The
United Nations
and Canada
What Canada has done
and should be doing
at the United Nations
John E. Trent, editor
The United Nations and Canada:
What Canada has done and should be doing at the UN
John E. Trent, editor
This volume has been compiled and published as a project of the World Federalist Movement – Canada
(www.worldfederalistscanada.org). The views and opinions expressed in each of the articles are the sole
responsibility of the authors.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.
To order additional copies, contact:
World Federalist Movement – Canada
207 – 145 Spruce St.,
Ottawa ON
K1R 6P1
Tel: (613) 232-0647
Email: [email protected]
Preface
The United Nations And Canada
What Canada Has Done And Should Be Doing At The Un
John E. Trent
One of the UN’s early (and great) Secretaries-General,
Dag Hammarskjöld, is reported to have said, “The United
Nations was not created to take man to heaven, but to
save humanity from hell.” Our objective in this booklet is
somewhat more restrained. It is to show how the UN can
help to assure a sustainable future on this earth of ours
– and how Canada can help it to do this. We can learn
from Hammarskjöld’s characterization that, while we
cannot expect wonders from the UN, we can recognize
that during its watch the world has avoided international wars and has become wealthier and more integrated.
Our authors recognize both the UN’s achievements and
its failings. But, they also believe in the absolute necessity of effective international organizations to help the
world make decisions regarding global problems.
A good way to get a bird’s eye view of the United
Nations is to analyse its functions as an organization,
meaning the UN’s utility in international relations – how
it fulfils its specific international purposes. Because the
media mostly reports conflicts and Security Council
blockages, the United Nations’ many and varied functions on behalf of the world are relatively little known.
Here is a partial list:
•
•
•
•
Maintaining international peace and security
Providing humanitarian assistance
Promoting human rights and social justice
Stewardship over the ‘Global Commons’ (including the
atmosphere, outer space, the oceans, and the environment, everything outside national boundaries)
• International law, courts, conventions, norm development and treaty making
• Inter-state social and technical functions
Despite the headlines focussing on stories on conflict,
the real international story should be about co-operation. The reality is that our world functions pretty well
on a day- to-day basis because of the many United Nations specialized agencies focusing on everything from
mail, communications and airlines to health, agriculture,
trade and education. Take, for example, the International Civil Aviation Association operating out of Montreal,
which facilitates the free flow of thousands of international flights every day. These services are universally
enjoyed but rarely recognized.
Nor does the United Nations rest on its laurels. Its
capacity to adapt itself to changing conditions is based
on its legitimacy as an all-inclusive universal organization and its founding principles of peaceful settlement
of disputes supported by economic and social develop1
ment and respect for human rights. Without having a
single policeman for its first 10 years, it went from pacifist
peacekeeping in the 1950s to the present comprehensive
peace-making missions. Peace operations are enhanced
by criminal justice machinery and the promotion of human rights. The UN leads in the pacification and rebuilding of war-torn countries, the fight against communicable diseases, the struggle against poverty, and support
for democracy. Such activities demonstrate the utility
of international institutions and, even more, the validity of attempts by Canada to maximize their usefulness
through energetic participation and reform.
And up until the arrival of the Harper government, Canada has indeed played a leading role at the UN. Since its
founding, Canada has been one of the great champions
of the United Nations. A Canadian, Prof. John Humphrey,
was the principal architect of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. Canadian diplomacy has supported the broadening of membership in the UN, decolonization, North-South dialogue, the Rio Summit on Environment and Development, negotiations to halt ozone layer
depletion and acid rain, and efforts to end apartheid in
South Africa. More recent Canadian initiatives include
campaigns to ban land mines and curtail the trade in
blood diamonds, the establishment of the International
Criminal Court, and orchestrating awareness of the plight
of child soldiers.
But Canada did not just go along with the wave. We
have never thought the UN was a perfect institution. Canadians have always tried to improve and reform the UN.
Former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel
peace prize for his work in introducing peacekeeping to
2
the UN. For years, we worked to improve the openness
of the Security Council. More recently, Canada funded
the commission that created the idea of the international
community’s ‘responsibility to protect’ citizens: R2P is
slowly reconstituting notions of sovereignty so that the
world can get on with modernizing international relations. Canada has been an active and successful player at
the UN because of our understanding of diplomacy and
of international politics.
This is no longer the case. Increasingly, the government
of Canada is undermining the UN and global co-operation. Some recent examples: We have not signed the
treaty to regulate the arms trade; Canadian diplomats at
the UN, at the direction of their political masters, make
lacklustre contributions to debates on R2P; we have
withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change
and the Convention on Desertification; Canada has so
far refused to join a UN peacekeeping mission to help
Mali – a country we used to support; even worse, out of
97,600 police, troops and civilian peacekeepers on UN
assignments as of July 31, only 157 were Canadians; our
draft legislation to implement the Convention on Cluster
Munitions would nullify its intent. In addition, cuts to the
Department of Foreign Affairs budgets have reduced
our diplomatic capacity. We have drastically reduced the
number of refugees Canada accepts and our aid program has been cut and folded in with the Department of
Foreign Affairs. Where Canada was strong, it is now weak;
where we were once prudent, we are now hostile to
much of what the UN does and represents.
The UN is far from perfect. It is currently failing the
people of Syria. Its human rights forums often include
those who are mistreating their own populations.
Money is sometimes wasted. Often, we are distressed it
cannot take decisions about our global challenges. But,
warts and all, it is necessary. It succeeds far more often
than most people realize. As the one organization that
can convene all the world’s nations, it is the basis for
building a better framework for governing our interdependent world.
So, if we in this booklet, or if Canadians in general,
want a UN that can help deal with the world’s problems
and make decisions, then we are going to have to work
very hard to bring about change in international institutions. We will have to demonstrate that we are knowledgeable team players. We must be respected in the
world for our foreign policy and not marginalized. We
cannot afford to simply ignore the UN, or worse, to continually denigrate it. Canada must once again become a
leader in world politics and at the UN. For Canada, having strong international organizations to promote peace
and justice must be one of the fundamental principles
of Canadian foreign policy.
For Further Reading
Paul Heinbecker (2010). Getting Back in the Game, A Foreign Policy Playbook for Canada, Toronto, Key Porter
Books.
Jean E. Krasno (ed.) (2004). The United Nations: Confronting the Challenges of Global Society, Boulder, Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Clyde Sanger (ed.) (1988). Canadian and the United
Nations, Ottawa, Minister of Supply and Services
Canada.
John E. Trent (2007). Modernizing the United Nations System, Opladen, Germany, Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Thomas G. Weiss & Sam Daws (eds.) (2007).The Oxford
Handbook on the United Nations, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
3
Contents
4
Warren Allmand
[email protected]
A Respect for Human Rights is Essential for Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Lloyd Axworthy
[email protected]
Canada, the UN and the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Michael Byers
[email protected]
The UN and the Law of the Sea: from the Arctic to the South China Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Ferry de Kerckhove
[email protected]
Canada and international organizations: time for better recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Walter Dorn
[email protected]
Unprepared for peace: A decade of decline in Canadian peacekeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Yves Fortier
[email protected]
Canada and the Security Council, then and now: A view from within . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Robert Fowler
[email protected]
Why Canada was not elected to the Security Council two years ago, and why we will never be elected
unless and until there is a fundamental change in our foreign policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Gilles Gingras
[email protected]
The UN, Canada and the International Civil Aviation Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
Peter Langille
[email protected]
Preparing for peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Carolyn McAskie
[email protected]
Canada’s self-interest and the United Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
Marilou McPhedran
[email protected]
The UN, UN Women and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Errol Mendes
[email protected]
Canada, its human rights record and the UN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
Douglas Roche
[email protected]
Canada’s role in banning nuclear weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Julia Sanchez
[email protected]
Civil society, Canada and the United Nations: Partnering for the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Ian Smillie
[email protected]
The United Nations and humanitarian assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
John Trent
[email protected]
Re-thinking the United Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Kate White
[email protected]
Where is Canada in helping set the international development agenda for the next two decades? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
The United Nations System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
5
A respect for human rights is essential for peace
Abstract
Warren Allmand, P.C., O.C., Q.C.
When the United Nations was established in 1945, there was a strong
belief that the new international
order should be built on a foundation of human rights. The Charter
included several significant provisions to this end. Soon a number of
important human rights instruments
were adopted, most notably the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, with Canada’s John Humphrey playing a leading role.
The UN’s human rights machinery
has evolved and improved over the
years, although it is still far from perfect. But the solution is not to weaken
or dissolve the UN. Our goal must be
to strengthen the implementation
procedures and oversight mechanisms.
Canada in the past has shown great
leadership in supporting the UN’s
peacekeeping, development and human rights programs. This is a proud
tradition, which should be enhanced
and continued.
6
When the United Nations was established in 1945,
there was a groundswell of sentiment that the “new
world order” should be built on a foundation of human
rights. As a result, the Charter included several significant provisions to this end. First, there was an emphasis
on the principle of self-determination of peoples [article
1 (2)]. Second, the world organization would be based
on the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of
race, sex, language or religion [preamble and article1
(3)]. Third, member states committed themselves to the
pursuit of international co-operation for the promotion
of human rights for all peoples [article 1 (3)]. Fourth,
member states pledged to take measures jointly and
separately to achieve universal respect for human rights
[articles 55 and 56]. Fifth, the Charter called for the establishment of a Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR)
as a fundamental organ of ECOSOC [the UN Economic
and Social council, article 68]. This Commission was in
fact established in 1946 and its first task was the drafting of an International Bill of Human Rights.
It must be remembered that these initiatives took
place in the aftermath of World War II where horrible
abuses had taken place – the Holocaust, the indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians, ethnic cleansing,
murder, rape and torture. All of these were still fresh in
the minds of those who pressed forward the UN Charter and the International Bill of Human Rights. There
was also a recognition that the other goals of the UN
(international peace and security, plus economic and
social development) were closely interdependent with
a respect for human rights and all had to be pursued
together.
Driven by the contributions of Eleanor Roosevelt,
Rene Cassin and Canadian John Humphrey, the Commission on Human Rights completed the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and it was adopted in the General Assembly by a vote of 48 to 0 with
8 abstentions. This was an outstanding achievement, an
important landmark in human history. Eleanor Roosevelt described the Universal Declaration as the Magna
Carta for all mankind. It is hard to believe that such a
high set of standards was adopted by so many states of
different cultures, religions, languages, races and political systems but there was the political will at the time to
make it happen.
This was supplemented by the Convention against
Genocide passed by the UN the same week. Then, in
turn, the UN adopted the four Geneva Conventions,
establishing specific war crimes (1949), the Refugee
Convention (1951), the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights – and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1967), plus conventions against Racial Discrimination (1969), against
Apartheid (1971) and against Torture (1984). There were
also conventions establishing the Rights of Women
(1981) and the Rights of Children (1989). All of this to say
that the United Nations has been extremely successful
in adopting human rights standards applicable to the
whole world, to all peoples, to all continents and to all
races and cultures. There has been, however, a serious
problem with implementation.
It was expected that the highest level of implementation would be accomplished by the passage of
implementing legislation by the ratifying states, with
Human Rights Charters and Human Rights Commissions
in all states, all in accordance with the Paris Principles
adopted by the UN in 1993. It should be noted that
Canada has ratified all the major human rights conventions mentioned above, has legislated these human
rights standards, set up human rights commissions and
adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many other
countries have done the same. Despite this, there are
still too many human rights violations and too many
horror stories – Rwanda, Syria, Afghanistan, Chechnya,
Kosovo and Darfur, the Roma in Europe, and indigenous
peoples in the Americas.
In fact, there is no state without fault. But the solution
is not to weaken or dissolve the UN and other interna-
tional institutions. Our goal must be to strengthen the
implementation procedures and the oversight mechanisms. The acceptance by the UN of numerous human
rights standards since 1945 indicated a recognition
and a willingness to move ahead on these issues. The
International Criminal Court was set up in 1998; Universal Periodic Review of all UN members in 2006; and
the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine was recognized
by the UN in 2005, while efforts are now being made to
fine-tune its implementation procedures. The task for
Canadians and for all mankind is to work together to
advance the cause of peace, justice and human rights.
This cannot be done by individual states or by a small
coalition of states. To be truly successful, it must be a
universal effort through a reformed, more effective
United Nations. Canada in the past has shown great
leadership in supporting United Nations peacekeeping,
development and human rights. This is a proud tradition which should be enhanced and continued.
The Hon. Warren Allmand is
the current National President of the World Federalist
Movement – Canada. He
was president of Rights &
Democracy (the International
Centre for Human Rights and
Democratic Development)
from 1997 to 2002. This followed a 33-year career as a
Member of Parliament, during
which he held several cabinet
posts, including Solicitor
General, Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Affairs,
and Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs.
