Mondial December 2013

In this issue: UNPA gaining traction

Corporate abuses abroad MDGs after 2015 R2P still growing

3 6 9 11

Published in Canada by the World Federalists, a non-profit organization that advocates more just and effective global governance through the application of the principles of democratic federalism to world affairs.

D

E C E M B E R

2013

United Nations and Canada: What Canada has done and should be doing at the UN

WFMC’s national office has moved. The new address is on pages 3 and 16.

“…when it comes to the United Nations, Canada just isn’t in the game anymore.”

The launch by WFM–Canada in September 2013 of the project on “The United Nations and Canada: What Canada has done and should be doing at the UN” has led to an important change in Canadian politics and reporting on international issues.

Prior to this fall, there had been reports here and there documenting particular episodes of Canada’s lack of engagement on global issues; for example, withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, our failure to get elected to the UN Security Council, an unbalanced Middle East policy, or neglect of UN peacekeeping.

Now, extensive reporting on Canada’s actions and disdain for the UN has been brought into the mainstream. The UN and Canada project helped crystallize for Canadians the realization that there is a fundamentally different worldview driving Canadian policy under this government, one which is markedly different than the pro-UN, pro-multilateralism consensus that has underpinned Canadian policies since the end of the Second World War. The project included two main elements: (1) a book of 17 essays by recognized experts, combined

with (2) a sustained media strategy at the time of Canada’s annual address to the UN General Assembly. The fact that Stephen Harper travelled to New York but chose, once again, not to give Canada’s speech at the Assembly, was noticed back home. The 17 essays, focused on a range of international issues, provided depth and credibility; their content was widely reported and has lead to a new understanding: when it comes to the United Nations, Canada just isn’t in the game anymore.

See “UN-Canada…” page 2

Cluster munitions bill: Worse than no bill at all Tell me if you’ve heard this one before…

Canada’s recently introduced Bill C-6, “An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions” has been the subject of controversy and much media attention during hearings at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (SCFAID).

The problem is with the draft legislation’s Section 11 which

contains numerous “exceptions” to the treaty’s provisions, loopholes that would allow members of the Canadian Forces, when undertaking combined operations with armed forces of non-state parties (e.g., the United States), to engage in activities involving the use of cluster munitions.

Canadians working in combined operations would be allowed to direct activity involving cluster munitions use; authorize use while on attachment, exchange

or secondment; authorize transfer by Canadian forces; authorize assistance, aiding, abetting, conspiracy; and assist other persons in carrying out prohibited acts – precisely the types of activities the treaty is designed to outlaw.

An identical version of the Bill (S-10) was adopted earlier this year by the Senate, notwithstanding the highly critical views provided by numerous Canadian See “Foreign affairs…” page 2

2 mondial

DECEMBER 2013

Foreign affairs committee refuses to budge Continued from page 1 _________

and international experts. A statement signed by 27 international law experts presented to a Senate Committee last year by WFMC President Warren Allmand called on the government to “remove or radically revise” the offending parts (Section 11) of the draft legislation.

A cluster bomb typically contains dozens to hundreds of smaller explosive devices which can cover up to a square kilometre and are designed to disperse large numbers of submunitions over a wide area. They are notoriously inaccurate and have high failure rates, anywhere between 10 and 40 percent depending on type and battlefield conditions.

Ninety-eight per cent of all recorded casualties from cluster munitions have been civilians, most of these children.

WFM–Canada provided testimony to the SCFAID that included once again the text of the “Open Letter” from the 27 international law experts providing detailed explanations why Article 11 of Bill C-6 is an incorrect interpretation of the treaty’s Article 21.

Other states that signed the treaty, including most of Canada’s NATO allies, believe that the treaty’s Article 21 was written to allow combined operations with non-signatories as long as states parties do not knowingly participate in prohibited activities. Supporters of the treaty are calling on Canada to “fix” Bill C6, either by deleting or amending Section 11.

As the Committee’s review of C-6 came to a close, there were indications that changes were being considered but at a Decem-

ber 10 Committee meeting, amendments proposed by the opposition parties were defeated.

One amendment, offered by the government side itself, removed the word “using” from one part of the problematic Section 11.

According to WFMC Council member Robin Collins, “that was a good amendment and was supported by all sides.”

