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

Presentation II - Canada on the Security Council

- Review of the First Year: Expectations and Reality
Ambassador Michel Duval, Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada to the UN

Mr. Duval brought to the seminar the benefit of his personal experience of Canada’s first year on the Council. Like Mr. Paul, he cited the disillusionment within the international community in the early 1990s over the UN’s apparent inability to react in a meaningful way to a deteriorating security environment. When Canada prepared its bid for election to the Council four years ago, he said, its primary concern was the erosion of Security Council credibility, inside and outside the UN, and the way in which this erosion affected the maintenance of international peace and security.

The problem was highlighted by several incidents. Following the failure of the UN mission in Somalia, the Security Council hesitated to mandate new peace support operations for fear that the same mistakes would be made. When coercive measures, often sanctions, were decided by the Council, they were more often to maintain appearances rather than as a move intended to bring about tangible results. It was also becoming clear that many countries were not respecting Security Council decisions. The most damaging example of this was the Organization of African Unity’s directive to its members to disobey Council decisions on sanctions against Libya. Canada felt that it had to react, at many levels, since its election campaign had focused on Council credibility, human security, and the promotion of Canadian values in the international arena.

Ambassador Duval pointed to important changes that have taken place recently. Elected members of the Security Council, like Sweden, Portugal, and Slovenia, have been able to initiate new processes that have led to monthly public meetings, Security Council consideration of such issues as landmines and child soldiers, and the introduction of the practice of informing UN member states of Security Council activities. The continuation of these processes has been a Canadian priority.

In Canada’s view, the enforcement of Security Council resolutions is most likely to be brought about by encouraging a widening of the Council’s mandate and greater inclusiveness through transparency in decision-making. Most pressing is the broadening of the definition of threats to international peace and security. There is at present a maximalist/minimalist divide within the Security Council that reflects the differing interpretations of those threats. China, Russia, and many developing countries favour a minimalist interpretation that they perceive to be in keeping with respect for sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention contained in the UN Charter. Maximalists, like Canada, wish to broaden the concept to include not just conflict between states or threats to the security of states, but to encompass intra-state conflict and human security as well.

Canada’s first Presidency, in February 1999, had as its theme “The Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict.” An open debate was organized, a Presidential declaration negotiated and adopted, and recommendations were introduced into Resolution 1265. The Canadian delegation is currently working from a list of objectives to guide the Council when examining particular cases and is attempting to secure an annual report from the Secretary-General on the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

Transparency was addressed during Canada’s Presidency as well. Believing that information should be available to all members of the UN, not just Council members, Canada promoted such methods as reporting back to Member States after each informal meeting of the Council, distributing declaration texts to Member States, increasing the number of open Council meetings, giving non-members the opportunity to speak, and publishing monthly programmes of work on the World Wide Web. Many of these measures were included in a President’s note in December 1999 and are becoming standard practice. The progress made could be seen in the case of East Timor, when the old standard was reversed and the Security Council exhibited improved function and established a dialogue with all the local authorities and parties involved.

Ambassador Duval pointed out that the results of these efforts at reform are clearly seen. In January 1999, he noted, Brazil had to fight hard to have the Permanent five accept one public meeting. By January 2000, under the United States Presidency, the Council held several public meetings, not just on thematic questions, but on multi-faceted issues like Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well.

He also argued that if the Council’s decisions are perceived to be logical, realistic, and progressive, they are more likely to be respected. Three examples were provided to demonstrate the way in which Canada has worked over the past year to encourage more coherent Council decisions by promoting Canadian values: Iraq, Sierra Leone, and Angola. In the case of Iraq, Canada proposed the creation of panels for the analysis of all the information that was overwhelming the Security Council. The reports of these panels helped to break the impasse reached in the Council. In addition, Canada led an effort to formulate firm and realistic rules for disarmament which opened the door to the eventual suspension of the sanctions.

In the case of Sierra Leone, Canada advocated a clear Chapter VII mandate that would include the protection of civilians and a more robust mission under the sole command of the UN. Canada has insisted against a hybrid UN/multinational force (“coalition of the willing”) in part because of the disjuncture between planning and execution of such missions and the follow-on activities of the UN.

In the case of sanctions against Angola, Canada worked to establish a panel of experts that will report to the Sanctions Committee, promoted a presidential presence in the region for the verification of testimonials, and looked to model best practices for the Committee.

Concluding his remarks, Ambassador Duval reiterated that Canada’s prime objective is to increase Security Council credibility and that progress has been made in that direction. It is now up to Canada to consolidate this progress in its second year on the Council. It must continue to develop existing initiatives and be consistent in its approach. Despite problems over the past year, such as NATO’s intervention in Kosovo without Security Council approval and the uneven impact of sanctions, the Security Council of January 2000 is very different from the Security Council of January 1999. Canada never had the illusion that it could initiate spectacular reform, but it is important that Canada maintain its determination, and ensure that when its mandate is over, the countries that take its place will follow in the same vein.