This week in the Embassy, Michelle Collins reports that some of Canada's former top diplomats believe that Canada's campaign for a UN Security Council Seat in 2011 will be successful. Former Ambassador to the UN, Paul Heinbecker compared the campaign to basketball calling Canada's chances are "kind of a jump shot in traffic, one that we can make but will have to get on the rebound" (Embassy).
A jump shot in traffic? Really? That doesn't sound all that optimistic for those of us that have been paying attention to the campaign. In basketball, a contested jump shot is one of the harder shots and Canada doesn't really strike me as the Kobe Bryant/Lebron James sharpshooter type. Now if Mr. Heinbecker had said that we were in the low-post with the ball but still contested, I would have felt, then, that it could be said that the seat is foreseeable in Canada's future. But there is no point to dwell on what could have been said.
According to the latest UN DPKO releases, Portugal contributes more to UN peackeeping missions than either Canada or Germany but the numbers are not impressive for any of them. In the ISAF force in Afghanistan, Portugal's contribution to the mission is miniscule when compared to the contingents provided by Canada and Germany. While this is a rather narrow comparison of the three candidate states' involvement in peace operations and multilateral efforts, I believe it is possible to draw a couple basic conclusions from this. First, Portugal's greater contribution to UN peackeeping missions is a misleading factor because the difference is minor and when compared to the greater contributions of Canada and Germany on another (UN sanctioned, but not led) mission, becomes practically negligible. It would be hard to deny that Canada and Germany both play larger roles in protecting peace and security in the international community.
But Security Council elections are not just about troop contributions, they are essentially a report card on a state's participation and cooperation with those around it. This means it becomes necessary to look at other indicators like foreign aid. According to OECD statistics, Portugal's foreign aid levels (0.27% of GNI) are below that of Canada (0.32%) and Germany (0.38%). Canada and its competitors cannot use foreign aid levels as a great boost in the campaign as all are well below the international target of 0.7%. So again, Canada remains relatively in league with Germany in terms of influence/participation globally and Portugal comes up yet again short.
These are just a couple of the basic tangible measures that can help to compare states during international elections such as the Security Council ones. Based on these factors so far, it would seem like Canada would be a shoo-in for a Council seat. If that were the case though, Canadian citizens wouldn't keep reading about Canada's long shot chance to win the seat.
There is little wrong with Canada's "substance." I say this with the caveat that I do realize that Canada does have its problems but the bigger picture is that Canada's substance is of such good quality in so many areas that it can afford a few blemishes without tarnishing the whole. This means that there must be something wrong with the "delivery" or, in other words, politics. Canada has made some politically risky decisions since its last term on the Council including a pro-Israel stance, resistance to climate change initiatives, and even more recently its decision to focus the majority of its bilateral aid away from Africa. Often, elections become popularity contests and are not fought on the substance. This is what is causing the fear of losing the election. Canada has the substance to win the election but the popularity is in question after a string of politically risky decisions.
Is it time to go back to school where we all first learned about popularity? Canada needs a quick shot of popularity... time to throw a party! Are the parents going out of town anytime soon?
- blenCOWe
Showing posts with label Security Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Security Council. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Canadian MPs Unhappy with African Diplomats
The Globe and Mail reports today about how a number of African diplomats have mounted a public effort to get the Canadian government to change their "abandonment" of the African continent in terms of bilateral aid. The group of diplomats from 17 African countries were calling for Canada to "regain its leading role as a friend to the continent." Their proposals included re-establishing bilateral ties, increasing trade ties (like many other powers, like China, are doing) and to conduct regular Canada-Africa meetings.
In the article, it is noted that Conservative MPs Jim Abbott and (Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Deepak Obhrai were deeply unhappy with the message that the diplomats were sending. Claiming that the diplomats had incorrect facts and opposed to the fact that the diplomats were criticizing the Conservative government, the Tories argued the message claiming that in fact Canada had meet its goal to double foreign aid levels for 2001 to $2.1 billion.
While it is good that Canada is increasing its level of aid, there exists a large problem with the way in which they are going about doing it. CIDA minister Bev Oda has argued that in this time of economic crisis, it is imperative for Canada to be more efficient in the way that it applies its foreign aid. Canada will now only provide bilateral aid to 7 countries in Africa down from the 15 countries that received it in the past (to put it in perspective there are 53 countries in Africa). These 7 countries will share $1.2 billion dollars with the rest being relegated to fighting amongst each other, and the rest of the world, for the remaining 20% of bilateral aid and the multilateral aid that Canada helps fund. Exactly how is this not abandonment? How is it okay that Canada is increasing its aid yet decreasing the number of people that get it? Does that make sense?