However, the remaining problem paragraphs and language were left unchanged. “The legislation still contains a series of exceptions and loopholes allowing Canadian personnel to contravene the general prohibition on use of cluster munitions,” says Collins. “The loopholes would allow Canadian personnel to engage in activities such as acquiring, possessing, importing, exporting, directing, authorizing, aiding, abetting, counseling... and use of cluster munitions. It’s all still there, contrary to the purpose of the treaty.”

The legislation will now move to third reading in the House of Commons before returning to the Senate in 2014. “It’s a good thing that opposition parties were strongly committed to opposing this Bill and eager to insist on recorded votes, indicating how important this was to them,” says Collins. “Canada’s behaviour needs to be singled out and stigmatized internationally.

According to WFMC, if revisions to C-6 are not possible, it would be better if Canada didn’t pass any implementing legislation. The Convention on Cluster Munitions, and the broader international movement to ban these inhumane weapons, would be better served if Canada were to postpone implementing legislation. Although it would be unfortunate that the treaty would not count Canada as a state party, this option would avoid the perception that Canada is undermining the treaty.

UN-Canada booklet widely distributed Continued from page 1 _________

Over a three-week period, the issue was widely reported; project spokespersons were featured in more than 40 articles, interviews, op-eds, and radio and television programs. Also, the 80-page publication has been distributed across Canada through civil society and academic networks, conferences and online.

From the outset, project coordinator John Trent ensured that the project served to educate Canadians about the UN while also reflecting the need for reforms. “While we all recognize the UN is an imperfect organization, the Harper government’s position flies in the face of the

reality that the UN is a much more reformed and effective institution than many think,” says Trent. In 2014, a critique of present government policies and a focus on UN reform will continue as the project’s main pillars.

Reprinted in this issue of Mondial are two articles from the UN and Canada publication: • Robert Fowler, one of Canada’s most successful international civil servants, offers a scathing critique of present policies. (page 5) • John Trent’s article on ReThinking the UN offers an agenda and a call for Canada to promote United Nations reform. (page 4)

“…if revisions to C-6 are not possible, it would be better if Canada didn’t pass any implementing legislation.”

DECEMBER 2013

mondial 3

UNPA campaign holds largest international meeting so far Published by the World Federalist Foundation (WFF) and the World Federalist Movement – Canada (WFMC). The World Federalist Foundation is a Revenue Canada registered charitable organization (reg. #:123998957RR0001). The World Federalist Movement – Canada is a national non-profit membership organization that advocates more just and effective global governance through the application of the principles of democratic federalism to world affairs. The WFMC President is the Hon. Warren Allmand. WFMC is a member organization of the international World Federalist Movement (WFM), which includes world federalist organizations in 24 countries around the world.

Articles that are the responsibility of the World Federalist Foundation are denoted by an

con-

cluding the article. These include “Defining development: Whoever said it was easy?” “Responsibility to protect: Growing pains… but still growing,” “Women, peace and security: How committed is Canada?” “Euro-zone crisis: finding a way out,” “Birthday gift ideas? How about a WFM donation?” and “Letter to the editor.” come. Il nous fera plaisir de publier les articles

Material is not copyrighted. Submissions are wel-

présentés en français.

ISSN number: 1488-612X

Mondial’s editorial working group: Leonard Angel Robin Collins Monique Cuillerier Karen Hamilton Donna Lindenberg Simon Rosenblum Fergus Watt Publications mail agreement No. 40011403 Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: World Federalist Movement – Canada 323 Chapel Street, Unit 110 Ottawa, ON K1N 7Z2 E-mail: wfcnat@web.ca Web site: worldfederalistscanada.org

The fifth international conference on a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, held in the European Parliament in Brussels October 16–17, called on the United Nations and the international community to make democratic participation a key element of the Post-2015 development agenda. The conference, with than more 70 participants from about 30 countries, was the largest and most successful international meeting since the UNPA campaign was launched in 2007.

In a final declaration, participants unanimously expressed concern that “no adequate measures have been taken to address the democratic deficit of global governance in general and of the United Nations in particular.”

The conference suggested that “a global democratic body of elected representatives” should be established “to bring global governance in the pursuit of post-2015 development goals” closer to the world’s citizens.

The declaration also built on the growing worldwide movement for democratic governance.

“The universality of human rights and the necessity of a democratic basis for legitimate governance are widely acknowledged. Yet, far too many people are denied their human rights and democratic participation. We are convinced that a UNPA as a global democratic body of elected representatives would strengthen the practice of democratic governance and fulfillment of human rights…. Conversely, we believe that excluding democratic principles and participation from glob-

al governance undermines democracy at the regional, national, and local levels.”

