Politics: The UN Loss is a Big Deal

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Earlier this week, Canada lost out to Portugal in a bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. This was the first time in the history of United Nations that Canada had failed to be voted in to a Security Council seat. While it is true that a long list of reasons contributed to the lack of international support for Canada's candidacy, the bottom line is that it where Canada was once viewed as a "Honest Broker," it is now isolated. It's not so much that we lost--shifting dynamics in the world may have favored Portugal in any event--it's that it wasn't even close, and much of the blame falls squarely on the Harper government.

It wasn't so long ago that Canada was viewed positively by many of the nations in the world as a fundamentally internationalist country. It once had the most peacekeepers deployed under UN auspices--now it ranks 12th, with almost all of its foreign deployment under NATO, not the UN, in Afghanistan--a change that started under Liberal governments (and the extent to which peacekeeping leadership was a myth in the first place is a whole separate topic). More importantly, there was a reputation of Canada as the honest broker, willing to listen to less developed countries, willing to take environmental leadership, willing to stand up to the United States, and willing to compromise on issues. That has largely disappeared under the Conservatives--Canada was basically absent on climate change, its support for right-wing elements in Israel has exceeded that of the United States, and off the top of my head I can't think of single issue in which Canada has stood up to the United States on the behalf of the world in the past four years. The epitome of the anti-internationalist attitude of the present government was when Harper decided to go to Tim Horton's instead of a UN meeting.

While he clearly should not have said so publicly, especially before the vote, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is fundamentally right--this Canadian government hasn't earned the right for Canada to be on the security council. In its defense, the government tried to blame Ignatieff, and when it was pointed out that the foreign delegations didn't even know about his statements, they stated that principle was more important to them than the UN seat.

They're missing the point. Why did I start to have positive emotions about Canada in the first place? It wasn't because of bilingualism, which I thought at the age of 11 was rather strange. It wasn't because of multiculturalism, which I appreciate now but didn't understand then. It wasn't because of the more civilized culture, which was not at all obvious in comparing Seattle and Vancouver. It was precisely because Canada seemed to be viewed positively by the whole world, that it had an internationalist stance that matched my ideals, and that its government would publicly stand up to the United States on occasion when it seemed warranted that earned my attention.

Harper's foreign policy has changed all that. Now those with internationalist ideals won't be attracted to Canada. To the outside observer, Canada now seems like an environmentally-irresponsible, resource-based economy that happens to have more financial regulations and nationalized health care. The United Nations vote was a wake-up call from the rest of the world that Canada's international image has changed.

I speak with enough Canadians to know that the Canadian people haven't changed, only their government. The vast majority of the people I encounter liked the old image that Canada had, and don't think much of the current one. Yet, they won't give more than a moment's thought to the UN vote this week. It will take political leadership to talk about what that vote really reflects. If Michael Ignatieff chooses to make this issue in the next election, it won't be enough to win the election unless it is accompanied by more bread-and-butter economic issues, but I suspect it will hit a nerve in the Canadian populace.

Culture: No Games Here

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I have no intention of writing about anything that happens at the certain games starting with the letter "o" in Vancouver, British Columbia for the next few weeks, even though all of Canada (and in fact the whole world) will be paying attention. I lost respect for the those games, whose name I am not even permitted to use since this is a commentary and not a news story, a long time ago.

While the commercialization of these games has been an issue my entire lifetime, I tried to look the other way until the games started demanding that the CBC, which once had rights for game coverage in Canada, take its programming off the Internet during the event. It couldn't be allowed for people from other countries to perhaps hear about game results from a Canadian audio stream. While the CBC eventually found a way to just take its "o" games and other news reports off the streams and allow unrelated programming (say, the science show "Quirks and Quarks") to go out on the Internet (this was in the days before podcasts when the live stream was the only way to listen), it became very inconvenient to try listen to, and I was resentful that the "o" movement had accomplished something no government had accomplished--censoring public radio.

However, it's even gone beyond that. It isn't just about protecting the sponsorship money that paid for exclusive national coverage of the games, which was bad enough. Now, the games demand that there be no criticism of the games in the host country at all. Journalist Amy Goodman was only allowed limited entry into Canada last December because border agents thought she might be speaking against the games, something she didn't intend to do. Vancouver's poet laureate Brad Cran is not participating in events around the games because he wouldn't sign an agreement to refrain from "any negative or derogatory remarks" about the games, which is now finally receiving media attention. The games appear to be an authoritarian, corporatist movement, rather than being about athletics and world peace.

Why do these restrictions exist? The game movement is funded mostly by broadcast rights fees (which in turn are supported by advertising on the broadcasts) and a program in which corporations pay $50 million to be official sponsors. Those corporations paying for any of this feel they need to have their investment protected, regardless of what it might mean to local laws. It strikes me that governments of democracies with free speech rights should not put up with such restrictions, which probably means that they should not even be bidding.

The purported goals of the "movement" around these games to bring people from across the world together is laudable and worthwhile, and I rather like seeing the world's best athletes compete against one another. So, despite my issues with the games in their current form, I'm not calling for them to disappear. Since corporate sponsorship seems to be the root of the problems with the games, that needs to eliminated. Until 1972, the games did not actively pursue corporate sponsorship.

I think the games should be funded by the United Nations. Part of each nation's UN dues would go to support some reformation of the current governing committee. Perhaps this might even make funding the UN more popular in more conservative circles, though I doubt it. Then, protecting commercial interests and stifling speech would no longer need to be a part of the games, the athletes could compete as they do today, and everyone could be proud of and enjoy the enterprise. Everyone, that is, except for the people looking at the black helicopters filming events from the sky.