Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

'We will act with vigour'

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:45pm - 0 Comments

The Prime Minister is in New York to address the United Nations and campaign for a seat on the security council. He addressed the general assembly a short while ago with the following.

“Thank you very much. Mr Chairman, Mr Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

“It has now been more than 65 years since the nations of the world, exhausted and in some cases devastated by years of war, established the United Nations.  Canada was one of those nations.  One of the many in fact, whose fresh experience of conflict had persuaded its people that the possibility of a better world, one in which nations resolved their differences peacefully, was an objective worthy of their every effort.

“Today, the Canadian people continue to believe in this purpose and continue to strive to live by the principles that would make it possible.  Such principles are enshrined in the charter of this organization: that same UN Charter endorsed with happiness and hope by a former Canadian government, on that auspicious June day in San Francisco in 1945.

“These foundational beliefs recognize the sovereign equality of countries.  They remind us of the obligation to settle disputes peacefully.  And, they demand we seek justice and uphold the human rights of all people.

“These are values that Canadians hold dear.  And, as the universal membership of this body implies, so do peoples the world over.  This widespread consensus continues to convince the idealist in all of us that so much more is possible in this world of ours.  At the same time, it makes the gap between aspiration and achievement so disappointing.

“It calls us onward to do more, as successive Canadian governments have worked diligently to do for almost a lifetime.  These ideals, as well as an acute awareness of the broad concerns of the international community, especially those of the developing countries continue to animate the Government of Canada, the government that I lead today.  And these ideals have the willing, enthusiastic support of the Canadian people.

“And, I do not foresee any day or any circumstance in which we shall cease in our endeavours.  The question, as always, is how this is to be done.  Our preference is to take meaningful action.  Action that produces real results.  Action that helps real people in their struggle with oppression, with disaster and with poverty.  Let me just run through some of those actions.

“As a founding member of the UN, and the seventh-largest contributor to its finances, Canada has been a consistently reliable and responsible participant in UN initiatives around the world, this was so in the earliest days of the UN.  It was so during the difficult days of the Cold War, of de-colonization and of the struggle against apartheid.

“It is so today.  Canada continues to pay, for instance, a heavy price to fulfill our UN obligation to support the lawful government of Afghanistan.  We pay it with the resources of Canadian taxpayers, but more profoundly with sorrow, in the priceless lives of our young men and women who serve there in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as, sadly, civilians who have also given their sweat and their lives in the service of both our country, and of the people of Afghanistan.  In Afghanistan, our military efforts have gone hand-in-hand with our reconstruction and development programs there.

“In particular, Canada supports those, such as the Dhala Dam, which will have enduring economic benefit.  And we have also invested heavily in others which will improve the lives of that country’s most vulnerable citizens, and we will continue to do so.  Our international engagement is by no means restricted to Afghanistan.

“In fact, elsewhere in the world, we have also expanded our efforts.  We pledged to double our aid to Africa, making Canada a leader in the G-8 by fulfilling this commitment.  And we are on track to double our overall development assistance by March of next year.

“Further, we have untied food aid, and all Canadian aid will be untied by 2013.  Such measures significantly extend the purchasing power of Canadian aid funds.  Canada was also among the first last year at l’Aquila, to double support for agricultural development.  And during the economic crisis, we have acted, in concert with G-20 partners, to increase the lending capacity of development organizations like the Inter-American Development Bank and the African Development Bank.  In particular, we have made a significant contribution to peace and security in Africa, including to peace initiatives, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction in Sudan, since taking office in January 2006.  Canada has also given leadership to building peace in Sierra Leone.

“We are encouraged by the resumption of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.  Canada sincerely hopes the talks will succeed and will continue to help the Palestinian Authority build its institutions.

“As you all know, we have also engaged very extensively in Haiti, both before and since the terrible earthquake earlier this year. Canada was among the first nations to provide tangible, appropriate, emergency relief through a wide range of measures.  And, we have made a long-term commitment to assisting the people of Haiti in rebuilding their severely damaged country.  Most recently, as Pakistan has been facing devastating floods, Canada has again responded swiftly.  These actions are born from Canadian ideals.  So allow me to say one thing: this Assembly should know that Canada is eligible to serve on the Security Council.  If we are elected, we will be ready to serve.  And, if called upon to serve on the Security Council, Canada will be informed by these ideals and strive to further them, just as we have striven to implement Security Council resolutions.

“I should also mention Canada’s role this year as chair of the G-8 and host of the most recent meeting of the G-20.  We have tried to ensure that these gatherings serve the broader interests of the entire global community.  In preparation for the G-20 we conducted wide-ranging outreach sessions, including with the Secretaries General of the Commonwealth, the Francophonie and, of course, this organization.  We used our chairmanship of the G-8 to reach out to leaders from Africa and the Americas and to secure an agreement to enact the Muskoka Initiative for maternal, newborn and child health.  Such progress is literally vital in meeting the most achievable of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals: to reduce the appalling mortality among mothers and children in developing countries.  We are mobilizing support from donor nations, as well as private foundations.  Together, I anticipate that we will mobilize more than $10 billion over five years.  This will contribute in a major way to the Secretary General’s Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health.

