Posted on 10/16/2005 12:00:27 PM PDT by UnklGene
Mark Steyn: Telling it like it isn't -
Paul Martin wants the world to work together more effectively. Just as long as he doesn't have to do any of the work
Mark Steyn - October 17, 2005
I can't pretend to be an expert in the social hierarchy of the United Nations. So for all I know being scheduled on the final day of the "High-level Plenary Meeting" between the prime ministers of Liechtenstein and St. Vincent and the prime ministers of Armenia and Tuvalu is the to-die-for A-list slot on the bill. If so, congratulations to Paul Martin.
Alas, the world's press appears to have afforded scant coverage of our guy. Possibly His Excellency Mr. Otmar Hasler, Liechtenstein's "Minister for General Government Affairs, Finance, Public Construction, Family Affairs and Equality Between Men and Women" was so riveting that the assembled media stampeded off to bark down their telephones, "Hold the front page! Or, if we use his full title in the headline, hold pages two and three, too." Or possibly the prime minister of Armenia, His Excellency Mr. Andranik Margaryan, is a renowned windbag and this was the last chance the press corps had for a bathroom break. But, for whatever reason, Canada's contribution to the summit went comprehensively unnoticed. Fortunately, the Toronto Star's man was on hand to give the prime minister's speech the full maple-boosterist treatment: "Martin Tells It Like It Is At U.N."
"Make no mistake. The U.N. needs reform," our fearless leader declared, saving his boldest criticism for the Security Council. "Too often we have debated the finer points of language while innocent people continue to die," he said. "Darfur is only the latest example."
Does Canada have a policy on Darfur? If so, I can't remember ever hearing of it. I know that the reviled warmongers Bush and Blair were in favour of action to stop the genocide, and that those renowned forces for good in the world, France, Russia and China, were in favour of blocking any action until everybody was dead. But, if Mr. Martin had previously had any contribution to make, it's news to me. Was Canada involved in the eventual NATO-EU airlift of African Union peacekeepers to Darfur set up to bypass the UN stalemate? We're a formal member of NATO and a philosophical soulmate of the EU, so I'd hope we were. By "involved," I mean providing practical assistance, not just raising our hand and voting for America, Britain, Spain, Turkey and Luxembourg to do the heavy lifting. Oh, by the way, it's slipped my mind: was it a Canadian who brokered the peace deal in southern Sudan? Maurice Strong maybe? Stephen Lewis?
That's the difference. If you object to UN paralysis, find a way round it: that's, in essence, what Bush and Blair did on both Iraq and Sudan. But to cede to the UN the sole moral authority in global affairs and then complain when it doesn't do anything you claim to want is pathetic. At the General Assembly gabfest, Mr. Martin dusted off his proposal for a "G20": apparently, if the Security Council is an ineffective talking-shop, the answer is to create a bigger talking-shop. That way, Canada will have a place at the table and be able to demand that we act--or, at any rate, that the other fellows sitting round the table act. Oh, sure, we'll chip in a couple-dozen Princess Pats as a token contribution, if the Americans or some other country with C130s can give'em a ride.
Creating a whole new lumbering transnational bureaucracy in order to give an invisible third-rank power another photo-op seems a poor trade-off. One reason I'm a big fan of Australia's John Howard is his admirable lack of interest in the poseur diplomacy of international summits. By contrast, when "Martin Tells It Like It Is," why should anyone listen? He's demanding a multilateralism that's less than the sum of its parts. The same few countries would do all the work--in Sudan, Iraq and pretty much everywhere else--but he'd get to approve it.
In fairness to the Toronto Star, their report on Mr. Martin's call for action was sub-headlined "But PM's Critics Say Record At Odds With Blunt Speech." Exactly my point, I thought, somewhat heartened. As it turned out, the only "critics" cited in the story were ones to the left of the prime minister and thus even more mired in the stagnant bromides of progressivism. Representatives of World Vision, Make Poverty History and Friends of the Earth International professed themselves disappointed that Mr. Martin hadn't set firm "targets" for this and that--the elimination of poverty, global warming, you name it. "Millions of children, mothers and fathers had reason for hope this week," complained Dave Toycen, president of World Vision, "and that was dashed. We just did not step up to the plate." "The world was looking to Canada for action," said Gerry Barr, co-chair of Make Poverty History, "and Canada was silent."