Strategically this move is even more perplexing. World powers like China and the United States are investing more and more into the troubled continent realizing both the need and the gains from it. Africa remains one of the poorest, if not the poorest, regions in the world and has the most need of help from developed countries like Canada. I fail to see the logic (beyond trade interests) that places the Caribbean and South America's urgency of need ahead of Africa's. Could this be another example of the Harper government's reluctance to compete in the international community, like initial reports that Canada would not actively campaign for a Security Council seat for fear of losing. Could it be that Prime Minister Harper and his Tory government are afraid of playing in the same arena as the "big boys" (China and US)?
Canada should be in a better position to work with African nations than either the US or China because of its previous history as a colony and not an imperial power. Added to that is Canada's record of assistance to Africa, both in terms of aid and efforts to act as a peacekeeper (Rwanda for example), as well as Canada's prominent position in the Francophonie organization.
And what about the Security Council elections? Those nine African countries are not likely to vote for Canada after it cut its aid programs to them. Its almost as if Mr. Harper wants Canada to lose to Portugal. PORTUGAL!!!! This is not a soccer game, this should have been an easy victory for Canada (I have not given up hope for Canada yet, I am just realizing that our actions are making this campaign harder than it should have been).
Trade relations are only part of the equation when building up diplomatic power. Public opinion, built through areas like foreign aid, peacekeeping, working withing the UN, is critical to having the type of diplomatic presence where Canada can truly ensure its security, including economic security, in the international community. The African diplomats are right to try to shake some sense in Canadian politicians because it is clear that nobody at home is getting through.
And I did not even mention the fact that despite the increase in foreign aid, Canadian foreign aid still only hovers around 0.3% of its GNI... oops!
- blenCOWe
In the article, it is noted that Conservative MPs Jim Abbott and (Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Deepak Obhrai were deeply unhappy with the message that the diplomats were sending. Claiming that the diplomats had incorrect facts and opposed to the fact that the diplomats were criticizing the Conservative government, the Tories argued the message claiming that in fact Canada had meet its goal to double foreign aid levels for 2001 to $2.1 billion.
While it is good that Canada is increasing its level of aid, there exists a large problem with the way in which they are going about doing it. CIDA minister Bev Oda has argued that in this time of economic crisis, it is imperative for Canada to be more efficient in the way that it applies its foreign aid. Canada will now only provide bilateral aid to 7 countries in Africa down from the 15 countries that received it in the past (to put it in perspective there are 53 countries in Africa). These 7 countries will share $1.2 billion dollars with the rest being relegated to fighting amongst each other, and the rest of the world, for the remaining 20% of bilateral aid and the multilateral aid that Canada helps fund. Exactly how is this not abandonment? How is it okay that Canada is increasing its aid yet decreasing the number of people that get it? Does that make sense?
Strategically this move is even more perplexing. World powers like China and the United States are investing more and more into the troubled continent realizing both the need and the gains from it. Africa remains one of the poorest, if not the poorest, regions in the world and has the most need of help from developed countries like Canada. I fail to see the logic (beyond trade interests) that places the Caribbean and South America's urgency of need ahead of Africa's. Could this be another example of the Harper government's reluctance to compete in the international community, like initial reports that Canada would not actively campaign for a Security Council seat for fear of losing. Could it be that Prime Minister Harper and his Tory government are afraid of playing in the same arena as the "big boys" (China and US)?
Canada should be in a better position to work with African nations than either the US or China because of its previous history as a colony and not an imperial power. Added to that is Canada's record of assistance to Africa, both in terms of aid and efforts to act as a peacekeeper (Rwanda for example), as well as Canada's prominent position in the Francophonie organization.
And what about the Security Council elections? Those nine African countries are not likely to vote for Canada after it cut its aid programs to them. Its almost as if Mr. Harper wants Canada to lose to Portugal. PORTUGAL!!!! This is not a soccer game, this should have been an easy victory for Canada (I have not given up hope for Canada yet, I am just realizing that our actions are making this campaign harder than it should have been).