7
Canada, the UN and the ‘responsibility to protect’
Abstract
Dr. Lloyd Axworthy
At the end of the last century, some
will remember, Canada held a
first-row seat as some of the most
new and innovative initiatives in the
promotion of international peace,
security and the protection of human
rights and civilian lives. One of these
initiatives was helping to launch the
idea of the Responsibility to Protect
(R2P). After languishing as an idea
for nearly a decade, the uprisings
brought about by the Arab Spring
have reignited a newfound interest in
discussion around intervening for the
protection of civilians. Canada should
once again play a diplomatic role in
the institutionalization and application of the concept.
8
At the end of the last century, some will remember,
Canada held a first-row seat helping develop some of
the most new and innovative initiatives in the promotion of international peace, security and the protection
of human rights and civilian lives. Highlights include
midwifery of the treaty banning landmines, actively participating in the creation of the International Criminal
Court, and establishing the International Commission
on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which launched
the idea of the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P).
At the time, R2P represented the culmination of
Canada’s foreign policy with a focus on human security.
It was a response to a new post-Cold War global disorder where violent conflicts were fought with civilians
as targets. R2P was introduced to the world at the turn
of the century, underneath the shadow of 9/11. There
it languished for nearly a decade, while slowly building
international support.
Since the intervention in Libya in 2011, R2P has
emerged as a regular topic for discussion. Its legitimacy
has been questioned by critics but it continues to gain
traction both North and South and remains a topic
worthy of serious analysis and application. Unfortunately, since our early participation in the creation of the
idea, Canada has been somewhat absent from current
debates and discussion.
However, despite its hesitation to use the terminology, our current government has demonstrated a
willingness to be a participant in international interventions where the priority was the protection of civilians.
We contributed a significant number of personnel and
fighter jets to the UN-mandated Libyan intervention in
2011, air-lift support and financial assistance to Mali in
2013, and have committed significant funds for humanitarian assistance for Syrian refugees. I believe there
remains a significant role for Canada to play in R2P’s
forthcoming evolution.
Even the U.S. is showing interest. The U.S recognizes
that as the preeminent military force, the world will
always turn to it to for direction and action when faced
with humanitarian strife. Look at Libya. Look at Syria.
Look at Egypt. The U.S.’s decision for action or inaction
is very often the catalyst for a global response, or lack
thereof. However, due to internal political and economic
challenges, combined with over a decade at war in foreign places, it has clearly grown weary of acting as the
international police force.
The recent appointment of Samantha Power as UN
Ambassador and Susan Rice as National Security Advisor – both supporters of R2P – offer important clues to
the future direction of U.S. foreign policy. It suggests
that the U.S. may be more open to collaborative approaches to addressing complex humanitarian emergencies abroad, similar to the intervention in Libya. Just
recently, a blue ribbon panel co-chaired by Madeleine
Albright and Richard Williamson issued a report urging the Obama administration to fully embrace the R2P
concept.
This new-found interest offers Canada an opportunity
to regain its role regarding the promotion and continued development of R2P. For example, the original
intent of the ‘responsibility to protect’ – when it was first
hatched – was to move away from the ad hoc nature of
responding to humanitarian crisis. This need evolved
out of the international NATO-led intervention in
Kosovo in 1999. It was recognized at that point that any
future response would need to be led by the UN, with
legitimacy and oversight given by the Security Council.
What remains to be created is a standing, rapid-reaction
UN force so that we can collectively move away from
relying on NATO.
Currently, the greatest hiccup in the implementation
of R2P is the stalemate taking place on the Security
Council. Any reform packages that may be proposed
for expanding the Council’s permanent membership to
include emerging powers should also consider adding limitations on the use of the veto powers when
situations meet R2P criteria. The most obvious victim
of the misuse of the veto over the past two years has
been Syria. Stalling by the Security Council has led us to
where we are today: civil war.
Finally, more emphasis needs to be put on early warning and prevention. These really form the bedrock of
the R2P idea. I believe that Canada has the capabilities
to make real and effective contributions to establishing
an effective capacity at the UN for implementing the
‘responsibility to protect.’
Dr. Lloyd Axworthy is President and Vice-Chancellor of
the University of Winnipeg.
He graduated in 1961 with a
BA from United College (now
The University of Winnipeg),
and received an MA and PhD
from Princeton University.
His political career spanned
27 years, during six of which
he served in the Manitoba
Legislative Assembly and 21
in the federal Parliament. He
held several cabinet positions,
notably Minister of Employment and Immigration,
Minister Responsible for the
Status of Women, Minister
of Transport, Minister of Human Resources Development,
Minister of Western Economic
Diversification and Minister
of Foreign Affairs from 19962000.
9
Abstract
A US-flagged ice-strengthened supertanker, the SS Manhattan, sailed
through the Northwest Passage in
1969 without seeking Canada’s permission. Canada’s diplomats immediately set to work, crafting a strategy
to protect this country’s interests in
the event of further challenges to our
Northwest Passage claim. Central to
the strategy was a close involvement
in the negotiation and drafting of the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
As a result of Canadian leadership,
Article 234 of the Convention allows
coastal states to enact laws against
maritime pollution out to 200 nautical miles from shore in the Arctic.
Canadian leadership also resulted in
provisions of the UN Convention that
provide coastal states with extensive
jurisdiction over seabed resources,
a matter of no small importance to
Canada which has the longest coastline of any country. Countries around
the world accept the validity of these
rules today. And when differences
of opinion arise, they do so within a
legal framework, which reduces the
risk of armed conflict.
10
The UN and the Law of the Sea:
from the Arctic to the South China Sea
Michael Byers
A US-flagged ice-strengthened super-tanker, the SS
Manhattan, sailed through the Northwest Passage in
1969 without seeking Canada’s permission. Canada’s
diplomats immediately set to work, crafting a strategy
to protect the country’s interests in the event of further
challenges to our Northwest Passage claim.
Their response was the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which Parliament adopted the next year. The
Act imposed strict safety and environmental requirements on all shipping within 100 nautical miles of
Canada’s Arctic coast. In doing so, it stretched the limits
of international law, which at the time did not recognize
coastal state rights more than 12 nautical miles from
shore.
The United States declared the Arctic Waters Pollution
Prevention Act illegal but Canada’s diplomats persisted.
They focused on a negotiating process that was beginning at the United Nations with the goal of producing
a globally applicable UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea.
Canada’s Alan Beesley was elected as the chair of
the drafting committee, positioning him at the centre
of Great Power diplomacy. At one closed-door session
with just the American and Soviet delegations, Beesley
secured Article 234 of the UN Convention, the so-called
“Arctic exception” which allows coastal states to enact
laws against maritime pollution out to 200 nautical
miles from shore when almost year-round ice creates
exceptional navigational hazards.
The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was legitimized internationally just 12 years after its adoption.
Just as importantly, Article 234 sparked the development of a parallel rule of “customary international law”
that is today regarded as binding on all countries – including those, like the United States, that have not yet
ratified the UN Convention. Indeed, the United States
now recommends that US-flagged merchant vessels
abide by the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act when
sailing in or near Canada’s Arctic waters.
Beesley and his colleagues also succeeded in advancing Canada’s interests with regard to ocean resources.
Under the UN Convention, each coastal state is entitled
to a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea as well as an “exclusive economic zone” from 12 to 200 nautical miles
where, as the name suggests, it holds exclusive rights
over the resources of the water column, ocean floor and
seabed.
Canada’s diplomats also recognized that new technologies and higher prices would eventually lead to the
exploitation of oil, gas and minerals more than 200 nautical miles from shore, including in the relatively shallow
waters near Canada’s Atlantic and Arctic coasts. They
helped craft Article 76 of the UN Convention, which
accords coastal states rights over an “extended conti-
nental shelf” beyond 200 nautical miles, if the depth and
shape of the seabed and the thickness of underlying
sediments indicate a “natural prolongation” of the shelf
closer inshore. Article 76 specifies that the existence of a
natural prolongation is a question of science, not technological competence or military might, and it lays out
detailed rules concerning the geographical and geological criteria that must be fulfilled.
Countries wishing to claim an extended continental
shelf must submit supporting scientific evidence to the
UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,
a body composed entirely of scientists. Norway filed its
submission in 2006, Canada is doing so this December,
and both Denmark and Russia will file next year. Even
the United States, although it has not yet ratified the UN
Convention, has been co-operating with Canada to collect scientific evidence from the seabed north of Alaska
to support an eventual claim.
Everyone benefits from these rules. The sheer size
of the Arctic Ocean and the lengths of uncontested
coastlines mean that Russia could legitimately claim
an expanse of seabed larger than Europe. Canada, with
the world’s longest coastline, could claim an area larger
than Alberta and Saskatchewan combined.
Most importantly, countries that do not border on the
Arctic Ocean accept the validity of this process, because
the rules apply globally. China, for instance, is using
Article 76 to support its seabed claims in the East China
Sea. It is using other provisions of the UN Convention to
support its quite different claims in the South China Sea,
and while those claims are contentious, the fact that the
dispute is framed in legal terms reduces the possibility
of armed conflict.
So the next time that someone says the Arctic is “up
for grabs”, that Canada needs to “use it or lose it”, or that
China is behaving in an unbridled manner in the East
and South China Seas, tell them about the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – and the central role that
Canada played in its negotiation.
Michael Byers teaches at the
University of British Columbia
where he holds the Canada
Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law.
His work focuses on Canadian
foreign policy, including the
Arctic, climate change, and
the use of military force. Dr.
Byers has been a Fellow of
Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Professor of Law at
Duke University. He has also
taught as a visiting professor
at the universities of Cape
Town, Tel Aviv, and Novosibirsk. Dr. Byers is the author
of seven books, including
“International Law and the
Arctic”, which was published
just this month by Cambridge
University Press.
11
Abstract
The Government of Canada has a difficult relationship with the multilateral world. It prefers intergovernmental
groupings where major players’ consensus is the rule. It paid a price such
as its defeat in its UN Security Council
campaign. There was a feeling at the
UN that, with its multilateralism “à la
carte”, Canada had renounced some
of the tenets which gave it credibility
on the international stage.
The Government should a) manage itself out of its frustrations with
multilateral convoluted processes; b)
recommit Canada to the painstakingly built architecture of functional
organizations; and c) undertake an
open-minded review of all the international/multilateral organizations
to which Canada belongs.
12
Canada and international organizations:
time for better recognition
Ferry de Kerckhove
A government unfriendly to multilateralism: It is
a common refrain that Canada’s international standing
has been falling over the last few years. Yet, Canada’s
participation in global economic governance is a source
of pride for the prime minister. But the present government is uncomfortable with multilateralism as “the
international governance of the many” (Kahler, 1992). It
clearly prefers intergovernmental groupings such as the
G-8 or G-20 where sovereignty is unfettered and major
players’ consensus is the rule. Canada seems unprepared
to treat international organizations as independent
actors on the international stage. It is regrettable that
its disdain for the inevitable politics and grandstanding at the UN makes the government less sensitive to
broader issues mostly beyond the realm of geopolitics,
such as climate change and the many evils that know
no frontier but which all have multilateral organizations
painstakingly engaged in working out solutions. Hence,
the withdrawal from the UN Convention to Combat Desertification referred to as a “bureaucratic talkfest” with
little concern for the decision being branded by some as
“a departure from global citizenship.”
It paid the price: Global citizenship was certainly not
on Canada’s side when it lost its bid for a seat on the
United Nations Security Council. There was also a general feeling that the Conservative government of Canada
had renounced some of the fundamental tenets which
gave Canada credibility on the international stage, such
as a commitment to human security, the ‘responsibility to protect’, a preference for multilateral diplomacy,
and a desire to enhance the normative framework
within which international organizations strive. While
the government’s refusal to entertain any compromise,
particularly with undemocratic regimes, is principled, it
should avoid, in the process, demonizing the organization rather than its many despicable members.
Multilateralism à la carte: While it continues to
commit funds to functional international organizations,
the Canadian government has little interest in dedicating time and effort to improving the effectiveness of
the United Nations and its associated instruments of
global governance. Of course, there is no denying that
there are often huge distances between an international organization’s mandate and charter, and its actual
delivery or activities. So it is normal for the government
to call for accountability, value for money, and resultsbased management. But blaming the organizations – as
opposed to the nations that dictate their actions (or
prevent them from acting) – is like blaming the ingredients in a dish rather than the choice of recipe.
What the government should do: First, it has to find
a way to manage itself out of the frustrations it seems to
harbour towards the purely “political organizations” such
as the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly
and to stop taking any resolution voted by UNGA which
it dislikes as a direct, frontal assault against it.
Secondly, it has to recommit Canada to the painstakingly built architecture of functional organizations
whose leaders and managers desperately try to avoid
political interference in the work at hand. Canada has
to accept that at times decisions will go differently than
where it wants an organization to go but, by ‘being
in the tent,’ it has a better chance of alleviating their
impacts.
