India turned its back on Canada during bid for Security Council seat

[SpArK]

India turned its back on Canada during bid for Security Council seat​

Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado, left, hugs his Canadian counterpart, Lawrence Cannon, after the United Nations voted in an election for non-permanent Security Council members on Oct. 12, 2010.

​

When the time came for Canada to count its friends in its bid for a seat at the United Nations Security Council, India wasn’t there.

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. That vote stings: Prime Minister Stephen Harper has invested a great deal of political capital in improving Indo-Canadian ties. In this instance, at least, his efforts were for naught.

There were good reasons for Canada to hope for India’s support. The subcontinent is the second largest source of immigrants to Canada, which has a large Indian diaspora.

Mr. Harper visited India last November, and the two nations signed a nuclear energy co-operation agreement earlier this year. The Conservatives have identified its fellow Commonwealth member as a key market, as Canada seeks to pivot from the Atlantic to the Pacific in search of new, emerging markets for its resources and manufactured goods.

But India supported Portugal nonetheless.

The reason is simple: India’s most important priority at the UN is to be asked to join the Security Council as a permanent member. Portugal supports that campaign.

Canada opposes expanding the number of permanent members, any one of whom can veto a resolution. Instead, it supports an expanded and regionally representative group of non-permanent members on the council.

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.”

But India was not the only Asian tiger to abandon Canada this week. Informed observers speaking on background said it was virtually certain that China voted for Portugal against Canada as well.

Although Stephen Harper stood beside Chinese ambassador Lan Lijun Wednesday to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Canada’s diplomatic recognition of China, maintaining that “the strategic partnership between Canada and China has never been more promising,” in truth relations between the two countries until recently were strained, in part because of the Conservative government’s insistence on raising human-rights issues with China.

Canada regularly votes with the United States on issues such as sanctions against Iran, where China would prefer not to interfere. Portugal is seen to be much less obstreperous on such issues.

Wenran Jiang, chair of the University of Alberta's China Institute, said he believes China voted for Portugal on the second round because Beijing would feel its interests are more closely aligned with the European nation's. “I think on a number of issues China still perceives Canada to be very much on the side of the United States.”

And in what has been described as a new Marshall Plan for Europe, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was in Greece last week, offering aid and promising to purchase bonds when that troubled nation next goes to market. Portugal’s economic straits are almost equally dire.

Those close to the vote say Canada had 136 written commitments of support from nations at the General Assembly when voting began. But Canada received only 114 votes in the first round, and by round two, the count was down to 78, forcing Ambassador John McNee to withdraw Canada’s name.



Despite appearing to not have a friend in the emerging-economy world, Conservatives and their supporters spoke defiantly on Wednesday about preferring to lose their bid for a seat than to make unsavoury deals to secure votes.

“If the only way you could win it is to sacrifice your principles or relationships, then I think there are occasions when it's better to lose than to win that way,” said former Reform Party leader Preston Manning. “I don't think a seat on the Security Council at the UN, for example, is worth sacrificing some of Canada's current principles and commitments.”

The fact remains, however, that Canada will not be present at one of the most interesting Security Councils in the UN’s history. Almost all of the major emerging economies – including India, Brazil, South Africa and permanent member China – will have representation on the council when it meets Jan. 1. How well the new powerhouses mesh with the old order could presage the level of global co-operation the world can look forward to over the coming years.


India turned its back on Canada during bid for Security Council seat - The Globe and Mail

 

[JamesBond]

India wants the permanent seat at the UNSC. All our efforts in the UNSC are focussed on that.

We will obviously support those nations who in turn support us in this endeavor.

It's only fair.

I think it should not be looked as "India did not support Canada inspite of Canada's recent efforts to improve relations with India".

It should be viewed as "India supported Portugal because portugal supports India's bid for a permanent UNSC seat."

It all depends on whether you see the glass as half empty or half full.

 

[somebozo]

Looks like India is growing obsessive with growing closer to Europe even if that means making puppy love to its former colonial rulers. India cannot become a permanent UNSC member just by buying billions worth of weapons and gadgets. It also needs to be able to proof its clout and influence the world events not counting CWG!

 

[third eye]

Blame game begins as Canada loses out on UN Security Council seat

Canada suffered a devastating blow Tuesday both to its self-image and its international reputation, for the first time in 60 years losing a bid for a UN Security Council seat.

The 15-member council, the UN's most important decision-making body, has 10 rotating seats. Two of these, assigned to Western-bloc nations, were up for grabs Tuesday.

Both Germany and Portugal -- an afterthought nation with a population of just 10 million -- beat out Canada in a stunning vote decision that could shift Canadians' view of their country as a principled global player and international boy scout.

The vote result also could damage the profile of the Harper Conservatives, who are bound to be blamed for failing to safeguard what was assumed to be Canada's proud standing in the world.

Canada is a founding member of the UN and the seventh-largest contributor to its finances. In recent years this country has made an outsized contribution to the UN-backed war effort in Afghanistan.

"Our failure to win a UN Security Council seat is Canada's Hindenburg moment," intoned the Rideau Institute, referring to the 1937 disaster in which a German airship was destroyed by fire.