If only. Are these folks bananas? The number of people looking to Canada for action can be counted on one hand, and, while millions of children may have dashed hopes, I doubt a Paul Martin speech is any cause thereof. Toycen told the Star that there has "never been a greater well of goodwill toward increasing development aid in Canada," but it seems to me, au contraire, that voters are largely content with Martinite humbug: a government that brags about its commitment to all the approved global causes without expending time, money or resources on them seems to suit the Canadian people just fine. Postmodern post-nationalism, as it were.
But what a country: apparently the only two viable positions in the national debate are the sincerely deluded left and the cynically posturing left. That's one reason why Washington, London and even the saner European chancelleries have no desire to add a G20 confab with Ottawa to the already summit-choked calendar.
Take climate change. "Climate change is real, and the world must recognize it," droned the prime minister. "Human activity is a defining cause, and the world must act on it."
Big deal. What does he propose to do about it? Well, there's going to be some hotshot international meeting on it in Montreal in November, and Mr. Martin may well stand up and say: "Climate change is real, and the world must act on it. Human activity is a defining cause, and the world must recognize it." Or vice versa. Even if your crystal ball's all fogged up with CO2 emissions, it doesn't take much to predict that whatever this big summit in Montreal's all about it will be entirely irrelevant to any developments on "climate change" for good or ill.
Meanwhile, as Mr. Martin was phoning it in, Tony Blair was on stage with Bill Clinton and Condi Rice shredding the Kyoto treaty: the British prime minister said that, apropos global warming, he was going to talk with "brutal honesty"--or "tell it like it is," as the Toronto Star would say--and, unlike his Canadian counterpart, he did. "My thinking has changed in the past three or four years," he said. "No country is going to cut its growth."
Correct. No government is going to cut the legs off its economy in order to comply with some kooky eco-treaty. As for the pacesetters in the global growth leagues--China and India--they're not signatories and, in Blair's words, "they're not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto."
Also true. The present treaty will expire in 2012 and nothing will replace it. To be sure, Mr. Blair, like Mr. Martin and those Canuck NGO wallahs, thinks there is such a thing as "climate change." But, as he sees it, "There is no way that we are going to tackle this problem unless we develop the science and technology to do it."
Bullseye! Technological innovation solves the problem; expensive government-mandated public discomfort will only manage it ineffectually in perpetuity. Mr. Blair's longtime deputy, John Prescott, was one of the most fanatical Kyoto-fetishists and one of the most furious at the Bush administration's dismissive sayonara to the whole rigmarole. The British government has taken the best part of a decade to come round to what I like to think of as the Steyn position, but better late (as Mr. Blair is) than never (which would seem to be Mr. Martin's position).
Tony Blair is an infuriating figure to conservatives but the difference between his enthusiastic public hammering of Kyoto's coffin nails and Mr. Martin's dreary autopilot platitudes is as swift an illustration of why the former's a consequential figure and the latter's environmental policy consists mainly of a commitment to recycling last decade's conventional wisdom.
But surely, you say, if "the world is looking to Canada," we must have some influence in the "climate change" debate. Why, certainly. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Michel Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, has been eagerly taken up by the world's wackiest Internet conspiracy sites because of his belief that "Washington's New World Order weapons have the ability to trigger climate change." That's right: the Pentagon has a weapons system that can launch "floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes."
What did I say the viable positions on Canada's political spectrum boiled down to? The sincere left and the poseur left? Better add the paranoid left, too. If there's any justice, at the first G20 summit in Shawinigan one of Karl Rove's Pentagon-concocted hurricanes will sweep in and shred the final communiqué, scattering it from Hudson's Bay to Natashquan.
ping!
You know what, there may actually be a justification for the UN's existence. It shields the rest of the world, though its immense bureacracy and laziness, from all these duplicitous and idiotic windbags.