“Likewise, we announced here two days ago, that Canadian taxpayers would make an enhanced replenishment of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.  We did these things for one simple reason: to alleviate the suffering and indeed, to save the lives of people all over the world, who are among the millions suffering from these grave and debilitating diseases.  Actions such as these are a moral imperative.  It is essential that we strive to make a significant, actual difference in the lives of the world’s most disadvantaged people.  Who, seeing his neighbour distressed, will pass by on the other side of the road?

“That is why we have also used our chairmanship of the G-8 to further the essential ethic of accountability.  We published the first accountability report to ensure that as donor countries, we fulfill the pledges that we make.  Our words must be translated into action and must make a real difference to those who need our help.  And to that end, as many of you also know, Canadian taxpayers have forgiven debts totalling a billion dollars, owed by the world’s poorest countries.

“Our aspirations, however, let us not limit our horizons by looking just at the least we can do.  Much higher goals are within our capacity, if we will but reach for them.  In the short time that I have with you today, there is one thought above all others that I wish to share with you.  It is the pressing need in the twenty-first century for the all the states of the world to adopt an enlightened view of sovereignty.  As I said earlier, respect for sovereignty is a foundational principle of the United Nations.

“However, the global recession of the past two years has hopefully taught us a painful lesson. We have been forcefully reminded that, in this shrinking world, we travel together in one boat, not as solo-voyagers.  And that how we travel together matters.  Because our interests are all interconnected: from climate change to health and pandemic threats and to, of course, the global economy.  For example, nations that do not consider the effects of their economic choices on others, may not only hurt their trading partners, but themselves as well.  Those who succumb to the lure of protectionism, soon find that trading partners denied a market also lack the means to be a customer.  To recognize that is to understand the need for enlightened sovereignty, the idea that what’s good for others may well be the best way to pursue one’s own interests.  In business, it is called win-win.  And it is good for business.  In international affairs, it is good for development and for justice.  And it is in the spirit of the UN Charter.  It is therefore of the highest importance, in a passionate world of competing interests and principles, where every person left to himself does what is right in his own sight, in such a world the need for an enlightened, expansive view of sovereignty is as great now as it ever was.

“At the outset of these remarks, I referred to the origins of the UN.  It was founded at the end of the greatest and most destructive war that had ever disturbed the ocean of humanity.  That war was certainly attributable in part to an extreme and pernicious nationalism.  But, we should never forget that appeasement and expediency also allowed fascism to gather such strength, that it required the whole and undivided effort of the world’s free peoples to subdue it.  The UN’s mission has grown over time, but its core job remains the same – through peace and development, to build a better world.  To prevent war and conflict, yet at the same time, to uphold what is right and to protect the weak and the poor from those who prey upon them.

“The Government of Canada has always been deeply committed to these objectives, and the organization that elevates them.  It remains so today.  And as we attend to our own affairs, in, for example, the protection of our Arctic or the promotion of our trade or the pursuit of our values, we shall be guided by the same advice we prescribe for others.

“We will listen to their concerns.  We will speak the truth.  We will act with vigour, and we will do all these things ever mindful that peace and opportunity for all remain always our ultimate purpose.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Standing By

    Please world, I beg you: no seat on the Security Council for Harper.

    • Bob

      Feel free to leave Canada until he's no longer PM, then.

    • lgarvin

      Hey, wouldn't it be great if 1000's of people died from some tragic accident and we could somehow pin it on Harper? Hopefully, nobody you know, of course, but think of the great youtube videos.

      • TJCook

        I've read this three times and still have no idea what you're talking about.

        Could you please elaborate?

        • lgarvin

          I'm rarely accused of being too subtle. My point is simply that many rabid partisans would secretly (or even openly) rejoice at some tragedy for other Canadians if it could be plausibly blamed on the Harper government.

          Remember the fuss when Rush Limbaugh said of Barak Obama "I hope he fails?" In this country such a sentiment is not even considered offensive, it's expressed often and openly and seldom even remarked upon. It's more than clear that for many people here; politics is not about love of country, it's about hatred of Harper.

          • TJCook

            "My point is simply that many rabid partisans would secretly (or even openly) rejoice at some tragedy for other Canadians if it could be plausibly blamed on the Harper government."

            Some tragedy like "1000's of people died from some tragic accident…"

            So in your version of reality, there are Canadians who would rejoice at the deaths of thousands of their fellow Canadians if it amounted to some political advantage over the political party they oppose.

