I remember when I was younger, looking through a Guinness Book of World Records and finding that Canada held the record for participation in UN peacekeeping missions (tied with Fiji). It was such a source of pride. I wish I could feel the same way now.

It doesn't surprise me at all that we didn't get that seat, all our achievements have been in the past, and we can't keep using them as examples of our desire to help others.

However, as long as we are in Afghanistan, we won't be committing to any new peacekeeping missions. Even once we pull out, there is talk of major overhauls needed in the military, which may take years to recover.

Hopefully one day we will regain our reputation as a peacekeeping nation, but until then we can't expect a seat at the Security Council, we don't deserve one.

The blame does not lie with Canada (and I am not Canadian). First, the majority of issues raised do not diminish Canada's internationalism.

To pull aid from chronically corrupt countries where it was ending up in autocrat's Swiss bank accounts and refocusing it regionally is not a deplorable act...it should be applauded.

Pushing China on human rights...good on ya Canucks!

Being stretched thin militarily because you are helping fight retrograde and blood-thirsty insurgents rather than participating in a half-baked, under-funded, undermanned mission in a sink-hole country where UN-backed forces just committed mass-rape...Canada is in the right fight.

The UN has a habit of stiffing countries that stand up for what is right and don't play the political game of catering to the worst elements of international society. So Canada, wear that UN rejection with pride....it means you are doing something right.

It probably didn't help Canadian efforts with Muslim nations that they signed a trade deal with Israel just before the voting began. Admittedly some of the scaling down is due to economic difficulties but you expect a state to be better at international politics.

"Put simply, Canada offended a lot of people. It lost African votes by redirecting foreign aid to Latin America; it annoyed China by criticizing the country's human rights record and delaying a high-level visit to Beijing for more than four years; and it irritated Middle Eastern governments by backing Israel more fervently and scaling back aid to Palestinian refugees. And on top of it all, Canada has scaled down its peacekeeping commitment in recent years."

Harper behind everyone of those decision.

into this line of reasoning for a moment. "Canada offended a lot of people"
.
How?
.
1. lost African votes by redirecting foreign aid to Latin America
.
2. it annoyed China by criticizing the country's human rights record
.
3. it irritated Middle Eastern governments by backing Israel more fervently and scaling back aid to Palestinian refugees.
.
4. Canada has scaled down its peacekeeping commitment in recent years.
.
.
Essentially, what we have is criticism of a liberal western democracy, that provides (current tense) aid to many less fortunate, and sends (also current tense) peace keepers on US peace keeping missions. But who is doing the ciritiquing? A horde of dictatorships in Africa and the Arab world. Why? Because the money didn't flow like they asked (it went to other poor nations). Canadian requests to bolster peace keeping missions to keep a slaughter of civilians from happening, and it didn't march lockstep with the lawfare-war on Israel that permeates the UN.
.
And finally, it held China to task on its human rights obligations. God forbid, a nation, who's current nobel peace prize winner, is rotting in jail, a political prisoner, is offended.
.
But all of the above is legitimate criticism? Or perhaps one should write an article praising Canada's government for standing up to tin-pot dictators and voting its conscience with its feet in the face of a world body that has allowed more than one genocide during its existence.

He said it pretty well, so I won't rehash it with different words in order to try and sound like an expert or something.

I would through in a bit about Harper possibly being to close to Israel and his somewhat rocky relationship with the US, almost like he gets to close and then suddenly jumps the other way and then back again, instead of finding a calm middle ground.

On the whole, though, Canada has done pretty good for following what it feels is right instead of bowing to political correctness.

Once Afghanistan is over and the troops get a bit of a rest, I expect a rather large increase in the Canadian UN commitment, and things will go back to normal, with Canada leading the world on peacekeeping.

The UN can keep its Security Council seat.

I don't see why Canada needs to bend over backwards to take on a dead end peacekeeping mission in the Congo where over 5 million people have been killed, and there's no end in site. In fact, the LRA have been operating in the north since the mid-2000's, creating even more instability. There is no sense in deploying peacekeepers to be sitting ducks in the middle of a civil conflict fueled by incompetent government and corruption, neither of which would change due to Canada's presence.

