What to say about this mess?

An embarrassment and a loss for Canada, yes, but a bigger one, surely, for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who made the UNSC a target early in his mandate. 1/ https://twitter.com/globeandmail/status/1273439056148549640

The lesson? Actions matter more than words. Or image. Or publicity. Norway and Ireland do the business on things like foreign aid and peacekeeping. They, too, promote feminism and the protection of minority rights. Canada isn’t special, although it is a special place. 2/

One suspects most of the analysis will make the above point. But if the 2010 loss was Stephen Harper’s, then 2020 deserves to be labelled as Trudeau’s. The man worked his famous socks off pushing Canada’s bid. And failed. By a worse margin than Harper. So dunk away. 3/

Whatever your views of Harper’s multilateralism and diplomacy, Canada was indisputably a more active and relevant player in global affairs in 2010. It was leading at the G-20 on the financial crisis, it was leading at the G-7 with maternal health. Afghanistan rumbled on. 4/

And while Harper’s environmental *rhetoric* was nowhere near what Trudeau’s would become, the policies and targets pushed by Canada via the U.N. were largely the same (even if the delegate numbers shot through the roof). Again, action > words. 5/

Trudeau has not acted. Fighter jets remain un-procured. The fight against ISIS was scaled back. Much-hyped peacekeeping mission was late and puny. If you want to talk the talk (and get rewarded for it), you gotta walk the walk. 6/

Canada’s loss isn’t an indictment of its domestic flaws, real though they might be. It’s an indictment of its foreign policy or, rather, a lack thereof. Five years in, that’s on JT, not on any imagined legacy or reputation left by Harper. 7/

What matters is what comes next. If Canada wants a temporary seat on an increasingly irrelevant body the next time around it needs to get on its bike and move, not just elect a more emollient face. 8/8