This is a very stimulating article – I hardly know where to begin.
I agree that the UN Security Council did not contribute to a timely resolution in Rwanda – we have only to listen to Senator Dellaire – nor is it doing so in Syria or many other countries in the last few years. The problem seems to be the need for a unanimous decision to intervene in a dispute. In the case of Syria, the vote is two in favour of the current government and three against. Therefore, no action by UN forces is possible. NATO, of course, does not have the difficulty of consensus to the same extent as the UN and can move more quickly to protect citizens from their government.
I did not understand that Canada should expect to receive something in return for its contribution to the UN. Although Canada apparently needs additional funding for aboriginal schooling and health, the source should not necessarily be the UN. Perhaps economic development – not exploitation – on the reserves could be encouraged by government (tax exemptions for innovative development).
The suggestion from Qatar that it assume responsibility for ICAO could be the result of Canada’s position on Israel. It could also be in recognition that Canada is withdrawing from what were once considered to be its international responsibilities, and it would be beneficial to the international community to move what can be moved into a country willing to ‘step up to the plate’. Unfortunately, research requiring fresh water cannot be moved.
I do not want any study to compare Canada to Greece or Zimbabwe. It would be more useful to compare our development to Germany, Norway or Sweden.
Comments
Be the first to comment