Thirdly, more importantly, a strong call for accountability must go hand-in-hand with working, as suggested by Tony Blair, towards enhancing what he called “the
concerted means to act” (Blair, 2007). Thus, the government must undertake a review of all international/multilateral organizations to which Canada belongs, starting with their objectives and mandates and running
through the way they perform their roles and deliver
their contributions. The government has to decide how
much more aggressively Canada should be engaged
in the institutions dealing with the global issues of our
time. Canada has a vital interest in participating fully
in all the debates, multilateral and intergovernmental,
where the future of our planet is involved. For a government deeply convinced it holds the high ground on any
issue of ethics, rights or moral standing, a more open-
minded approach is much more likely to provide positive results than entertaining publicly various prejudices
against what Arthur Stein calls the “existential reality of
multilateralism” (Stein, 2008).
This calls for a less brutal approach to the multilateral
world and for a more compassionate understanding
of the different approaches to world problems. More
balance and less stridency do not translate in lowering
our thresholds of acceptance. But it certainly makes up
for better listening. Be they deeply frustrating at times,
international organizations do offer a window to the
world and Canada cannot be as great a country as it
deserves if it does not use that window.
References/reading
Miles Kahler, Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers”, International Organization, 46, 3, Summer 1992
Dennis Stairs, “Pogo Land: the challenge of UN Reform”;
The Dispatch, CDFAI, Winter 2012
Tony Blair, speech at Davos, January 27, 2007
Arthur Stein, “Incentive compatibility and global
governance” in A. Alexandroff (ed.) Can the World be
Governed; WLU Press, 2008.
Ferry de Kerckhove, “Multilateralism on Trial” in
A. Alexandroff (ed.) Can the World be Governed;
WLU Press, 2008.
Ferry de Kerckhove entered
the Canadian Foreign Service
in 1973. His postings included
Iran, NATO and Moscow.
He retired from the Foreign
Service in 2011. He is a Senior
Fellow at the Graduate School
of Public and International
Affairs at the University of
Ottawa, Distinguished Research Fellow of the Canadian
Defence and Foreign Affairs
Institute, and a member of
the Board of the Conference of
Defense Associations Institute.
He is a board member of
WIND Mobile Canada. He is
President of Ferry de Kerckhove International Consultants Inc.
13
Abstract
Canada’s international reputation as
a prolific and proficient peacekeeper
has been in decline for over a decade,
owing to the country’s disengagement with peacekeeping operations.
This loss of experience abroad is
compounded by the loss of training at
home, leaving Canada unprepared to
re-engage with UN peacekeeping at
the level it once did. As the peacekeeping veterans from the 1990’s retire,
and as the courses and exercise that
were developed to prepare officers for
the unique challenges of peacekeeping deployment are cut, Canada’s
future foreign policy options are being
undermined and narrowed. In the
event that national and international
demands in the post-Afghanistan era
shift back to UN operations, the Canadian Forces and government need
to be ready. To be properly prepared
for peace, Canada requires major
changes to its training and preparations, as well as a mindset that is once
again open to serving the cause of
peacekeeping in a constructive and
progressive fashion.
14
Unprepared for peace:
A decade of decline in Canadian peacekeeping
A. Walter Dorn
Peacekeeping has a place of pride in Canadian history
and identity. Canadians know that Lester B. Pearson proposed the first peacekeeping force to move the world
back from war in the 1956 Suez Crisis, winning him the
Nobel peace prize. Canada was the largest contributor of peacekeepers during the Cold War and the only
country to have contributed to every UN mission until
the mid-1990s. From Kashmir to the Congo, from Bosnia
to Ethiopia, Canadian soldiers were at the forefront of
world order, contributing to peace in war-torn lands.
This was recognized by the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal that they are entitled to wear. The National
Peacekeeping Monument (called “Reconciliation”) in
Ottawa is another testament to their contributions, as is
the female figure on the ten-dollar bill who wears a blue
beret under a banner that reads “Au Service de la Paix
– In the Service of Peace.”
But what has become of that legacy? Is Canada the
prolific peacekeeper it once was? Unfortunately, the
answer is no. While Canada once contributed 3,000
military personnel to peacekeeping, it currently provides only 60 – as a friend says, just enough to fill a
school bus. While the United Nations has maintained
an all-time high of over 80,000 military in the field,
Canada has kept its numbers at historical lows since
2006. Two months after the Conservative government
came to power, Canada withdrew its 200 logisticians
from the Golan Heights, even as the UN mission continues to serve as an important buffer between Israel and
war-wrecked Syria. Instead of peacekeeping, Canada
turned to war-fighting, spending billions on Afghanistan
in an unsuccessful bid to defeat the Taliban and bring
stability. The Canadian Forces became a single-mission
military with Afghanistan as the sole focus of attention.
In that one decade, operating in one country, more Canadian soldiers died than in six decades of peacekeeping in more than 40 countries.
To make matters worse, over the past decade, the
Canadian Forces (CF) permitted a major decline in training and education for peacekeeping – known as peace
support operations (PSOs) in Canadian military parlance
and doctrine. The government’s withdrawal of support
to the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre caused the closure
of that unique facility and meant that Canadian soldiers could no longer train on multidimensional peace
operations alongside civilians and foreign officers. More
broadly, the CF provides only half the peacekeeping
training activities that it did 10 years ago. Significantly,
in training exercises and simulations, Canadian officers
no longer take on roles of UN peacekeepers as they
once did. At the joint command and staff program, the
officers plan and exercise operations of an alliance,
sometimes explicitly identified as NATO, but they are no
longer given the opportunity to look from within a UN
mission or review UN procedures and practices.
The 2006–11 combat mission in Kandahar, Afghanistan, unquestionably gave CF personnel valuable experience in combat and counter-insurgency (COIN) operations. While there are some similarities between these
types of missions and international peace operations,
there are also fundamental differences in the training, preparation and practice. Peacekeeping requires
specialized training as it is a more complex and conceptually challenging task than war-fighting. War and COIN
missions are enemy-centric, non-consensual and primarily involve offensive strategy, whereas peacekeeping
is based on a trinity of principles: impartiality; consent
of conflicting parties; and the defensive approach on
the use of force, though robust peace enforcement action is sometimes required. A major change in mentality
would thus be needed to properly prepare the post-Afghanistan CF for future peace operations. Special skills,
separate from those learned in Afghanistan, are needed,
including negotiation, conflict management and resolution, as well as an understanding of UN procedures and
past peacekeeping missions.
Thus, a concerted effort is needed to revitalize the
peacekeeping skills of the Canadian Forces if it is to
constructively help the United Nations in a conflict-rid-
den world. Since U.S.-led coalitions on the ground are
unlikely in coming years, the Canadian military does not
have many alternatives to make its army useful. Peacekeeping advances both Canada’s national values and interests in enhancing a stable, peaceful, and rules-based
international order. There is a constant need for welltrained and well-equipped peacekeepers. Canada’s return to peacekeeping would be embraced by the United
Nations and the international community. Such a development could help our country gain more influence and
clout, including a future seat in the UN Security Council,
and give Canadians something even more important: a
sense of renewed pride in the nation’s contribution to a
better, more peaceful world.
Further writings on the subject by the author:
“Canadian Peacekeeping: Proud Tradition, Strong
Future?” Canadian Foreign Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2
(Fall 2005), pp.7-32, available at
http://walterdorn.org/pub/32.
“Canadian Peacekeeping: No Myth But Not What It Once
Was”, SITREP, Vol. 67, No. 2, Royal Canadian Military
Institute, 2007, available at http://walterdorn.org/
pdf/CanadianPeacekeeping-NoMyth_Dorn_
SitRep_April2007.pdf.
A.Walter Dorn is a professor of defence studies at the
Royal Military College and the
Canadian Forces College. He
teaches mid-level and senior
officers from Canada and
a score of other nations. In
the past, he has served UN’s
Department of Peacekeeping
Operations as a Training Adviser and a consultant as well
as a civilian peacekeeper in
the field. Email: [email protected].
15
Abstract
On 1 January 1989, I had the privilege,
as Ambassador to the United Nations
in New York, of commencing a twoyear term as Canada’s Representative
on the U.N. Security Council. It is
with immense pride that I recall the
intensive campaign, spearheaded by
Prime Minister Mulroney, that resulted
in Canada’s election to the Security
Council in October 1988. Indeed,
Canada’s was the most successful,
competitive non-permanent member
election in UNSC history.
Amongst Member States it came to
be accepted that every ten years or
so, Canada, because it was such an
active and constructive participant at
the UN could expect to be asked by its
peers to sit at this exclusive table. And
in 1998, Canada was elected again
for a sixth term on the Council.
How times have changed! With
many other Canadians, I was chagrined in October 2010 to learn that, for
the first time in over 60 years, Canada
had failed to be elected to the Council.
On the basis of my experience, I can
assert categorically that it is far preferable to be in the tent with a voice
16
Canada and the Security Council, then and now:
A view from within
The Honorable L. Yves Fortier, PC, CC, OQ, QC
On 1 January 1989, I had the privilege, as Canada’s
Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, of
commencing a two-year term as Canada’s representative on the UN Security Council. During those two
years, the earth moved in Europe, the Middle East and
elsewhere on the planet. It is no exaggeration to say
that, until the Arab Spring in 2011, these were the most
momentous years on the world stage since the end of
the Second World War and Canada, because of its seat
on the Security Council, was one of the 15 informed and
active nations participating in the deliberations which
led to the adoption of a significant number of important
resolutions by the Council during those years.
To name but a few of those events during 1989 and
1990, I recall that the Berlin wall fell, the Soviet Union
disintegrated, the Cold War ended, Nelson Mandela was
released from prison, apartheid became a disgraced regime in South Africa, Namibia gained its independence
and Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
Canada’s election in the fall of 1988 to a two-year term
as a non-permanent member of the Council marked
the fifth time since the UN Charter was signed in San
Francisco in 1945 that Canada had secured a seat on
this most prestigious and highly coveted organ of the
United Nations, whose decisions under Chapter VII of
the Charter are binding on all member states. Even the
decisions of the principal judicial organ of the UN, the
International Court of Justice, do not command the
same respect.
It is with immense pride that I recall that, after an intensive campaign in New York, Ottawa and the capitals
of member states, spearheaded by the active participation of the Prime Minister himself, the Right Honourable
Brian Mulroney, when the votes were counted in the
General Assembly, the evening of October 26, 1988,
Canada was elected to the Council on the first ballot
with an impressive majority. Canada’s election that year
was the most successful, competitive non-permanent
member election in UNSC history.
Among member states on the floor of the General
Assembly and within the UN Secretariat, it came to be
accepted that every 10 years or so, Canada, because
it was such an active and constructive participant in
every committee of the General Assembly and in nearly
every body of the UN’s large constellation of specialized
agencies, could expect to be asked by its peers to sit at
this exclusive table. And indeed, in 1998, Canada was
elected again for a sixth term on the Council.
How times have changed! With many other Canadians, I was chagrined in October 2010 to learn that, for
the first time in over 60 years, Canada had failed to be
elected to the Council. It is not my remit today to analyze how this came to be. I leave this analysis to others.
But, on the basis of my experience at the table a little
more than 20 years ago, I can assert categorically that
it is far preferable to be in the tent with a voice that is
respected in the consultations and deliberations of the
Council than to be outside the tent sulking in a corner.
After all, the Security Council is the only permanent
international diplomatic forum where non-permanent
member countries such as Canada have the opportunity of being consulted almost daily by representatives
of the five permanent members on issues pertaining
to international peace. Membership on the UNSC also
affords the ambassador of each member nation a close
and regular contact with the Secretary General.
Yes, the UNSC has its weaknesses, most of which are
due to the right of veto wielded by the five permanent
members. Vetoes have, all too often, paralyzed the
Council. But, if the Charter is to be modified, Canada
stands a better chance to contribute constructively to
the process if it is in the tent.
Obviously, the government of the day will always
decide where its interest lies on the world stage and
what its priorities will be in order to further that interest.
However, in my humble opinion, in our increasingly interdependent world, where traditional and novel facets
of peace and security surface constantly, it should be in
the interest of Canada to resume its traditional role as a
nation whose opinion is sought at the ‘high table’ of the
United Nations.
L. Yves Fortier is recognized
as one of the top arbitrators
in the world. Since 1 January 2012, he has been a sole
practitioner with offices
in Montreal, Toronto and
London. In the past 20 years,
he has served as Chairman or
party-appointed arbitrator on
more than 100 international
arbitral tribunals.
He is a past President of the
Canadian Bar Association.
From 1984 to 1989, he was
a member of the Permanent
Court of Arbitration at The
Hague. From 1998 to 2001,
he served as President of the
London Court of International Arbitration. From July
1988 until January 1992, he
was Canada’s Ambassador
and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in
New York.
