From Nov. 01, 2004 To Dec. 03, 2004

The Renewing Multilateral Institutions eDiscussion is now closed. A summary and departmental response have been posted. View the eDiscussion resources.

Discussion Synopsis

From November 1 to December 3, 2004, Canadians were invited to share their thoughts through the Canadian International Policy site on the reform of multilateral institutions and the policy direction Canada should take in this regard.

Most participants agreed that Canada should play a leading role in promoting a rules-based system and that the key goal of reforms should be an enhanced capacity of institutions such as the UN to respond quickly and decisively to emerging crises. In addition, several respondents referred to the need to revive the legitimacy of multilateral institutions, though, as expressed below, their prescriptions for doing so were varied... READ COMPLETE SUMMARY

Foreign Affairs Reply to Summary

Over the past few weeks policy makers within Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC) have reviewed statements made by Canadians during the eDiscussion on the renewal of multilateral institutions. | READ RESPONSE

Discussion

Tony Georges Lebrun - December 4, 2004 EST (#20 of 20)
Comme on peut le remarquer maintenant, le Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU et le Secrétariat lui-même sont dans iun état de ésuètude. On se demande alors, à qui confier nos missions internationales? Aujourd'hui, le Canada doit faire preuve d'Autorité et de Confiance aux regards des autres afin de ne pas continuer le jeu de l'autruche. Tous les pays sont des grands pays', il n'y a pas de petits pays en polique. Ils ont les mêmes forces de voix en matière de votes, sauf, si ils ont accepté des pots-de-vins pour leurs votes. L'ONU est dans un très mauvais état de fonctionnement, face aux allégations multiples qui plannent sur cette organisation: fraude, escroquerie, partisannerie, détournement de fonds, détournement des aides internationales, et plus près, l'ffaire du fils de Kofi Annan.... Le Canada, doit montrer aux institutions internationales que l'heure du changement est arrivé, et porter avec le support des pays qui sont pour le changement et le renforcement de ces institutions. Le Canada possède de bons Théoriciens, expérimentés, qui puissent apporter une étude sérieuse et importante pour un grand renforcement des institutions multilatérales. L'exemple des problèmes d'Haiti, qui se trouve à 3hres 45mn du canada en est une preuve tangible, que ces institutions ont failli plus de 16 fois à leurs missions afin de trouver une solution durable pour ce pays qui est confronté à une nouvelle forme de terrorisme, dont les auteurs sont tolérés par la communauté internationale.

Karl Henriques - December 3, 2004 EST (#19 of 20)
Topic : Renewing Multilateral Institutions

A Willing and Able Opportunity Structure for Renewing Multilateral Institutions:
A Deepened, Values-Sharing Canada-EU Strategic Partnership
Dr. Karl A. Henriques

Given the current instability and unpredictability in multilateral economic and political affairs, not always helped in the eyes of many by the foreign policy choices of particular American administrations, perhaps the predominant Canadian strategic objective must be to deepen additional partnerships with willing and able actors similarly oriented towards improving multilateral institutions. The ability to have more than one economic and political option available in decision-making is perhaps *the* prerequisite for greater rule over one's strong policy preferences. While the idea of creating options --particularly the European option-- for our foreign policy is certainly not new, what is worth seriously reflecting on is the extent to which Europe is becoming a willing and able global facilitator for renewing multilateral institutions.

For while some often histrionic events are captivating a majority of the world's attention, with far less drama, an economically, politically and culturally reinvigorated Europe is emerging as a major geopolitical and geoeconomic presence. A major reason for the European Union's (EU) both deep and broad reconstruction stems from its May 1, 2004 enlargement from 15 to 25 member states (MSs), and, only one month later, the unanimous agreement reached by the political leaders of all 25 MSs to Europe's first, and uniquely comprehensive, value-based, and yet no-nonsense European Constitution.

Already back in 1996, a Canadian Standing Senate Committee had taken note that, no longer content to remain 'an economic giant but a political dwarf,' the [European Union has] set out boldly to remodel its political structure (Standing Senate Committee 1996). Since then the EU has made far more profound reforms. The newly constitutionalized European architecture provides clearer norms to actors, as well as major new political institutions, relationships, and decision-making mechanisms to help determine the internal and external policy direction of the EU.