            I don't even know what to say to that. What's the matter with you?

          • lgarvin

            Are you familiar with the concept of hyperbole?

            Hyperbole is a figure of speech that uses an exaggerated or extravagant statement to create a strong emotional response.

            It's a deliberate overstatement meant to illustrate a point.

          • TJCook

            Thanks. I'm familiar with the meaning of hyperbole, though I appreciate your cut-n-paste from dictionary.com.

            I think your "point" was actually undermined by your hyperbole, considering:

            1) It was a sick and awful suggestion, that some Canadians would "rejoice" at the deaths of thousands of other Canadians, and

            2) You used the same hyperbolic bullsh*t TWICE.

            You should probably stick to straightforward communication. This attempt at cleverness was a disaster.

          • lgarvin

            You claim that you understand hyperbole but everything else you've said makes it clear that you don't. It appears that the point went over your head but that doesn't invalidate the point.

            Also, I only suggested the scenario of thousands of people dying once (or should that be ONCE?) That second time you saw it… that was you quoting it back in your own response.

            Try to calm down, TJ.

          • TJCook

            "I only suggested the scenario of thousands of people dying once"

            Your first post: "Hey, wouldn't it be great if 1000's of people died from some tragic accident and we could somehow pin it on Harper?

            Your next post: "My point is simply that many rabid partisans would secretly (or even openly) rejoice at some tragedy for other Canadians"

            That's twice by my count.

            Seriously, Igarvin, for some reason you've slid from a typically reasonable guy to full-on yammering wingnut tween. You sound like scf or Dennis_F. What's the matter with you? Maybe you should come back in the morning and get a fresh start.

          • lgarvin

            That's twice by my count.

            That's a brave admission.

            Seriously, Igarvin, for some reason you've slid from a typically reasonable guy to full-on yammering wingnut tween.

            … and yet, I haven't changed at all. The only thing that's changed between the old me and the new me is your point of view.

          • s_c_f

            Classy as usual.

          • burlivespipe

            Your whole whacked sense of hyperbole is amazingly bizarre … besides, tell me which party has been spending the biggest amount of time and money, both its own and the public's, demonizing their opponents over the past four years?

          • lgarvin

            Your whole whacked sense of hyperbole is amazingly bizarre

            Thanks

            besides, tell me which party has been spending the biggest amount of time and money, both its own and the public's, demonizing their opponents over the past four years?

            That would be the Conservatives. So let's spite the noses right off our faces.

    • David

      The seat is for CANADA not Steven Harper, I wish we would stop being partisan on the international stage and act as one nation! Lets keep the petty politics in Canada

      • Mike T.

        he would, however, set policy.

        • lgarvin

          No Mike, that's not how a council works. He'd We'd have a voice & a vote.

          • lgarvin

            I love the commenting system here…

            Idiotic statement that is demonstrably false —-> thumbs up, thumbs up, thumbs up.
            Accurate statement that refutes the first —-> thumbs down, thumbs down, thumbs down.

            It's ignorance as a lifestyle choice.

  • TJCook

    Harper went on to add: "In the global recession, the ship of state has had a difficult voyage. But we can see the harbour lights. And that’s just when a would-be captain and his ragtag crew are trying to storm the bridge. If they seize the wheel, ladies and gentlemen, they’ll have us on the rocks. And that’s not how this voyage should end."

  • Mike T.

    I am wondering if this is a bad move for the CPC. If I were the opposition I would say something like "Do we really want the only serving world leader who would still have invaded Iraq on the security council?"

    • Style

      Neither Portugal nor Ignatieff have much credibility making that argument, given their own support for invading Iraq, so I'm not sure how you see that working…

      • evenflow

        Ignatieff was not speaking as the Official Leader of the Opposition let alone a member of parliament. There is a difference.

        • lgarvin

          Gee… who was he speaking for when he said this:

          "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."

          http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingn…

  • ChrisWPG

    Remind me again why they would reward the man who openly despised them and spoke of there impotence?

    • TJCook

      Well, he openly despises millions of Canadians and seems to keep getting elected back home…

    • lgarvin

      Make sure you make your views known to the UN. Let's cripple Canada to save it from Harper.

      • Mike T.

        cripple? At best, you mean reduce influence.

        And yes, let's, quite frankly.

        • lgarvin

          Go ahead and walk that walk, Mike.

  • DBM

    Time for the real question…

    Did he do the JFK voice when he gave this speech?

    • Amateur Hour

      Harper's more of a Mayor Joe Quimby guy — ersatz, not the real thing.

    • burlivespipe

      I hear he does a mean John Howard impersonation of Frank Gorshin…

  • LynnTO

    "And as we attend to our own affairs, in, for example, the protection of our Arctic or the promotion of our trade or the pursuit of our values, we shall be guided by the same advice we prescribe for others."

