![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldCanada failed to win a seat in the recent election for temporary seats on the United Nations Security Council. Canada has a long history of filling these temporary seats, and the Harper government had expected that Canada would gain a seat this time. So not the case.
Why? The Harper government has blamed its moral foreign policy and Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff's questioning of whether or not Canada actually merits the seat based on its policies (what Ignatieff identifies as opposing measures to deal with climate change, cutbacks on aid to Africa, and ignoring the United Nations until the time came for Canada to campaign).
The debate over what Canada's failure means may well be protracted, but isn't going to generate any significant shift since neither Conservatives nor Liberals (nor NDP, for that matter, who share in the Liberals' opinion) are going to change their policies. Yay.
In Tuesday’s election, Portugal garnered 113 votes in the second round, less than two-thirds of the ballots cast, which is the hurdle for a win. Canada received just 78 votes. As a third round of voting commenced, Canada announced it would no longer seek the seat.
Germany, heavily favoured ahead of the vote to secure a seat, won the other seat up for grabs in an earlier round of voting.
[. . .]
The results of Tuesday’s election, in a secret ballot cast by representatives of the UN’s 192 nations, mark a major setback for Canada’s international ambitions.
Although ambivalent about the campaign earlier, the government switched gears and made it a priority. Ottawa had paid keen attention to the United Nations in recent weeks.
The Prime Minister delivered two speeches there in September, the first at a development summit and the second at the organization’s opening debate. Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon made several trips to New York to woo diplomats in person and attended Tuesday’s vote, saying earlier in the morning that he was “confident” of Canada’s chances.
Why? The Harper government has blamed its moral foreign policy and Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff's questioning of whether or not Canada actually merits the seat based on its policies (what Ignatieff identifies as opposing measures to deal with climate change, cutbacks on aid to Africa, and ignoring the United Nations until the time came for Canada to campaign).
The debate over what Canada's failure means may well be protracted, but isn't going to generate any significant shift since neither Conservatives nor Liberals (nor NDP, for that matter, who share in the Liberals' opinion) are going to change their policies. Yay.