Think what would happen if these "diplomats" were actually able to effect change! Better to keep these thugs busy eating brie and caviar and huffing amongst themselves. This way they can't hurt anybody.
Steyn is the Mozart of political commentary.
Natashquan is right in the middle of the map, on the coast just north of Anticosti Island. Even as a recovering Canadian, I had never heard of it before. (Adjust the scale for details.)
Believe it or not, there are some kooks, including my grandmother(she's 79, and some of her theories would make Art Bell proud!), who are convinced that Rove and Dubya cooked up Katrina and Rita to drive up the cost of oil for Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton.
Great classic Steyn.
"Tony Blair is an infuriating figure to conservatives but the difference between his enthusiastic public hammering of Kyoto's coffin nails..."
Not true, Tony has since clarified his re-marks (ie done another violent u-turn) and now says that he meant nations should look for other options in addition to Kyoto. His chief scientific advisor was in Australia the other day trying to persuade them to sign up to Kyoto.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=60450
"I am confident after my discussions with ministers that there is not a single view expressed in the Australian cabinet and that in itself, is of course, interesting," he told ABC TV.
"The British government would like to see Australia and the United States move with us in terms of Kyoto."
Here's what I don't understand -- global warming would HELP Canada, wouldn't it? Frozen wasteland becomes breadbasket, and so forth... turning tundra into forest, opening up a new (Northern) coast, and all that?
Noonan, Kurtz, Lowry, Goldberg, Lopez, Will, Krauthammer, Buchanan, Ingraham, Coulter and many more --- pundits of the right who disdain the Miers nomination. And the most brilliant of them all --- Mark Steyn --- appears by his silence to be just about ready to openly join their camp.
What a disastrous boneheaded nomination this has been. If Miers strumbles at all before the committee, Steyn will serve her up with a bottle of chilled Chianti.
I was underwhelmed, like just about everybody on this forum, with Harriet Meirs. But give the woman her chance in front of Chuckie, Leaky, and the U-Boat Commander. Does every single thread on FR have to devolve into a Harriet Meirs attack thread?
"Here's what I don't understand -- global warming would HELP Canada, wouldn't it?"
Canadians are in love with their misery, snow.
Damn, Chossudovsky found out about the Halliburton-made hurricane machine that we had supposedly kept under tight wraps. Who blabbed? Obviously that picture of Bush, Rove, and Cheney in The Weekly World News firing it up to create Katrina didn't help matters. You know, the one right next to the picture of the Martian Bat-Boy.
Yes, it would help Canada immensely indeed. Sometimes people cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Har!
I can't see it on my map; but then, I was never lucky when converting to metric.
Canada ping.
Please let me know if you want on or off this Canada ping list.
Sad but true.
bump
Why not St. Pierre et Miquelon?
And, you have your long list of ranting pundits to parade around; claiming Steyn is coming to your side because he didn't enthusiastically endorse Miers is both dishonest and foolish. Myself, I put Steyn in the neutral column, an that's fine with me.
Dishonest? Where is the dishonesty? I'm putting forward an opinion about what I think may happen. Notice the qualifier "if" in my last sentence. Nothing I said can be called "dishonest" (i.e., a deliberate misrepresentation), at least not by someone who intends to evaluate my actual words honestly.
Knowing Steyn's steel-trap, highly ethical mind from reading him all these years, I feel quite confident that he's more than a little aggravated at the cipher-lady Bush has nominated. He's keeping his powder dry, and he will blast her if the information concerning her continues to go as it has been --- ALL BAD.
This nomination is all Laura Bush. She is the one who met Miers years ago at their shared alma mater, SMU. And she is the one who is asking her husband to foist an unqualified, undistinguished pal on the American people as their new Supreme Court justice. And anyone who doesn't believe that Laura Bush is far more liberal than her husband, and would be far more comforatable with a liberal on the SC, hasn't been paying attention to the dynamics of this administration.
This nomination is more than a disgrace --- it's a SCANDAL.
Perfect analogy!
He hasn't been silent. He wrote a well-reasoned article discussing the pros and cons of Harriet Miers. I think, like many people (including myself), he wants to learn more about her before shooting off his mouth and claiming that GW must have been drunk to appoint her.
