In itself, there is nothing terribly damning — or even noteworthy — about a sovereign country withdrawing from a modest international convention that it calls ineffective.
Here, though, the country is Canada and the instrument is the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Canada is not just any nation; it is big, rich, cosmopolitan and a charter member of the UN.
It may be true, as Stephen Harper explains, that the convention spends just 18 per cent of is budget on programming. It may be that it is too “bureaucratic” and wastes “taxpayers’ money.”
But this has nothing to do with money. Our annual dues are $350,000. If only $70,000 were spent wisely, it means that $280,000 is not. For that pittance, a nation with a trillion-dollar economy becomes the first to withdraw from this convention?
Instead of walking away, we could try to reform it. But we won’t do that because the convention is a “talkfest,”as John Baird insists, which apparently means it talks too much about the relationship between climate change, drought and deserts.
This is uncomfortable for an ideological crowd that distrusts science and is suspicious of global warming. Quitting the convention is petty and parochial, but like other decisions at home and abroad, it is relentlessly political, pitched to the loyalists of the Conservative party.
Behold, then, Canada the Contrarian. Once the helpful fixer and honest broker, once the mediator, peacekeeper and internationalist, we have become something else.
Now we are the world’s great skeptic — eager to challenge the orthodoxy and defy conventional wisdom, particularly when it involves the UN and international law. We smash myths and destroy idols.
In the big schoolyard, we are not the bully as much as the brain. We are the smartest kid around, and when we don’t get our way, we walk away. It is juvenile and sophomoric, but kids are us.
This self-righteousness has diminished Canada’s sense of global citizenship. It is a country that has less and less to say to the world, squandering a modest influence rooted in its history, geography, diversity and prosperity.
We withdraw from the Kyoto accord and frustrate climate change efforts in Copenhagen. We vote against Palestinian nationhood. We undermine the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Then we shrug, as ideologues do, when we’re denied a seat on the Security Council. Hey, we say, why would we want to belong anyway? Isn’t it just a debating society? Isn’t it full of tinhorn dictators and strutting strongmen?
Governments of different stripes approach foreign policy differently, as they will. But today’s Conservatives are unique in our contemporary history; they have a reflexive opposition to multilateralism beyond military intervention.
In that, they undo, with glee, Canada’s reputation for moderation and mediation. In its place, they offer contrariness.
This isn’t about the recent decision to fold CIDA into Foreign Affairs, which is overdue. It isn’t about creating a stronger military, which is necessary. It isn’t about challenging the hypocrisy of human rights committees or demanding financial management at the UN, which is sensible.
For the Conservatives, this is about dismantling a deep-seated commitment to liberal internationalism. It is about denying that we ever did anything worthy in the world, especially if it was done by Liberals.
To this crowd, there was no golden age of Canadian diplomacy. We didn’t matter. We didn’t take the lead in brokering peace at Suez, keeping India in the Commonwealth, or isolating South Africa to end apartheid. We were never the world’s leading peacekeeper (though that role always paled beside NATO, which we helped create.) We were never among the world’s leading donors.
We didn’t help create the world’s financial system at Bretton Woods, write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or establish the Anti-Landmines Convention, the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect.
All this never happened, you see, which is why no Conservatives will acknowledge it. In this canard, they find voice from co-religionists like Derek Burney and Fen Hampson, who, having declared how the United States “lost Canada,” now reject the notion that Canada has lost stature in the world, largely because you can’t lose what you never had. Besides, they say, power isn’t what it used to be.
There is truth in that, as there is truth in the impact of Canada’s influence in the postwar era. But it is so deliciously Canadian — and so Conservative — to say that if we never did much before (beyond fighting wars), we cannot ask much of ourselves today.
So, forget about using our good offices on climate change. Or reforming the United Nations and its conventions. Or promoting creative diplomacy in the Middle East, beginning with an honest understanding of our friendship with Israel.