    I'll remember you said that, Mr. Harper. Something tells me I'll have occasion to use this quote again in the future.

    • Mike T.

      If they bring the same dedication to protecting the arctic as they do to bieng on the security council, the first concrete action will be taken 2042.

  • Jenn_

    I quite liked the speech. I think I'm a sucker for speeches, but there wasn't anything in the words I objected to.

    Mind you, I personally will never fall for anything Harper says about ACCOUNTABILITY again, because he proves over and over that his definition of the word is the exact opposite of the dictionary's.

    But the rest of the world may not know that.

    • Blue

      And you never thought about Canada invading Iraq, or absurdity, or you wern`t embarrassed, or you didn`t think about the impotent UN, or the polar bears in the Arctic, or a ship on the rocks, or JFK, or Joe Quimby, or Sergio Leone…………………….Tell the truth Jenn, did you even read the speech ?

      • Jenn_

        Took me a while to get it, but well done!!

        Maybe its those translator thingy's?

  • Style

    He should have sung "Don't Stop Believing" as a duet with Cannon if he really wanted to get the audience on his side.

  • John D

    Did he wear his Canada/Israel BFFs Forevur t-shirt?

    • Amateur Hour

      He's more of a Sergio Leone fan, apparently:

      "When it comes to issues of this country's vital security and national defence, you don't put that to the United Nations, which, quite frankly, is a coalition of everybody—the good, bad and ugly,"
      (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, February 28, 2004)

  • Wayne

    Well Done Harper !!!! – no doubt about the facts as they have been laid out and that as canadians we certainly and most obviously have increased our prestige and influence in International Affairs … this most obviously is driving frustrated left wing nuts crazy and that always makes my day. I love reading some of the posts as for the most part the sheer ignorance of some of them causes me no end of humorous moments and only goes to prove the very point Harper makes – next stop Seat on the Council and rumour has it that Obama might be doing Stevie boy a favour see the Law of The Sea and our Northwest passage – this will be icing on the cake for Harper haters so go ahead thumb me down folks – maybe it will relieve some of the stress before your heads explode :)

    • LynnTO

      After talking us into a $16B military expenditure, Obama would be remiss if he didn't offer some sort of quid pro quo.

    • Emily

      Well except that he's either blocked or insulted pretty much everyone in the UN…

    • brooster

      "I love reading some of the posts as for the most part the sheer ignorance of some of them causes me no end of humorous moments"

      Those of us on the portside of the political spectrum are only too pleased to brighten your day.

    • frustrated lw nut

      Dudes, I am so crazy

  • Emily
  • Stewart_Smith

    I think Canada has an exceptionally strong case and should be a lock for one of the seats. I wish the PM all the best in this vote.

    • Emily

      The only thing Canada has going for it is that the other 2 candidates are European, and there are already 2 European countries on the council.

      • Blue

        Why do you even live in Canada if you feel so negative about the country ?

        —-not gonna be emilied

        • Emily

          I'm not negative about Canada, I'm negative about Conbots

          Why don't you all go live in the US where you belong?

          • lgarvin

            I love the bigotry of the Liberals when they just let it hang out there…

          • Emily

            So now political opposition in a free and democratic govt is bigotry?

            Harp going to outlaw that now too?

            Thanks for the heads-up.

          • Orson Bean

            Earth to Emily: you just accused all CPC supporters of being traitors/non-Canadians/Americans. A lot of people would understandably see that as bigotry. 'kay?

          • ChrisWPG

            I'm not attempting to speak on emily's behalf, but I do not think you can equate "Conbots" with "all CPC supporters".

          • lgarvin

            You probably haven't been paying attention then…

          • Orson Bean

            Great, so in Emily's worldview, only really keen supporters of the CPC should be stripped of their citizenship and deported to the United States.

            Thanks for the clarification. That's infinitely more enlightened and tolerant.

          • Emily

            And that kind of drivel is how the PCs got absorbed into the neo-cons.

          • Emily

            Gosh….sorta like Harp does, right?

          • David

            People say US politics is bad we should all grow up and start acting like adults, both sides are guilty but I think you Emily take it to the next level. How do you pay the bills? you are on these blogs bad mouthing everything the government does 24 hrs a day. Can you really think so poorly of your own nation that you wish CANADA nothing but ill will on the international stage? Feel free to disagree with the present government but please could you at least wish the nation well on its quest for a seat on the Security Council? If the current government was to fall after CANADA winning a seat and was replaced by the liberals would it not, in your opinion, be then some platform for the good CANADA can do in the world? So fight this battle at home, lets keep our politics were they belong in Ottawa. Conservative or Liberal in power CANADA is still a voice for what is good in this world so let us all support our drive for a seat at the security council.