Trade relations are only part of the equation when building up diplomatic power. Public opinion, built through areas like foreign aid, peacekeeping, working withing the UN, is critical to having the type of diplomatic presence where Canada can truly ensure its security, including economic security, in the international community. The African diplomats are right to try to shake some sense in Canadian politicians because it is clear that nobody at home is getting through.
And I did not even mention the fact that despite the increase in foreign aid, Canadian foreign aid still only hovers around 0.3% of its GNI... oops!
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The North Korean Pullout Threatens to De-Stabilize East-Asia
The Regional peace and security of East Asia is more than likely at risk of suffering from a massive destabilization due to an announcement from North Korea today that it will now boycott the disarmament talks taking place between the six stake-holders and will re-start production of weapons-grade plutonium and other nuclear power projects.
North Korea's state media outlet, Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), released the announcement hours after the UN Security Council had condemned North Korea's rocket launch of April 5, 2009. Realistically, this appears to be a very rash decision by North Korea, even more so because of the escalating effect it may have between the involved actors. The authoritarian state also claimed that as a means of defending itself, it will work to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, building up its nuclear weapons arsenal.
The North Koreans claim that they are being unfairly targeted because of their poor ties with the United States, arguing that "according to the US logic, Japan may launch a satellite because Japan is its ally but we must not do the same because we have a different system and we are not subservient to the US" -- Al Jazeera
The difference, however, is that Japan hasn't withdrawn itself from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) or pursued a program of of nuclear deterrence. The reason why the United States and the other powers of the UN Security Council have denounced the actions taken by North Korea is because of the threat that the rocket technology poses to the security of the region. The issue is not the satellite that North Korea claims was the reason for the rocket launch but the technol0gy used to launch the satellite into orbit. The Taepodong-2 missile, with a range that places most of East Asia within reach, is what has caused the strong reaction by world powers. Loaded with a nuclear bomb, the Taepdodoong-2 would give the DPRK a credible deterrent against nuclear power China and a preponderance of power against the other states. Both of these would be distinctions that do not accurately represent North Korea's place in the international order; a real threat to the balance of power that currently exists.
Another point to consider is the fact that while the United States has been active in denouncing the DPRK's actions, is has not done so alone. Despite claims that the United is merely trying to punish one of its non-allies, North Korea should recognize that all of the permanent member of the Council have denounced the rocket launch including Russian and China (who, to date, has been North Korea's strongest ally in the council. As such, this is not merely a matter of the big bad bully beating up on the smaller state but international society responding to a threat to international peace and security.
- blenCOWe
North Korea's state media outlet, Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), released the announcement hours after the UN Security Council had condemned North Korea's rocket launch of April 5, 2009. Realistically, this appears to be a very rash decision by North Korea, even more so because of the escalating effect it may have between the involved actors. The authoritarian state also claimed that as a means of defending itself, it will work to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, building up its nuclear weapons arsenal.
The North Koreans claim that they are being unfairly targeted because of their poor ties with the United States, arguing that "according to the US logic, Japan may launch a satellite because Japan is its ally but we must not do the same because we have a different system and we are not subservient to the US" -- Al Jazeera
The difference, however, is that Japan hasn't withdrawn itself from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) or pursued a program of of nuclear deterrence. The reason why the United States and the other powers of the UN Security Council have denounced the actions taken by North Korea is because of the threat that the rocket technology poses to the security of the region. The issue is not the satellite that North Korea claims was the reason for the rocket launch but the technol0gy used to launch the satellite into orbit. The Taepodong-2 missile, with a range that places most of East Asia within reach, is what has caused the strong reaction by world powers. Loaded with a nuclear bomb, the Taepdodoong-2 would give the DPRK a credible deterrent against nuclear power China and a preponderance of power against the other states. Both of these would be distinctions that do not accurately represent North Korea's place in the international order; a real threat to the balance of power that currently exists.
Another point to consider is the fact that while the United States has been active in denouncing the DPRK's actions, is has not done so alone. Despite claims that the United is merely trying to punish one of its non-allies, North Korea should recognize that all of the permanent member of the Council have denounced the rocket launch including Russian and China (who, to date, has been North Korea's strongest ally in the council. As such, this is not merely a matter of the big bad bully beating up on the smaller state but international society responding to a threat to international peace and security.
