Bully Baird, Badass Canada

What can possibly be the motivation for John Baird to go to the United Nations General Assembly and attack not only the Palestinian Authority but also the General Assembly itself? Canada's Ambassador to the UN could easily have registered the country's "no" vote - one of only nine to go against the resolution granting Palestine the status of "non-member observer state" - and be done with it. There were very few speeches on the resolution, from either side.

Baird's speech focussed on the "unilateralism" of the Palestinian initiative - unilateralism, so called, but backed by 138 members of the General Assembly (with 41 abstentions). But this is precisely the problem, for the Minister: by supporting the resolution, he argued, the Assembly turned its back on its history of discouraging unilateralism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Never mind that Israel acts unilaterally on a routine basis, setting back whatever peace process had been agreed to (let's see: the continuing development of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the building of the separation wall, etc.). Baird concluded: "As a result of this body's utterly regrettable decision to abandon policy and principle, we will be considering all available next steps." (Baird, Nov. 29, 2012)

"All available next steps:" that's a pretty broad notion. Reflecting on Baird's threat, Canadian media have pointed to the possibility of Canadian retaliation against the Palestinian Authority; might they have been briefed, off the record, by some Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) minions? But as the speech is as much a condemnation of the General Assembly as of the Palestinians, "next steps" may well involve further attacks on the United Nations. The Harper government is remarkably hostile the "venerable organization" (Baird's ironic words), and its failure to gain a seat on the Security Council last year cannot have mellowed its outlook. A few weeks ago, Prime Minister Harper made a point of not showing up at the opening session of the Assembly... while he was in New York anyway to receive an award recognizing (among other things) his rock-hard support for Israel.

So, what was the point of the Minister of Foreign Affairs making the trip to New York to insult and generally antagonize the vast majority of Assembly members? Obviously, Baird was not expecting to move anybody to his point of view. Rather, he was going to make a lot of governments (not to mention people) unhappy with Canada. What good can possibly come of this?

It seems to me that the answer to this last question is rather obvious: none. But I can't say that I have much of an answer to the first, and main one. Just voting "no" would have made the point, again, that the Harper government stands with Israel. After Baird's statements supporting Israel's military offensive against Gaza over the last two weeks, hardly anybody needed reminding but, whatever. But just voting "no" was evidently not good enough. Giving this speech at the General Assembly podium seems mostly like another salvo in the Harper government's anti-UN campaign. And what does this do? Well, it reaffirms its alliance with the American anti-UN hard right, which was well represented among Mitt Romney's advisers and is rather disheartened right now. The speech may be useful on this front, coming the day after the Canadian government announced that it will follow the Obama administration's lead in raising sharply fuel efficiency standards over the next decade. Then again, it's perhaps only a matter of helping the world remember that Harper's Canada is no longer mister-nice-guy. Don't be distracted by fuel emission standards. Canada is badass.