          • Emily

            It's a free country, and I have every right to dislike the current govt.

            Every reason to as well.

            And Harper won't improve the UN.

          • David

            You have every right to dislike the government. My point is Canada is good nation when governed by either party. The Conservatives are not some new age Nazi party which requires the world to some how shun us nor are the Liberal a communist dictatorship in the waiting. So let all take a deep breath and think before we shoot our mouths and feet off out of spite.

          • Emily

            Sorry….we shouldn't be at the UN under our present leadership.

          • David

            There is no hope for you! You love the liberal party not CANADA !

          • Emily

            Not a Liberal sorry, but my family is 7th generation Canadian..

          • Orson Bean

            Ahh, so that's what gives you the right to have Conbots deported to the US?

          • Emily

            Wake up Mr Bean.

    • ChrisWPG

      Really? Care to elaborate? Perhaps you forget photo ops at Timmies that Harper thought was more important than being at the UN? Apparently other voting nations haven't. Remember Harper's bombing of any environmental policy to come out of the UN? The list goes on, but I'd be interested in hearing your strong case?

      • Blue

        I think it was 1999 when we were last going for a seat on the Security Council and I disagreed with just about everything Chretien did but I was still able to differentiate between my annoyance with him and my desire that he receive respect and do well so that Canada should be granted a deserving place at the UN.

        I doubt if I`m any more patriotic then you, and my dislike for Chretien was probably equal to yours for Harper, so what is it ?

        There is a certain immaturity to some of those who dislike the Harper Gov`t—-an inability to see the big picture—allowing their narrow dislikes to overrule their wisdom. Maybe that`s it.

        • Emily

          Or perhaps the Harper govt is disliked because people DO see the big picture.

        • ChrisWPG

          Blue, you have confused the argument here. This has nothing to do with my dislike of Harper, it has to do with his reputation with the very people that will be voting on our seat at the UN. I do wish Canada well, and even if it's Harper that gets the seat, he may only be the leader for a few more months and then possibly somebody else. But I never wished ill on Canada.

          • Blue

            Well, you can understand my confusion and inability to differentiate between the constant bitching here about Harper, and your desire to " wish Canada well ".

            Just because Wherry posted a speech that Harper made to an international audience doesn`t mean it`s open season to pile on with those inane, snarky remarks.

            I just think you guys would get more respect and this site would be more readable if you acted more like Jenn and less like Emily.

          • TJCook

            You're right – we should follow Stephen Harper's example and never resort to inane, snarky remarks.

          • Blue

            and that`s exactly what Emily would say.

          • Emily

            Oops…you caught me in the middle of applauding. LOL

            See Blue….not everybody agrees with your worldview, and they have a perfect right to say so.

          • lgarvin

            Yeah, because following the example of the man you loath is such a brilliant way to oppose him!

          • Emily

            Not being a christian, I'm not required to turn the other cheek.

            I lean more to the sh*t-kicking solution.

          • lgarvin

            You're very efficient at illustrating all the different things you misunderstand.

          • Emily

            No, I just don't play games and call it 'discussion' like you do.

          • TJCook

            "Yeah, because following the example of the man you loath is such a brilliant way to oppose him!

            Ah yes – I should have engaged Blue in a good-faith discussion of Harper's decades-long record of cheap snark, and how that undermines his griping about those who oppose Harper using snark.

            Personally, I have no problem with cheap snark most of the time (as evidenced by my comment). Neither do you (as evidenced by your sarcasm)! But when the Prime Minister or, say, the Minister of Finance, acts in their official capacity and tells scary pirate stories about the motley crew of opposing ministers, well, that's shameful in a different way.

            Maybe I'm too cynical, and you and Blue will address that in a good-faith manner.

          • lgarvin

            You have somehow fallen under the misapprehension that I'm defending Stephen Harper when I object to people throwing tantrums about Harper. Oppose the man, oppose his government, criticize the style and the substance of his politics until you've had your fill. Christ, I've torn my share of strips off the guy myself and there is certainly ample material to work with…

            But don't fall into knee-jerk stupidity because you're enjoying the jolt of strong emotion. Cheering against Canada's interests because it "looks bad" on Harper is a form of self-destructive irrationality. It's like keying HARPER SUCKS on the hood of your own car. Admirable passion there, dude, but maybe you could have just gone with a bumper sticker?

            Further, when you just automatically bad-mouth every Harper word, gesture and facial tic that's reported here, your voice just gets lost in the chorus of automatic nay-sayers. A seat on the UN security council is a good thing for Canada, not just another opportunity to remind everyone that you really, really, really don't like Harper. We're not idiots, we're not going to forget.

          • Emily

            We may now only disagree gently folks. No displays of …ahem…unseemly emotion.

            No raised voices, or snarling faces or pointing fingers

            No chair-kicking….or calling Canadians traitors and foreigners..

