[bootlegga]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Harper won’t trade principles, eh? Yesterday in Quebec, Harper said “We take our positions based on the promotion of our values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, justice, development and humanitarian assistance for those who need it. Those are the things we are pursuing and that does not change, regardless of what the outcome of a secret vote is.”

Oh, really? Later on yesterday, Harper met with Chinese Ambassador to Canada Lan Lijun on the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and China. Did Harper use that opportunity to discuss the imprisoning dissident and recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient Lin Xiaohos? Nope. Did he make any statement regarding rampant human rights violations in China? Nope. Did he make mention of China’s labour policies? Nope? Did he encourage China to comply with world trade and financial conventions, specifically to cease manipulations of China’s currency? Nope. He had nothing but praise for China. It was a lot of backpeddling from a government that had been the most unfriendly to China of any government in decades. And I supported Harper for initially taking a hard line with China. But I guess all that’s changed. Maybe yesterday’s announcement that the Bank of Montreal had become the first Canadian bank to be incorporated in China took precedence over human rights.

So why didn’t we get UN the seat? Support of Israel, Harper’s support of the Iraq invasion and Afghanistan, combined with our close ties to Britain and the USA, clearly swung the Muslim countries’ votes elsewhere. Harper has alienated Russia and her bloc-voting friends over sabre-rattling and fear mongering about arctic sovereignty. He’s pissed off Mexico with visa requirements for visitors. He pissed off all the European countries with his “transaction tax” on the G8/G20 summit. He’s pissed off India and Brazil by ignoring their requests to become permanent UN Security Council members.

Do I support some of Harper’s foreign policies? Yes, but how am I to believe him when he’s talking out both sides of his yap with respect to China? The bottom line is whether you support Harper or not, he IS the reason that Canada lost its bid for the Security Council seat. Any attempts to place the blame for this on Iggy or anywhere other than at Harper’s feet is complete nonesense. And I’d be fine with that if Harper’s foreign policy convictions were anything more than political lip service. But yesterday’s events have me calling “bullshit”. Tough talk is still just talk if not supported by tough action.

[bootlegga]

Scape Scape:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Scape Scape:

Ya it's the same usual suspects griping as usual. If they need to see what good the UN they could open their eyes and see child mortality rates dropping but then that would oppose their world view and i suppose we can't have that...

Example:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_t ... ecade.html


All the finger pointing makes Canada look like a bunch of amatures. Time to put a cork in it and sort that sh*t out.

That's it? The UN is a viable organisation because child mortality rates are dropping?

How about if two thirds of it's member goverments stopped buying BMW's for themselves or Migs and F16's, they could be sorting out their own child mortality issues?

The RAF did more in the Ethiopian famine than the UNHCR did. I know 'cos I was there.

Are you being serious? Your asking a world level bureaucracy to have rapid reaction to a rapidly developing regional developments is like asking an aircraft carrier to stop on a dime. The UN is not about micro it's about macro organization built up over decades not weeks. You want to eradicate polio or to get the nets made to prevent malaria and in the hands of people who need it then the UN is best suited for that. You want to send in a brigade of blue berets to Rwanda to stop a genocide of half a million people your barking up the wrong tree. I mean they will try, but will be entirely ineffective in that role because you use the right tool for the right job and the UN is not world cop.

Good points Scape.

Peacekeeping is made doubly hard by the fact that it needs Security council approval (where five nations can and do use their veto with regularity) and the fact that most large nations (including the Big 5 on the Security Council) refuse to let the UN create a standing force for quick deployment for those types of situations.

If nations allowed the UN to have a permanent force (even battalion-sized), then it could quickly react to situations, instead of waiting months/years for nearly endless debates in the General Assembly and Security Council. But far too many nations fear that that force might be used against them sometime in the future and refuse to (from petty dictators to the big nations that fear a world government).

The massacre in Rwanda happened because the powers that be sat on their asses debating every little thing, not because the UN (or some of its member nations) didn't want have the desire. An organization like the UN is only as strong as its weakest member, and unfortunately, it has lots of weak-willed members.

[Curtman]

I thought I'd move this over to a more appropriate thread...

desertdude desertdude:

Hey thanks Curt for the look up and agree and very fimilar with this approach here, but people will usually call everything you post bullshit unless its spoon fed to them word by word and backing up everyword from an external source. Then the thread goes quite. And then in the very next thread it back to square one. Sometimes you wonder why does one even bother.

One example I can clearly remember is the flotilla attack back in summer. It was proved that it was illeagal and so was the blockade very thououghly. But yet as you can seen biased opinions havent changed even with the latest findings of the panel. Very selective memory here among some here

Anywhoo, life goes beyond internet forums and the fog is ever so slowly starting to lift and the international community is starting to see whats actually going on. But atleast its a start.

Yes.. I was going to bring up the Flotilla earlier.

Harper makes impassioned UN speech to court Security Council votes

$1:

Harper was to return to Canada later Thursday after meeting privately with several other leaders — notably Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Shimon Peres, president of Israel, as well as the king of Jordan, Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein.

At the meeting with Peres, Harper also commented on a UN Human Rights Council report released Wednesday that concluded Israel's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla May 31 violated international humanitarian law.

"The PM noted his disappointment with the unbalanced . . . report," said Dimitri Soudas, Harper's chief spokesman.

I sure hope Israel at least cuts him a big fat action plan cheque.