Saturday, July 18, 2020

Has Canada’s stand on Israel-Palestine conflict cost it the UNSC Seat

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Nikhita Gautam

Article Title

Has Canada’s stand on Israel-Palestine conflict cost it the UNSC Seat

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 18, 2020

URL

United Nations Security Council meeting

United Nations Security Council meeting | Source: Cancillería Argentina  via Wikimedia

On the 17th of June, 2020, Canada lost its bid for a temporary seat in the UN Security Council, the only UN body which can put binding resolutions on the member countries.. In the competition were Norway and Ireland, which won by 130 and 128 votes respectively where the votes required to secure a seat were 128. Canada, however, fell short by 20 votes.

It is a jolt to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who had declared “Canada is back” to the world stage after the conservative government. He had personally campaigned for the seat but Canada received even fewer votes than what it received in 2010 under the conservative government of Stephen Harper. That is why Bessma Momani, a senior fellow at the Centre of International Governance and Innovation, calls it “embarrassing” and a “bit of a wake-up call.”

There have been many mixed reactions within Canada on the reason for the loss as well as the significance of this loss.

A professor at the Munk School of Global Affairs at U of T, Jance Stein, talks about how Canada in UNSC would have got trapped in the crossfire between US-Canada clashes. Andrew MacDougall, the ex-director of communications with the former PM Harper, says “UNSC hasn’t been relevant to global peace and security for more than 15 years”, implying that UNSC seat is not worth much.

There have been many reasons ascribed to the loss, the first and foremost being Canada’s staunch support of Israel. Canada has voted 116 times against UN resolutions for Palestinian rights, against Israel’s occupation, since 2000. It has also not opposed Israel’s planned annexation of the Jordan valley. “Just Peace Advocates” in association with over a hundred non-governmental organizations sent a signed letter to UN members countries, urging them to consider Canada’s votes against Palestinian refugees and illegal settlements while deciding on their votes for UNSC seat. It also pointed out how Canada considers Israel’s illegal territories as a part of it in trade, which is directly against UNSC Resolution 2334 which calls on member states to distinguish between Israel and its new territories occupied in 1967. As majority of the countries in UN show support for the Palestinian cause of a separate state and the well being of the war-wreckin Palestinian citizens, Canada’s unwavering support for Israel might have contributed to its defeat in winning UNSC seat.

Tamara Lorincz, a member of the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute pointed towards a more fundamental issue with Canadian foriegn policy management. He talked about how Canada hasn’t drafted a foreign policy to explain its stances on important global issues, hasn’t set aside enough funds for overseas development aid, has exported weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia, has snubbed negotiations on a treaty against nuclear weapons and many other shortcomings which make it undeserving of the seat.

This development, however, is beneficial for the Palestinians, since Canada would have supported Israel in the UNSC and opposed all such resolutions which may favour Palestinians and are critical to Israel. This loss may also force Canada to give a serious rethink to its Israel First policy. According to a poll by EKOS Research Associates, three in four Canadians want their government to oppose Israel’s annexation plans and 42% of them wanted sanctions against the country. There is also a campaign in Canada which calls on the Prime Minister “to fundamentally reassess Canadian foreign policy.”

It is too early to predict whether the loss of the UNSC seat will trigger some introspection in the foriegn policy circles of Canada or it will be business as usual.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:42 PM

Black Lives Matter: Why President Trump tweets about Antifa?

US President Trump in a series of tweets on the violence and riots during “Black Lives Matter” protests tried to make these protests a conspiracy of Antifa and other far left organizations. His tweet on 31st May 2020 said that he would designate Antifa a terrorist organization.

President Trump's Tweet on ANTIFA
President Trump's Tweet on ANTIFA

On 2nd June 2020 he tweeted that New York was lost to looters, radical left, and all other forms of lowlife and scum.

President Trump's tweet on #BLM Protests in NYC
President Trump's tweet on #BLM Protests in NYC

On 15th June 2020 he implied through a tweet that Antifa and other far left organizations are the one behind the violent riots which happened during the “Black Life Matters” protest.

Donald Trump blaming Democrats being soft on ANTIFA
Donald Trump blaming Democrats being soft on ANTIFA

Although he may not be entirely wrong in saying that Antifa is coordinating with the Black Lives Matter protests, there was no evidence presented by him for such assertions. This invocation of Antifa was a clever ploy of President Trump which enabled him to address the movement without talking about its central demands. As Jennifer Mercieca, an associate professor at Texas A&M said that instead of addressing the central concerns of the “Black Lives Matter” movement, Mr. Trump has cast the leftists, anarchists and Anti-fascists as a separate, aggressive and anti-American group which used the protest to cause mayhem across the US. This is a distraction technique called the red herring, eventually drawing attention away from the movement’s fight against racial injustice and tarring it in the process

By targeting Antifa, President Trump tried to turn focus away from the largely peaceful protests which were supported by a cross section of the US population including the far left organizations.

Read More