            That's only for Harper to do….not the rest of us

            Because Cons now want to be on the UN council….you know…that body they've sneered at for years and years?

            Because Garvin ISN'T GOING TO FORGET.

          • TJCook

            Do you have any point to make at all? "Strong jolt of emotion"? "Knee-jerk stupidity"? "Self-destructive irrationality"?

            All this because I pointed out that Harper himself uses the same inane, snarky remarks that Blue was complaining about.

            I think you need to shut the computer down until the drinks wear off.

            Also, like I said: "Maybe I'm too cynical, and you and Blue will address that in a good-faith manner." Nope, I wasn't too cynical at all.

          • lgarvin

            Do you have any point to make at all?

            I made it already. I can't make you understand what you don't want to.

          • TJCook

            Sleep it off dude. This is out of character for you – maybe you'll feel more like yourself in the morning, sunshine.

          • lgarvin

            Boy, I never get tired of the "you're drunk" argument. It's such an elegant and seamless gem. Some people think that it's been overused but some classics just never go out of style, IMO.

            Kudos on deploying it so well.

          • TJCook

            Ok, you're not drunk, you're a conbot. This screed is all Igarvin, all faculties at his disposal, presenting the best argument he can and taxing his wits to their limit.

            At least if you were drunk, you'd wake up sober.

          • Phil

            Keep up the yeoman's work lg, your efforts are appreciated.

          • Emily

            Iggy is certainly trying, I agree.

          • Phil

            lgarvin is Ignatieff?

            I certainly didn't see that coming.

            A real Jekyl and Hyde situation, that's for sure.

          • Emily

            That's L Garvin not 'Ig'…I assumed you were talking about Ignatieff.

          • Phil

            Yeah, well, on my monitor it shows up as lgarvin……

            But speaking of Ignatieff, would you say that he is coming across better, worse or no real change compared to January to May of this year? If better or worse, a lot better/worse, or not so much?

          • Emily

            I didn't see a problem with the way he was coming across before, but apparently shirtsleeves and a beer can endeared him to the Cons

          • Phil

            Yeah, just to clarify, I did mean coming across better to "the public" rather than coming across better "to you personally".

            So you would agree that the Ignatieff summer tour actually did improve his public perception numbers at least by a little bit?

            But I am curious why you would say that the "improvement" has occurred amongst Cons? Improving support amongst "former" Liberals for sure, old Red Torys maybe, but an improvement amongst hardcore Cons? That would surprise me. Have you seen a poll or something?

          • frobisher

            It's entirely possible that those 'snarking' see it as absurd that a politician who blithely dissed and snubbed the UN in the not-so-recent past (Seriously, the optics of the Timmy Ho trip weren't exactly world-stage-worthy) now comes – 'carpetbags', even – asking for an enhanced prominence therein. Beyond that, why is that enhanced role wanted? Has that been articulated? And, under this particular government, one can easily imagine such a diplomatic mission being seriously circumscribed by PMO edicts.

            That said, it could well be a net positive to Canadian and Global interests that our nation have that influence, as we have had in the past

          • ChrisWPG

            I don't understand your confusion, I am nothing like Emily.

    • John W.

      World peace. World prosperity. I can't see Harper contributing to either one.

      • Orson Bean

        Yes, he wakes up every day wishing pestilence, famine and poverty for everyone. Then he strangles a kitten before kissing his wife and having breakfast.

        • Emily

          Does he?

          That would surprise everyone at 24 Sussex.

      • s_c_f

        I don't think you can see anything.

  • Jan

    Not to worry, looks like the room emptied before he got to the podium. Pics over at Delacourt's blog.

  • lgarvin

    And of course, Iggy is right with you in standing on the sidelines jeering that Canada doesn't deserve the position. Rah, Rah, Liberals.

    • Mike T.

      I'm pretty sure most Canadians are uncomfortable with Harper's international military positions, yes.

      • lgarvin

        "Most Canadians" have the sense to know that Canada's interests and Harper's political interests are two separate and distinct interests. And "most Canadians" have sense enough to favour Canada's long-term interests regardless of whether or not that national interest happens to impact on the the short-term political interests of Mr. Harper or on any other self-interested politician. Most Canadians, thankfully, have more sense, more judgement and more maturity than to wish their own country ill out of personal or political spite.

        • Crit_Reasoning

          Very true. Fortunately for our country, "most Canadians" aren't vitriolic partisans.

          • burlivespipe

            No thanks to the current PM's obsession with hyper partisanship… He does want credit for everything, doesn't he?

        • James Connors

          Most Canadians, thankfully, have more sense, more judgement and more maturity than to wish their own country ill out of personal or political spite.