17
Abstract
The “me-first,” insensitive policies of
the current government have caused
irreparable harm to Canada’s reputa-
Why Canada was not elected to the Security Council three years
ago, and why we will never be elected unless and until there is
a fundamental change in our foreign policy
Robert Fowler, O.C.
tion at the United Nations, including
our bid three years ago for a seventh
term on the UN Security Council.
Canadian environmental policy
remains a fiasco. Canada had taken
strong stands in the global effort to
combat environmental degradation,
beginning in Stockholm in 1972, and
worked hard to build momentum behind efforts to create a global climate
treaty. Our decision in December 2011
to become the first nation to withdraw from Kyoto represented a blow
to our international reputation from
which we have not begun to recover.
But there are numerous other
examples. From an “Israel right or
wrong” policy on the Middle East to
a statistically irrelevant contribution
to UN peacekeeping, there is little
wonder why Canada has lost support
and why our reputation will not be
restored until Canada adopts positions on international issues that are
seen to be good for the world as well
as good for Canada.
18
How tiresome, how smug and – I will argue – how
un-Canadian is the stolid simplicity of the Harper-Baird
“we won’t go along to get along” mantra. But it is that
arrogant, me-first, ‘I’m all right, Jack and to hell with you”
posture, coupled with extravagant insensitivity, which
destroyed Canada’s bid for a seventh term on the Security Council three years ago. Until that changes, those
attitudes will ensure that Canada is excluded from any
important role within the community of nations.
The fact is, the pony we had entered in the Security
Council lists in the fall of 2010 was lame and there was
nothing hard-working Canadian diplomats in New York
and around the world could do to disguise that fact.
Three years ago the nations of the world, voting according to their own interests, did not believe that they
needed more of the Canada they had been getting on
the Security Council. How preposterous it was to claim
that our defeat was a triumph of our values over theirs!
Canadian environmental policy was – and remains
– a fiasco. Canada had taken strong stands in the global
effort to combat environmental degradation, beginning
in Stockholm in 1972, and over the years worked hard
to build momentum behind efforts to create a global
climate treaty. The Montreal Protocol to phase out materials that were damaging the ozone layer was a good
start. However daunting, our obligations as a Party to
the Kyoto Protocol represented a formal engagement,
and our decision in December 2011 to become the first
nation to withdraw from Kyoto represented a blow to
our international reputation from which we have not
begun to recover.
And then, only a few months ago, Canada announced
its intention to become the first (and only) country to
withdraw from the “UN Convention to Combat Desertification” to which 194 states had become a Party following its adoption in 1994. Imagine for a moment how
those desperately impoverished states suffering the
daily encroachment of the Sahara felt about Mr. Harper’s
insistence that such efforts were but a “talkfest” and
that our annual contribution of $350,000 was a waste of
money.
For the 37 members of the Alliance of Small Island
States, climate change is an existential issue. If it isn’t
fixed, they will be under water. When offered the opportunity to vote on Canada’s disdain for their concerns,
they did so with clarity of purpose. Our refusal to understand – let alone empathize with – such deeply held
views has sorely damaged the reputation of our country.
I have emphasized the extent to which Canada’s stand
on environmental issues has caused much of the world
community to lose faith in us, to mistrust our words
and misconstrue our motives. But rest assured, we have
offered the world community lots of other reasons
not to support us. In the eyes of the 57 members of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the UN,
the Harper government’s insistence on an unbalanced
“Israel right or wrong” posture which countenances no
criticism, while characterizing other states in the region
with thinly veiled disdain, is simply an anathema.
Then there’s the Harper government’s writing off
of Africa (which accounts for 70 per cent of the Security Council’s business), the largest and most diverse
continent; a billion people in 54 different countries (and
votes); a region deemed not worthy of interest by our
government.
In recent years, our contribution to UN peacekeeping has become statistically irrelevant in what is an ever
more challenging international security environment,
the management of which is the Security Council’s mandate. Canadian military professionalism, integrity and
steadfastness are greatly missed in UN circles. Indeed,
these days Canada is simply absent from the discussion
of how to better manage international affairs.
These are the areas in which for the first 60 years of
the UN’s existence Canada genuinely punched above
its weight. By being an exemplary UN citizen, we were
able, in six successive decades, to win election to the
Security Council, despite the fact that the membership
of the organization grew four-fold over this period. The
campaign in the late 90s was hard fought, but I never
doubted we would prevail. There was then a huge reserve of sympathy and respect for Canada and Canadians within the organization. We were seen to be fair but
firm, balanced and principled, yet always sensitive to the
worries and concerns of others while being very clear
about the promotion and projection of our own beliefs
and values, and committed to an effective UN.
We have, however, squandered that fine reputation,
and it will not be restored until Canada adopts positions
on international issues that are seen to be good for the
world as well as good for Canada.
Robert Fowler was the Foreign
Policy Advisor to Prime Ministers Trudeau, Turner and
Mulroney, Deputy Minister of
National Defence, Canada’s
longest serving Ambassador to
the UN, Ambassador to Italy,
and Personal Representative
for Africa of Prime Ministers
Chrétien, Martin and Harper.
He retired in 2006 and is a
Senior Fellow at the University
of Ottawa’s Graduate School
of Public and International
Affairs.
19
The UN, Canada and the International Civil Aviation Organization
Abstract
Gilles Gingras
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) counts 191 member
states. The ICAO sets the standards
and regulations of international civil
aviation to ensure security, safety
and environmental protection which
protect human lives every day, all over
the world. Unfortunately, most Canadians are unaware of the existence
of the ICAO and its headquarters in
Canada – and even less aware of its
strategic and essential role in ensuring peace and security in the world.
The ICAO is the key piece in the Montreal aerospace sector, which employs
42,500 people and posts annual sales
of $12.1 billion.
Last spring, the unsuccessful bid
by Qatar upped the ante. The ICAO
obtained additional support from
Ottawa and Quebec and resolved
irritants raised by Qatar.
During their UN interventions, the
Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Canada’s Ambassador to
the UN should remind listeners that
Canada is proud of this contribution
to peace and security around the
world.
20
Located in Montreal since 1947, the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) is part of a family of 15
specialized agencies of the United Nations that includes
UNESCO in Paris, the FAO in Rome, UNICEF in New York
and the IMF in Washington.
In Canada, the ICAO rarely makes headlines. And
Canada only seems to take an interest when the
headquarters might leave the country. This was the
case last spring. On May 1, Le Devoir ran the headline
(translation): ‘ICAO: Ottawa must eliminate irritants and
sweeten its offer’ while The Globe and Mail announced
‘Canada’s airline lobby joins fight to keep ICAO HQ in
Montreal’. To relocate ICAO headquarters, Doha, Qatar
(one of the 191 member countries of the ICAO) was
offering conditions that were more advantageous than
those in Canada.
History was repeating itself. In 1990, when the ICAO
occupied inadequate premises, a few countries had
discreetly made offers to give the organization a new
home. Singapore made quiet overtures in 2009, as did
China in 2010. In the 1950s, several nations had also
exerted similar pressures because of numerous irritants
(Hilliker and Barry, 1995: 102). Each time, the worst was
avoided only through the intercession of elected officials authorized to modify the rules of the agreement.
Apparently, we are the envy of several countries who
find it unfair that most of the UN’s specialized agencies
are concentrated in Europe and North America. To be
sure, ever since the post-war period, Canada has played
a leading role in the regulation of civil aviation. The Chicago Convention, which led to the creation of the ICAO
in 1944, was based on a Canadian document (Hilliker,
1990: 358). But we live in a world of fierce competition
which requires a regular revision of the conditions accorded the ICAO. In June 2013 in Montreal, the organization signed an extension of its lease for twenty years
(2016-2036), after having obtained several improvements, including better financial and fiscal conditions.
Aviation, a favourite target of terrorists, represents
about eight per cent of the global GDP. Since September
11, 2001, the role of the ICAO has proven essential for
effective and harmonized security actions on a global
scale, despite the political differences of its member
countries. Each of 2.5 billion air passengers is subjected to increasingly sophisticated security and safety
measures. To reinforce these security systems, the ICAO
proposes inspection and control procedures based on
studies by its own experts. Once adopted, their implementation has to be monitored throughout the world.
The ICAO also offers technical assistance to states that
do not have resources or expertise in this area, and the
ICAO’s seven regional offices are extremely useful for
this purpose.
Aviation safety has been part of the ICAO’s mandate
since its creation. Despite the steady growth of air traffic, the number of fatal accidents is dropping, a success
that can be largely attributed to the ICAO. Member
states must ensure that their planes, pilots and mechan-
ics comply with standards established by the ICAO. If
required, they can call upon the organization for technical assistance. Jointly with some other civil aviation
organizations, the ICAO establishes the standards for
the design and use of the flight data recording system
commonly known as the ‘black box.’
For the protection of the environment, the ICAO is
aiming to reduce aviation greenhouse gas emissions by
two per cent. This is a sizeable objective. Nevertheless,
in October 2012, in co-operation with the air transport
industry, states representing most of the world’s commercial air traffic succeeded in agreeing on specific
objectives, including improved fuel efficiency and the
development of alternative fuels. In 1992, non-smoking
flights were first proposed at the ICAO (Resolution A. 2915 sponsored by Canada). Although initially unpopular,
these flights have become the standard practice for the
comfort of millions of passengers.
Through its program of technical co-operation, the
ICAO is currently contributing to rebuilding airport
facilities in Haiti, as was also the case in certain countries
in Africa, in Afghanistan, and in Kosovo.
Following in the wake of the ICAO, nine other international aviation organizations have established offices in
Montreal, including the International Air Transport Association (IATA), Airports Council International (ACI), based
in Geneva until 2010, and the International Federation
of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA), which moved
from London in 2012. This core of expertise has in turn
drawn several other international organizations to Montreal, including the Statistics Institute of UNESCO, and
facilitated the development of the important Secretariat
of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBDS).
In September 2013, some 1,500 high-level delegates
congregated on Montreal for the ICAO 38th triennial
Assembly. In addition, every year hundreds of representatives come to meetings at the ICAO and the
other organizations and local businesses linked to civil
aviation. This business tourism is precious – not only for
the economic benefits, but also, and above all, because
it contributes significantly to Canada’s international
outreach and image.
The Qatar proposal had a shock-wave effect, provoking a sudden rise in interest in the ICAO and upping the
ante. The result was a closer political consensus between Ottawa, Quebec and Montreal. Now, the question
is: how can we assure that these three levels of government remain vigilant? That the ICAO hosting conditions
and other formalities are revised and updated regularly?
That the presence and essential role of the ICAO are
proclaimed loud and clear by our political leaders?
The time has come for all Canadians to be more aware
and proud of the United Nations in their midst, and of
its contribution to peace and security around the world.
Hilliker, John and Barry, Donald, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada – Coming of Age, 1946-1968,
Vol. II, 1995.
Hilliker, John, Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Canada – The Early Years, 1909-1946, Vol. I, 1990.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Aviation_Organization
At the Department of Foreign
Affairs, Gilles Gingras worked
in the UN and Commonwealth Affairs Division,
International Organization
Directorate. In the course of
his career he was on posting in New York, Abidjan,
Paris, Washington and Oslo.
In 2003, he taught classes on
international organizations
at the Sherbrooke University’s
École de Politique appliquée.
Since 2004, he has been ViceChair of the United Nations
Association in CanadaGreater Montreal. Email:
[email protected]
21
Preparing for peace
Abstract
H. Peter Langille
Canadian contributions to peace
have declined with the new emphasis
on war-fighting. Yet to prevent armed
conflict and protect civilians in an
over-armed, interdependent world,
we are likely to need an empowered
United Nations, just as the Organization now needs better Canadian
efforts. Two transformations are
required. The Canadian Forces already have critically important assets
and could promptly be re-directed
to support UN peace operations.
Second, Canada could again lead in
supporting the development of a UN
Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) – a
standing ‘UN 911’ to ensure rapid and
reliable responses to fast-breaking
crises.
22
For 50 years, successive Canadian governments
accorded a high priority to the prevention of war. A
cornerstone of Canada’s defence and foreign policy was
a stronger, more effective United Nations.
Regrettably, Canada and the UN share a significant
problem. Both still lack appropriate tools to prevent
armed conflict and to protect civilians. UN officials
continue to preface talks with a reminder that the UN
has no force or service of its own for peace operations.
The organization relies on its member states to organize
and provide national standby personnel and resources
through a negotiated loan or user fee; an arrangement
far slower and less reliable than a volunteer fire department.
It might appear things haven’t changed much since
the 1950s. Then, Nobel laureate Lester Pearson warned
“the grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious
giants, and for peace like retarded pygmies.” His message was echoed last summer when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon cautioned of continuing with massive
military spending amid austerity in an article entitled,
“the world is over-armed and peace is under-funded.”
Of course, there are options. A UN report in 2004
suggested one means to address the problem: A More
Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility repeatedly recommended that “the developed States should do more
to transform their existing force capacities into suitable
contingents for peace operations.”
