In bid for Security Council seat, Canada may have its hopes dashed

Back in 2010, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was defeated in its campaign for a seat at the UN Security Council. When assessing his government’s weak record on foreign aid spending and peacekeeping contributions, as well as its blind and unreserved support for Israel, it was evident that countless policies helped sink its electoral fortunes. In response, the Conservatives (not known for their introspection) lashed out in righteous anger, even blaming the opposition Liberals at one point for their loss. It was an unbecoming spectacle. Now, a decade later, Canada is again competing for a Security Council seat, though this time, it is the Liberals who are up for judgement. There’s certainly no guarantee they will fare any better than their Conservative predecessors, especially when facing off against its two strong competitors, Ireland and Norway. After all, on any number of policy metrics that help determine election success to the UN, both countries outperform Canada. And while Canada’s Liberal government has recently attempted to address some of its policy shortcomings, it simply might be too little, too late. Take foreign aid, for instance. Since the Liberal ascendency in 2015, the Canadian government has averaged a measly 0.27 percent of gross national income on its official development assistance. In contrast, Norway spent 0.94 of its GNI on ODA last year, a percentage almost four times that of Canada’s. In 2016, the Norwegians spent an even more impressive 1.12 of its GNI on aid. As Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s former foreign affairs minister, has stated, “Norway will be tough because they are, per capita, the world’s most generous development country.” Ireland also outperforms Canada on its ODA funding. In the years since Justin Trudeau became prime minister, Ireland has spent an average of 0.32 percent of its GNI on ODA. It’s been seven years since Canada spent at even that rate. To make up for this lack of funding, Trudeau pledged back in June, at the Women Deliver Conference, to increase the government’s aid budget on women’s reproductive health. The soaring rhetoric of Trudeau’s announcement might have sounded pleasant enough. But it was far from sufficient to effectively raise Canada’s overall contributions to the level of aid spent by both Ireland and Norway. The same is true for Canada’s rebranded aid plan, now known as the Feminist International Assistance Policy. Prioritizing aid to women and young girls has its policy benefits, but strategically, it really doesn’t give the government a significant edge over its two rivals, neither of which ignore gender within their respective aid policies. As Ola Mohajer has written in Open Canada, “Both Norway and Ireland have gender equality and empowerment in their agendas, with Norway having launched a similar national action plan shortly after Canada did.” While Canada may be the only one of its competitors, with an explicitly labelled feminist foreign aid plan, it is far from unique, and certainly, no substitute for increased development funding. In other areas of international engagement, Canada has been similarly been found wanting. Peacekeeping, an area near and dear to Liberal hearts, is case and point. Prior to his election as prime minister, Trudeau made some lofty promises on increasing Canada’s peacekeeping contributions. And indeed, the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed to Mali in 2017 to help back up Trudeau’s campaign pledge. Except, after a mere 13 months, those same troops were brought back home, effectively ending Canada’s most significant peacekeeping mission (though a small transition team remained to aid the incoming Romanians in their preparations). The fact remains that, after four years of Liberal governance, Canada remains a laggard in its peacekeeping contributions. It’s in stark contrast to Ireland, a true leader in the field, having consistently deployed hundreds of peacekeeping troops on countless missions. It is not just foreign aid and peacekeeping in which the Canadian government has been found wanting, offering only paltry, last minute improvements to either file. Canada’s support for the Palestinian cause on the international stage provides yet another example. Ever since Jean Chrétien’s retirement, the Liberals have shifted closer and closer in bipartisan support with the Conservatives on Israeli-Palestinian issues. This has continued under the Trudeau Liberals, who, in many ways, have emulated the Harper government before them in their unreserved backing of Israel. And sure, while Trudeau was willing to break some precedence, such as restoring funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, he hasn’t altered his stance that much, especially when voting at the UN. Well, at least until now. Last month, the Canadian government voted “Yes” on a controversial motion, entitled,“The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,” which “reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine” and “an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.” It took four years, but Trudeau and his cabinet were finally willing to vote in favor of Palestine on a controversial UN motion. If this reversal to a more balanced approach is meant to curry favour from the international community, it’s probably far too late. Ireland and Norway have already done a better job shoring up their credentials on the issue. It’s also probably far too little, especially as it remains the sole controversial resolution of note in which Canada has gone out on a limb for in favour of a more nuanced position. Whether it has been on foreign aid, peacekeeping or Canada’s position on Israeli-Palestinian issues, the Liberal government has offered only minor fixes to what has otherwise been an uninspiring record on its efforts at international engagement. Who knows though? Canada very well may prove successful in securing a seat in six months’ time. Securing election to the Security Council is often just as reliant on diplomatic backroom dealings and voting tradeoffs as it is on a country’s policy record. However, if the Liberals fail to secure Canada’s election to the UN, they will have no one to blame but themselves and their policy shortcomings; something the Conservatives before them should have done. Wyatt James Schierman is a freelance writer from Alberta and a regular columnist with Loonie Politics. The Hill Times

In bid for Security Council seat, Canada may have its hopes dashed

A decade later, Canada is again competing for a Security Council seat, though this time, it is the Liberals who are up for judgement.

Recognize Palestine as a state, upgrade diplomatic status, says new representative

Canada’s defeat in bid for UN Security Council seat also reveals Ottawa’s lingering problems at home

Where’s the money?: Questions loom over need for better foreign policy funding

Recognize Palestine as a state, upgrade diplomatic status, says new representative

Renewable energy is the way to go, says letter writer

Canada needs a modern, national health data architecture

To address online harms, Canada must commit to digital media literacy

A cure for multiple sclerosis could be just around the corner

Supporting local broadcasters is critical for our democracy

In bid for UN Security Councils seat, Canada was far from a shoo-in

It isn’t fun losing UN Security Council seat, but there’s a lot to be learned from it

We lost the Security Council vote in 21 seconds. Now what?

Canada fails to win seat on UN Security Council, in major blow to Trudeau’s foreign policy record

Climate is still changing while Canada courts the UN

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

In bid for Security Council seat, Canada may have its hopes dashed

A decade later, Canada is again competing for a Security Council seat, though this time, it is the Liberals who are up for judgement.

Get The Foreign Policy and Diplomacy Newsletter