          From:
          http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

          * Canada is a vast and empty country.
          o 2006 Leaders' Debate, December 15, 2005

          * I think there is a dangerous rise in defeatist sentiment in this country. I have said that repeatedly, and I mean it and I believe it.
          o Ottawa Citizen, June 3, 2002

          * Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.
          o National Post, Dec. 8 2000 p. A18

          • James Connors
          • s_c_f

            Of course that's what you'd get on Pravda Canada, aka the CBC.

          • s_c_f

            When are you gonna post a quote that is actually relevant? None of those quotes show Harper wishing ill will on Canada.

          • James Connors

            What planet are you from?

            Harper says, to paraphrase, Canada sucks.

            Call me naive but I expect he plans to turn it into something it is not. So far he's dicking around with about thirty, thirty-five percent of the population and I'd bet real money they are not too bright.

            The remainder of Canadians, I'll guess, are becoming a bit disappointed with a Prime Minister who's only interest, it seems, is his own image in the mirror every day?

            Your mileage may vary.

          • s_c_f

            Still waiting, genius.

            When are you gonna post a quote that is actually relevant? None of those quotes show Harper wishing ill will on Canada.

            Hello?

        • Mike T.

          I'm at a loss. Harper has shown himself to be dangerously incompetent in military matters. Why would anyone want to give that a bigger platform to mess up on?

  • bergkamp

    This is one of a myriad of reasons why I could not be a pol. No way in hell would I go to UN and say twaddle about universal values of peace and justice to toady to the worst knaves and gangsters of the world in order to gain temporary seat on UN.

    I would love to see leader tell the UN to get stuffed because it has nothing to teach western style democracies.

    • Emily

      Western style democracies all belong to the UN.

    • lgarvin

      The UN is here to stay. Even though it's far from perfect, it's better to be on the inside trying to make positive changes rather than be on the outside merely sneering.

      • Orson Bean

        That was Paul Kennedy's basic argument in his very good book about the UN — that warts & all (and he went into the substantial warts in detail), we're better off with it than without it. I think he's right.

      • bergkamp

        I could not disagree more about being on inside trying to make positive changes. There is no reform – the world is dominated by authoritarian governments who mistreat their people and the UN itself is a joke.

        Canadian tax $$$ contributed to the raping of women around the world. It is a lovely org, the UN is, whatever would we do without it.

        "Nearly 200 United Nations peacekeepers have been disciplined in the past three years for sex offences ranging from rape to assaults on minors, the UN has admitted. Yet none appears to have been prosecuted." Independent, January, 2007

        "The case has highlighted the apparently rampant sexual exploitation of Congolese girls and women by the UN’s 11,000 peacekeepers and 1,000 civilians at a time when the UN is facing many problems, including the Iraqi “oil-for-food” scandal and accusations of sexual harassment by senior UN staff in Geneva and New York." The Times, Dec, 2004

        • lgarvin

          Well, you're making an argument for dropping out of the UN altogether. While I can appreciate the sentiment, I think it's an extreme position that's unlikely to gain support in the near term. Canada can not just withdraw from the community of nations out of moral outrage. We need to get more involved and use what influence we have to move things forward and the Security Council is the most powerful part of the UN. Let's get in there and help to solve some problems rather than just pronounce ourselves too good for the thing.

          • Orson Bean

            I agree. If you want to find problems, waste, corruption etc. at the UN, that's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's like government waste that way, it goes with the territory. You have to look at the big picture. I've got no illusions about the UN — a good friend of mine did refugee resettlement for the UN in Southeast Asia, and his superiors admonished him for being too efficient at his job — they were concerned that if they settled all the refugees, their budgets and jobs would be threatened. There's epic dysfunction there, but it's still a worthwhile institution. However, I do agree that some people are idiotically blind to its faults and limitations.

    • Mike T.

      I applaud your decision to stay out of public life!

      • bergkamp

        Hahahhahaha. Good one, made me laugh at least.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Pretty much. That's what makes the bitching so mind-numbingly boring and predictable.

  • john g

    "It's disgusting in my own country, and I love my country, Canada, but they would rather bitch about their rich neighbour to the south than actually pay the note…to pay the bill to be an international citizen is not something that they want to do."

    "If you are a human rights defender and you want something done to stop [a] massacre, you have to go to the Pentagon, because no one else is serious,"

    Canada's "entirely bogus reputation as peacekeepers"

    All you people bitching about Harper…would you rather have the guy who said those things about Canada at the UN making our pitch instead?

    • Emily

      Gee, we have a ton of old quotes from Harper we could list. In most of them he trashes Canada and Canadians.

      • john g

        But none so directly related to our application for the Security Council. You will not find Harper trashing our peacekeeping reputation.

        It amazes me that all the people here (including our host it would seem) that are mortified when Harper is a partisan on the world stage (and rightly so) have no problem with Ignatieff publicly hoping for us to fail so that he can score political points against Harper.