- blenCOWe
Monday, April 13, 2009
Some Thoughts on Somali Piracy
Now that Captain Phillips has been rescued from his pirate captors and the Maersk Alabama is on its way, I have some thoughts on the problem of the Somali pirates. The recent conflict over the American ship and the French Navy's assault to rescue a yacht have escalated this piracy problem. Until these recent events, the clashes with the pirates have not been deadly but now the pirates are already vowing revenge against those that killed their comrades. This will inevitably lead to future violent clashes between the pirates and the naval forces patrolling the international shipping lanes.
The situation with the pirates is looking more and more likely to becoming a real threat to international peace and security. If this continues, states are going to start defending their ships more proactively with force. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, states may defend themselves from armed attack until the Security Council acts upon the situation. Furthermore, the Security Council has already decreed that states may use military force to defend their ships.
It is a scary idea to think that the seas off of Somalia could be the next international conflict to start racking up a large deathtoll. With these waters being so vital to shipping and the alternative route around Cape Horn being cost- and time-expensive, the large number of states whose ships use these sea lanes will almost certainly mean that any conflict will be large and widely inclusive. Another international flashpoint is the last thing this world needs with peacekeeping forces already being stretched thin, no functional government in Somalia to help restore order and other conflicts in Africa already garnering international attention.
Unfortunately, the reality appears to be that there is no quick solution to this and the only foreseeable end to this is building government and order in Somalia, which is unlikely given the attention of major powers being elsewhere. So in the end, piracy has returned to the forefront of international affairs...
... cue the next Disney Pirate's sequel!
- blenCOWe
The situation with the pirates is looking more and more likely to becoming a real threat to international peace and security. If this continues, states are going to start defending their ships more proactively with force. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, states may defend themselves from armed attack until the Security Council acts upon the situation. Furthermore, the Security Council has already decreed that states may use military force to defend their ships.
It is a scary idea to think that the seas off of Somalia could be the next international conflict to start racking up a large deathtoll. With these waters being so vital to shipping and the alternative route around Cape Horn being cost- and time-expensive, the large number of states whose ships use these sea lanes will almost certainly mean that any conflict will be large and widely inclusive. Another international flashpoint is the last thing this world needs with peacekeeping forces already being stretched thin, no functional government in Somalia to help restore order and other conflicts in Africa already garnering international attention.
Unfortunately, the reality appears to be that there is no quick solution to this and the only foreseeable end to this is building government and order in Somalia, which is unlikely given the attention of major powers being elsewhere. So in the end, piracy has returned to the forefront of international affairs...
... cue the next Disney Pirate's sequel!
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Go Canada!
Mr. Harper has stepped up...finally!
No, I'm not talking about fiscal updates or economic stimulus packages; both of these things are important to Canada right now but I prefer to talk about Canada's position in the world.
I have written in the past that Canada must push to gain a greater position in world affairs. That was why I was a harsh critic when Mr. Harper announced a number of months ago that he would not commit Canada to competing for a seat on the UN Security Council in the 2010 elections.
Fortunately for Canada (and Mr. Harper), things have changed. Today, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, announced that Canada will in fact be challenging for the seat.
Canada needs this seat, simple as that. Canada needs to become a bigger player in the United Nations community. Under successive governments, not just the Conservatives, Canada's position has fallen in terms of international influence. Even in terms of the concept of Canada being a "middle power", Canada's influence has waned.
In terms of recovering, I see the need to focus on three main areas: military, economics and diplomacy. The first two are not the subject of this post but are simple; Canada's military capabilities need to be increased and Canada must reinvent itself after the global economic crisis as a major economic player (hopefully in a green capacity). The third, diplomacy, involves creating a greater image of Canada in the eyes of the world and showing that we can influence what happens in the international community. Holding a seat on the UN Security Council would be a perfect way to do this.
Committing to this endeavour helps Canada in a number of ways. First of all, the Security Council gives Canada an important voice and presence in discussions that it would not otherwise be present for. The Security Council is probably the most powerful body in international affairs and Canada's presence on it would have a positive impact on our ability to achieve our national interests. Secondly, gaining a seat on the UNSC would show a recommittment to the United Nations Framework. As of recent, critics of Canada's foreign policy have argued that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policies have been too closely connected to those of US President George W. Bush's policies. The US, under President Bush, has separated itself from multilateral bodies like the UN in favour of going it alone or with a few key allies. By recommitting to the United Nations, Canada would be able to separate itself from the policies of the US and show a commitment to the greater community of nations. Furthermore, the Canadian people would respond favourably to a recommittment to the ideals of the United Nations. Peace, security, human rights, economic and social development and humanitarian assistance are all things that the Canadian people identify with and expect their government to champion.
