  
WFM-C Foreign Policy Brief
To: The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on behalf of World Federalist Movement - Canada Submitted April 30, 2003 The World Federalist Movement – Canada (WFMC) is a national organization with 1,300 members and supporters across Canada. WFMC is the Canadian section of the international World Federalist Movement (WFM). The WFM is based in New York, at the United Nations; WFMC is headquartered in Ottawa. The WFM President is Sir Peter Ustinov; the National President of the WFMC is the Hon. Flora MacDonald. World Federalists welcome the opportunity provided by the Government of Canada’s Dialogue on Foreign Policy to communicate a range of views to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Although, as Foreign Affairs Minister, Bill Graham noted in his recent remarks to the SCFAIT (House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade), “these are rather busy times in which to be launching public consultations on long-term directions in foreign policy,” we agree with Mr. Graham that, “we can and must continue to address the broad, longer-term issues of concern to Canadians even as we deal with the urgent issues.” Framework for a renewed Canadian foreign policy Much in the world has changed since 1995, the time of the last Government of Canada foreign policy review process, and the resulting publication of Canada in the World. New institutions have emerged, such as the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court. Older bodies, such as the United Nations and NATO have struggled to overcome new challenges and maintain their relevance. Regional organizations have taken on added prominence and in some cases even legislative competences. Civil society organizations play a growing role in many aspects of world affairs. However, international politics is about more than institutional innovations, evolving national and international law, or the passing policies of national governments. International politics is rooted in a deeper context of human experience, of discussion and debate among people. This creates a “marketplace of ideas” which ultimately conditions the political context in which modern institutions and governments implement policy on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, any inventory of relevant changes in the world since 1995 should take note of some extremely penetrating debates on emerging issues which go to the heart of international politics and global governance. There has been a widespread and growing public engagement on a number of core issues of global governance. These include the whole “globalization debate;" democratization; the role of human rights in the international decision-making hierarchy; the balancing of social progress, economic development and environmental protection (i.e. “sustainable development”); and the legitimation of military intervention. The thread running through all of these “macro-debates” is interdependence. Interdependence has long since ceased to be a fashionable new concept. It’s a widely accepted fact of life. Global communications, global business relationships and a threatened biosphere have seen to that. At the same time, there is a sense that international politics isn’t keeping pace; that shared institutions are out of date; that the challenges of managing interdependence are stretching the political carrying capacity of a world of competing national sovereignties. World federalists regard the world’s institutions and decision-making structures as inadequate to the needs of a globalizing, interdependent world. We believe that the world’s people and governments must join in achieving a new level of cooperation such as can only be sustained by a commitment to the planet as a global community. We take some comfort from the fact that a wider public also accepts the need to improve the world’s institutions of global governance. We recommend that the strengthening of multilateralism and international institutions become an overriding priority of Canadian foreign policy. Naturally, a heightened Canadian commitment to multilateralism and improved global governance will be dismissed by some as a rhetorical gesture; a promise that’s easy to enunciate, regardless of whether it is kept. However, making the general commitment is a necessary first step. There are competing priorities for Canadian policy practitioners. Making the broad undertaking to work toward more effective international institutions creates the enabling environment within the national foreign policy apparatus. It frees up the resources and political space for the kind of diplomacy and policy-making which has become part of the mythology of Canadian diplomacy in the past and must become part of a sustained policy thrust in the future. Beyond a broad commitment to strengthen global governance there are a series of derivative, perhaps more challenging questions. Canada is a medium sized state that must bring others along diplomatically in order to achieve results. Where are pressure points for change? What are the ripe issues? What are the right choices? Many of these are questions for the future. Presumably this Foreign Policy Update is intended to set a general policy context, within which specific objectives can be pursued in future, as events unfold. Below we outline a few of the broader brush concepts and issue clusters that might underpin policy initiatives in support of our overriding recommendation, the need for more effective global governance for the 21st century. Human security The notion of an international community as little more than a community of states is wildly out of date. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the safety and welfare of individuals must take on greater priority in the policy and actions of governments. A human security framework provides a pragmatic policy framework for doing so. Not only do human security initiatives improve prospects for the physical security of individuals; human security re-casts the relationship, in a legal and political sense, of the individual to the international community. Citizens can expect recourse to a strengthened framework of remedies and protections which the international community is increasingly obliged to honour. For example, the International Criminal Court strengthens a global criminal jurisdiction, a capacity to bring justice to bear on individuals who violate international humanitarian law. Another example is the emerging doctrine that there exists a “Responsibility to Protect,” a duty of the international community to protect individuals in the face of conscience-shocking crimes, such as genocide, when the state where they reside is unable or unwilling to do so. We congratulate the DFAIT for the development to date of the Human Security Program; commend to officials the Human Security framework as a vehicle for further policy development; and encourage an expanded Human Security Program in the years ahead. Specific elements of the Human Security Program which should be expanded in future include: • initiatives to promote acceptance of “The Responsibility to Protect;” • efforts to assist the effective start-up of the International Criminal Court and to assist other states parties to implement the treaty within national legal systems; • expansion (in partnership with CIDA) of DFAIT’s Peacebuilding program; • strengthening efforts, including civil society initiatives, to respond to the UN Secretary-General’s report on Conflict Prevention and the broad challenge to move from “a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention.” Rights In historical terms, the notion that human beings have rights simply because they are human beings and not because they are citizens of a state may be a relatively new idea. However, the body of international human rights law that has matured particularly since the end of World War II provides important building blocks for the future. Expanding international human rights law is an essential component in a foreign policy framework that aims to construct the global governance regimes necessary to respond to the challenges of an interdependent 21st century. Canada has had a leadership role in developing much of the present framework of international human rights. There is more that Canada can do in the future. We recommend a stronger commitment to the promotion of human rights norms and institutions. The International Criminal Court demonstrates the capacity of the international community to deepen international law by creating institutions which can enforce previously developed norms and standards. There is a growing recognition of the need to reform and strengthen the UN’s institutions for monitoring compliance with human rights standards. At the same time, there is a need to move forward on the norm-development front. A non-exhaustive list of some of the leading-edge rights issues that should attract greater effort on the part of Canadian diplomats and civil society might include: • deepening the international community’s commitment to the broad framework of economic, social and cultural rights (especially the right to development); • broadening acceptance a more robust and consistent implementation of self-determination rights; • sustaining recent efforts to strengthen rights and state responsibilities with respect to children in armed conflict; gender rights issues; indigenous people’s rights. Democratization The decade of the 1990s witnessed a widening acceptance around the world of the desirability of democratic forms of governance. In the first half of the decade the number of states governed in accordance with accepted norms of democratic practice increased. However, in recent years the trend has reached a plateau. Furthermore, many new or renewed democracies need to take additional steps to consolidate democratic practice and the rule of law. Active Canadian assistance to help others adopt and entrench democratic and good governance norms is an excellent investment in a more stable and peaceful world order for the future. This can be pursued bilaterally as well as through multilateral forums. Some of the multilateral networks through which Canada could further democratization efforts have experienced difficulties in recent years. The U.S.-led Community of Democracies has not made great headway. The Commonwealth has experienced recent setbacks (Pakistan, Zimbabwe). Nevertheless, the effort needs to be made. Canada should expand efforts to promote and assist others in the practice of democracy, good governance and the rule of law. An often neglected aspect of promotion of democracy internationally is the need to democratize international organizations. Many multilateral organizations have taken on growing mandates and competences, responsibilities which often encroach directly on what were formerly areas of national jurisdiction. Yet, as governance becomes more global, there is a reluctance to make the institutions of global governance more democratically accountable and transparent. There is an obligation on the part of states, like Canada, which practice democracy at home to take the lead in promoting democratization internationally. There are of course real limits to the extent to which international organizations can be "democratized." These organizations were formed on the basis of treaties, international contracts among sovereign nation-states. One cannot simply apply internationally the norms of democratic practice which are common within states. Nevertheless, there are pragmatic strategies which can and should be pursued to enhance the democratic accountability of international governance. Four elements of such a strategy are: • support increased participation and access rights for civil society organizations at meetings of international organizations and at international conferences; • support a growing role for parliamentarians in the work of international organizations through creation and strengthening of parliamentary assemblies and other oversight forums; • promote increased transparency in the day-to-day work of international organizations, including initiatives to de-restrict and make available international documents and provide regular access for media representatives; • making greater effort to ensure "system-wide coherence" the frequently promised and too-often-neglected admonition to clarify the division of labour among the numerous international agencies with overlapping mandates and responsibilities. Institution-building Since the time of the founding of the United Nations, Canada has had a prominent role in the constructive development of global institutions. This is part of our vocation as a diverse, multicultural people committed to the rule of law at home. It is also a matter of raw national interest; as a middle power Canada's influence is best advanced through the diplomatic channels provided by international