Why Canada Lost Its Bid for
a Security Council Seat
by Yves Engler
In a stunning international rebuke Stephen Harper’s government lost
its bid for a UN Security Council seat last week. The vote in New York
was the world’s response to a Canadian foreign policy designed to
please the most reactionary, shortsighted sectors of the Conservative
Party’s base — evangelical Christian Zionists, extreme right-wing Jews,
Islamophobes, the military-industrial-academic-complex, mining and oil
executives and old cold-warriors.
Over the past four year
Harper’s government has been offside with the world community on a
whole host of issues. Canada was among a small number of countries that
refused to recognize the human right to water or sign the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. On two occasions
Ottawa blocked consensus at the Rotterdam Convention to place
chrysotile asbestos, a known toxin, on its list of dangerous products
and in November Finance Minister Jim Flaherty refused to even consider
British PM Gordon Brown’s idea of a global tax on international
financial transactions.
Close to the companies making huge
profits on the Tar Sands, the Conservatives repeatedly sabotaged
international climate negotiations. They angered many in the
Commonwealth by blocking a resolution calling for a “binding
commitment” on rich countries to reduce emissions and at a UN climate
conference in Bangkok last year, many delegates from poorer countries
left a negotiating session in protest after a Canadian suggestion to
scrap the Kyoto Protocol as the basis of negotiations.
The
Conservatives extreme “Israel no matter what” position definitely hurt
its chance on Tuesday. “It’s hard to find a country friendlier to
Israel than Canada these days,” explained Israeli Foreign Minister,
Avigdor Lieberman, who emigrated from Moldova when he was 20 but still
feels fit to call for the expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel.
The
Conservatives publicly endorsed Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon, voted
against a host of UN resolutions supporting Palestinian rights and in
February Ottawa delighted Israeli hawks by canceling $15 million in
funding for the UN agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). The money was
transferred to Palestinian security reform.
For the past three years Canada has been heavily invested in
training a Palestinian security force designed to oversee Israel’s
occupation of the West Bank and “to ensure that the PA [Palestinian
Authority] maintains control of the West Bank against Hamas,” as
Canadian ambassador to Israel Jon Allen was quoted as saying by the
Canadian Jewish News. According to deputy Foreign Affairs minister
Peter Kent, Operation PROTEUS, Canada’s military training mission in
the West Bank, is the country’s “second largest deployment after
Afghanistan” and it receives “most of the money” from a five-year $300
million Canadian aid program to the Palestinians.
At the same
time as Canadian “aid” strengthens the most compliant Palestinian
political factions, the Conservatives have refused any criticism of
Israel’s onslaught against the 1.5 million people living in Gaza.
Canada was the only country at the UN Human Rights Council to vote
against a January 2008 resolution that called for “urgent international
action to put an immediate end to Israel’s siege of Gaza.”
Later
in 2008 Israel unleashed a 22-day military assault on Gaza that left
1,400 Palestinians dead. In response many governments condemned the
bombing and Venezuela broke off all diplomatic relations. Israel didn’t
need to worry since Ottawa was prepared to help out. The Canadian
embassy now represents Israel’s diplomatic interests in Caracas.
While
Brazil and Turkey tried to dissipate hostility towards Iran, Harper
used his pulpit as host of the G8 to pave the way for a possible
U.S.-Israeli attack. A February 17 Toronto Star article was headlined:
“Military action against Iran still on the table, Kent says.” The
junior foreign minister explained that “it’s a matter of timing and
it’s a matter of how long we can wait without taking more serious
preemptive action.”
“Preemptive action” is a euphemism for a
bombing campaign. Canadian naval vessels are already running
provocative maneuvers off Iran’s coast and by stating that “an attack
on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada,” Kent is trying to
create the impression that Iran may attack Israel. But it is Israel
that possesses nuclear weapons and threatens to bomb Iran, not the
other way around.
While Ottawa considers Iran’s nuclear energy
program a major threat, Israel’s atomic bombs have not provoked similar
condemnation. The Harper government abstained on a number of near
unanimous votes asking Israel to place its nuclear weapons program
under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) controls and in
September Bloomberg cited Canada as one of three countries that opposed
an IAEA probe of Israel’s nuclear facilities as part of an Arab led
effort to create a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East.
Not
content with taking on Iran, the military-minded Conservatives turned
on Russia. Harper referred to Russia as “aggressive” and in a throwback
to the Cold War, Defence Minister Peter MacKay added that Ottawa would
respond to Russian flights in the Arctic by flying Canadian fighter
jets near Russian airspace. Making sure that Moscow got the message,
during a July 2007 visit to the Ukraine MacKay said Canada would help
provide a “counterbalance” to Russia.
Ottawa even prioritized
the military over aid in the face of the incredible suffering caused by
Haiti’s earthquake. Two thousand Canadian troops were deployed while
several Heavy Urban Search Rescue Teams were readied but never sent.