The Canadian Forces could be transformed to make a
useful contribution. As Canada has been largely absent
from the new generation of increasingly complex UN
operations since 1997, appropriate preparation will
be needed. Yet Canada already has assets that the UN
desperately needs, particularly in transport aircraft and
utility helicopters, special-forces and a rapidly-deployable mission headquarters, as well as equipment for
surveillance and monitoring of armed conflicts. As the
UN has asked for multinational brigade-size partnerships, Canada might also help to re-establish our former
Standby High Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG), a mechanism once considered the most advanced available for
UN peacekeeping.
Oddly, despite the absence of a direct military threat
to Canada, Stephen Harper’s government prefers to
emphasize traditional war-fighting. Premised on fear of
the future, their “Canada First Defence Strategy” offers a
military-industrial wish-list of $490 billion for the latest
weapons systems. At a cost of roughly $5,000 for every
citizen, isn’t it time to consider more appropriate priorities and policy options to offset the sort of worst-case,
war-prone world anticipated? We need a new agenda
for peace.
To date, the international community has been
reluctant to take the steps necessary to prevent armed
conflict, to protect civilians and to curb massive military
spending. It’s not that governments don’t know what’s
needed. As early as 1961, officials in the U.S. State Department acknowledged:
“There is an inseparable relationship between the
scaling down of national armaments on the one hand
and the building up of international peacekeeping
machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are
unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the
absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the
progressive strengthening of international institutions
under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.”
Former Canadian governments were supportive.
In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, Canada
informed the UN General Assembly that we would
respond with an in-depth study to develop a permanent
UN rapid reaction force. Although events caused them
to scale back the plans, this study became the guiding
document for a multinational group of 28 UN member
states, the ‘Friends of Rapid Deployment’, which Canada
co-chaired from 1995-1997. One uniquely promising
idea with wider potential stemmed from the experience,
i.e., a rapid reaction peacekeeping capacity for the UN.
Currently referred to as a “United Nations Emergency
Peace Service (UNEPS),” – effectively a ‘UN 911’ – the
idea is to create a rapidly deployable first-responder designed to help prevent armed conflict, protect civilians,
ensure the prompt start-up of demanding operations,
and address human needs in areas of armed conflict.
The 10 core principles underlying the UNEPS proposal
are that it be: a permanent standing, integrated UN
formation; highly trained and well-equipped; ready for
immediate deployment upon authorization of the UN
Security Council; multidimensional (civilians, police and
military); multifunctional (capable of diverse assignments with specialized skills for security, humanitarian,
health and environmental crises); composed of 16,000
dedicated personnel (recruited professionals, selected,
trained and employed by the UN); developed to ensure
regional and gender equitable representation; co-located at a designated UN base under an operational
headquarters and two mobile mission headquarters;
at sufficient strength to operate in high-threat environments; and complement existing UN and regional arrangements. Aside from providing a military formation
to deter aggression and maintain security, there would
be sufficient police to restore law and order, as well as
an array of civilian teams to provide essential services.
Ten years back, several civil society organizations
initiated wider discussions on UNEPS. A conference in
Cuenca, Spain with representatives of various sectors
from the South and the North generated a consensus
that the UNEPS concept was more appealing than a
force or army, the case more compelling than previous
proposals, the model more appropriate for complex
operations, and when combined, there was a better political prospect. Clearly, a UN emergency service would
also convey more legitimacy world-wide than regional
responses operating out of area.
Canada could again lead in developing more detailed
plans for a UNEPS and help attract a global constituency
of support. Ideas don’t work unless we do. And building
a better, safer world is a worthy Canadian tradition.
Dr. H. Peter Langille is a
senior research fellow in the
Centre for Global Studies,
University of Victoria. He
was an early recipient of the
Hanna Newcombe Lifetime
Achievement Award from the
World Federalist Movement
- Canada for his numerous
contributions in support
of more effective UN peace
operations.
23
Canada’s self interest and the United Nations
Abstract
Carolyn McAskie. O.C.
If one of a government’s primary
responsibilities is to protect its
interests in the world, the current
Canadian government’s shunning of
international institutions, particularly the United Nations, is difficult
to understand. In a globalized world
of trade, economic risk, political and
security uncertainties, interlinked environmental and health effects along
with emerging humanitarian crises
and pressing development needs,
it is virtually impossible for any one
government to “go it alone.”
It is in the various UN bodies – political, security, environmental, development, and humanitarian – that the
international community can best
develop the interventions required
to address the complex global
problems of today. It is member
states which run the show and pay
the piper. When “the UN” can’t agree
on a course of action, it is because
UN member states cannot or will not
agree. Canada must, therefore, take
up its responsibility as a member
state.
24
If one of a government’s primary responsibilities is to
protect its interests in the world, the current Canadian
government’s shunning of international institutions,
particularly the United Nations, is difficult to understand. In a globalized world of economic risk, political
and security uncertainties, interlinked environmental
and health effects along with emerging humanitarian
crises and pressing development needs, it has become
virtually impossible for any one government to ‘go it
alone.’ Canada’s international reputation (now shattered)
was built on being a sound partner, keeping its eye on
the big picture and seeking solutions for the greatest
good of the greatest number. By recognizing that the
global good was good in its own right and good for
Canada, we were able to ensure that our own interests
were understood and protected. Now Canadian representatives in international institutions receive instructions to protect only the narrowest definition of purely
Canadian interests, while ignoring our wider interests
and responsibilities as a UN member state.
The United Nations is a multi-faceted, hydra-headed
entity which performs a variety of functions through its
various parts, whether regulatory, humanitarian, developmental, human rights or the most high-profile political and security functions. In all cases, whether the UN
Security Council, or the UN Development Programme, it
is member states which run the show and pay the piper.
The UN is not an entity unto itself engaging or not
engaging in unilateral action. When ‘the UN’ can’t agree
on a course of action, it is because UN member states
cannot or will not agree. The out-dated Security Council
veto compounds the problem but it is member states
which have been unable to amend the formula.
It is in the field of peace and security where the greatest confusion arises, both in the minds of the public and
in the deliberate posturing of the Harper Government.
While Canada hummed and hawed over sending one
transport plane to support the French in Mali, most Canadian media ignored the UN Secretariat’s negotiations
with all parties in the conflict, with regional bodies, potential troop contributors, while preparing for elections
and other civilian tasks in anticipation of a peace operation. It is in the various UN bodies – political, security,
environmental, development, and humanitarian – that
the international community can best develop the interventions required to address the complex tinderbox of
poverty, famine, drought, environmental degradation,
poor governance, neglect and terrorist infiltration in the
Sahel region of Africa.
In peacekeeping, Canada, still living with memories of
Bosnia, refuses to recognize the turn-around in places
such as Timor Leste, Kosovo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Côte
d’Ivoire, Burundi and Somalia under UN missions, or the
efforts required to manage ongoing conflicts in Sudan
and the DRC (which had fewer than 20,000 troops when
Afghanistan had 140,000). The UN Secretariat which
oversees all of this has a budget smaller than the City
of Ottawa. It is starved for cash and personnel, and
depends on governments to provide guidance, a role
Canada now refuses to play.
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835 about “self-interest properly understood.” The Canadian government
preaches self-interest in a narrow ‘what’s good for
Canada’ sense, but self-interest “properly understood”
means appreciating that the self-interest of others, i.e.,
the global good, is in fact a precondition for one’s own
ultimate well-being. This is not necessarily an idealistic
view but a mark of pragmatism. It is in Canada’s interest,
dependent as we are on trade and international mobility, to help create a peaceful, democratic, more equi-
table and sustainable world. The Harper government’s
“principled foreign policy” which focuses narrowly on
short term and mainly commercial or domestic political issues, actually works against Canada’s longer-term
self-interest. Looking to organizations such as the G20
or NATO can be effective, but this does not mean that
Canada can absolve itself of its responsibilities as a
member of the United Nations. Otherwise, we not only
abandon our allies, leaving them to carry the burden,
but we lose the opportunity to influence world events in
a way that will advance our own interests.
Carolyn McAskie is a Senior
Fellow in the Graduate School
of Public and International
Affairs of the University of
Ottawa. She is an Officer of
the Order of Canada and
currently the vice-chair of the
Board of the Pearson Centre.
Ms McAskie has had a career
in the Canadian International
Development Agency, as Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM)
for Multilateral Affairs, and
ADM for African Programs,
followed by almost a decade
in the United Nations, as
Assistant Secretary General
Humanitarian Affairs, as
SRSG of the UN Mission in
Burundi and ASG Peacebuilding (launching the UN’s new
Peacebuilding Commission).
25
The UN, UN Women and Canada
Abstract
Marilou McPhedran
UN Women is still the new girl on the
UN block of agencies – formed out
of the international GEAR (Gender
Equality Architecture Reform) campaign of women’s grass roots advocacy as the much-needed amalgam
of four diffused (often disagreeing) UN
bodies – promising genuine inclusion
of women’s civil society organizations. Over 50 civil society leaders
met UN Women in August to stress
that women’s sexual and reproductive rights must be understood in the
human rights framework. Why this
emphasis on sexual and reproductive
rights and why do women’s rights
leaders look to the UN to make positive changes so that women’s human
rights are actually “lived rights”?
The bodies of women and girls are the
pages of the book on women’s rights;
control and power are the central
theme.
26
UN Women is still the new girl on the block of United
Nations agencies. It was formed in 2007 out of a campaign of women’s grass roots advocacy. It is an amalgam
of four former diffused (often disagreeing) UN bodies.
She is still settling into her niche, waiting for some funding promises to come through.
Former UN ambassador Stephen Lewis strongly supported establishing UN Women, partly due to the promise of genuine inclusion of women’s civil society organizations (in Canada that would include Voice of Women
for Peace, Federation of University Women, the YWCA,
and many others). More than 50 civil society leaders met
with the new executive director of UN Women at New
York headquarters last August to stress that all women’s
issues, including sexual and reproductive rights, must
be understood in the human rights framework.
Why this emphasis on sexual and reproductive rights?
And why do women’s rights leaders look to the UN to
make positive changes so that women’s human rights
are actually “lived rights?” The bodies of women and
girls are central to women’s rights; control is the major
theme.
As a human rights lawyer and educator, I have been
monitoring UN women’s rights sessions in New York
and Geneva since 1997. I often take students with me
to introduce them to the realpolitik of UN processes
– because until one sees them firsthand, it is difficult to
appreciate the delays and complexities of multilateralism in pursuit of rights.
One example was the ‘Optional Protocol’ that allows
individuals to make complaints of injustice beyond the
borders of their countries. It was negotiated in 1998 as
part of the major UN treaty on women’s rights – CEDAW
(the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women). I was directing The First CEDAW
Impact Study and sat in on closed drafting sessions
for this controversial addendum. There I saw how the
American diplomats (under President George W. Bush)
usually sat with, and voted with, representatives who
consistently opposed women’s reproductive rights such
as Syria and the Vatican. I was proud to be a Canadian
because much of the effective advocacy and pro-women amendments came from Canadian diplomats.
Fast forward to June of this year. At the 23rd session of
the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, I was a speaker
and observer at the negotiating sessions hosted by our
accomplished Canadian women diplomats. They were
carrying on Canada’s tradition of sponsoring resolutions
addressing violence against women. But this time, I
saw diplomats from the United States (under President
Obama) propose a crucial amendment to the Canadian
resolution on women’s reproductive rights. And this
time, it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s people that
said “no.”
Action Canada on Population and Development
(ACPD) – one of our most effective civil society organiza-
tions in the UN system – had this to say about Canada’s
resolution: “Due to Canada’s constant reluctance, the
final text does not operationalize sexual and reproductive rights in the form of critical actions like providing
sexuality education to adolescents, empowering girls,
reducing gender-based violence, and reviewing laws
that criminalize or restrict access to abortion. It asks
governments to provide accessible health care services
but does not list critical sexual and reproductive health
services that survivors of sexual violence must have access to, such as emergency contraception, safe abortion,
post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, and screening and
treatment for sexually transmitted infections.”
The weak version of the Canadian resolution was finally adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on June
14, 2013 with the title “Accelerating efforts to eliminate
all forms of violence against women: preventing and
responding to rape and other forms of sexual violence.”
The United States officially stated its regret over Canada’s lack of reference to access to services required by
survivors of sexual violence, such as those in the ‘Agreed
Conclusions’ of the March 2013 UN Commission on the
Status of Women (CSW). This means the government
of Canada refused wording in its Geneva resolution
that Canada had accepted in New York and that had
already passed muster at the CSW, the largest UN body
for women’s rights. No wonder one of my 21-year-old
students recently spoke at a conference decrying the
slashing of gender equality architecture in Canada
(more than 40 per cent reductions) and describing her
frustration at ‘growing up’ in Harper’s Canada.