This politically strengthened, constitutionalized Europe has strongly entrenched norms and institutions oriented towards promoting multilateral institutions. And the new European constellation has a decided inclination for closer cooperation with Canada as a values-sharing, strategic and rule-promoting international partner. (An illustration of the considerable interest and ability of Europe to work closer with Canada is seen in the most recent political and economic agreements signed on March 18, 2004 between Canada and the EU.) The most important of these shared values is a much stronger emphasis on the use of multilateral, non-coercive and negotiable, over more unilateral, bilateral, coercive and binary foreign policy approaches to achieve international stability and justice. Both Canada and the EU have realized that they need to put even greater emphasis on this approach to international political and economic affairs and conflict resolution than in the past because the world is more interdependent, heterogeneous, complex, and prone to disagreements and fragmentation. They have also realized that the most important means by which small-, medium-, or even large global actors can at least come to some sort of resolution to such conflicts is through a greater reliance on a legitimately determined set of binding procedures and rules.

In the past 25 years there has been an increased will and ability, and consequent specific actions by the EU to proceed with this agenda of enhancing the binding nature of rules-based systems in international, multilateral, and bilateral agreements. Canada could be a very crucial ally to the EU to help strengthen a more comprehensive and coherent open, deliberative, values and rules-based system at various levels of governance. In a complementary manner, the European Union could also help enhance Canada's ability to improve the legitimacy and workings of such systems, as well as achieve its national objectives by increasing Canada's own economic and political options.

While Canada is not a foremost economic or military actor, Europe knows that Canada is far from being a minor international presence and power. Partnering more closely with the EU --without taking a reckless or disrespectful approach towards our good and important American neighbours-- could significantly increase our capacity to promote various international and multilateral institutions.

Canadian policy-framers seriously interested in further promoting multilateral institutions may have a great deal to gain through such European interest in Canada and, consequently, may wish to much better understand the character and implications of this 'new Europe'. As a middle-power on the world stage, but living beside the world's only superpower, the predominant strategic objective for Canadian foreign policy may be to deepen (an)other set of interests- and values-based economic and political partnership options. For the basis of any degree of self-determination of one's political and economic future relies on having more than one major partner/option.

Furthermore, becoming a closer, values-sharing, economic (perhaps especially in terms of investment) and political partner with the European Union could be an extremely helpful means to encourage, and even judiciously pressure various American administrations to (re)integrate themselves into a more constructivist, rules-bound, multilateral framework. Such closer ties between Canada and the EU would strengthen Canada's international and even regional negotiating status in much the same way that Canada has traditionally been strengthened internationally due to its understandably close ties and alliances with its US neighbour.

York University - December 3, 2004 EST (#18 of 20)
RENEWING MULTILATERAL INSTRUMENTS:
CANADA AND PEACEKEEPING

By:

KRISTI PLASTINO
M. DERYA TARHAN
SHERISSE RICHARDSM
BROOKE GIBBONS

INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
York University
ILST 2920 6.0

Peacekeeping is deeply entrenched in Canadian culture, and what it means to be Canadian. Even so, it is difficult in this day and age to maintain this ideology because of the constant world conflict. It is because of this conflict that we, as Canadians, need to support peacekeeping and the United Nations in peacekeeping efforts. This makes it poignant for Canadians to take aggressive action towards building and maintaining peace throughout the world. As a result of our current world situation, this foreign policy paper will take a broad look at how Canadians can adjust our foreign policy to make peacekeeping better and improve Canada?s relations to the United Nations. We will do so by analyzing different aspects of peacekeeping, and what Canada brings to the peacekeeping table.

Read the complete paper here - PDF Format

Karina Hanganu - December 3, 2004 EST (#17 of 20)
The UN lies at the heart of any discussions on the renewal of multilateral institutions. Indeed, the topic coincides with the release of the report of the High-Level Panel appointed by the UN Secretary-General to make recommendations on improving global responses to security threats. More specifically, as the primary organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council should spearhead such debates.

Calls for Council reform have largely focused on criticisms of illegitimacy, a derivation of its composition, working methods and decision-making practices. Accordingly, any reform proposals should be aimed at restoring the legitimacy of the Council in the exercise of its mandate.

Key to this is accepting that while the Council is anachronistic and unrepresentative, the belief that expansion leads to increased legitimacy is tenuous and inherently wrought with difficulties. The Secretary-General once noted that "It is possible to have a Council that is small, that is also representative and thus has also greater legitimacy" (Annan Calls for Legitimacy in Security Council, Reuters, July 22, 1998). What matters is that its resolutions have the approval of the international community. This can obtain in many ways.