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon explained that the teams were
not needed because “the government had opted to send Canadian Armed
Forces instead.”
Overthrown in February 2004 by a joint
U.S./France/Canada destabilization campaign, Haiti’s most popular
political party, Fanmi Lavalas, has been barred from participating in
elections. The Conservatives supported Fanmi Lavalas’ exclusion,
congratulating Haiti’s puppet government for bringing “a period of
stabilization” good for “investment and trade.” Ottawa backed up its
words with deeds, adding tens of millions of dollars to a Haitian
prison and police system that has been massively expanded and
militarized since the 2004 coup.
Ottawa gave its tacit support
to the Honduran military’s removal of elected president Manuel Zelaya
in June 2009. Mexico’s Notimex reported that Canada was the only
country in the hemisphere that did not explicitly call for Zelaya’s
return to power and Canadian officials repeatedly criticized Zelaya at
the Organization of American States (OAS). The ousted government
complained that Ottawa failed to suspend aid to Honduras, which is the
largest recipient of Canadian assistance in Central America. Nor did
Ottawa exclude the Honduran military from its Military Training
Assistance Program.
The Harper government opposed Zelaya’s move
to join the Hugo Chavez led Alba, the Bolivarian Alliance for the
People of Our Americas, which is a response to North American
capitalist domination of the region. Canada has actively supported the
U.S.-led campaign against the government of Venezuela. In mid-2007
Harper toured South America “to show [the region] that Canada functions
and that it can be a better model than Venezuela,” in the words of a
high-level foreign affairs official. During the trip, Harper and his
entourage made a number of comments critical of the Venezuelan
government.
After meeting only members of the opposition during
a trip to Venezuela in January, Peter Kent told the media that
“democratic space within Venezuela has been shrinking and in this
election year, Canada is very concerned about the rights of all
Venezuelans to participate in the democratic process.”
Venezuela’s
ambassador to the 34-country OAS, Roy Chaderton Matos, responded: “I am
talking of a Canada governed by an ultra right that closed its
Parliament for various months to (evade) an investigation over the
violation of human rights — I am talking about torture and
assassinations — by its soldiers in Afghanistan.”
Despite the
move to the left among the majority of the region’s governments Harper
moved closer to Latin America’s most right-wing state. Colombia’s
terrible human rights record did not stop Harper from signing a
free-trade agreement that even Washington couldn’t
stomach.
The trade agreement as well as the Harper government’s
shift of aid from Africa to Latin America was designed to support
Canadian corporate interests and the region’s right-wing governments
and movements. Barely discussed in the media, the main goal of the
shift in aid was to stunt Latin America’s recent rejection of
neoliberalism and U.S. dependence.
One issue mentioned in a
number of media reports about Canada’s loss last week had to do with
the Congo. At the G8 in June the Conservatives pushed for an entire
declaration to the final communiqué criticizing the Congo for
attempting to gain a greater share of its vast mineral wealth. Months
earlier Ottawa began to obstruct international efforts to reschedule
the country’s foreign debt, which was mostly accrued during more than
three decades of Joseph Mobuto’s dictatorship and the subsequent war.
Canadian
officials “have a problem with what’s happened with a Canadian
company,” Congolese Information Minister Lambert Mende said referring
to the government’s move to revoke a mining concession that
Vancouver-based First Quantum acquired under dubious circumstances
during the 1998-2003 war. “The Canadian government wants to use
the Paris Club [of debtor nations] in order to resolve a particular
problem”, explained Mende. “This is unacceptable.”
The mining
industry increasingly represents Canada abroad. Canadian miners operate
more than 3,000 projects outside this country and many of these mines
have displaced communities, destroyed ecosystems and resulted in
violence. This doesn’t bother the Harper government, which is close to
the most retrograde sectors of the mining industry. Last year they
rejected a proposal – agreed to by the Mining Association of Canada
under pressure from civil society groups — to make diplomatic and
financial support for resource companies operating overseas contingent
upon socially responsible conduct. Despite countless horror stories
suggesting the contrary, the Conservatives claim that voluntary
standards are the best way to improve Canadian mining companies’ social
responsibility.
Finally, the Conservatives have knowingly
supported torture in Afghanistan and embraced an increasingly violent
counterinsurgency war. Apparently, Canadian Joint Task Force 2
commandos regularly take part in nighttime assassination raids, which
are highly unpopular with the Afghan population.
Losing the
Security Council seat will hopefully cost the Conservatives some votes
and temper their more extreme international positions. But, for those
of us working to radically transform Canadian foreign policy the
consequences of the loss may be much greater. There has probably never
been a bigger blow to the carefully crafted image of Canada as a
popular international do-gooder, a mythology that blinds so many Canadians to our country’s real role in the world.
Yves Engler is the author of The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy and Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid. He'll be touring
in Mid November to speak on "Why Canada lost its
bid for a Security Council seat". Anyone interested in organizing a talk please
e-mail: yvesengler (at) hotmail.com.
|