        The fact is, Ignatieff does not believe we deserve the Security Council seat, and he never did. With quotes like that, if we'd been running for a seat in 2005 and he were on the decision panel, do you think Canada would have gotten the seat based on his comments? He didn't believe it then, even though Canada under the Liberal government was one of the UN's largest contributors of international, professional and general service staff, and was the eighth largest contributor to the UN's total peacekeeping budget; so it's particularly galling to see him using this to score cheap points.

        • Emily

          Nah, he just said the UN was the good, the bad and the ugly.

          Which is always nice when you ask countries for their vote, eh?

          Also Harper has been in politics all his life, while Ignatieff has been a professor and global jounalist until recently.

          Yet Harper said that stuff anyway.

          I don't think we should get that UN seat, so I'm not concerned with your unsourced comments on Iggy.

    • Stewart_Smith

      john, wouldn't you agree that Ignatieff's first two points were entirely accurate during Chretien's term?

      • Emily

        I don't agree with anything Ignatieff said.

      • john g

        No to the first, and kind of but not really to the second. We were already well entrenched in Afghanistan at the time this speech was made, and gearing up for the Kandahar mission which started in 2006. I don't think anything more needs to be said about our contribution and sacrifices there. We took part in the mission against Serbia in the 90's for Kosovo. It was only Iraq that we stepped aside, which I'm guessing may have been the source of Ignatieff's comment, given that in 2005 he was a strong and vocal supporter of the war and probably disappointed that we were not participating. The part about having to go to the Pentagon to stop a massacre is sort of accurate, but that's because of the US being the world's only superpower. I don't really agree with it in the context of a takedown of Canada's international reputation, which is why I included the quote. And in terms of peacekeeping he was just flat out wrong. We were eighth in the UN, which given our size and standing in the world is thoroughly respectable. I do agree that Chretien underfunded the military, but we did ourselves proud despite it, and I can't give Harper any credit for fixing that problem because I think it's still a problem today.

        It just bothers me that Ignatieff can say these kinds of things (about the party he now leads no less!) and then have the gall to say that because of Harper we don't deserve the security council seat. That is clearly a long term deep seated belief. It's just as wrong for Ignatieff to publicly hope that we fail on the world stage to score cheap points against Harper as it is for Harper to use the world stage to take cheap partisan shots at his domestic opponents.

        • Emily

          Canada developed, promoted and the UN adopted RTP….Responsibility to Protect….which is meant to aid countries being attacked by their own govt, genocide and the like.

          The UN needs it's own military force, instead of having to rely on donations of troops from third world countries and/or the US.

          I haven't seen Ignatieff say that about Harper, nor have you sourced it….but no, we haven't been pulling our weight at the UN for some years now.

          In the Chretien era we were pretty much broke, and had to do massive cutbacks….because in fact the US warned us about becoming third world.

          How the mighty have fallen, eh?

          • john g

            Here is the source of Ignatieff's comments.

          • Emily

            Thank you! At long last!

            And I agree with him.

        • Stewart_Smith

          I am shocked you disagree with Ignatieff on 1.

          Under Chretien we did not invest in the military hardware (eg. helicopters) necessary to conduct operations in hot-spots safely. Certainly, we continued to do good things as Emily points out below, but we didn't spend the funds necessary. We were wealthy and cheap (wrt) tough missions. Ignatieff called us out on it, and he was correct.

          • s_c_f

            I think you're right.

          • john g

            I used to agree with you on this. I guess I've mellowed a lot on Chretien in recent years, in particular since Harper has been such a disappointment.

          • Stewart_Smith

            In any case, I don't actually see Ignatieff's comments as particularly damning (of course, he has to be much more careful now). To me, he is just saying that if you want to "punch above your weight" in international matters, you have to be willing to take on your share of the dirty work. For decades, Canada was not willing to do this, largely for financial reasons, (of course, the UN was also unwilling to do it, largely for political reasons). Conversely, the US was (somewhat) willing to go into messy situations albeit only with US interests in mind. I guess that is also fair enough, but it is no way to run a planet.

          • s_c_f

            If Chretien was still in charge we'd no longer have a military.

    • bergkamp

      ""It's disgusting in my own country, and I love my country, Canada, … "

      Thanks for link, john g. Had not read these quotes before.

      At least Iggy said Canada was his country and didn't write 'them' or somesuch.

      And the quote about the Pentagon is good one – US Marines potentially landing on your doorstep and kicking your arse from pillar to post does more for world peace than UN ever will.

      • Emily

        Yes, kicking arse from pillar to post got them 911.

        • Orson Bean

          Oh yeah, I forgot, they deserved it.

          • Emily

            Hey, if you skipped history and current affairs classes it's not MY problem.

From Macleans