Hey Brian, great post.  I am wondering if you think that, given the Harper administration's tepid enthusiasm for foreign affairs, Canada is deserving of the seat.  Or, in other words, would the council be better seved by Germany and Portugal?  Or do you think the possibility exists that were Canada to nab the seat, it might kick-start a more robust era of Canadian foreign policy.  Thoughts?   

Hi Michael,

Sadly, no I don`t think a seat on the Security Council would "kick-start" a more robust era of Canadian foreign policy.  In my opinion, from what I witnessed from the current government so far, there seems to be very little vision of Canada's role on the world stage.  The current government's international agenda seems to be restricted to un-doing whatever the previous Liberal government stood for.  We've seen this on human security, on Africa, on China, on Israel, and on Aboriginal rights. 

Does Canada "deserve" a seat?  Well, I don`t know about "deserve".  But I`m not sure if Germany or Portugal deserve or don`t deserve it any more than we do.  As I Canadian, I certainly want our campaign to be successful in the hopes that it would spawn an international interest or agenda.  But again, I'm not holding my breath. 

Brian,

Great post. I think it is indeed too bad that the accomplishments of the late 1990s and early 2000s are under-recognised. I do think, however, it is easy to over-state these accomplishments.

Canada has indeed always been a leader in the post-WWII international community. From helping in the foundation of the UN and Nato, and the advent of peacekeeping, to the human security accomplishments and our contributions to international peace and security in the Balkans, Afghanistan and elsewhere, Canada has been at the forefront of western/international efforts to create a better and safer world order.

But I think the jury has not yet returned a verdict on the entirety of the human security agenda. While a lot of good was achieved - Kimberly, Ottawa, etc. - the Axworthy types have not been without controversy. I'm thinking, for example, of the Kosovo War of 1999. In undertaking military actions without UN authorisation, the west certainly jeopardised the integrity of the international system. Though post-facto UN authorisation is not unimportant, the failure of the west to secure a UN go-ahead for the Kosovo military actions has been construed by many as precedent-setting.

It implies a navigation away from international law per se (I'm thinking here of the nuts and bolts of the UN as the arbiter of int'l peace and security; i.e., getting UN authorisation for military actions), and a shift to an ideational or normative appeal to legitimacy and justification. The Kosovo War was justified by the west mainly on humanitarian grounds. But so was the Iraq War of 2003 justified in this way by many. Is it of benefit (to whomever, be it human beings around the world, the international order, or whatever referent you'd care to use) to move away from a rules-based system and toward an ideas-or-morals based one? Is this precedent something with which we are satisfied?

the Liberal foreign policy legacy of the 1960s is not in an exact or comprehensive way the Liberal foreign policy legacy of the Axworthy era. I would suggest the former built the foundations for a rules-based liberal internationalism; the latter may have unwittingly jeopardised it, albeit for compelling reasons.

Keep up the good work!

Best,

M

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the question.  By no means am I suggesting that they Axworthy era was without its controversies and failings.  But, personnaly, I would not consider the intervention in Kosovo to be one of them.  Yes, it went ahead without UN authorization, but the structure of the Security Council forced it to.  Russia's veto on the S.C. virtually ensured that any preventative UN mission to stop genocide or ethnic cleansing was impossible.  So other options and actors had to be explored.  I think, in fact, it is a good thing that the international system is not run solely at the behest of the United Nations, and that pragmatism can win-out against a strict rules-based system when necessary. 

Now such pragmatism can often be manipulated and conflated with "morality".  The United States did not use the moral argument when first intervening in Iraq (they used a security argument) but, of course, once no WMDs were discovered they shifted the justification to a moral one (Saddam the human rights abuser).  So I think you`re right to note the danger of moving away from a rules-based system toward an "ideas of morals-based one".  But when I look back on the history of the United Nations in the Twentieth Century, I see an organization too tightly locked in a rules-based system that prevented it from taking action when necessary.  To me, the inability of the UN to stop numerous genocides over the past 60 years is an obvious example of the system not functioning properly. 

Brian,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I join you in frankly acknowledging the showcased inability of the UNSC to get the job done under certain circumstances. It's only that I agree with you also that this has consequences for international society. (btw, don't know if you've had a chance to read Ramesh Thakur's "The Iraq War and the Challenges for Global Order" or some such. I haven't as yet but I'm looking forward to it.)

Though I think there is an argument to be made that the Iraq War was fought in defence of international law and international order (if I seem perched high atop a moral horse, that's just an illusion. There is much to be said against the US' and others' handling of the sanctions regime which bears significant responsibility for the circa 2003 situation in Iraq), and therefore think it might not be the best example of a Kosovo-precedent-citing moral crusade, I'd suggest such examples exist.

The logic implicit in this argument is the logic of my ongoing Master's work. I'm trying to help explain why the doctrine of R2P hasn't really hit its stride (or, more academically, why is hasn't been fully actualised as a norm of international security). Part of this reason is that folks in the Axworthy 'human security' tradition employ the logic of human security as a substitite for- as opposed to a complement to - pre-existing international norms. (I'm thinking here, for example, of the notion that a muscular R2P approach was right for the situation in Burma a year ago, or that R2P applies to Climate Change, as is argued by Axworthy et al.)

Anyway. Great post and thanks for the response.

M

Your thesis or research essay sounds very interesting.  Best of luck with it and thank for the comments.

Cheers,

Brian

Hi all,

Just popped over from Governance Village, and I think we have some complimentary content there this week. Our correspondent talks to three former Canadian ambassadors to the UN about our bid for the SC seat: http://www.governancevillage.org/blogs/gvnewsblog/canadianai

Enjoy!