ line is so over-the-top it cannot be considered a credible response. The CBC reported (12 October 2010¹) Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister, Lawrence Cannon saying

“”Not being able to speak with one voice as a country had a negative impact on Canada’s bid. . . Canada was not united because some saw this as an opportunity to score political points by opposing Canada’s candidacy. . . [Ignatieff] came out clearly indicating that Canada did not deserve a seat. . .”

But does this really make sense? Ignatieff was not the one out there meeting with the voting members, rather it was the Conservatives. To accept the Conservative line, one would have to believe that opposition leader, Ignatieff, had more influence than Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

That is to say, the leader of the opposition who has far less power than the Prime Minister, receives far less publicity, has far fewer interactions representing Canada with foreign representatives, made a comment that somehow was considered by all of these foreign powers to be more influential than all the lobbying Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives put into winning the security council seat. No, the Conservatives’ argument isn’t credible.

Consider the nature of what Ignatieff actually said. If one ignores the above point and chooses to believe that opposition leader Ignatieff is more influential around the globe than Prime Minister Stephen Harper, one still must consider the context. Presumably the other countries involved know at least the rudimentary working’s of Canada’s democratic system. It’s hard to imagine that if they actually were aware of Ignatieff’s comment, any of them could possibly have confused it as the Prime Minister’s position or the actual stance of the government.

a) Ignatieff’s job in the opposition entails criticising the Conservative-led government
b) In Canada freedom of expression is one of our rights
c) Ignatieff didn’t say that he didn’t want Canada to be part of the council but rather that the Conservative government’s policies had fallen short of earning that spot. He said “Don’t mistake me. I know how important it is for Canada to get a seat on the Security Council, but Canadians have to ask a tough question: ‘Has this government earned that place?’ We’re not convinced it has.”

The point is, it was a call for the Conservative government to act, internationally, in a way that makes it worthy of earning the seat. It was a criticism of the Conservative government, not a call against Canada being on the council.

With the Conservatives’ flimsy excuse of the Ignatieff bogeyman out of the way, what else might be factors? How about Conservatives’ foreign policy record, approach to the UN, or even stance on critical global issues like the worsening environment problem?

In another arcticle (13 October 2010)², the CBC wrote

“Paul Heinbecker, Canada’s former ambassador to the UN and a leading critic of the government’s foreign policy, said many of Canada’s decisions — including decreased African aid, its support of Israel, and its stance on climate change and peacekeeping — are unpopular with the international community.”

This perspective is also expressed in a Digital Journal article (12 October 2010³) citing among other reasons

“. . . a belief that Harper’s government was often bias in its policies of supporting Israel, which in turn largely affected the support from 70 or more Muslim and Arab members of the UN. Furthermore, the voting block of African nations were upset the Harper government had changed it’s foreign aid contributions towards them.”

From 28 March 2011, The Canberra Times⁴ of Austalia has an article reflecting on Canada’s loss and what lessons that ought to teach Australia.

“…There have been a number of suggestions as to why Canada lost the bid. Some have indicated that Canada’s failure to promise India support for their bid for a permanent Security Council doomed Canada’s application… Perhaps more likely, there have been suggestions that Canada lost votes from African nations due to its narrowing of the aid program. Canada used to be a key development and business partner of many African countries, but the removal of funding from a number of countries has damaged its once exemplary reputation… The government of Stephen Harper in Canada has been accused of essentially ignoring the UN and the multilateral system for four years, then asking for a seat at the table when it suited it…”

Back to Heinbecker’s point about stances unpopular with the international community, such as the Harper Conservative government’s stalled stance on climate change, we can look to the history of what this government has and has not done.

I’ve previously mentioned that The CBC reported (27 November 2009)⁵ about how UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon attending a Commonwealth summit, pushed on Harper to get Canada’s act together. Several lobby groups reportedly called for Canada’s suspension from the Commonwealth

“‘If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada’s membership immediately,’ said Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Finally, the most recent Conservative positions on Canada related to environmental issues are to essentially follow what the USA does. And at that, they’re lagging.

I’d like to ask, if Canada does nothing but follow the American position, which has been notably lacking in action, especially on an international level, and the US is a permanent member of the security council, what good would including Canada do for the council? That is to say, if Canada is mimicking the US then why bother having two countries on the council when they act as one? The more Harper’s Conservatives adopt and implement failed American-style policies throughout Canada, the more they disregard Canada’s unique development and role in International affairs, and the less the International community has cause to respect Canada’s position.