Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 16802
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:19 pm
 


Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Boy scout nation (click to view)
Date: October 14, 2010
For the first time in the nation's history, Canada was denied a seat at the United Nations Security Council this week, as members of the General Assembly instead chose to appoint Portugal as the committee's second elected member of the so-called "western bloc" (alongside Germany, another perennial favorite). The upset has been treated as quite an outrage in Canada, a country that traditionally draws a lot of patriotic pride from its history of multi-national cooperation and supposed positive reputation across the planet.

A number of critics on the left have pointed the finger of blame solely at Prime Minister Harper, whose right-wing government they accuse of abandoning Canada's traditional identity as a soft, friendly, inoffensive, liberal state. And indeed, by those standards Harper has been a more offensive player on the world's stage than many of his predecessors. He displayed considerable disinterest in last December's big climate change summit in Denmark, for instance, and Canada has been widely criticized by environmental groups for not having a robust enough strategy for dealing with greenhouse gasses and global warming — to say nothing of an energy policy that remains heavily focused on Alberta's "dirty oil" tar sands. Harper has likewise remained a staunch supporter of Israel, always offering supportive words for the Jewish state, even in its most controversial moments. Though perhaps less so now that Mr. Bush is gone, the PM has also made much of his support for the foreign policy of the United States, and Canada remains a close military ally of the US in Afghanistan, where thousands of Canadian troops remain to this day. Then there's his persistant criticism of China's human-rights record, which critics say is incredibly tone-deaf at a time of rising Chinese power. Throw in his increasingly tough line against immigration and foreign aid, and you have a recipe for considerable displeasure among the left-wing internationalist set. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff (a card-carrying member of the latter camp if there ever was one) was even moved to denounce his own country's bid for a seat on the Security Council, saying Harper's actions as prime minister had proven Canada no longer "deserved" the honor of membership.

Of course, conservative critics have their own list of rebuttals for all of the above charges, namely — who cares. Canada under Harper, they say, actually has a principled foreign policy for once, that puts Canadian values of democracy and economic self-interest above faddish internationalism-for-the-sake-of-internationalism. If Canada can only win favor from the General Assembly by bashing Israel and America, and sucking up to third-world dictators and Islamist sympathizers like the 57 nations of the "Organization of Islamic Conference," then maybe Groucho was right about not wanting to join any club that would want such members in the first place. Indeed, some right-wingers have suggested Harper's biggest failing in this whole episode was even bothering to try and get back on the Security Council at all.

There is another, less politically scandalous potential explanation for Canada's defeat, however. The UN Security Council is structured in a rather odd and arbitrary way, with seats doled out to countries based on their membership in dubiously-defined geographic "groups."  Each group gets to send two countries, for a total of 10 elected members in all. Now, normally these groups are vaguely continent-based, but since Canada is on a continent with only three countries, the nation is lumped in as a member of the "Western Europe and Others" group — with Canada obviously being one of the "others." This outnumbering makes it quite hard for Canada to win electoral support from within its own group, since the western Europeans will often (and did, in this case) support one of their own over one of the others. And if you can't get support from your own group, the logic goes, well then, how are you ever going get support from the General Assembly?

Either way, Canada is now officially part of the out-crowd at the UN for the next two years. Let's see if anyone notices.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4239
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:49 am
 


they are oil sands not tar sands you big ignoramous partisan hack.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9283
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:17 am
 


ASLplease wrote:
they are oil sands not tar sands you big ignoramous partisan hack.

Wow out of that whole article the only thing you comment on shows who the ignoramous really is. Tar sands and oil sands are the SAME THING! :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14682
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:21 am
 


I read we could not apply for a security council seat for the next ten years.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9283
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:26 am
 


Gee, we gotta wait another 10 years to apply for a seat on the Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Nations security council?? Darn


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7070
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:26 pm
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
ASLplease wrote:
they are oil sands not tar sands you big ignoramous partisan hack.

Wow out of that whole article the only thing you comment on shows who the ignoramous really is. Tar sands and oil sands are the SAME THING! :roll:


'Tar' carries a more negative connotation than does 'oil'. You'll always see the anti-oilsands crowd using 'tar sands' instead of 'oil sands' for that reason. And they keep repeating the same old mantras of 'dirty oil' to go along with it.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5471
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:45 pm
 


andyt wrote:
I read we could not apply for a security council seat for the next ten years.


There's no way at all this could ever be a bad thing. Although I suppose the next Liberal government could always speed up the process by giving the Order of Canada to the Khadr family, or something similiar. Stuff like that would really be a huge shout-out to the real owners of the UN.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4239
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:33 pm
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
ASLplease wrote:
they are oil sands not tar sands you big ignoramous partisan hack.

Wow out of that whole article the only thing you comment on shows who the ignoramous really is. Tar sands and oil sands are the SAME THING! :roll:


Wow, if you cant have an intelligent conversation about this, then I don't know why I would bother to bother to explain it to you, but here it is

The term "tar sands" is a colloquialism used to describe the oil sands deposits found in northern Alberta. "Oil sands" is an accurate term.

in order to help your biased mind figure this out, here's another example:

a person is an ignoramus if they use the term 'retard' to refer a mentally handicapped person, yet the diagnostic term is mental retardation.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 25
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:39 pm
 


i do believe he used "Tar sands" intentionally as to exemplify how the international community may look negatively upon them and thus Canada. The oil sands are hardly the point of this article


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4239
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:49 pm
 


dodobird wrote:
i do believe he used "Tar sands" intentionally as to exemplify how the international community may look negatively upon them and thus Canada. The oil sands are hardly the point of this article


I believe that sometimes someone will use the word 'retard' without any derogatory intent, yet they are still showing their ignorance.

, I do not believe this person's editorial to be so innocent. Ignorant, not innocent.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 64
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:39 am
 


andyt wrote:
I read we could not apply for a security council seat for the next ten years.


It hasn't worked out too well for us Americans, and we have ourselves a permanent seat. Honestly, I think part of it may have been that Canada is seen as more of a mediator nation (like Switzerland) and as a party without as much vested interest in the United Nations.

There's not much the UN can do for Canada in terms of resolving any of its issues and aside from a brief spat with Denmark a few years ago, no theoretical need of the UN to resolve anything. The Canadian presence in Afghanistan is something better dealt with within the Coalition bureaucracy or directly with President Karzai.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.