Canada's competition for this prestigious seat is Germany and Portugal. There are two seats for three countries and Germany has the overwhelming lead. In this race, Canada need only beat one country and Portugal, no offence, should be an easy win. Portugal has neither the record or the capabilities of Canada; its best asset is that it is a member of the EU and from what I gather, the members of the EU would prefer to have one of their own on the council as opposed to a "westerner" with close ties to the United States.
Canada must show up, talk a good game and back it up. It's our move Canada
- blenCOWe
No, I'm not talking about fiscal updates or economic stimulus packages; both of these things are important to Canada right now but I prefer to talk about Canada's position in the world.
I have written in the past that Canada must push to gain a greater position in world affairs. That was why I was a harsh critic when Mr. Harper announced a number of months ago that he would not commit Canada to competing for a seat on the UN Security Council in the 2010 elections.
Fortunately for Canada (and Mr. Harper), things have changed. Today, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, announced that Canada will in fact be challenging for the seat.
Canada needs this seat, simple as that. Canada needs to become a bigger player in the United Nations community. Under successive governments, not just the Conservatives, Canada's position has fallen in terms of international influence. Even in terms of the concept of Canada being a "middle power", Canada's influence has waned.
In terms of recovering, I see the need to focus on three main areas: military, economics and diplomacy. The first two are not the subject of this post but are simple; Canada's military capabilities need to be increased and Canada must reinvent itself after the global economic crisis as a major economic player (hopefully in a green capacity). The third, diplomacy, involves creating a greater image of Canada in the eyes of the world and showing that we can influence what happens in the international community. Holding a seat on the UN Security Council would be a perfect way to do this.
Committing to this endeavour helps Canada in a number of ways. First of all, the Security Council gives Canada an important voice and presence in discussions that it would not otherwise be present for. The Security Council is probably the most powerful body in international affairs and Canada's presence on it would have a positive impact on our ability to achieve our national interests. Secondly, gaining a seat on the UNSC would show a recommittment to the United Nations Framework. As of recent, critics of Canada's foreign policy have argued that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policies have been too closely connected to those of US President George W. Bush's policies. The US, under President Bush, has separated itself from multilateral bodies like the UN in favour of going it alone or with a few key allies. By recommitting to the United Nations, Canada would be able to separate itself from the policies of the US and show a commitment to the greater community of nations. Furthermore, the Canadian people would respond favourably to a recommittment to the ideals of the United Nations. Peace, security, human rights, economic and social development and humanitarian assistance are all things that the Canadian people identify with and expect their government to champion.
Canada's competition for this prestigious seat is Germany and Portugal. There are two seats for three countries and Germany has the overwhelming lead. In this race, Canada need only beat one country and Portugal, no offence, should be an easy win. Portugal has neither the record or the capabilities of Canada; its best asset is that it is a member of the EU and from what I gather, the members of the EU would prefer to have one of their own on the council as opposed to a "westerner" with close ties to the United States.
Canada must show up, talk a good game and back it up. It's our move Canada
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sanctions Falling on Deaf Ears
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York speaking to the United Nations this week. He is spouting off his usual rhetoric about the great powers "bullying" Iran over its nuclear program and so on.
In response to recent moves/remarks by Ahmadinejad and Iran, the United States and its allies are pushing for the Security Council to pass sanctions on the renegade state. I am supremely confident that these sanctions will not have any effect. Why am I so sure? Because the previous THREE sets of sanctions haven't had any effect to curb the rebellious attitude of Iran.
In the end, another set of sanctions will just be more empty talk between the two rivals.
- blenCOWe
In response to recent moves/remarks by Ahmadinejad and Iran, the United States and its allies are pushing for the Security Council to pass sanctions on the renegade state. I am supremely confident that these sanctions will not have any effect. Why am I so sure? Because the previous THREE sets of sanctions haven't had any effect to curb the rebellious attitude of Iran.
In the end, another set of sanctions will just be more empty talk between the two rivals.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Ambition Without Reality for the New UN Assembly President
The General Assembly of the United Nations has just announced its new president. Former Nicaraguan foreign minister Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann has been selected after running unopposed by anyone from the Latin American states of whose turn it was to hold the position. Upon the announcement of his selection Mr. Brockmann revealed his own plans to make the United Nations a more democratic institution. That's a pretty high and mighty position considering the fact that he didn't really have to compete agains anyone to gain his elected position!
