 |
|||
Harold Davis |
Frank Dimant |
Amos Sochaczevski |
Ruth Klein |
|
|||
Harold Davis |
Frank Dimant |
Amos Sochaczevski |
Ruth Klein |
On November 30, 2004, Ambassador Alan Rock announced that Canada will in future cast its UN votes on Middle East issues to better conform with Canada’s long-term goal of promoting peace in the region. He indicated that would include rejection of resolutions that are “redundant”, “divisive” and “lack balance”, and support for those that are “reality-driven”. This declared policy shift by Canada seemed to recognize an inconsistency in Canada’s voting history, and implied there would be an attempt by Canada to redress the balance toward what would now be a more “even-handed” approach.
B’nai Brith greeted positively Canada’s newly-declared stance and welcomed the Government’s important first step toward what had been hoped would be a genuine shift in its overall voting patterns. In line with its pronouncements, Canada did adjust its votes on two important resolutions that were vehemently against Israel, and for the first time cast its vote against them. Unfortunately, the progress promised by Canada was then greeted with another adjustment – this time Canada changed its previous abstention to vote in favour of a clearly one-sided anti-Israel resolution, the “Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East”.
What Canada’s UN voting ultimately demonstrated was an inherently inconsistent and seemingly random pattern that failed to apply its own declared criteria for determining support for, or against, a resolution. Canada also chose to abstain on four resolutions red flagged by the new 3-D Test. We deem this voting record to be an inadequate and disappointing response, which serves to maintain a UN system riddled with anti-Israel bias and manipulated by rogue nations whose values run contrary to those of our own nation.
With regards to the 3-D Test, Canada has clearly supported resolutions that demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel, employing double standards used against no other country. Canada has not only supported such vehemently one-sided resolutions, but has done so in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Far from the dramatic shift widely touted by media, Canada has merely taken miniscule steps to address a deep-seated anti-Israel bias at the UN, which is permeated with antisemitism. As enemies of Israel continue full speed ahead to use the instruments of the UN to attack and demonize the Jewish State, Canada can ill afford to mount a staggered, gradual and ultimately confusing response to the virulently anti-Israel campaign already in full swing.
As a country which enjoys a leading reputation in the field of human rights, Canada must play a leading role and use its influence to ensure that democratic Israel is not marginalized on the world stage by rogue nations that seek its destruction, and which themselves are the world’s worst human rights abusers. A principled stance in support of a fellow democracy – Israel– is therefore in keeping with Canada’s own foreign policy objective to stand up for democracy and the rule of law.
In the future, it is hoped that Canada will follow its own policy pronouncements to their logical conclusion and reject categorically all attempts by those who routinely hijack the UN’s agenda to undermine and isolate Israel. A voting policy that would meet this need would have to be far more unequivocal than the small – albeit welcome – changes we have seen so far.