institutions. Canada's constructive institution-building is needed now more than ever. There are times when this requires strong diplomatic investment in ongoing negotiations. And there are other occasions when one can "do good by stealth;" changing the rules or practices of existing organizations in order that they become more effective. Strategies will vary as circumstances change. Too often, Canadian interventions within international institutions get bogged down in the day-to-day, year-to-year rush of preparing and delivering the Canadian position. We need to ask more frequently whether the institutions themselves are working. Are they meeting current global governance challenges? Canada should enhance its capacity to critically assess and improve the functioning and capacity of international organizations. Since the end of the Cold War, the broad trend has been toward investment in institutional renovation for the Bretton Woods institutions, while the role of the "United Nations System" has been diminished. This trend needs to be reversed. The recent controversy over the illegal intervention in Iraq has drawn world attention to the UN and caused some to wonder whether the UN will be increasingly marginalized in the future. However, neglect by member states of their UN obligations is not a recent phenomenon. We recall the persistent (and still ongoing) under-funding of the UN, not only by the United States, which has played a role in the diminution of the organization's role at a time in world history when the UN's legal and diplomatic toolbox should be growing. The UN has a "primary responsibility" to maintain international peace and security. But there is concern also that the UN could and should be doing more to bring about (as the Charter puts it) the "economic and social advancement of all peoples." The UN is the world's only universal political body; the Bretton Woods institutions on the other hand are structured to disproportionately reflect the interests of wealthy northern states. It is simply not legitimate that our present framework of global economic governance does not accord the United Nations a primary policy-setting role. The range of initiatives which could be considered to improve global economic governance are too numerous and specific for the present context, i.e. a discussion of broad policy directions. As a point of reference, one could hardly do better than to take note of Secretary-General Annan's Millennium Development Goals. Is the world’s institutional machinery equipped to achieve these goals? If not, what has to change? The World Federalist Movement - Canada is a member of the Canadian Council for International cooperation. We contributed to and fully support the CCIC's recent comprehensive set of recommendations entitled "Crossroads at Cancun: Setting out a Development Path for Canada." Canada can and should do more to ensure that the international trade regime, and the Doha Round of negotiations in particular, makes a significant contribution to advancing sustainable development for the world’s poor. Peace and security Central to any discussion of the need to refurbish the architecture of global governance are questions of international peace and security. What are the best means to prevent conflict, to respond to threats to peace and security and to rebuild communities in the aftermath of armed conflict. We have made a detailed submission to the review of Canadian policy undertaken by the Department of National Defence. Nevertheless, any government’s defence effort should support and follow broad foreign policy objectives. Therefore some of our comments made to the DND review are worth recalling here, as we consider within a foreign policy context the appropriate shape and purpose of Canada’s military. We are very concerned that Canada’s contributions to multilateral UN peace operations have decreased. Whereas Canadians acquired a hard-earned reputation for being at the forefront of UN peacekeeping, the recent contribution level of approximately 200 Canadian Forces personnel ranks us in the mid-thirties globally. Canada can and should do more to share in policing a disorderly and violent world. We are also concerned that a disproportionate number of Canadians deployed abroad are serving under a NATO, not a UN umbrella. The UN has come a long way in implementing the recommendations of the Brahimi report and is well equipped to play a larger role in managing complex peace operations. The recent trend toward governments using the UN to do little more than rubber stamp often poorly defined peace operations undertaken by “coalitions of the willing” should also be reversed. Canada’s defence policy should accord a much higher priority to participation in peace operations. Canada’s increased contribution to peace operations should occur through the auspices of the United Nations. Canada should renew efforts, undertaken in the mid-nineties, to provide the UN with a rapid reaction capability. In addition to these recommendations for Canadian military deployments, Canada’s arms control and disarmament policy faces critical choices in the near future. Canada should maintain the centrality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a cornerstone of its arms control efforts. In particular, Canada should use the NPT review process to encourage the nuclear powers to provide timelines for meeting their NPT Article VI obligations. The government of Canada should not contribute to efforts to develop ballistic missile defence systems. Conclusion This submission to Canada’s Dialogue on Foreign Policy has focused on policy frameworks; on the thematic underpinnings which can provide intellectual, legal, and institutional coherence to the day-to-day implementation of policy decisions. Our recommendations serve the over-arching priority, now widely shared, to adapt Canadian foreign policy to the demands of an interdependent, globalizing world. These demands speak to the need to promote the rule of law, to civilize international relations and to make the construction of global community and democratically accountable institutions an overt and overriding priority for Canada. We look forward to this summer’s response from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and to continuing to work with DFAIT officials in carrying forward many of the specific initiatives subsumed within these Canadian foreign policy and global governance thematics. WORLD FEDERALIST MOVEMENT – CANADA |