Anyway...
The main component to Brockmann's plans for democratization is to change the amount of power the Security Council holds in international politics. Also targeted in his plans for democratization are the IMF, World Bank and the UN bureaucracy.
I applaud Mr. Brockmann for coming out and voicing his strong opinions on the problems with the United Nations system but what he is actually saying makes me think that he does not actually understand his position is. First of all, as president of the General Assembly, Mr. Brockmann cannot change the IMF and World Bank (which are not even UN bodies) and is unlikely to be able to influence much amongst the secretariat of the United Nations (which is an entirely separate body in the UN system). Secondly, to alter the powers of the Security Council (e.g. remove/reorganize the vetoes), one would have to change the UN charter. To do this would entail gaining the support of two-thirds of the members of the UN including the five veto-wielding powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United States). Now considering that the great powers cannot come to a consensus on pressing issues like Darfur and Zimbabwe, how does Brockmann expect them to agree on this? Furthermore, the vetoes themselves hold a certain level of distinction for their possessors. They confer the ability to directly influence the United Nations both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. The five Great Powers will not agree to relinquishing their vetoes because it would weaken their position in international politics. For example, the vetoes held by Great Britain and France represent their level of power and influence in the immediate post-1945 period, not their current level of influence, holding on to their vetoes are paramount to these declining powers. In the past, there have been calls for reform to the Security Council, many of which included increasing the number of veto votes to include the current power states like China, Brazil, India, etc. The great powers would not agree to this because it would diminish their stature in the system, so to think that they would agree to completely letting go of their special status is extremely naive.
Like I said, I applaud President Brockmann for his ambition but I believe he seriously needs to temper this ambition with a heavy dose of reality.
- blenCOWe
Anyway...
The main component to Brockmann's plans for democratization is to change the amount of power the Security Council holds in international politics. Also targeted in his plans for democratization are the IMF, World Bank and the UN bureaucracy.
I applaud Mr. Brockmann for coming out and voicing his strong opinions on the problems with the United Nations system but what he is actually saying makes me think that he does not actually understand his position is. First of all, as president of the General Assembly, Mr. Brockmann cannot change the IMF and World Bank (which are not even UN bodies) and is unlikely to be able to influence much amongst the secretariat of the United Nations (which is an entirely separate body in the UN system). Secondly, to alter the powers of the Security Council (e.g. remove/reorganize the vetoes), one would have to change the UN charter. To do this would entail gaining the support of two-thirds of the members of the UN including the five veto-wielding powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United States). Now considering that the great powers cannot come to a consensus on pressing issues like Darfur and Zimbabwe, how does Brockmann expect them to agree on this? Furthermore, the vetoes themselves hold a certain level of distinction for their possessors. They confer the ability to directly influence the United Nations both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. The five Great Powers will not agree to relinquishing their vetoes because it would weaken their position in international politics. For example, the vetoes held by Great Britain and France represent their level of power and influence in the immediate post-1945 period, not their current level of influence, holding on to their vetoes are paramount to these declining powers. In the past, there have been calls for reform to the Security Council, many of which included increasing the number of veto votes to include the current power states like China, Brazil, India, etc. The great powers would not agree to this because it would diminish their stature in the system, so to think that they would agree to completely letting go of their special status is extremely naive.
Like I said, I applaud President Brockmann for his ambition but I believe he seriously needs to temper this ambition with a heavy dose of reality.
- blenCOWe
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Whose Victory is it?
A victory over racism? Not quite!
The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."
This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.
What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,
"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."
This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.
And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,
"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."
That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.
Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.
In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.
This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.
- blenCOWe
The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."
This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.
What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,
"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."
This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.
And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,
"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."
That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.
Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.
In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.
This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, July 12, 2008
This is Getting Old!
I don't even know why the United Nations even bothers sustaining the Security Council anymore. It continues to show that it is a toothless relic of an idealist era. The presence of the five veto votes makes it almost impossible for the Security Council to act when and where it is needed the most.
First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.
Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.
For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.
I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.
Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.
That is some foreign policy!
- blenCOWe
First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.
Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.
For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.
I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.
Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.
That is some foreign policy!
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