Also, if you ever have the change to read Dambisa Moyo's book, Dead Aid, you'll see that sending aid money to Africa has many pitfalls. Having seen this first-hand in Africa, where aid organizations need to pay corrupt government officials off to operate on the ground, I think my tax dollars are better spent assisting Latin Americans who may be able to better utilize the money. It might not be perfect, but we should be doing other things to support Africa, such as providing scholarships for students who want to come here and study, and providing incentives for them to return home upon completion of their education.

Also, showing restraint in international spending when we're in deficit generally makes fiscal sense. We have our fish to fry when it comes to balancing our books without having to worry about whether we're doing enough internationally. This is Canada, we've been Mother Teresa to the world for a long time.

I think it's offensive that this author suggests that Canada "offended" a lot of people. If people feel it's our obligation to be charitable to them, or they think it's right to violate human rights (in the case of China), or are pissed because we're not letting their state-owned airlines land here en masse (UAE), that's their issue. We're a sovereign nation that has done a lot of good in the world, and yet take so much flak for what we're NOT doing?

Sorry, I had to comment.

Your article on Blame Canada -

I think you did not go deep enough in the reasons for Canada's actions. Very unfair.

Our troops are in Afghanistan. They can only be stretched so far..... Our Government did not want to give tax dollars to corrupt governments.... People have said it better above.

Portugal over Canada... I think it has more to do with the Europeans wanting a greater portion of vote - which you did not really go into.

Or, perhaps, Portugal will now send their soldiers over to Afghanistan - now that they have a seat on the security council. Or, perhaps, their economy will improve dramatically overnight and they will be a model for the world to follow!!!!!

Don't ever forget - EVER - that Canada was in the most dangerous area of Afghanistan - lost more soldiers per capita than any other nation.

JACOB BLUES and JOSEELR very well state the case for Canada.

Canada takes a wholly undeserved bad rap in the article by Colum Lynch who, it none the less can be said, states many real factors objectively and clearly but without enough sympathy for the Canadian view.

As a US citizen I know a good number of Canadians who honestly have the views stated by the two defenders of Canada whom I cite and whom I support. I understand their views after the mortifying experience of Canada's LTG Romeo Dellaire as commander of a disastrously ill fated peace keeping mission in Africa.

It seems the Canadian peacekeeper initiative of some 50 years ago by a future PM John Defenbaker (while he was at the UN) has come full circle, i.e., UN peacekeeping missions more recently are fatally flawed and impossible to conduct with any measure of effectiveness. We have learned this but, most significantly, we have learned this by the traumatic experience of a Canadian, LTG Dellaire, who had been endeavoring in the noble and honorable legacy of John Defenbaker's creative idea and vision of the time.

The Canadian government is wise to take this vote as what it is, i.e., the declaration by many countries, to include those of the unstable Atlantic Alliance, as the final statement that effective and meaningful peacekeeping by the UN is at its end. (It's an open secret the United States voted in the secret ballot for Portugal, not inconsistent with the purpose of the Canadian Government when it decided to place itself in contention for the seat.)

Overall, despite some Canadians having a superior down the nose attitude towards the Untied States, many Canadians and certainly Canadian governments over the years have gone beyond this certain national conceit to continue to support and cooperate with the Untied States - as well as to make its own views known and to assert the views of Canadians, such as when PM Defenbaker refused to accept US intercontinental ballistic missiles on/in Canadian soil.

Aside from the reality and fact that Canada hasn't any choice but to be the joint ally and friendly neighbor of the US, there are Canadians who have views that respect the US and who identify and comfortably associate themselves with the United States and its nobler causes.

Anyway, the bottom line here is that Canada rightfully shall not accept any further UN indifference, cruelty and calousness towards the Gen Dellaires of Canada in particular and of the world in general, thank you.

Your statement needs recognition in relation to my post above, so kindly pardon my omission of your statement in my discussion in support of the Canadian attitudes expressed at this thread that by gross neglect and murderous politics the UN has destroyed the Canadian creation of the peacekeeper concept, mission and vital purpose.

The vote that excludes Canada from a seat at the Council because it "offended too many people" wasn't anything the government of Canada didn't expect. Standing on principle at this point makes the point that the UN can no longer effectively implement peacekeeping missions in the 21st century.

Certainly no one looks to Portugal or Europe to brainstorm a new and genius political idea, such as the peacekeeper idea of its time, to try to bring greater calm to the conflicts occurring throughout the world on a continuing basis in one place or the other for more absurd reasons than one could count or comprehend.