Wednesday, January 14, 2009
True North, on guard
Today we honor Canada.
Canada stood alone before a United Nations human rights council yesterday, the only one among 47 nations to oppose a motion condemning the Israeli military offensive in Gaza.
It helps, of course, to be an oil exporter, but that does not explain why Canada needed to stand alone. Here is how the vote broke down, country by miserable country:
In favour (33):Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, and Zambia.
Against (1):Canada.
Abstentions (13): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee, too. Thank you.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Jan 14, 10:37:00 AM:
Ummmmm....and where is Condi.....?
By , at
Wed Jan 14, 10:55:00 AM:
And what an impressive list of nations voting to condemn Israel for their HR actions. A list that includes so many who are just models of openess and freedom and basic rights as we know them in the US.
Pathetic. How much do we donate to the UN each year, in cash and non-cash/military, etc.?
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Jan 14, 11:18:00 AM:
I'm just throwing this out. Perhaps, well, you're wrong this as is Canada (but I suspect there's some other things going on up there)? Again, just tossing out this possibility.
By , at
Wed Jan 14, 11:51:00 AM:
Mr Chambers, what are you driving at?
By , at
Wed Jan 14, 01:20:00 PM:
http://voanews.com/english/2009-01-12-voa54.cfm
This link explains the "why". Of course it was drafted by non-Joos so it read a bit one-sided. Who'd have figured that?
"The sole dissenting vote was cast by Canada, which complained that the text was unbalanced. The Canadian Ambassador said the text called for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces, but made no mention of the Hamas rocket attacks against civilians in Israel. The United States is not a member of the Council.
The resolution demands that Israel, the occupying power, withdraw its military forces immediately from Gaza. It demands Israel stop targeting civilians and medical facilities and open all borders.
The Council also calls for an investigation of the bombing of U.N. facilities in Gaza, including schools, that resulted in the killing of Palestinian civilians, including women and children."
By , at
Wed Jan 14, 01:34:00 PM:
Perhaps the point CC is making is that Israel should not fight Hamas. Or, more probably, he might be alluding to the same point others made in the torture thread, ie, that we as a nation should not support Israel's continued existence.
These views are becoming widely held. It isn't just anti-semites like Meershimer and Walt or proto-Nazi's like Pat Buchannan saying things like, "We should abandon Israel 1) it drains valuable resources from our budget, 2) our foreign policy in the region and even in wider world as a whole is a twisted mess, where every friend or foe must be analyzed in part as to the impact on Israel, 3) American Jews are too active in our government, 4) our policy views piss off the Arabs, who would otherwise be our dear friends, or 5) overly-close treaty obligations to provide weapons and military assistance to Israel means we come too close to having to commit our own troops to battles that 'aren't our fight'."
I have friends who've started spouting ideas like these, as I'm sure many of you posters here do too. When I respond, it's helped to identify the Israelis as the the enemies of our enemies, the Islamic jihadists. Bin Laden today helpfully reminded the world that we and the Israelis have the same enemy. Arguing that Israel is a liberal democratic outpost in a region dominated by religous nuts and authoritarian tyrants also helps. My friends,at least, still seem to see it as in our long-term interest to support liberal democracies around the world.
But the traditional American desire to avoid foreign entanglements is a serious and basic problem. Those of us who want to continue to support Israel, for reasons entirely apart from the moral hangover of the Holocaust and preventing it's repetition, will be called upon to better defend that support. Obama is probably not going to provide even the currently lukewarm support of the tired and can't-wait-to-leave Bush administration.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jan 14, 01:37:00 PM:
meta-4: "where is Condi.....?"
From France 24, June 7, 2008: "A White House spokesman announced on Friday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had decided to limit almost all interaction with the United Nations Human Rights Council, branding it ineffective."
Link:
http://www.france24.com/20080607-united-states-limits-relations-united-nations-human-rights-council
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Jan 14, 03:28:00 PM:
Hm. Question 104 That We Will Never Hear at Confirmation Hearings: Mrs Clinton, as SecState, will you continue the Bush policy of limiting interactions with the UN Human Right Council...
By Aegon01, at
Wed Jan 14, 06:57:00 PM:
So all the countries that matter decided not to vote? And all of the countries that didn't decided to vote against? Hmm.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 14, 07:53:00 PM:
Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia are all a lot more important than Americans give them credit for...
