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 United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Walt's Achievers in International Politics
Stephen Walt, Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, posted on his blog today about who he believes to be the over- and under-achievers in international politics. There are a number of interesting things that Walt points out that I believe are worth noting:
1) Walt lists Canada as an over-achiever country. As a student of international politics in Canada, I have heard for years how Canada has, historically, been able to punch above its "weight class." Despite being categorized as a "middle power," Canada is pretty good at getting involved in the major issues in international affairs. For almost a century, Canada has been getting its hands dirty in the major wars (The World Wars, Korea, Afghanistan, etc.), acting as a leader in international peacekeeping, as well a being a staunch supporter of multilateralism and the United Nations. So I guess I am just happy that someone, especially someone from the prestigious Harvard University, from outside of Canada notices the actions and presence of Canada in the international community.
2) Two of the over-achievers (North Korea and Israel) are not there for their positive actions but for the attention that the world is forced to pay to them. North Korea with its rogue campaign to gain nuclear weapons and Israel with its continuing conflict with Palestine are such politically hot topics that other states have to pay attention to these states for the threat they both pose to international peace and security. Therefore, it may be appropriate to question whether or not these states are actually over-achievers rather than "thorns in the side" of the international order.
3) Three of the under-achievers (India, Russia and Brazil) are classified as the next generation of great powers. Walt recognizes this and the underlying idea that the BRIC powers are going to change the shape of the international order but doesn't seem to be convinced. His arguments for India and Brazil are definitely valid and I pretty much agree with them. However, his argument that Russia is an underachiever appears to overlook certain aspects of its international presence.
As one of the few legal nuclear powers and by holding a permanent seat and veto in the UN Security Council, Russia has a tremendous influence on international politics. Russia can effectively determine where and when the UN becomes involved in international crises which, by my account, would make Russia a major player. While it is true that following the fall of the Berlin Wall Russia suffered from economic troubles, it has definitely moved past this to becoming an emerging energy superpower. The mere fact that it supplies energy resources to much of Europe means that Russia must be accounted for when other states make their foreign policies, as Ukraine found out this year.
One last thing, I think the presence of India and Brazil on the list of underachievers may show that economic growth is not nearly enough to push a state from being an influential middle power to that of being a great power. A realization that must be examined more closely, especially in this time of great power growth and decline.
- blenCOWe
1) Walt lists Canada as an over-achiever country. As a student of international politics in Canada, I have heard for years how Canada has, historically, been able to punch above its "weight class." Despite being categorized as a "middle power," Canada is pretty good at getting involved in the major issues in international affairs. For almost a century, Canada has been getting its hands dirty in the major wars (The World Wars, Korea, Afghanistan, etc.), acting as a leader in international peacekeeping, as well a being a staunch supporter of multilateralism and the United Nations. So I guess I am just happy that someone, especially someone from the prestigious Harvard University, from outside of Canada notices the actions and presence of Canada in the international community.
2) Two of the over-achievers (North Korea and Israel) are not there for their positive actions but for the attention that the world is forced to pay to them. North Korea with its rogue campaign to gain nuclear weapons and Israel with its continuing conflict with Palestine are such politically hot topics that other states have to pay attention to these states for the threat they both pose to international peace and security. Therefore, it may be appropriate to question whether or not these states are actually over-achievers rather than "thorns in the side" of the international order.
3) Three of the under-achievers (India, Russia and Brazil) are classified as the next generation of great powers. Walt recognizes this and the underlying idea that the BRIC powers are going to change the shape of the international order but doesn't seem to be convinced. His arguments for India and Brazil are definitely valid and I pretty much agree with them. However, his argument that Russia is an underachiever appears to overlook certain aspects of its international presence.
As one of the few legal nuclear powers and by holding a permanent seat and veto in the UN Security Council, Russia has a tremendous influence on international politics. Russia can effectively determine where and when the UN becomes involved in international crises which, by my account, would make Russia a major player. While it is true that following the fall of the Berlin Wall Russia suffered from economic troubles, it has definitely moved past this to becoming an emerging energy superpower. The mere fact that it supplies energy resources to much of Europe means that Russia must be accounted for when other states make their foreign policies, as Ukraine found out this year.
One last thing, I think the presence of India and Brazil on the list of underachievers may show that economic growth is not nearly enough to push a state from being an influential middle power to that of being a great power. A realization that must be examined more closely, especially in this time of great power growth and decline.
- 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
Friday, January 16, 2009
Enough Already!
I'm beginning to get really tired of hearing Israel's blanket excuse for attacking civilian establishments and non-combatants. The "Hamas was firing rockets from so-and-so site" has pretty much lost whatever credibility it had.
First they attacked the Islamic University in Gaza, next a United Nations school and now the United Nations headquarters in Gaza. It may just be me but its seems like the Israeli attacks are being targeted at those establishments where a strong voice of opposition to the claims of self-defense could originate. Israel is making sure that the only voice heard is theirs and no news of the actions they take themselves can be heard.
This strategy leads one (at least me) to think that the IDF may not be acting in self-defense but lashing out in anger; possibly committing crimes against humanity. If this were the case, Israel would definitely not want word of the crimes it was committing to leak out for everyone to find out about. That is why it makes sense that Israel is proceeding as they are. They want to hide what is really happening in Gaza so that they do not attract more negative publicity than they are already receiving. Israel cannot afford to lose what few allies it has, especially the United States. If it were to come out that Israel was committing war crimes then it would likely lose the support of the US and then would likely suffer the wrath of the international community.
I wonder if there will be anyone left to speak out against Israel when they are done?
- blenCOWe
First they attacked the Islamic University in Gaza, next a United Nations school and now the United Nations headquarters in Gaza. It may just be me but its seems like the Israeli attacks are being targeted at those establishments where a strong voice of opposition to the claims of self-defense could originate. Israel is making sure that the only voice heard is theirs and no news of the actions they take themselves can be heard.
This strategy leads one (at least me) to think that the IDF may not be acting in self-defense but lashing out in anger; possibly committing crimes against humanity. If this were the case, Israel would definitely not want word of the crimes it was committing to leak out for everyone to find out about. That is why it makes sense that Israel is proceeding as they are. They want to hide what is really happening in Gaza so that they do not attract more negative publicity than they are already receiving. Israel cannot afford to lose what few allies it has, especially the United States. If it were to come out that Israel was committing war crimes then it would likely lose the support of the US and then would likely suffer the wrath of the international community.
I wonder if there will be anyone left to speak out against Israel when they are done?
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
