Beyond The Commons

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

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Stratego

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:21pm - 0 Comments

India and China reportedly supported Portugal over Canada in the security council vote, while an official with the United Arab Emirates admits the UAE lobbied against Canada.

Shashishekhar Gavai, India’s High Commissioner to Canada, refused to comment on how India voted, pointing out that the member nations cast a secret ballot. However, he said Canadians should not become preoccupied with the loss of face associated with the defeat, pointing out that India lost a similar contest in 1996.

“One has to move on. It’s not really the end of the world,” Mr. Gavi said Wednesday in an interview. “Canada’s position does not stand diminished in any way.”

Tags: China, India, Security Council, UN, United Arab Emirates, United Nations

More by Aaron Wherry

john g

Not surprising. I suspected that the timing of UAE's dispute with Canada over airspace & military base was not a coincidence.
Crit_Reasoning

Those with a close knowledge of how nations voted in the General Assembly say India supported Portugal over Canada in the contest for a temporary seat on the council this week.

Just curious: who are "those with a close knowledge of how nations voted in the General Assembly"? If the ballot is secret and the Indians themselves refuse to comment, how would anyone else know?

I'm not disputing the G&M article. I'm just wondering what source Ibbitson and Chase could have used to be able to say with certainty: "India voted for Portugal".

LynnTO

Diplomatic staff with big mouths (as an idea, not an accusation).

Emily

Politely rubbing salt in the wounds.

It's 'no big deal' they say….they just all went out of their way to ensure we didn't get it. LOL
Aongasha

They did us all a favour as did the UAE. Both Ekos and Nanos are already confirming the validity of Conservative policies and will continue to do so. This only helps – which I think the Tories knew going in and were not as worried as most may think. It also allowed Canadians a good look at Iggy's willingness to diss his own country for political purposes – whether it made a difference in the vote or not doesn't matter. His true colours showed up.

Be_rad

"I think the Tories knew going in and were not as worried as most may think"

And yet they faked everyone out with the old PM speaking to them twice to beg for the seat trick.

Emily

With 135 written committments, they figured they had it in the bag.

Something else they 'didn't see coming'.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

Hook, line and sinker.

or

Lather, rinse, repeat.
Dan

A run at the Security Council costs a country millions and millions of dollars. In fact John Howard refused to have Australia take a run at a seat citing that the money and foreign policy compromises required to win would impose too great a cost on his country.

Your post suggests that the Conservatives deliberately wasted al that taxpayer money and changed their positions on things like China's human rights record because they wanted to lose the vote in order to showcase a response they anticipated Michael Ignatieff would make thereby increasing their standing in two polls that were conducted before the UN even voted.

I'm not saying they didn't do that, but I am a bit skeptical.

Jenn_

Hey, they've got a good conspiracy theory going there, and you have to ruin it by writing out precisely what they are believing.

But it was great for a laugh.
john g

Or another possibility. The UAE situation came up suddenly. It wouldn't surprise me if the UAE was basically telling Canada "Allow our airlines to compete domestically with Air Canada or we'll get the Islamic bloc to scuttle your Council bid." FWIW, Cannon did say he believed that Canada got a good chunk of the OIC vote. He may have been basing that on the 135 letters of support, which the UAE may have been able to reverse.

I'm not saying this is what happened. Just a possibility to consider.

Katherine

The UAE doesn't control the votes of other Islamic countries; they aren't even one of the more influential mideastern nations. I think it's more likely that Mideastern nations (and likely some other ones) voted against Canada because they know we back Israel in anything they do without question, whether it's settlement of occupied land or killing of civilians.

Blacktop

Crafty, crafty.

burlivespipe

" diss his own country for political purposes"

Oh, i thought you were talking Harper circa 1997-2004…

AT1

You forget that he actually said "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term".

You clearly also don't realize that this is exactly what the UN is looking for…..ergo, this intervention was really meant to bolster Canada, internationally!

Blacktop

Along the way lots of reasons to shorten up aid to India, China and Africa.