Regarding Canada and the UN… In 2005, my students and I were invited to give a strategy paper to
Canada’s UN Reform Summit team through then-ambassador to the UN Allan Rock. In 2009, I was surprised to
get a call asking me to write a strategy paper for a European country – surprised because a Canadian professor
was being asked to prepare women’s rights strategy for
another country. They explained that Canada’s reduced
presence in support of women’s rights was opening a
niche for other countries to make their mark and they
wanted a Canadian mind on the project, knowing she
would not be doing any women’s rights work for the
Canadian government.
References:
1. UN Women, the United Nations Entity for gender
equality and the advancement of women. http://
www.unwomen.org/.
2. A/HRC/RES/23/25, Resolution of the UN Human
Rights Council, Accelerating efforts to eliminate all
forms of violence against women: preventing and
responding to rape and other forms of sexual violence,
June 25, 2013. http://www.refworld.org/docid/
51d5665c4.html.
Marilou McPhedran is a human rights lawyer who served
as the Principal (dean) of
the University of Winnipeg’s
Global College in its founding years from 2008-2012
and currently teaches human
rights at the Global College.
In 1997, Marilou founded the
International Women’s Rights
Project (IWRP) when she was
at York University, which is
now based at the University
of Victoria Centre for Global
Studies and she currently
directs the University of Winnipeg Institute for International Women’s Rights and
teaches human rights courses
at the Global College.
27
Canada, its human rights record and the UN
Abstract
Errol Mendes
Canada used to be regarded as a human rights and rule of law champion
within Canada, at the UN and around
the world. This allowed Canada to
punch above its weight at the UN
and in the international community.
This legacy led to historic accomplishments such as the Nobel Peace Prize
for Peacekeeping, the Ottawa Land
Mines Treaty, a Conservative Prime
Minister, Brian Mulroney leading
the fight against apartheid, the
‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine,
and Canadian Philippe Kirsch being
instrumental in the creation of the
International Criminal Court.
Sadly in this 65th anniversary year of
the Universal Declaration, the human
rights and rule of law reputation of
Canada is fast diminishing, in part
because the world is getting to know
how the Conservative government
of Stephen Harper undermines
those values at home, which brings
repercussions at the UN and around
the world. This article lists the most
egregious examples of how the Conservatives have undermined Canada’s
human rights reputation.
28
In 2013, the Canadian government should have taken
global leadership in celebrating the 65th anniversary
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It should
also have been the year that we celebrated that a Canadian law professor, John Humphrey, who as head of the
UN Human Rights Division collaborated with Eleanor
Roosevelt to produce the blueprint for the Universal
Declaration which was termed by the American former
First Lady as the “Magna Carta of the world.” Instead,
there was total silence from the Harper government,
similar to the total neglect of the 30th anniversary of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the same
year. The Charter is supposed to be the ultimate demonstration of how we respect the rights in the Universal
Declaration.
Canada used to be regarded as a human rights and
‘rule of law’ champion within Canada, at the UN and
around the world. That legacy allowed Canada to punch
above its weight in the international community. This
legacy led to historic accomplishments, such as: the
Nobel Peace Prize for Peacekeeping; the Ottawa Land
Mines Treaty pioneered by Lloyd Axworthy; a Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, leading the fight
against apartheid along with his leadership in the creation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the
creation of the G20 by former Prime Minister Paul Martin; the catalyst for the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine
led by Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Foreign Minister
Lloyd Axworthy and shepherded through the UN at the
2005 World Summit by former Canadian Ambassador
Allan Rock; and Canadian foreign affairs official, Philippe
Kirsch, being instrumental in the creation of the International Criminal Court and later being the first presiding
judge on the Court.
Sadly in this 65th anniversary year of the Universal
Declaration, the human rights and ‘rule of law’ reputation of Canada is fast diminishing, in part because the
world is getting to know how the Conservative government of Stephen Harper undermines those values at
home and brings repercussions at the UN and around
the world. These include the following:
1. Failure to protect, and complicity in abusing, the
rights of Canadian Omar Khadr, captured as a
15-year-old child soldier, imprisoned without due
process of law at Guantanamo Bay, complicity in the
unlawful interrogation of Khadr, and stalling on his
eventual transfer to Canada.
2. Vic Toews, then Public Security Minister, issuing directives to Canadian authorities that they can rely on
information obtained by Canada or foreign agencies
derived from torture and also share such information
with other states. The interests in protecting life and
property are supposed to justify this gross violation of the UN Convention Against Torture to which
Canada is legally bound.
3. Failure to take effective action against widespread
4.
5.
6.
7.
violence against indigenous women and girls, with
over 600 women and girls missing or found murdered.
Denial and avoidance of any accountability for the
transfer of Afghan detainees by Canadian military
officials into Afghan police and security agencies
(revealed by the UN reports and others to engage
in torture) in violation of international humanitarian
law. The government prevented the Military Police
Complaints Commission and a Parliamentary Committee from searching for evidence of knowledge, at
the highest levels of the Canadian government, of
the serious risk of torture.
Introduction of draconian refugee legislation (Bill
C-31) concerning detention and discriminatory treatment of those arriving by irregular means, which will
likely be determined to be a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Refugee
Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the
Child that Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney championed.
Ideologically motivated funding cuts or threats of
loss of charitable status for organizations that were
thought to be advocating protection of human rights
or other issues against which the government was
opposed.
Failure to establish an effective mechanism or oversight body to monitor allegations of complicity in human rights abuses by Canadian extractive industries
operating around the world, following the serious
allegations of such complicity in Africa, Asia and Latin
America.
8. Proposed Canadian legislation (Bill S-10) to implement the international Cluster Munitions Treaty
would undermine its core objectives. The legislation
generates loopholes for joint military operations with
non-state parties, which would allow Canadian forces
to direct or authorize or even use cluster munitions.
Fortunately, Bill S-10 died on the order paper before
the end of the last session of Parliament. However,
this example alone demonstrates how far Canada has
fallen as a human rights champion given its global
leadership on land mines which lead to the Ottawa
Land Mines Convention.
9. The downplaying and refusal to build on other landmark human rights legacies of Canada. These include
the historic ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine and
the legacy of Canada’s military as peacekeepers.
When the Harper Conservatives attempt to show the
world their support for human rights and the rule of
law at the UN, there is almost always an instrumentalist strategy to reinforce electoral and other narrow and
wedge political objectives. The world is not fooled, as
demonstrated in the embarrassing loss in the vote for a
seat at the UN Security Council.
A great legacy built over several generations of
Canadians and governments of all political stripes must
not be lost in such a short time and mostly during the
period of just one government.
Professor Mendes is a lawyer,
author, professor and has been
an advisor to corporations,
governments, civil society
groups and the United Nations where he assisted in the
development of the UN Global
Compact. He has acted as a
Human Rights Tribunal and
Boards of Inquiry adjudicator
in Canada, and on several
occasions as an international
arbitrator, served in the highest levels of the Canadian
federal public service in the
Privy Council Office of the
Government of Canada and
most recently served as a
Visiting Professional at the
International Criminal Court.
He was recently appointed as
a Visiting Fellow at Harvard
Law School for the fall of
2013.
29
Canada’s role in banning nuclear weapons
Abstract
Douglas Roche, O.C.
Canada should implement the
motion adopted unanimously by
both the Senate and House of Commons calling on the government to
support UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon’s Five Point Plan for Nuclear
Disarmament, centering on a Nuclear
Weapons Convention or framework
of instruments to eliminate all nuclear
weapons. The Middle Powers Initiative is ready to hold a meeting in Ottawa of like-minded states to work on
preparations for a global ban. Many
parliamentarians and nearly 700
members of the Order of Canada fully
support this.
30
When the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute reported in its 2013 Yearbook that the nuclear
weapons states “appear determined to retain their
nuclear arsenals indefinitely,” the crisis of the non-proliferation regime was bluntly revealed. While the international spotlight has been on Iran’s nuclear program
and North Korea’s testing of nuclear weapons, the heart
of the nuclear weapons problem remains the intransigence of the five permanent members of the Security
Council to enter into comprehensive negotiations to
eliminate the 17,000 nuclear weapons still in existence.
Despite cuts to superfluous systems, nuclear arsenals
have become normalized as an integral part of security
systems. In the next decade, the chief nuclear weapons
possessors – Russia, the US, the UK, France and China
– will spend $1 trillion modernizing these nuclear systems. They are clearly planning for a future with nuclear
weapons rather than their elimination. So serious is the
stalemate in nuclear disarmament that the UN General
Assembly has called an unprecedented High-Level
Meeting on September 26 to unblock the impasse.
What will Canada’s position be at this extraordinary
meeting?
For many years, the Canadian government has joined
in the ‘step-by-step’ approach in which different components of non-proliferation are addressed, such as a
ban on the production of fissile material and a comprehensive test ban treaty. Neither has been fulfilled. Five
years ago, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon presented
a Five-Point Plan for Nuclear Weapons which called for
work to start on a Nuclear Weapons Convention or a
framework of instruments that would effectively ban all
nuclear weapons. If the step-by-step approach or the
Secretary-General’s plan were working, the extraordinary meeting on September 26 would surely not have
been called.
Many states want to end the unproductive ‘businessas-usual’ approach to nuclear disarmament. They have
issued a statement calling attention to the “catastrophic
consequences” of the use of nuclear weapons. They
have voted at the UN to start work leading to negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention. The Canadian
government’s resistance to this forward-minded thinking is shocking.
Three years ago, the organization Canadians for a
Nuclear Weapons Convention was established comprising members of the Order of Canada who have called
on the Canadian government to support Ban Ki-Moon’s
plan for comprehensive nuclear negotiations. The
number of Order of Canada signers has now swelled to
nearly 700. Their action led to a motion which passed
unanimously in the Senate and then unanimously in the
House of Commons. The motion called on the government to support the Secretary-General and launch a
world-wide diplomatic initiative for nuclear disarmament.
Subsequently, two parliamentary forums were held
on Parliament Hill at which members from all political
parties expressed a common desire for the Canadian
government to host a meeting of like-minded governments to continue preparatory work for a global ban
on nuclear weapons. It was recalled that just this kind
of action by the Canadian government led to the 1997
Anti-Personnel Landmines Treaty. The Middle Powers
Initiative, a consortium of eight civil society organizations specializing in nuclear disarmament issues, would
like to hold such a meeting in Ottawa, as was done
earlier this year in Berlin at a meeting hosted by the
government of Germany.
What is standing in the way of Canadian action?
Two former Canadian prime ministers have told me
that NATO is a principal obstacle to substantive work
on nuclear disarmament. A double standard has deeply
conflicted NATO which continues to claim that the
possession of nuclear weapons provides the “supreme
guarantee” of the security of its 26 member states. At
one and the same time, the NATO states reaffirm their
commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) goal
of nuclear disarmament and to their NATO dependence
on nuclear weapons. The policies are incoherent.
Canada should join with Germany and several other
NATO states that want to change this adherence to
Cold War policies. The Canadian voice standing up for
meaningful progress in nuclear disarmament needs to
be recovered. Bringing like-minded states to Parliament
Hill would respond to the distinguished Canadians who
want action and would send a message to the world
community that nuclear weapons must be relegated to
the ashbins of history.
It’s time for Canada to put into practice the statement
it signed onto at the 2010 NPT Review Conference:
“All states need to make special efforts to establish the
necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world
without nuclear weapons.”
The Hon. Douglas Roche
is an author, parliamentarian and diplomat, who
has specialized throughout
his 40-year public career in
peace and human security
issues. Mr. Roche was a Senator, Member of Parliament,
and Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament. He
was elected Chairman of
the United Nations Disarmament Committee at the
43rd General Assembly in
1988. In 2009, he received the
Distinguished Service Award
of the Canadian Association
of Former Parliamentarians for his “promotion of
human welfare, human rights
and parliamentary democracy
in Canada and abroad.” In
2011, the International Peace
Bureau nominated him for the
Nobel Peace Prize.
31
Abstract
In 2015, global leaders will meet at
the United Nations to establish a new
framework for global development
that will succeed the Millennium
Development Goals – one that will
hopefully leave no one behind, be it in
Canada or Cameroon. On September
25, governments will meet in New
York to determine how to get there.
Crucial to the post-2015 framework is
the establishment of a global partnership to manage the implementation
of this international agenda – and
one that puts equitable partnership,
meaningful participation and shared
responsibility at its heart. Governments alone are not up to this task.
Civil society must also be there, along
with other development actors.
More inclusive global processes are
possible. The UN is the key player in
this process, and member states like
Canada must provide their full support to ensure a new framework that
is as ambitious as the challenges that
the world still faces.
32
Civil society, Canada and the United Nations:
Partnering for the future
Julia Sànchez
In 2015, global leaders will meet at the United Nations
to establish a new framework for global development to
succeed the Millennium Development Goals – development that will hopefully leave no one behind, be they in
Canada or Cameroon.
This September 25, governments will meet in New
York at a high level forum to determine how to get
there.
