Jun 052020
 

I do not expect Canadian Media to air discussion on this issue.  Yet I believe it to be central to understanding.

Sent to CBC Radio, The Current,  June 6th.

The seat on the UN Security Council:

Why would a majority of other countries vote for Norway or Ireland, not Canada?

Put yourself in their shoes, look through their eyes. Realistically.

A vote for Canada is a vote for the U.S.    But the U.S. already has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

U.S. military might in the world is dangerous.

The American and Canadian military are integrated and “compatible”:

  •  the Canada First Defence Strategy in 2008
  •  the “Troop Exchange Agreement” (“Civil Assistance Plan”) also in 2008

(ref. https://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=24968)

The media hardly recognizes that Canadians do not have sovereignty over our military or corporate sectors. They do finally acknowledge the existence of FVEY, perhaps that is a first step.

It is easier for people from outside the self to see the self more objectively. A majority of other countries may not vote for Canada because they understand that a vote for Canada is a vote that supports the United States and its foreign policies.

Sandra Finley

  2 Responses to “2020-06-05 Seat on UN Security Council: Why would other countries vote for Norway or Ireland, not Canada?”

  1. UPDATE OUTCOME OF THE UN VOTE:

    TO: CBC Radio, The House, June 20, 2020; Host Chris Hall

    Seat on UN Security Council

    (Norway and Ireland won the two available temporary seats, with 130 and 128 votes respectively. Canada won 108 votes.)

    Kudos to you for asking: What does (the vote) say about how the rest of the world views Canada?

    If Canadians could put themselves in the sandals or feet of people in other countries, look through their eyes, they might see.

    A majority of other countries may not vote for Canada because they understand that a vote for Canada is a vote that supports the United States and its foreign policies. Not to mention its corporate interests.
    The U.S. already has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

  2. Instructional example?
    HOW “BEING TOO BUSY TO BOTHER” CAN WORK TO DENY US UNDERSTANDING OF HOW OTHERS MAY SEE US

    Current upheavals in the U.S. focus on the internal, as well as external, behaviours (what is real, not rhetoric) in the U.S.. Americans are coming to terms with their country.

    To answer the question, What does (the UN vote) say about how the rest of the world views Canada? Canadians have to come to terms with Canada. There are obstacles. One is our failure to challenge what we are told.

    Use a simple example of how “being too busy to bother” can work to deny us understanding of how others may see us.

    Not infrequently, “facts” are numbers when they should be percentages. For example, U.S. numbers, comparatively, will be ten times higher than ours because they have ten times the population. But NUMBERS are sometimes quoted in comparisons.

    If no one hollers loudly “you can’t do that”, the offenders have license to continue the practice. AND so do others.

    The NUMBERS give us a false impression of ourselves. We puff up our chests. It’s how we want to see ourselves – – superior, and we expect others see the same godliness. Same as Americans in general have been led to believe in the myth of American beneficial “exceptionalism”.

    Too many people are “too busy to bother”. Or, as in Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, there are those who have the personal power to challenge the propaganda, but out of cynicism, do not.

    We will not see, or we will forget, how others might see us:

    If mainstream Canadian media never remind us of the large presence of American military and corporate interests in Canada

    Or if, for example, we choose not to know about the killing done in other countries, to ensure the profits of Canadian Mining companies.
    (People do not forget the injustices inflicted upon them, or who did it. It is remembered as “Canadians”.)

    (“The Canadians” came to the aid of the Dutch in World War 2, an opposite example.

    The media hardly recognizes that Canadians do not have sovereignty over our military or corporate sectors. They do finally acknowledge the existence of FVEY, perhaps that is a first step.

    I was chatting in a friend’s living room, dinner soon to be served. There was an explosion in the kitchen. The simmering “potage” had blown its lid. It hung everywhere. Over years, protests against corporate globalization and the corruption that accompanies it, have spread and grown around the world. Protests against the “free” trade agreements, the sell-out of our knowledge base to corporate values and interests, the sell-out of the public interest, corruption writ large, the incomprehensible failure to guard and protect the Earth’s life support systems. Pots simmering for a very long time, with the lid mostly on. Our institutions incapable of change.

    People in other countries are not as naive as many Canadians about our role in driving corporate globalization. Millions of people around the Planet are scared about U.S. military policy – – the U.S. embraces “first strike” for the simple reason that weapons are nuclear, and a nuclear attack will trigger nuclear winter. Under no circumstances do you allow your adversary to hit you first. The U.S. believes it can confine nuclear winter to other continents.

    The American and Canadian military are integrated and compatible:
    • the Canada First Defence Strategy in 2008
    • the “Troop Exchange Agreement” (“Civil Assistance Plan”) also in 2008

    (ref. http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=24968)

    Frankly speaking, I laugh out loud at the idea that other countries would embrace Canada for a seat on the UN Security Council – – before Norway or Ireland.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)