And as Miss Marple pointed out, this article was written for a Canadian audience--The Western Standard is a magazine based in western Canada.
That being said, if I have to hear Paul Martin say, "Make no mistake... [insert banality of the day]" one more time .... Well, I can't do much about it since I don't have the right to vote here.
Just a friendly piece of advice, which you make take or reject as you wish.
Fine. What do you know, and when did you know it? Otherwise, you don't know jack(fill in the rest of that word). You have not the slightest clue about Ms. Meirs, as do the rest of us. The difference is, we're willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, unlike you, who grasps at straws like, "Mark Steyn didn't even mention her in his latest column!" For goodness sake, give it a rest, please!
It would be a far better world than it is, if the western provinces of Canada joined America as part of the United States.
L
He always seems to coin some new zingers. I love it.
Thank you for the post, Miss Marple.
Steyn is syndicated in the U.S. (where he writes on American/global issues); he also writes for an English newspaper (I keep wanting to say the Telegraph, but that's got to be wrong. The Guardian?)--or maybe I've mixed them up (anyway, I never get the very references he makes in those articles, when he's talking about local issues, LOL!).
And, even though he (a Canadian) moved to the U.S., he continues to write on Canadian issues for a Canadian audience via the Western Standard (Sadly, even the so-called conservative paper here, the National Post, dropped him).
And I agree with you, attacking Laura Bush is not a great strategy. She's one of the most popular first ladies in recent memory, and with good reason.
I agree that he will definitely blast her, if she does poorly at the hearings. However, I don't agree that he's "more than a little aggravated" about Miers.
I just think he wants more information.
And you know, I think that's where a lot of people are.
I think Steyn is more ethical than you give him credit for. I have read him for years, too, and believe that he says what he thinks.
That's probably what got him in trouble at the Post.
LOL! Good point, one I'd thought but hadn't said in public. :)
The art of the insult is not dead.. Thy name is Mark Steyn...
Magnificent Mark Steyn.
Wrong. Laura Bush is not untouchable. She's rarely opened her mouth about matters of substance so she's been given a pass by most conservatives. And of course she's a classy lady with a lot of kindness and intelligence emanating from her persona. But now that she's injected herself into a matter that literally affects the governance of this country for decades to come, the good feeling for her from most conservatives will prove emphemeral indeed if perfectly justifiable suspicions deepen that she is foisting a stealth liberal onto the Supreme Court.
Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie
BEWARE OF COMMERCIAL AFDBS: Since you should trust no one, always construct your AFDB yourself to avoid the risk of subversion and mental enslavement. Sometimes, AFDBs will be sold on places like eBay. Do not purchase these pre-made AFDBs, even if the seller seems trustworthy. They may contain backdoors, pinholes, integrated psychotronic circuitry or other methods that actually promote mind control.
Steyn's uncharacteristic duck indicates his extreme discomfort. That's my opinion, I admit, but an informed one given my familiarity with his work. Steyn has defended this president from the rooftops through thick and thin. But he couldn't do it this time. The president's mistake is just too egregious.
And you're quite right. He's also waiting for the hearings. But the hearings won't save Miers -- my opinion again -- because the banality of her abilities will shine through, not any special brilliance. David Brooks has already shown us that we need never expect brilliance from Harriet Miers.
That would be the "Evil Puppet Master Karl Rove ;-)
No need to spare the feelings of we who still are Canadian, you've made it to "the promised land".
To be frank, I only posted to see how my new tag looks. Paul Martin and Ottawa are completely irrelevant to me. I just send them one third of my gross earnings, and they leave me alone. Other than the taxes they charge me on everything I buy, that is.....
Then there's the province, but that's yet another story.
Just for that, here's my new tagline. My son just came up with this while playing a video game with his best friend.
LOL!!
My Fellow Canadians: It is official. Our country has now completed it's full transformation to 'complete effing joke'. The path is now clear for us to transform into the North American version of Holland.
Steyn writes for the Telegraph and the Spectator in UK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.