Canada & the UN >  Canada on the Security Council (1999-2000)

Canada and the Security Council: Options and Opportunities

UN Security Council: An Overview
Presentation: Prof. Harald von Riekhoff, Carleton University

The seminar began with greetings from Harry Qualman, Executive Director of UNA-Canada, and Patricia Lortie, Director General of the International Organizations Bureau, DFAIT. Ms. Lortie prefaced the discussions by reminding participants of the three main elements of Canada’s agenda for the UN Security Council: increased Council transparency and accountability; the reassertion of the Council’s leadership and credibility; and the promotion of human security in light of the changing nature of threats in the post-Cold War era.

In his overview of the Security Council, Prof. Harald von Riekhoff stated flatly that Canada would probably fall significantly short of achieving many of the goals outlined in its extraordinarily specific "election platform", which was premised on the three themes outlined above.

In assessing the prospects of the Canadian agenda, Prof. von Riekhoff emphasized the key trends which have impacted on the character of the Security Council since the end of the Cold War. Procedurally, the most significant innovation has been the shift away from formal meetings and towards informal consultations among Council members, and particularly among the Council’s permanent five members (P-5). This strategy originated as a means for the Council to deal with a dramatic increase in its workload. However, as later speakers noted, the efficiency engendered by this approach has carried a high cost in terms of transparency and credibility.

The Council has also shown a marked increase in its willingness to delegate tasks to regional organizations. Prof. von Riekhoff saw nothing improper in this trend, and argued that Canada should encourage this sort of "division of labour". Later speakers disagreed, however, noting that regional organizations often lack the material and organizational capacity -- and the requisite political will -- to carry out Security Council mandates in a timely and effective manner.

Substantively, the Council has demonstrated a willingness to innovate in three main areas. First, in response to the increased need for action in the face of intra-state conflict, it has authorized a

large number of peace-support operations which are complex both in terms of their scope and their substance (which may include election- and human rights monitoring, peace-making, and relief support efforts, as well as traditional peace-keeping activities.) Secondly, in resolutions authorizing the imposition of sanctions and the use of force by the UN or its member states, the Council has been more willing to use the language -- and in some cases, the authority -- of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Finally, in an effort to promote the sense of justice and closure that is necessary for post-conflict reconstruction, the Council has implemented new legal mechanisms such as the war crimes tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Despite these innovations, the Council has become somewhat reticent in the wake of its failures in Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda. In order to effectively promote its goals in this new climate, Prof. von Riekhoff argued, Canada will need to engage in its familiar task of coalition-building. It will also need to encourage the U.S. to act in concert with the Council, rather than unilaterally.

These tactics notwithstanding, Canada will likely find it difficult to persuade Council members to adopt human security as a guiding paradigm of that body. This is due primarily to the fact that developing states are under-represented on the Council, while the P-5 are ever more reluctant to commit to costly initiatives which they perceive as potential threats to the guiding paradigm of state sovereignty.

Prof. von Riekhoff did note that progress has already been achieved in making the Council more transparent, and that Canada could facilitate further progress in this area. However, he argued that the key issue is not transparency per se, but rather, access to Security Council deliberations. In this regard, he suggested that the Council should be encouraged to take account of the opinions of troop-contributing states on relevant issues, to seek and utilize professional military advice in planning and implementing peace operations, and to liaise more effectively with NGOs involved in relief and peace-building efforts. In addition, he called for more detailed reports by the Council presidents, and urged that the Council be required periodically to justify its actions in a public forum. Finally, he called for the creation of an inspector-general who would monitor and report on the success or failure of Council-mandated operations.