Liaison Newsletter > LIAISON Vol. 1, No. 4, July 1997 - Articles

« Return to Liaison Vol. 1, No. 4 Index

Canadian Priorities at the United Nations
Canadian Ambassador to the UN, Robert Fowler, speaks out

Few Canadians have as much authority to speak about the transitions going on at the United Nations as Robert Fowler. Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations since January 3, 1995, Mr. Fowler is familiar with its achievements, highlighted by the fiftieth anniversary celebrations in 1995, and its shortcomings, illustrated by the series of reforms that have come to characterize the organization’s life in the ‘90s. Speaking in Toronto at UNA-Canada’s Annual General Meeting, Mr. Fowler focused his key-note address on outlining three Canadian priorities that will prepare the way for a more representative, effective and accountable Organization in the coming millennium. Speaking in Toronto at UNA-Canada’s Annual General Meeting, Mr. Fowler focused his key-note address on outlining three Canadian priorities that will prepare the way for a more representative, effective and accountable Organization in the coming millennium.

Canada’s Ambassador, Mr. Robert Fowler (Photo: Michael Bedford)

The foremost priority was rapprochement between the United States and the UN. While complimenting the strong role that UNA-Canada has played in strengthening support for the UN within Canada, Ambassador Fowler was careful to note that such support is far from universal. Unlike Canada, where the June election campaigns made little reference to the United Nations, the Media and politicians in the United States have focused harsh criticism on the United Nations.

But rapprochement remains crucial, asserted Mr. Fowler, for both the UN and the US. It is clear that political and economic realities have ensured that it would be very difficult for the UN to survive without the key involvement of the United States. American Ambassador to the UN, Mr. Bill Richardson, has recently argued before the US House of Representatives that the UN not only remains useful to the US, but that it is important that the US remain engaged in it.

Mr. Fowler cited two reasons why the continued involvement of the US in the UN remains essential for both parties. Firstly, he said that the existence of the UN reduces the risk that the US, as the sole remaining superpower, would be asked to act as the world’s policeman. By ignoring this positive aspect of their relationship with the UN, the US is missing out on an opportunity that could potentially play to its advantage.

Secondly, while the US Congress has agreed that US$819 million of the US$1.3 billion that they owe, be paid over the next three years, Mr. Fowler argued that the conditions attached to the payment threaten to damage US interests within the UN, its credibility (from continually deferring payment on its arrears), as well as its relationship with other countries. American conditions include being allowed to default on the remaining portion of the US$1.3 billion they owe (without being made subject to Article 19 of the Charter, which, eventually, would cause them to lose their General Assembly vote); that their standard yearly assessment—25% of the regular UN budget—be initially reduced to 22%, and then 20% by the year 2000; that all UN Diplomats pay their New York parking fines or risk having their aid reduced; that the US, uniquely, be granted a permanent seat on the UN’s budgetary committee; and that the US proceed through its General Accounting Office, to audit UN programmes.

These supplemental demands come at a time when Secretary General, Kofi Annan, is already constructing a comprehensive programme of reform for release on July 16th. The effective implementation of a such a programme could be compromised by US intransigence.

Mr. Fowler sees strong Canadian participation in this reform process as a second key priority for Canada.

Among the key areas of focus for Canada will be the establishment of a more equitable and representative Security Council. For its part, Canada is pushing for an expanded Security Council that reflects both the increase in the UN’s membership and the geographical diversity of the UN’s Members, and that takes into account "the contribution of (some) Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to other purposes of the Organization" (Article 23, UN Charter). Mr. Fowler suggested that a Council of about 23 would meet these requirements without necessarily compromising its ability to make effective decisions

Equally contentious is the question of permanent versus non-permanent membership, but Mr. Fowler made it clear that Canada, like many other countries, would not support any of the plans under consideration that would increase the number of permanent seats on the Council.

As for the current use of the veto, Canada believes that its use should be constrained to Chapter VII issues which pose "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression (...)". He also acknowledged that reform of the Council is apt to proceed slowly, given the power of some of its members to veto any plans that reduce any of their current authority.

As a regular contributor to peacekeeping missions, but often with little influence in the Security Council debates that put those troops on the ground, Canada is interested in developing a procedure that would increase the ability of non-members to participate in and influence the Council’s actions.

Mr. Fowler admitted that Canada’s preoccupation in seeking a more equitable and representative Security Council coincides with the Permanent Mission’s third Canadian priority—Canada’s bid for a sixth two year term on the Security Council, from 1999-2000. Canada is competing against Greece and the Netherlands for two of the non-permanent seats in the regional "Western European and other Group". The fact that Canada has held a two-year tenure every ten years since the UN’s inception, is unfortunately no guarantee that it will win one again in 1999—made all the more uncertain by a General Assembly that has doubled since the 1960s, and all the more apparent by Australia’s failed bid last year and Sweden’s failure four years ago.

Canada is also competing against a European Union that is able to wield an increasing number of votes and imposing a stricter voting discipline in favour of EU candidates. Mr. Fowler felt it would be a shame if such reflex voting were to characterize future elections to the Council, something that would also be detrimental to our relationship with our European partners.

Fowler argued, however, that Canada stands a good chance, given, among other reasons, our consistent support of the UN, our participation in a variety of international bodies, our demographic diversity and our non-colonial past. With the defeat of Australia last year, it is also easier to argue that it is now the turn of a non-European in the regional grouping to take a Council seat. "Canada", said Ambassador Fowler, "has the credibility, capacity and global influence to make a difference in the Security Council’s deliberations".

Ambassador Fowler concluded that, as our world becomes more fractious and divided, the faith that we as Canadians place in a reforming United Nations is well-merited.