Article content continued

Second, Canada has made it harder for some of those diplomats to do their jobs at the United Nations by shunning it until eventually, Canada was shunned by it. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair noted that the Security Council didn’t pull out a chair for Canada in 2010. But it’s worth asking Harper why he has insulted the UN more frequently than he’s addressed it, and who is served by this policy of belligerent self-exile. In the government’s limp defense, the UN can be maddening. Of course it can. Like any institution, it’s sometimes ineffective and sometimes corrupt. Like any group, it includes some disagreeable actors along with some likable ones. But can we influence the trajectory of one of the most important international bodies if we don’t participate in it fully? And what is Canada’s plan to tackle undemocratic ills like torture, executions and illicit arms trade if not to at least ratify international conventions and treaties against them?

And third, even if we do show up and sign, Canada isn’t protecting the integrity of its presence and its signature diligently enough, making it harder to promote the democratic values that all parties say they support. Harper argued that Canada’s international reputation hasn’t suffered under his watch by citing a survey that asks people, among other things, if a country gives them a “good feeling,” sells desirable brands, might be nice to travel to, and looks super pretty. Surely we won’t give Stephen Harper credit for affirmative responses to those questions. Surely the most policy-relevant research on Canada’s international reputation would primarily solicit the views of international watchdogs, advocates and experts on issues of serious concern. Unfortunately, the terms “policy”, “relevant”, “watchdogs”, “advocates”, “experts” and “serious” don’t resonate nearly as nicely as breezy protests that, nope, there’s no reputation damage to see here, folks.