For example, change could be made to the nonpermanent membership selection process to allow all states eventual terms on the Council and the latter to better reflect the international community. Existing requirements under Article 23 and geographic distribution favor the resourceful giving rise to uneven representation as some states have served numerous Council terms while others have yet to be elected. A new system dictated by alphabetic rotation coupled with geographic grouping criteria can remedy such a deficit. More importantly, this proposal does not necessitate Charter amendments. The requirement of equitable geographic distribution originated from a General Assembly resolution. Nor is alphabetic rotation foreign to the Council being the method under which it elects its president.

The Council's working methods could also be democratized and popularized with a view to making the Council more inclusive and reflective of the UN membership. Transparency of its working methods serves the added benefit of assuaging criticisms of exclusivity ensuring the legitimacy of its actions and the confidence of UN members. This simply requires greater adherence to Charter provisions and the Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure pertaining to the openness of its proceedings, the participation of non-Council members in its meetings, the Arria Formula and the availability of Council documentation. While progress has been made, more work is needed in this regard.

In addition, the consistency of its actions and the primacy of the rule of law in its decisions could be better ensured. The report of the High-Level Panel recommends imbedding in the practice of the Council principles guiding how its authority should be exercised. This includes the satisfaction of criteria of legitimacy when considering authorizing the use of Chapter VII military force. With decisions taken based on principles regarded as legitimate, Council unanimity becomes easier to obtain as does international support for its decisions.

Similarly, the Council could be held to account when the legitimacy of its actions is being questioned. This can take the form of judicial review of its decisions by the International Court of Justice as well as resort to the General Assembly Uniting for Peace resolution. The Court has already challenged the supremacy of the Council in the maintenance of international peace and security and, in the two most recent resolutions adopted under its 10th emergency special session, the General Assembly has followed suit. Such measures of accountability could, when established as normal practice, suffice in prompting the Council to legitimately exercise its mandate.

The legitimacy is the Council is a function of the rules, instruments and institutions of multilateralism. Accordingly, the successes of Council reform will be measured by international commitment to the principles of multilateralism and a firm belief in the indispensability of the UN.

Karina Hanganu

Shameza Abdulla - December 2, 2004 EST (#16 of 20)
Canada is indeed a member of the bulk of multilateral institutions in the world. Some of which are better at achieving greater cooperation, harmonization of policies and a better degree of flexibility than others (e.g. OECD vs. UN). As a Canadian who has worked internationally, what is reflected from Canada's participation in many of these multilateral institutions is a need for greater robustness and timely response to concerns or crises. While it is important for Canada to continue to work in cooperation with other countries in the frameworks established by these multilateral institutions in order to improve the quality of participation and policies implemented so they achieve the intended results, Canada should look to other ways/means of multilateral engagement for it to achieve its own short-term and perhaps, long-term foreign policy goals. I point to the fact that there are multilateral initiatives to for Canada to better engage with other countries in order to achieve short and long term foreign policy goals. Initiatives that allow issue based harmonization which is less restrictive and conflicting. One example is the Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative (GHD) where concrete steps towards harmonization of donor policies towards funding and response to Humanitarian crises are in the process of being taken. It should be noted that Canada is the lead country on this initiative. The movement towards a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) is another example. Even though it is currently under the auspices of OAS, it is a multilateral initiative that has already identified common trade objectives, policy concerns and ways forward to take the partnership of the OAS to another level of greater economic integration. How the FTAA develops will perhaps determine the lifespan of the OAS; if it will be reformed or need to be reborn with a new name and function.
On issues concerning security it is a bit more difficult to concretely say what can be done, but Canada already identified a multilateral initiative it did not support: the war in Iraq is a case in point. Canada must continue to identify multilateral initiatives that are timely and concrete in this realm on a case by case basis for achieving short-term foreign policy objectives while working with the UN for long-term reforms on how to better respond to crises. We should also look at strengthening policies identified as being key to multilateral initiatives such as the war on terrorism and addressing the crises in Sudan just to name a few, that can be done in a timely and responsible manner to achieve intended results. In short, We need to look at taking on new multilateral partnerships that are issue oriented rather than institutionally based.