The Ottawa-based institute, specializing in foreign and defence policy, attempted to explain the vote debacle:

"Canadians pride themselves on our global role, but Canada's dismal performance on climate change, foreign aid, peacekeeping, asbestos, reproductive rights and the Middle East, has taken a heavy toll."

It's difficult to ascribe precise motives for the voting decisions of so many different countries. But what should be remembered is that the allocation of the two coveted seats reflected a numbers game.

And votes largely reflect crass self-interest -- a notion that explains some of the questionable positions taken in the past by the UN.

After all, Libya votes. Iran votes. Somalia votes.

Let's face it, Canada wouldn't have been top pick Tuesday against the likes of Portugal and Germany in the eyes of:

- Other European Union countries, which would favour their own;

- Arab nations, miffed by the Harper government's stalwart support of Israel. Conservatives as recently as Monday announced enhanced trade ties with the Middle East's lone democracy;

- African countries, possibly perturbed by Canadian aid cutbacks.

Running for political cover, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon declared: "I do not in any way see this as a repudiation of Canada's foreign policy."

Rather, he blamed critical comments last month by Michael Ignatieff, as if foreign countries would heed any opposition politician's musings.

The Liberal leader had questioned whether Canada had earned the right to a UN Security Council seat given its foreign policy record.

Ignatieff Tuesday insisted, "The responsibility for this vote lies squarely and exclusively with the Harper government.

"The blame game is a sign of a government failing to absorb the lessons of defeat."

He pointed to what he termed Canadian neglect of Africa and China, and lack of action at the Copenhagen climate-change conference last year.

He also criticized Ottawa's handling of a new conflict with the United Arab Emirates involving airline landing rights in Canada.

New Democratic Party critic Paul Dewar called the seat loss "devastating for our country's reputation. We have lost our reach," he said.

The Ottawa Centre MP lamented, "if we are not at the table we cannot get the job done. We cannot have influence with respect to UN reform, climate change and issues of peace and security."

Veteran diplomat Colin Robertson said he was surprised and disappointed by Tuesday's vote, having "underestimated bloc politics at the UN."

The senior fellow at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs said Canada must not be discouraged.

"Internationalism serves Canadian interests. We should not disengage."


Read more: Blame game begins as Canada loses out on UN Security Council seat

 

[third eye]

Looks like India is growing obsessive with growing closer to Europe even if that means making puppy love to its former colonial rulers. India cannot become a permanent UNSC member just by buying billions worth of weapons and gadgets. It also needs to be able to proof its clout and influence the world events not counting CWG!

All India is doing is to focus on it self 1st always & every time.

.. and all this hype of permanent seat at UNSC including those my my countrymen I feel is ir relevant at this stage. If it comes to taking a call India should forego its ambitions for a permanent seat if national interests are compromised.

The seat can come later. The nation must stand tall.

 

[KS]

All India is doing is to focus on it self 1st always & every time.

.. and all this hype of permanent seat at UNSC including those my my countrymen I feel is ir relevant at this stage. If it comes to taking a call India should forego its ambitions for a permanent seat if national interests are compromised.

The seat can come later. The nation must stand tall.

Should you even reply to that mate..?

If India supported a European nation they would say we love our former masters,if we support US they will say we love our current masters,if we dont support anyone they will say we are too much proud and arrogant not to support anyone.

It cannot be helped.

BTW Good Move by India.

 

[Spring Onion]

India was contesting for the same why would she decreases the chances of her own seat by supporting Canada

 

[ek_indian]

India was contesting for the same why would she decreases the chances of her own seat by supporting Canada

You can not be more uninformed.

India was sole contestant from Asia region. So India was almost destined to win. Therefore India supporting Canada was not related to it, except perhaps losing support from Canada.

Canada was in the competition with Germany and Portugal while the allocated seat for the region was two. Canada was the one which did not make it.

 

[peaceful]

since when did india get a say in UNSC?

indian friends, let's make it clear, there are 5 UNSC permanent members: US, Russia, China, UK, France.

 

[KS]

since when did india get a say in UNSC?

indian friends, let's make it clear, there are 5 UNSC permanent members: US, Russia, China, UK, France.

Thank you sir, for telling us the Earth is round and the Sun rises in the East.

 

[Hafizzz]

India turned its back on Canada during bid for Security Council seat​

​

Now Canada knows who her friend is. I am sure Canada regrets selling Candu Reactors to India back then.

Will Canada give India a hard time next time when India applies for Permanent U.N. seat ?​

 

[pmukherjee]

Now Canada knows who her friend is. I am sure Canada regrets selling Candu Reactors to India back then.

Will Canada give India a hard time next time when India applies for Permanent U.N. seat ?

As usual, you are over simplifying everything and bending the implications of events to suit your agenda. Canada sells us reactors and nuclear fuel not because it loves India.

Have you never heard of the cliché :- "There Are No Permanent Allies, No Permanent Enemies Only Permanent Interests". You need to understand how International Relations and Geo Politics work.