The post-2015 framework, as it is being called,
promises to address some long-standing issues and
challenges, including extreme poverty and hunger, inequality, peace and conflict, climate change adaptation,
and global financial and economic stability. This is an
ambitious agenda and hopefully it will also spur countries to generate the sort of open, effective and accountable institutions that are needed both domestically and
globally for the post-2015 world to succeed.
This past year, the UN organized an extensive series
of regional, global and thematic consultations to help
shape and inform the post-2015 agenda. This has allowed for people most affected by poverty and exclusion to express their views and shape global solutions to
ending poverty and reducing inequality.
It is a great start. But is consultation enough?
Crucial to the success of any post-2015 framework is
the establishment of a global partnership that will man-
age its implementation. Governments alone are not up
to this task. Leaving only UN member states to handle
implementation will undermine the democratic vision
that is essential to maintaining the kind of sustained
support that the post-2015 agenda will need.
Civil society – all things not government or private
sector – must also be there. A vibrant and independent
civil society has always been an essential prerequisite to
effective, stable and participatory democracies, and this
is no less true at the global level.
More-inclusive global processes are possible.
A 2011 High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4)
in Busan, Korea, which led to the Global Partnership for
Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), provides
a concrete example. The process that led to Busan, the
informal Working Group on Aid Effectiveness, provided
a meaningful and sustained space for multi-stakeholder
dialogue and consensus-based decision making on the
focus of the Busan agenda, the agreed outcomes of
the meeting, and ongoing follow-up. Throughout the
process, representatives from civil society, parliaments,
municipalities and the private sector were at the table,
negotiating alongside governments and international
institutions. It was a model of effective global development co-operation. This lesson should not be lost on the
post-2015 process. Clearly, the scale and scope of the
challenges we face require a commensurate response
from all development actors in society.
Looking ahead to 2015, there are three things that
member states like Canada can advocate at the United
Nations:
• Promote an inclusive and sustained multi-stakeholder process for global development beyond 2015. This
means advocating for the inclusion of civil society organizations in any future global partnership structure
(following the precedent set in Busan). It also means
advocating for space for organizations and people
to voice their concerns and demands with respect to
national development plans post-2015, to influence
and shape policy, to participate in political processes
and demand accountability. Representative democracy must yield to participatory democracy.
• Ensure that any future global partnership removes
the conditions that obstruct civil society participation in national and global democratic processes. In
many countries, the public domain is a contested,
finite space over which governments feel they should
have a monopoly, limiting the benefits that would
result from greater inclusion. As agreed in Busan,
Canada must promote a minimum set of rights and
political freedoms (opinion, expression, association
and assembly) that provide an enabling environment
for civil society to realize its full potential; and work
to ensure that national governments respect these.
• Finally, facilitate the conditions that enable greater
partnerships and collaboration between other
development actors, including government, at the
global level. This requires opening up political space
not just to the private sector but to other actors, in
particular civil society. After all, human development
and progress are best achieved through policies that
are democratically owned, not government-owned.
The world needs a truly transformative global agenda
in 2015. And one that puts equitable partnership, meaningful participation and shared responsibility at its heart
can be just that. At the UN, Canada must fully support
a new framework that is as ambitious as the challenges
the world currently faces.
For further reading:
Tomlinson, Brian (June 2012) “CSOs on the Road from
Accra to Busan – CSO Initiative to Strengthen Development Effectiveness”, BetterAid, Ibon Books: Phillippines. http://cso-effectiveness.org/IMG/pdf/csos_on_
the_road_from_accra_to_busan_final.pdf
Forum for Democratic Global Governance (Spring 2013)
“The Future We Need: Civil Society Democratizing the
United Nations”, http://fimforum.org/
custom-content/uploads/2013/05/
Forum-proceeding-report.pdf
Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and
Enabling Environment (August 2013), “Enabling a
Transformative Multi-stakeholder Post-2015 Development Agenda”, http://www.csopartnership.org/
index.php/task-team-on-cso-de-and-the-ee
OECD (2012) “Partnering with Civil Society: 12
Lessons From DAC Peer Reviews”, OECD publications: Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dac/peerreviews/12%20Lessons%20Partnering%20
with%20Civil%20Society.pdf
Julia Sanchez is the PresidentCEO of CCIC (Canadian
Council for International Cooperation). She came to this
position in August 2011 with
more than 18 years of experience in top-level international
development management,
including 13 years working in
developing countries. Prior to
joining CCIC, she served as
Regional and National Campaigns Director for the Global
Campaign for Climate Action
and prior to that worked for
14 years at the Centre for
International Studies and
Cooperation (CECI), one of
Canada’s oldest and largest
international development
agencies.
33
The United Nations and humanitarian assistance
Abstract
Ian Smillie
Globally, more than half of all emergency assistance is managed by UN
agencies, primarily the World Food
Program and UNHCR. Governments
have little delivery capacity and the
NGO contribution, while important, is
patchy and uncoordinated. UN agencies act as a focal point for funders;
they serve as coordinators, managers
and front-line delivery agencies. They
are often the first to arrive and the
last to leave, and are frequently the
only serious humanitarian delivery
mechanism in some of the world’s
toughest emergencies.
It is still insufficient. The challenge for
UN member states, including Canada,
is to find ways to build, strengthen
and improve the UN’s herculean
response to humanitarian need.
34
When a humanitarian emergency occurs, donors look
for the best and fastest ways of delivering assistance.
Although the average Canadian might not know it
– given the inevitable preening of the aid minister, the
government’s disdain for the UN and the standard NGO
fundraising blitz – the favoured channel by far for Canadian government humanitarian dollars is the United Nations. It is also the favoured channel for all major donor
governments in the world.
Governments and private donors are the primary
source of humanitarian funding. In a typical emergency,
about 10 per cent of the money will be provided by or
through the Red Cross, and 25 per cent through NGOs.
But the bulk, usually more than half, goes through UN
agencies, primarily the World Food Program and UN
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). There are
several good reasons for this. The first is that, apart from
the occasional use of military assets to deliver commodities, most donor governments, Canada included,
have zero capacity for on-the-ground delivery themselves. Somebody else has to do it. Local governments
can occasionally manage some of it but emergencies by
their very nature stretch local capacities to the breaking
point. NGOs can do some of it, and this is acknowledged
in their governmental support but they have their limits
as well. And somewhere in the mix, there has to be
coordination.
Led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitar-
ian Affairs (OCHA), UN agencies act as a focal point for
funders; they serve as coordinators, as managers and
as front-line delivery agencies. OCHA created ReliefWeb, the principal online source for reliable and timely
information on global crises and disasters. And it created IRIN, a well-respected news agency specializing
in humanitarian issues. UN agencies provide advance
warning and the longer-term research needed to underpin good practice. They remind individual donors of
‘forgotten emergencies’ that are not on anyone’s radar;
they are often the first to arrive and the last to leave, and
they are frequently the only serious humanitarian delivery mechanism in some of the world’s toughest places.
The UN effort is massive. UNHCR this year is dealing
with about 35 million uprooted people, providing them
with shelter, protection, legal aid, health care and food.
To do this, it maintains 7,600 staff in 125 different countries. The World Food Program was providing assistance
to nearly three million people in Darfur alone in 2013.
And other UN agencies play important roles: UNICEF,
UNDP, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World
Health Organization and the UN Human Settlements
Program.
In fast-onset emergencies – earthquakes, floods and
hurricanes – government donors can be slow in stepping forward. For victims, however, every hour counts
and even small delays can mean the difference between
life and death for tens of thousands of people. The UN
system has created general and specific pooled funding
mechanisms that allow it move quickly while larger do-
nor resources are being mobilized. These funds are also
useful in more extended, complex emergencies when
an opportunity to cross rebel lines or to get assistance
through a blockade opens on short notice. UN agencies
have clout and credibility, and with the UN’s political
offices and its peacekeeping operations, can go places
and do things that nobody else can.
The UN is sometimes criticized for failures of coordination, as in Haiti, which became a nightmare of confusion
after the 2010 earthquake. Coordination works best,
however, when those on the ground want it, and when
the political situation is clear. Haiti was confused by
the US military presence and by the many hundreds of
NGOs crowding in to do their own thing. Elsewhere, the
UN has been the unsung humanitarian hero of a dozen
disaster situations—East Timor and Sierra Leone, for
example, and most notably today on the Syrian border.
“Unsung hero” of course, is not the right expression for
those who have to muddle through in situations fraught
with chaos, starvation and violence, and who rarely have
half the resources they need. In the summer of 2013, the
UN appeal for Syrian refugee assistance was running at
about 37 per cent of the need. There are now more than
two million Syrians in refugee camps.
The UN, of course, is a creation of its member states,
and it is as good or as bad as it is allowed to be by its
funders, the boards of governors they inhabit, and the
managers they contribute. The world’s humanitarian response may leave much to be desired in terms of speed,
coordination and effectiveness, but the United Nations
is what makes humanitarian assistance today better
than it has ever been over the past half century. The
challenge for UN member states, including Canada, is to
find ways to strengthen and improve the UN’s herculean
response to humanitarian need.
Ian Smillie has lived and
worked in Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Bangladesh. He was
a founder of the Canadian
NGO, Inter Pares, was Executive Director of CUSO. He has
worked at Tufts and Tulane
Universities and as a development consultant with many
Canadian, American and
European organizations. He
is the author of several books,
including The Charity of Nations: Humanitarian Action
in a Calculating World (2004,
with Larry Minear), Freedom
from Want (2009) and Blood
on the Stone: Greed, Corruption and War in the Global
Diamond Trade (2010). Ian
Smillie participated in the creation of the Kimberley Process
and he chairs the Diamond
Development Initiative.
35
Rethinking the United Nations
Abstract
John E. Trent
Canada should help the world to
rethink the United Nations, with the
intention of creating legitimate and
effective institutions for world governance. This should become a priority
policy program of the Department of
Foreign Affairs in coordination with
like-minded countries. The policy
program would have to be based on
public input and the co-operation of
civil society associations. The aim is
to develop publicly supported policies
for an improved set of international
organizations capable of making
authoritative decisions about global
challenges ranging from climate
change to terrorism and financial
crises. Such institutions will conform
to techniques of modern democratic
statecraft including: constitutional
federalism, elections, liberalism, rule
of law, and decentralized governance.
36
The Harper government says the United Nations is not
effective enough. What should Canadian governments
do about it? The response of the Conservatives has been
to disparage the UN and withdraw from multilateral
activities. Rather than pouting, Canada should help the
world to rethink the United Nations.
Rethinking the United Nations ought to become a
central program of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
But this cannot be done at the whim of a minister. The
department would be initiating a quasi-constitutional
process with the intention of encouraging other ‘likeminded’ countries to follow suit. We need a publicly
supported process to provide legitimate policies to
foreign affairs ministries. We can learn from ‘deliberative
democracy’ exercises about how to be both effective
and inclusive. This process of democratic assemblies was
developed over the past two decades to be both educative and participative and to bring informed public
input to policy making.
The task is to settle on a critical analysis of: world
problems, a set of objectives and values for world governance, potential new global institutions, and a path for
achieving them – accompanied by an outreach program
of education and communications.
What is wrong with the world?
The world is challenged by climate change, the
wealth-poverty gap, terrorism, pollution, global warming, the plight of women and children, mass migrations,
pandemics, financial crises and enfeebled states. But
each one of these global challenges has one common
denominator: the world is incapable of taking authoritative, legitimate decisions that will command respect and
be adhered to. UN reform is the one common problem
upon which we should all focus.
But why can’t the UN make the big, urgent decisions?
In one word, because of sovereignty – the belief that
each state has the right to do as it wants without fear
of foreign interference in its domestic affairs. Every
other institutional problem flows from this concept of
sovereignty, first elaborated in the Peace of Westphalia
in 1648. World affairs are still dominated by a European
concept three and a half centuries old.
UN blockages are rooted in outdated notions of sovereignty and nationalism. The existence of the Security
Council and the veto are founded on the bully principle
that the most powerful – not the community – should
call the shots. Regional caucuses of sovereign states
demand equal representation in all UN affairs including
human rights. The bureaucracy of the UN is still corrupted by hiring on the basis of national quotas. National
foreign policies are still determined by presidents, prime
ministers and cabinets acting just like monarchs. There
are few democratic controls. We still have a long way to
go from sovereignty to co-operation.
What would effective global institutions look like?
First, we should democratize international organizations by including popular assemblies beside their state,
decision-making bodies. We can work to limit and even-
tually eliminate use of the veto. Much greater use can be
made of the International Court of Justice and their decisions should become binding on governments. Hiring
in the UN should be done on the basis of competence
and integrity. Criteria for the use of the ‘responsibility to
protect’ policy need to be established.
