Hollywood production masquerading as government.

Back in the day, when we had to clean off the rust streaks and the wear from a long ocean passage, we would hurriedly break out the paint, brushes and rollers and slap a fresh coat of paint over unprepared metal, rust and salt spray. It was called a "Hollywood paint job" because we were all aware that, given an inevitable rainfall, the covered rust would bleed through and within days the entire sheet of paint would be laying on the harbour surface. It had served the purpose to make the ship look good as it passed the saluting stand and that was it.

Doug Saunders places the Harper government in the same box. All paint; no prep. No matter how many times they try to cover up the rust, corrosion and corruption, it keeps bleeding through and eventually the whole shiny facade falls off. (Emphasis mine)

But UN members, including influential ones such as Britain and France and the United States, did ask themselves what Canada was actually doing: What was Ottawa contributing to the progress they desired in these areas; what clout could it add to the table?

And here they came up blank. On the Middle East, Mr. Harper’s ministers cut themselves out of the game. They didn’t help the interests of Israel; instead, for short-term political gain, they gave almost lone backing to the partisan views and extreme actions of the coalition government that happened to hold power there at the moment – a coalition containing the most fringe religious fundamentalist parties and opposed by a large majority of Israelis. To satisfy one faction, Canada lost any future role in helping the country or its region.

On aid, our stated principles were solid but our shift of funds out of the eight poorest African states – right in the midst of the Security Council bid – infuriated not just Africa’s 47 states but also Europeans, who are struggling with their own African development goals. The same happened in climate change and financial reform (where we were, remember, the spoilers at the G20 summit): Canada said things, but just wasn’t there.

And right at the lead of Saunders' column he reminds us of this:

“Our engagement internationally is based on the principles that this country holds dear,” Mr. Harper said. “It is not based on popularity.”

Of the hundreds of ways that statement could be torn to shreds, two come immediately to mind:

1. Harper said it right there. His "principles" are not popular. He formed government with less than 22 percent of the eligible vote. He and his "principles" have no real traction among voters in Canada nor among the diplomatic departments of the world's most influential governments. Harper puts on a good party but it leads to nothing.

2. It's a lie. What Harper is peddling as a "principle" is nothing more than a "Hollywood paint job". What he is calling a "principle" is a short-term theatrical production, complete with editing, intended to entertain. With a paltry story and a weak cast he's hoping the expensive art direction and set design will hold up long enough to gather the sufficient "academy votes" to give him a box-office success.

The day the world rejected Stephen Harper

Little Stevie has lectured long on how important it is to have a seat at the table and how he, and only he, knows how to get himself there. I might have said us, but Harper doesn't give a shit about us, this country or anything related to how we had managed to punch so far above our apparent weight in global diplomatic circles.

His ego was running at a speed most people couldn't match. His ideology belongs in a government, not of the 21st Century, but back in a time when Arthur Wellesley was using every political maneouvre available to prevent the British system of government becoming a true parliamentary democracy. The 1st Duke of Wellington, the hero of Waterloo, failed. Luckily for his reputation, which the Duke felt so important, he had Waterloo and the Peninsular War to secure a decent state funeral.

Harper has none of that.

Harper has some pathetic excuse for a communications director like Dimitri Soudas and an idiot for a foreign minister. And the only reputation Harper can hope to preserve is that of an angry Alberta separatist who holds the values and the quiet power Canada exercised behind the scenes of global drama with complete and utter disdain.

Harper never cared, in fact didn't even bother to inquire, about Canada's actual status among the world's power brokers. Had he done so he might have realized that the influence the country, supported by a quiet, patient and tolerant population, possessed among the most powerful nations was well beyond the margins expected for a nation of 30 million people.

Canada was always there. Canada was always sought out by factions which found themselves disagreeing to such an extent that they were on the brink of war. When a peacekeeping force was offered, the inclusion of Canada in such a force gave both sides pause. Canada took one side and one side only. Peace and prosperity for all. When all seemed lost with a deal which would see the Provisionals of the Irish Republican Army decommission their weapons and end a decades long war of terror, it was Canada on whom the world called. And it was Canada who provided the leader who could see it through.

Most people in this country were too busy to notice, Stephen Harper included, but more especially because it was a methodology he simply couldn't accept: victory on the world stage without a parade staged by adoring monarchs and presidents. While we were always happy to contribute to such successes without tribute or fanfare, Harper wanted a celebration. Without it a "great leader" goes unrecognized and his objective was to achieve recognition.

Now he has it.

He and his minions can make any effort they like to spread false blame for their own singular failure on Tuesday. The fact is, this is personal.

The world actually still likes Canada; they don't like Stephen Harper.

The global community made a decision. They decided that Stephen Harper was someone they would rather not have at the table. It was not about Canada - it was about him and his reckless foreign policy.

Not to mention that well off in the bushes the world policeman we all love to hate was shaking his head, no. In a blind ballot the US would feel secure in voting against Canada assuming its traditional once per decade role on the planet's supervisory panel. But it isn't the country they object to - it's the leader of Canada's government who is all too ready to usurp democracy to save his own skin. The US had eight years of a leader who treated democracy as a joke. Why would they allow a junior version of that a place at the global table?

And they didn't.

Harper can quit yammering about the "world stage" now. He's not welcome on it.

You won't recognize Canada when I get through with it.

One of the few true statements Harper has ever made. And apparently the world doesn't like losing their gentle giant to a petulant schoolboy.

I would bet the mortgage money that the world would like its old Canada back. 

Hillary drops the A bomb on Cannon

At the G-8 foreign ministers wrap-up today, Hillary Cinton was asked about Canada's initiative on child and maternal health care in the Third World. Clinton responded:

"You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion."

She was seated next to Lawrence Cannon at the time. After she abandoned him on podium yesterday for excluding aboriginal leaders and three northern nations - Iceland, Finland and Sweden - from his Arctic summit, I figure his butt plug must be packed with smelling salts.

O' course, Hillary's bold pro-choice statement would carry more weight had Obama not just jettisoned abortion funding in the US in order to get his not-really-health care bill passed, but it doesn't look as if Harper's chances of using moms and tots to vault into a seat on the UN Security Council were much advanced by Cannon's shenanigans this week.