Aongasha

Watch the next set of polls and tell me how wrong I am. I'm not and in fact have been correct all along. You can laugh and mock, but the ordinary everyday folks have the final say and they say I'm right and will continue to be so.
All that 'wishin and hopin' the left indulges in does not change anything. Please – more Iggy – all the time! LOL.

Emily

Cons and Libs have been about 50/50 in the polls for 5 years now. Some weeks it's up a little, some weeks down a little but the 5 year trend has been 50/50

Which also means that after 5 years, Harper isn't getting anywhere.

Anon

Here's the graphical summary of Canadian opinion polling between the 2006 and 2008 election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_t…

Here's the graphical summary of Canadian opinion polling between the 2008 election and May 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_t…

Here's the last twelve months: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_I1p1RgLpXfo/TJgM3yhOdcI…

By "50/50" you seem to be suggesting that the Conservatives and Liberals have been about even in the polls for the last five years. Anyone who has been paying attention knows this isn't the case.

Emily

Like I said….'some weeks it's up a little, some weeks down a little'……50/50

At no point has either party pulled ahead to majority territory, and sustained it.

Anon

I could have sworn you said: "Cons and Libs have been about 50/50 in the polls for 5 years now."

Please look at the links that I helpfully provided. You will notice that the data does not support your "50/50" claim.
Emily

That's exactly what I said. Would you prefer another opinion?

'These polls are being trumpeted in some venues as “Conservatives back in the lead,” but I'd bet no strategist from any of the parties is reading them that way. Here's my take:

» If they are really in the range of 34 to 36 per cent as these polls suggest, the Conservatives are paddling in the water with their pre-merger base and continue to fail to appeal to the more than 60 per cent of Canadians who have, so far, consistently rejected them.'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/seco…
Anon

That's exactly what I said. Would you prefer another opinion?

I'm pretty sure Brian Topp doesn't think that "Cons and Libs have been about 50/50 in the polls for 5 years now."

If showing you the actual data doesn't change your mind about this, what will? I give up.
Emily

Please do if you're going to insist on being literal. Usually only semi-literate people do that, so I'm surprised at you.
Anon

Whatever. When you say something that's blatantly wrong, and someone else politely corrects you, try owning up to it instead of BS-ing your way out of it. Saves time that way.
Emily

And as the last line in that article says:

'Things remain remarkably stable, right about where they've been (more or less) for six years. If there is a game-changer in our political future, it is creeping onto the landscape quietly.'

Just as I told you. Your apology is accepted.
Blacktop

Emily is never confused by the facts. To be correct she should have said the Cons and the Libs have been roughly 37-26 in the last little while.
Emily

LOL Cons grasp at straws.
Cats

"there are no polls with the Conservatives in the lead".

Emily you have a track record of saying wacky and totally incorrect things and then bizarrely refusing to back down.

Just apologize for wasting everyone's time and acknowledge your mistake.

Correcting Mistaken Emils, bittermuch!!, is a full time job!
AT1

Emily, the last time any party appealed to substantially more than 40% of the population, it was headed by Mulroney. Chretien had 3 majorities with roughly 60% voting against him.
Emily

And Reform made sure there was no 3 terms for PCs back then.

Stock Day tried it against Chretien, and failed.
Dave

Chrétien had two majorities with more than 40% of the population voting for him.
AT1

Really, so he managed 40-43%, if you want to quibble about it. Let's see then, by Emily's logic, that would be 57% voting against. Still nothing to be writing home about!

LynnTO

Careful, now: Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Loraine Lamontagne

So Canada's foreign policy should be drafted to fit the electoral purposes of the Conservative Party of Canada?

Either Harper believes it was a good thing to sit on the Security council or he owes us for the maple syrup.
Loraine Lamontagne

In fact, Aongasha, I suspect you might be Ian Brodie, the one who told us that despite warnings to the contrary from economists the cuts to the GST rate were a good thing because the Conservatives went up in the poll and won the next election. Doesn't matter if it's good for the country, the public purse, the future of Canadians or the economic health of the country. As long as it's good for the Conservative Party in the polls it's good enough.
hosertohoosier

If the principal actors working against Canada included two of the world's biggest polluters and a major oil exporter, why, exactly, have so many analyses emphasized Canada's Kyoto sins?