you can put me in the category of people that think this is for the best.

i've read a few articles lamenting the turn that canada has taken since the paul martin years, in truth, which were carried through with by stephen harper, and then picked back up again by the liberals. see, i think this is the kind of major error that defines confusion over canada's failure to return to it's very liberal 20th century foreign policy after the return of the "liberals"; the truth is that it was the martin purges that initially set this forward in the first place.

there was a distinct move towards aligning canada more directly with the united states during the mulroney administration, but it was kind of wobbled against by the chretien government, without stepping too far out of line. canada made kind of a bold stand against the united states at the united nations over iraq, refusing to take part in it because it was, in fact, illegal. but, it contributed to the invasion in other ways that it didn't feel technically contravened international law. as correct a stand as that was, it created a lot of headaches for a lot of people, and his poor relationship with the bush administration is actually a key part of the reason he was asked to step down midway through a strong third mandate. when martin came in, mending things up with the americans was a top priority. this reached a peak under harper, perhaps, but only because the existing president is so unpredictably hostile to a country that spent a lot of time trying to build very close ties. the model for this government was very close collaboration with a clinton administration, remember.

under chrystia freeland, this has taken a turn towards the absurd, with canada's aggressive involvement in venezuela being particularly disappointing. this is all being done, remember, to curry american favour, as this was seen as the best way to ensure access to their markets. we've demonstrated how far we are willing to go, and it is directly into the abyss.

now, nobody wants us making security decisions, and perhaps for good reason - right at the time when our codependent relationship with the united states is meeting up with a point of self-realization, and the failure of this policy is becoming apparent.

canada needs some time to reflect on what it actually is, and where it's going in the future. and, it should take the loss as the rebuke that it is.

i don't know if a return to a 20th century model is a salvageable or desirable proposal at this point, or if canada is even important enough to save, in the grander scheme of the board. but, we're clearly stuck, and need to find ourselves, somehow - either in the form of a renaissance of canadian liberalism, or as a colony of the united states. we can't have it both ways, clearly - the rest of the world isn't buying it.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7070563/canada-united-nations-security-council-seat/