Instead, just huff and puff, declaim, declare and deny. Wave your arms and point your fingers and shake your head. That’s Canada in the world in 2013.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Andrew Cohen
Here, though, the country is Canada and the instrument is the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Canada is not just any nation; it is big, rich, cosmopolitan and a charter member of the UN.
It may be true, as Stephen Harper explains, that the convention spends just 18 per cent of is budget on programming. It may be that it is too “bureaucratic” and wastes “taxpayers’ money.”
But this has nothing to do with money. Our annual dues are $350,000. If only $70,000 were spent wisely, it means that $280,000 is not. For that pittance, a nation with a trillion-dollar economy becomes the first to withdraw from this convention?
Instead of walking away, we could try to reform it. But we won’t do that because the convention is a “talkfest,”as John Baird insists, which apparently means it talks too much about the relationship between climate change, drought and deserts.
This is uncomfortable for an ideological crowd that distrusts science and is suspicious of global warming. Quitting the convention is petty and parochial, but like other decisions at home and abroad, it is relentlessly political, pitched to the loyalists of the Conservative party.
Behold, then, Canada the Contrarian. Once the helpful fixer and honest broker, once the mediator, peacekeeper and internationalist, we have become something else.
Now we are the world’s great skeptic — eager to challenge the orthodoxy and defy conventional wisdom, particularly when it involves the UN and international law. We smash myths and destroy idols.
In the big schoolyard, we are not the bully as much as the brain. We are the smartest kid around, and when we don’t get our way, we walk away. It is juvenile and sophomoric, but kids are us.
This self-righteousness has diminished Canada’s sense of global citizenship. It is a country that has less and less to say to the world, squandering a modest influence rooted in its history, geography, diversity and prosperity.
We withdraw from the Kyoto accord and frustrate climate change efforts in Copenhagen. We vote against Palestinian nationhood. We undermine the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Then we shrug, as ideologues do, when we’re denied a seat on the Security Council. Hey, we say, why would we want to belong anyway? Isn’t it just a debating society? Isn’t it full of tinhorn dictators and strutting strongmen?
Governments of different stripes approach foreign policy differently, as they will. But today’s Conservatives are unique in our contemporary history; they have a reflexive opposition to multilateralism beyond military intervention.
In that, they undo, with glee, Canada’s reputation for moderation and mediation. In its place, they offer contrariness.
This isn’t about the recent decision to fold CIDA into Foreign Affairs, which is overdue. It isn’t about creating a stronger military, which is necessary. It isn’t about challenging the hypocrisy of human rights committees or demanding financial management at the UN, which is sensible.
For the Conservatives, this is about dismantling a deep-seated commitment to liberal internationalism. It is about denying that we ever did anything worthy in the world, especially if it was done by Liberals.
To this crowd, there was no golden age of Canadian diplomacy. We didn’t matter. We didn’t take the lead in brokering peace at Suez, keeping India in the Commonwealth, or isolating South Africa to end apartheid. We were never the world’s leading peacekeeper (though that role always paled beside NATO, which we helped create.) We were never among the world’s leading donors.
We didn’t help create the world’s financial system at Bretton Woods, write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or establish the Anti-Landmines Convention, the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect.
All this never happened, you see, which is why no Conservatives will acknowledge it. In this canard, they find voice from co-religionists like Derek Burney and Fen Hampson, who, having declared how the United States “lost Canada,” now reject the notion that Canada has lost stature in the world, largely because you can’t lose what you never had. Besides, they say, power isn’t what it used to be.
There is truth in that, as there is truth in the impact of Canada’s influence in the postwar era. But it is so deliciously Canadian — and so Conservative — to say that if we never did much before (beyond fighting wars), we cannot ask much of ourselves today.
So, forget about using our good offices on climate change. Or reforming the United Nations and its conventions. Or promoting creative diplomacy in the Middle East, beginning with an honest understanding of our friendship with Israel.
Instead, just huff and puff, declaim, declare and deny. Wave your arms and point your fingers and shake your head. That’s Canada in the world in 2013.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Andrew Cohen
No comments:
Post a Comment