Evidently, Canada, a big cheerleader for the UN in recent days, is now grumpy about the World Health Organization (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32772-2003Apr24.html).
Has Canada finally decided to no longer be such a fan of UN decisions, or is this just a more ordinary case of “back the UN unless the UN doesn’t do what we want it to” that the USA is so often accused of?
Or maybe “Canada” just decides to support or not support the decisions of the UN and WHO based on the merits of those decisions. I haven’t heard of a single Canadian health professional who thinks the WHO travel advisory was necessary, and doctors from the CDC seem to agree:
(from this story)
Canada’s response is pretty unsurprising. Why does their disagreement with the WHO on this issue mean they “no longer love the UN” and are not “cheerleaders” anymore?
The current ban is what has Canadians in a knot, but the thing that has the WHO in a knot about Canada is that Canada initially refused WHO’s request to screen passengers leaving Toronto. I suspect that the subsequent travel advisory was a thumb in Canada’s eye by the WHO, along the lines of, "Oh, so you’ll ignore our urgent requests to help with an epidemic, eh? Well, see how you like a worldwide travel advisory slapped on you. "
I sincerely hope the WHO is not that petty.
All the excuse-making sounds just like what folks in the USA say whenever they don’t agree with an individual UN decision. Heh. I guess Canucks are pretty much like Yanks. So much for Canadian self-righteous posturing.
And a beurocratic decision is the same as a vote of the security counsel. So much for american rational thought.
And a beaurocratic decision is the same as a vote of the security counsel. So much for american rational thought.
A dual post with multiple examples of awful spelling really takes the sting from my rebuke.
Um, at the risk of interfering with Dogface’s good time, I’d hesitate to say disagreeing with the WHO about a health advisory is not quite on the same scale as going to war in violation of the UN charter. =P
Toronto’s reaction is not surprising at all. Although with a local chain of transmission*, the warning isn’t too suprising, either.
I’m still not quite sure what Dogface is getting at either. Canadians disagree with a decision of the WHO, so therefore when Canadians agree with a decision of the UN instead of the USA that somehow makes them…what? Is Dogface trying to make a charge of hypocrisy? Is Canada somehow always supposed to side with one side or the other, instead of trying to make a decision based on the facts? Did I miss a memo?
Dogface has been good enough to focus his critical energies on Canada. I salute this tireless servant of righteous truth. I mean, without an appropriate gadfly of this quality, Canada’s vacillation on such topics as … Iraq liberation/invasion … uhm… oh pollution numbers … uhm… <insert appropriate topic here>.
Now the fact that smaller powers tend to look to multinational organizations to mitigate asinine decisions from the “big boys” may escape notice. Which of course removes any right to disagree with those bodies when it directly impacts them. :rolleyes:
What vote? So much for Nedian rational thought.
Sua
If you’re gonna be a suck-up country, you’ve got to take the good with the bad. Of course, given things like this, maybe the reality is that Canada simply wallows in hypocrisy.
Oh vapours!! My whole outlook has been changed. You, good Dogface have rescued me. Bless you. Given the steely constancy of US foreign policy, bi-lateral/multilateral trade agreements shining right on our doorstep, you’d think we’d be trying to live down to that.
Of course you’re comparing American displeasure with lack of UN support for the waging of war against a sovereign country to Canadian displeasure at the WHO’s advisory due to SARS. Give me a call I’ll chip in for the glasses you need for that perspective problem.
I’d also like a list (‘cause who doesn’t) of UN mandates that Canada has objected too/agreed too with the associated American positions. I mean, we are calling nations hypocrites lets see the evidence.
It would appear though that not only Canadians are questioning the WHO decision as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/25/opinion/25FRI1.html http://www.cdc.gov/travel/other/sars_can.htm)
Though you have to be embarrassed by Toronto Mayor Lastman’s performance (or as Frank Magazine calls him Toronto Mascot Lastman). How does that goofball get elected?
There were a couple of breaches (doctor at funeral, nurses on public transit) that should have convinced Canada to agree to the airport screening. As Sam Stone suggested maybe it was an overreaction to that refusal, though perhaps out of urgency rather than pettiness. It’s not widespread however so the CDCs level of warning should have sufficed (but what the hell do I know?).
This travel ban is going to hurt economically for years probably. It’s expecting some pretty saintly behaviour of Canadian politicians to take it without any resistance.
“Ban”? What ban?
From the Boston Globe(April 24,2003)
Though I have no idea how they would actively ban or restrict travel. The advisory is against any nonessential travel. Regardless, it is going to have a heavy business aftershock.
Sorry. “Advisory”. Of course it’s not a ban. My bad.