There are several ways to look at Canada being denied a seat on the UN Security Council, one of which is, who cares? Moreover, Canada’s behaviour on international affairs in general and UN stuff specifically has been, at best,uneven. Many thought that Canada on the Security Council is just another vote for the US. This last is a bit ironical since in 1945, Russia argued that Canada and other Commonwealth countries were mere lackeys of Great Britain and demanded, and got, seats for "republics" of the USSR as compensation.
But the truth is a lot more complicated than can be handled with one-liners.
It helps to understand that Canadians having gone through a period of general indifference to many world issues, are changing. Canadians, stung by rejection, are more and more looking back to the days long ago when Lester Pearson, as Liberal External Affairs, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for brokering the Suez stand-off. As prime minister he continued with a world view rather than the parish pump anti USA policies of his own party and opposition parties. Canadabecame a peacekeeper and a nation that could be counted upon to be a useful umpire in the cold war politics of the day. Far from being American lackeys, it played a double role of cocking a snook at America while taking as many American goodies as it could while hiding behind US military protection. The love-hate relationship with America is now, has been and will always be, but by no means can it be said that Canada blindly follows, or follows at all, Washington’s position on foreign affairs.
I tell you this domestic stuff because I believe that a very different mood is coming to the fore in Canada which is neither pro or anti anyone, but seeking to be helpful to the cause of peace, a better environment, better help for the poor countries and back to being military only as a peacekeeper. Much of this change is based upon the unpopularity of both the Iraq and Afghan wars in Quebec, which has disproportionate political clout.
Having said all that, what difference would Canada have made on the Security Council?
Substantial, in my view, as an increasingly “uncommitted nation” with a point of view quite different from that in the US and Britain, especially in Middle East affairs. Canada stayed out of Iraq II but is involved in Afghanistan against the wishes of a majority of Canadians. Canada has stated that it will withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan in 2011, which will lend credibility to a new role much like the old one under Lester Pearson.
A newly re-minted internationally minded Canada would provide considerable balance to the one sided US position in Israel. There is no question that Jews have considerable political clout in Canada but it’s minor to that in the US where it’s seen to be the deciding or nearly deciding factor in elections. If there is any place in the world that needs open-mindedness it’s the Middle East. Canada would have become a useful, moderating influence on the Security Council especially in regions of the planet that America, as in the old phrase, regards as spheres of influence.
China, he says tritely, is on the path to being the number one power in the world and Canada, with a population of 35 million will, by 2017, have nearly 2 million of Chinese descent. By then there will be nearly 700,000 living in Vancouver, Canada’s #1 Pacific port city. The business and cultural connections between British Columbia and China have been building at an extraordinary rate going back almost 100 years, a relationship unrelated and often annoying to the United States. Canadawith a seat on the Security Council would present a "western" view of China both unique and helpful.
But, Rafe,I hear you say, this is pretty thin gruel.
Allow me to fatten it up.The most important reason that Canada being off the Security Council is most unhelpful is two words – Latin America.
As I have said many times, the 21st century will see Latin America become an increasingly big international presence and as that develops, Canadacan play a large role in “introducing”, so to speak, Latin America to the rest of the world.
The contrast between the US and Canadian relations with Central and South America is as unalike as chalk and cheese.
For a very long time, one can fairly generalize US and Latin America relations as appalling.Whether it was US annexing of over ½ of Mexico, the United Fruit Company dominating the economic and political lives of Central America, the murder of Chilean president Allende, the seizing of land to build the Panama Canal and the patronizing “Good Neighbour” policy of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States is, to put it mildly, not much loved in Latin America. The ongoing, festering sore has been, of course, Cuba.
Canadais not only free of that Latin America anger, by dealing all along with Cuba it’s a beacon of friendly relations for the entire region.While Brazil and Mexico are members of the Security Council, they are scarcely representative of the region. Brazil is an emerging economy with Portuguese as its language while Mexico and the US have been locked into fiscal and political issues quite unlike others in the region. As one Mexican president once said "poor Mexico, so far from God and so near the United States.” To Mexico, America will always be seen as untrustworthy at best, evil at worst.
The loss of Canada’s presence on the Security Council will become tangible as time passes and the UN deals with new issues in new regions where Canada could be a window, perhaps a prism is a better term, through which actions of larger nations, especially the US, can better seen, understood and dealt with by the Security Council.
The loss of that seat was no doubt Canada's fault but it's no less sad for that.
