Seat on UN Security Council is still valuable

Canada could make a positive contribution during rise of xenophobia, ambassador says

OTTAWA— When the Liberals made the bid for a seat at the United Nations Security Council one of their top international priorities, they probably didn’t foresee the wave of isolationism and populism ready to sweep over the United States and Europe in 2016.

But there’s still value in winning access to the UN’s premier forum for international politics, experts say, even in a time of mistrust in multilateral institutions.

The Liberals will announce early next year where in Africa they intend to send a new peacekeeping team of up to 600 Canadian Forces members and 150 police officers. The mission — or missions — will cost upwards of $450 million and could expose Canadian soldiers to the most direct risk they’ve seen since the war in Afghanistan. The move is seen, at least in part, as a way to bolster Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s goal of getting Canada back to the Security Council in 2019-20. But Roland Paris, an international relations professor at the University of Ottawa and former adviser to the Liberal government, warned against that interpretation.

“There are good reasons for Canada to re-engage in peace operations that are separate from Canada’s campaign for a Security Council seat,” Paris said in an interview.

“Obviously, re-engaging in peace operations would enhance our Security Council campaign, but you need to look at these things separately.”

Canada has held a non-permanent seat on the Security Council six times since the 1940s — once every decade since the UN was formed, except for the 2000s. Under the previous Conservative government, Canada lost its bid to rejoin the council in 2010 to Portugal. The loss was seen as a rebuke to the Conservatives’ foreign policy agenda, including their full-throated support for Israel and stepping back from foreign aid programs.

The Liberals, for their part, have committed to a rethink of the country’s foreign aid, as well as a wideranging review into Canada’s defence policy. Marc-André Blanchard, Canada’s ambassador to the UN, told The Canadian Press in June that both policy reviews are directly connected to the Liberals’ Security Council ambitions.

“The rise of xenophobia, the rise of division, the rise of mistrust — we think that the Canadian experience is very valuable to bring a very positive, inclusive solution to these challenges,” Blanchard said at the time.

The ambassador was not available for an interview for this article.

But in the face of that “rise of xenophobia” and “division,” along with politicians promising isolationism in the United States and Britain, is a seat at the Security Council still worth it? Stephanie Carvin, a national security researcher at Carleton University, said it depends on what foreign policy goals Canada is hoping to advance.

“This is part of the problem. The government has yet to articulate why it wants a seat,” Carvin said.

“Is the UN still a valuable institution in the face of all the global problems that we’re seeing? Absolutely. Is the UN Security Council going to be able to act in ways that effectively solve a lot of the problems we’re seeing? Probably not.”

Paris dismissed the idea that animosity between permanent members like Russia, China and the U.S. diminishes the importance of gaining a seat at the table.

“The bottom line is that the Security Council remains the most important forum for international politics in the world . . . That was true during the Cold War, that was true after the Cold War and it remains true today,” Paris said.

“The fact that some countries are pursuing their own interests is nothing new . . . And the shifting character of the domestic politics and foreign policy priorities of the permanent members of the Security Council doesn’t change the fact that they will continue to be interacting at the council, and they will continue to conduct their foreign policies.”