Second, we should learn from the European Union’s
step-by-step model of gradually building common
functional institutions, creating supranational law, rights
and institutions, assuring viability by creating weighted
voting according to population, particular interests, economic weight and sovereign participation. A first step
would be opening up our foreign policy to democratic
participation and controls. These are all techniques for
slowly weaning us away from strict adherence to sovereign, national authority.
Third, principles and values are fundamental. Fears of
creating a global governmental bully must be replaced
by the certainty that not one of us would move toward
world governance that did not include all the techniques of democratic state-craft we have developed
over the last 200 years. These include concepts for
dividing and controlling power and promoting rights
and equality via constitutional democratic institutions,
elections, federalism, liberalism, rule of law, local police
and decentralized governance.
How Canada can move the world ahead?
Canada can help develop a constituency and a community of practice that values co-operation and global
governance. If we put our heads together as suggested
at the outset, we will come up with a plan. Reform will
not be easy. It will be opposed by those who have an in-
terest in war rather than peace; who feel more secure in
their narrow national vision; those who are opposed to
“rule by the ignorant mob.” I am convinced they will be
outweighed by those everywhere who are wise enough
to recognize that the world will learn to govern itself or
it will self-destruct.
Further Reading:
Jacques Attali (2011). Demain, qui gouvernera le monde?
Paris, Fayard
Paul Heinbecker & Patricia Goff (2005). Irrelevant or
Indispensable: the United Nations in the 21st Century,
Waterloo, Ontario, Wildrid Laurier University Press.
W. Andy Knight (ed.)(2005). Adapting the United Nations
to a Postmodern Era: Lessons Learned, Houndmills U.K,
Palgrave MacMillan
Ross Smyth (2006). One World or None: How Canadians
Can Take the Lead to Abolish War and Democratize the
UN, Montreal, Price-Patterson
John E. Trent (2013). “The need for rethinking the United
Nations: modernizing through civil society”, in Bob
Reinalda ed., Routledge Handbook of International
Organization, Abingdon, Routledge.
Thomas G Weiss (2013) Global Governance: A “Philadelphia Moment”, www.oneearthfoundation.org and
Global Governance: Why? What? Whither? Cambridge,
Policy Press.
James A. Yunker (2011). The Idea of World Government:
From Ancient Times to the Twenty-First Century, Abingdon, Routledge.
John E. Trent is a Fellow of the
Centre on Governance at the
University of Ottawa, where
he was formerly a professor
and chair of the University’s
Department of Political Science. Publications include
(among many) Modernization of the United Nations
System: Civil Society’s Role
in Moving from International
Relations to Global Governance (Barbara Budrich
Publishers, Upladen, Germany, 2007). Professor Trent is
the former Secretary General
of the International Political
Science Association (IPSA),
Executive Director of the
Social Science Federation of
Canada and a founding VicePresident of the Academic
Council on the United Nations
System (ACUNS).
37
Abstract
This is a critical juncture as the world
looks to formulate a post-2015 development agenda that will succeed the
UN’s Millennium Development Goals
of 2000. As in the past, the government of Canada can engage in this
global conversation, providing leadership and investment in the global
decision-making process.
To add a strategic contribution,
Canada should 1) recognize the
power of the UN for this important
dialogue leading to global change
– and abandon language casting the
UN as merely a ‘talk shop’; 2) lead on
Canada’s innovation on private/public partnerships in development;
3) lead on addressing climate change
mitigation and adaptation – as many
of our provinces have – in order to
change the channel and showcase
innovation; and 4) in collaboration
with civil society leaders and academics, invest in a ‘whole of government’
approach to the development and
implementation of the new development agenda.
38
Where is Canada in helping set the international development
agenda for the next two decades?
Kathryn White
When they were formulated almost 15 years ago, the
main ideals underpinning the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were to provide a set of concrete,
measurable objectives to guide UN agencies and others
in a global effort to eradicate poverty, promote gender
equality and ensure sustainable development.
The world is now at a critical juncture, with the ability
to influence the international development agenda for
the next two decades in what is being referred to as the
post-2015 development agenda.
This is a moment where the government of Canada
can step up, as in the past, to engage in this global
conversation and to provide leadership and investment
in the global decision-making process. Investment in
this context means investment of intellectual capital
and in an initiative to build a better world and contribute to the United Nations at its best. It includes financial
investment as part of this commitment.
Beginning with a report of a High Level Panel (HLP)
established by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,
the recent and coming months will have a focused flurry
of reports and activities to establish the development
‘way forward.’ The HLP’s objective was to reflect on and
formulate a new vision for sustainable growth and prosperity, along with mechanisms for achieving it.
The very solid, ambitious report, delivered to the
UN Secretary General at the end of May, describes ‘five
transformative shifts’ as its priorities for development
post-2015:
– Leave no one behind
– Put sustainable development at the core
– Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth
– Build peace and effective, open and accountable public
institutions
– Forge a new global partnership
There has been a parallel Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG’s) Working Group of members of the United
Nations General Assembly. There has been a cynical
(or perhaps reasonable) concern that these dual tracks
would clash in the race to be the arbiter of development’s future. In fact, there has been strong unifying
overlap in the first report by the SDG’s Working Group
and the HLP report. The latter group is due to issue its
final recommendations next year.
Backing both these up is a robust online survey/dialogue organized by the Millennium Campaign of the
United Nations Development Program. This MyWorld
initiative is providing remarkably consistent input, with
an emphasis on the global south’s views and bringing
great data to the on-going global conversation.
There is wide support for a single post-2015 UN development framework containing a single set of goals –
goals that are universally applicable to all countries but
adaptable to different national realities and priorities.
So where is the government of Canada in this ambitious and crucial initiative and, importantly, where
might Canada add unique muscle and strategic contribution?
First, the government needs to abandon language
that casts the United Nations as merely a ‘talk shop’. As
those in the diplomatic trenches over the long haul
know, it is dialogue that leads to norms, norms to practice, and practice to prosperity and peace. Part of this
norm-setting is an opportunity for Canada to lead the
way on how developed countries address, achieve and
report on goals. There will be resistance among developed countries to see a need to plan to achieve goals.
However, if we are to achieve a level playing field globally, being upfront about reducing poverty, increasing
the representation of women and pursuing sustainable
development at home are going to be key to building
trust in the global commons.
Second, the government has a unique opportunity
to draw on its commitment as an innovator on private/
public partnerships in development. Since an integral part of the next set of goals will be transparency,
innovation and sustainable financing, the Canadian
government could invest in providing leading indicators, monitoring and evaluation on these partnerships
and potential risks to private sector engagement in true
development. Canada can mobilize its recent experiences with the private sector and development to lead
in consultations to develop the checks and balances
and the levers of co-ordination that the international
community can implement going forward.
Thirdly, the government has received many ‘fossil of
the year’ awards from climate change activists at UN
conferences on climate change. Meanwhile, at the provincial level across the country, there is real leadership
on carbon pricing; on the recognition of the costs of the
effects of climate change and on innovation. Let us step
away from ‘fossilized’ thinking and put us on the global
development map, showcasing how a country that may
actually benefit from climate change can share those
benefits with the countries that will be irredeemably
harmed by those same effects.
Finally, Canada has a great team of diplomats, of legal
minds, of environment and finance public servants.
Canada also has committed civil society leaders and
academics whose life in service to a better world has
given them great experience and insight. Let us put
them all to good use – marking Canada’s engagement
in the development and implementation of the post2015 global development agenda through a whole-ofgovernment contribution – ensuring the coordination,
discipline and leadership they deserve.
Canada has much to offer as we recognize our great
good fortune in a world wracked by poverty, inequalities and injustice. The setting of the global development
agenda for the coming decades is a time for the government to make its mark: to show that the ideology of
equality is universal. The time to be all in: now.
Kathryn White is the
President and CEO of the
United Nations Association in
Canada. For the previous 25
years, she had been the head
of Black and White Inc. an
Ottawa-based international
consultancy specializing in
policy research, education and
citizen engagement, integrating risk management and
risk perception into initiatives and solutions. She has
been recognized nationally
and internationally for her
leadership in issues ranging
from youth-at-risk, climate
change, disaster and crisis
response and mitigation,
corporate social responsibility,
international peacebuilding
and conflict resolution. She
currently serves as the Chair
of the Board of the World
Federation of UN Associations
(WFUNA).
39
The United Nations System
Programmes and Funds
UN Principal
Organs
General
Assembly
UNCTAD United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development
Subsidiary Bodies
Main and other sessional
committees
Security
Council
Economic and
Social Council
Disarmament Commission
�� UNV United Nations Volunteers
Standing committees
and ad hoc bodies
Counter-terrorism committees
International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda (ICTR)
UNU United Nations University
Peacekeeping operations
and political missions
UN Peacebuilding
Commission
Sanctions committees (ad hoc)
Standing committees and
ad hoc bodies
Other Bodies
Regional Commissions
Functional Commissions
NOTES:
Population and Development
1 UNRWA and UNIDIR report only to
Science and Technology for Development
ECLAC Economic Commission
for Latin America and
the Caribbean
Committee of Experts on Public
Administration
Social Development
Statistics
Status of Women
Sustainable Development
United Nations Forum on Forests
4 Specialized agencies are autono-
mous organizations working with
the UN and each other through
the coordinating machinery of
ECOSOC at the intergovernmental
level, and through the Chief Executives Board
for Coordination (CEB) at the inter-secretariat
level. This section is listed in order of establishment of these organizations as specialized
agencies of the United Nations.
5 The Trusteeship Council suspended operation on 1 November 1994 with the independence of Palau, the last remaining United
Nations Trust Territory, on 1 October 1994.
This is not an official document of the United
Nations, nor is it intended to be all-inclusive.
Specialized Agencies4
IMF International Monetary Fund
ILO International Labour Organization
ICAO International Civil Aviation
Organization
UNESCO United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
ECE Economic Commission for Europe
to the General Assembly (GA) but
contributes on an ad-hoc basis to
GA and ECOSOC work inter alia on
finance and developmental issues.
WTO3 World Trade Organization
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations
Narcotic Drugs
3 WTO has no reporting obligation
Related Organizations
CTBTO PrepCom Preparatory Commission for the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
IAEA2 International Atomic Energy Agency
Advisory
Subsidiary Body
Military Staff Committee
Committee for Development Policy
and the General Assembly.
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
UNIDIR1 United Nations Institute
for Disarmament Research
ECA Economic Commission for Africa
the General Assembly.
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction
UNICRI United Nations Interregional Crime
and Justice Research Institute
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
2 IAEA reports to the Security Council
Other Entities
UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
ESCAP Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and
the Pacific
ESCWA Economic and Social
Commission for Western Asia
Departments and Offices
Committee on Non-Governmental
Organizations
WHO World Health Organization
World Bank Group
�� IBRD International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development
�� IDA International Development
Association
IMO International Maritime
Organization
ITU International
Telecommunication Union
UPU Universal Postal Union
WMO World Meteorological
Organization
WIPO World Intellectual Property
Organization
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
�� IFC International Finance Corporation
United Nations Group of Experts
on Geographical Names
IFAD International Fund
for Agricultural Development
�� MIGA Multilateral Investment
Guarantee Agency
UNIDO United Nations Industrial
Development Organization
�� ICSID International Centre
for Settlement of Investment Disputes
UNWTO World Tourism
Organization
Other sessional and standing
committees and expert, ad hoc
and related bodies
DM Department of Management
EOSG Executive Office of the
Secretary-General
DPA Department of Political Affairs
DESA Department of Economic
and Social Affairs
DPKO Department of Peacekeeping
Operations
DFS Department of Field Support
DSS Department of Safety and Security
DGACM Department for General Assembly
and Conference Management
OCHA Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs
DPI Department of Public Information
OHCHR Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights
OIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services
OLA Office of Legal Affairs
OSAA Office of the Special Adviser on Africa
OSRSG/CAAC Office of the Special Representative
of the Secretary-General for Children
and Armed Conflict
UNODA Office for Disarmament Affairs
UNOG United Nations Office at Geneva
UN-OHRLLS Office of the High Representative
for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked
Developing Countries and Small Island
Developing States
UNON United Nations Office at Nairobi
UNOV United Nations Office at Vienna
Published by the United Nations Department of Public Information DPI/2470 rev.2—11-36429—October 2011
International
Court of Justice
40
UNSSC United Nations System Staff College
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
OPCW Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons
International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Trusteeship
Council 5
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
Research and Training Institutes
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
Subsidiary Bodies
Secretariat
UNRISD United Nations Research Institute
for Social Development
WFP World Food Programme
�� UNCDF United Nations Capital
Development Fund
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees
UN-Women United Nations Entity for Gender Equality
and the Empowerment of Women
UNDP United Nations Development
Programme
International Law Commission
UNITAR United Nations Institute for Training
and Research
UNRWA1 United Nations Relief and Works Agency
for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
�� ITC International Trade Centre
(UNCTAD/WTO)
Human Rights Council
UN-HABITAT United Nations Human
Settlements Programme