Speakers at the Brussels conference included members of the European Parliament’s four largest political groups (the European People’s Party, Socialists and Democrats, the Greens, and the liberal ALDE group) as well as UNPA campaign representatives, international lawyers and United Nations officials.

The President of the European Parliament, Martin Schultz, noted that the European Parliament was the first parliamentary body in the world to endorse the proposal for a UNPA. Most recently, in a 2011 resolution, the European Parliament called on the EU’s Council to advocate for the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly within the UN system. According to Schultz, the European Parliament may serve as a model for how a UN Parliamentary Assembly could develop over time.

“What once began as an advisory body composed of national parliamentarians is a directly elected legislature today, even if the development is still ongoing.”

An important contribution to the international meeting was provided by Alfred De Zayas, the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order.

According to De Zayas, “if the United Nations General Assembly is to be revitalized and strengthened, it also needs to be made more democratic and repSee “UNPA achieves…” on page 10

4 mondial

DECEMBER 2013

Time for rethinking the United Nations

The Harper government says the United Nations is not effective enough. What should Canadian governments do about it?

The response of the Conservatives has been to disparage the UN and withdraw from multilateral activities. Rather than pouting, Canada should help the world to rethink the United Nations.

Rethinking the United Nations ought to become a central program of the Department of Foreign Affairs. But this cannot be done at the whim of a minister.

The department would be initiating a quasi-constitutional process with the intention of encouraging other ‘like-minded’ countries to follow suit. We need a publicly supported process to provide legitimated policies to foreign affairs ministries. We can learn from ‘deliberative democracy’ exercises about how to be both effective and inclusive. This process of democratic assemblies was developed over the past two decades to be both educative and participative and to bring informed public input to policy making.

The task is to settle on a critical analysis of world problems, a set of objectives and values for world governance, potential new global institutions, and a path for achieving them – accompanied by an outreach program of education and communications.

What is wrong with the world?

The world is challenged by climate change, the wealth-poverty gap, terrorism, pollution, global warming, the plight of women and children, mass migrations, pandemics, financial crises and enfeebled states, etc. But, each one of these global challenges has one common denominator: the world is incapable of taking authoritative, legitimate decisions that will command respect and be adhered to. UN reform is the one common problem upon which we should all focus.

But why can’t the UN make the big, urgent decisions? In one word, because of sovereignty – the belief that each state has the right to do as it wants without fear of foreign interference in its domestic affairs. Every other institutional problem flows from this concept of sovereignty, first elaborated in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. World affairs are still dominated by a European concept three and a half centuries old.

UN blockages are rooted in outdated notions of sovereignty and nationalism. The existence of the Security Council and the veto are founded on the bully principle that the most powerful – not the community – should call the shots. Regional caucuses of sovereign states demand equal representation in all UN affairs including human rights.

The bureaucracy of the UN is still corrupted by hiring on the basis of national quotas. National foreign policies are still determined by presidents, prime ministers and cabinets acting just like monarchs. There are few democratic controls. We still

have a long way to go from sovereignty to co-operation.

What would effective global institutions look like?

First, we should democratize international organizations by including popular assemblies beside their state, decision-making bodies. We can work to limit and eventually eliminate use of the veto. Much greater use can be made of the International Court of Justice and their decisions should become binding on governments. Hiring in the UN should be done on the basis of competence and integrity. Criteria for the use of the ‘responsibility to protect’ policy need to be established.

Second, we should learn from the European Union’s step-bystep model of gradually building common functional institutions, creating supranational law, rights and institutions, assuring viability by creating weighted voting according to population, particular interests, economic weight and sovereign participation. A first step would be opening up our foreign policy to democratic participation and controls. These are all techniques for slowly weaning us away from strict adherence to sovereign, national authority.

Third, principles and values are fundamental. Fears of creating a global governmental bully must be replaced by the certainty that not one of us would move toward world governance that did not include all the techniques of democratic state-craft we have developed over the last two hundred years. These include concepts for dividing and controlling power and promot-

▼

by John Trent This article is adapted from the publication The United Nations and Canada: What Canada has done and should be doing at the UN, published September 2013 by the World Federalist Movement – Canada.

John Trent is a Senior Fellow at the Centre on Governance of the University of Ottawa and author of The United Nations System: the Policies of Member States and Modernization of the United Nations System. He chairs WFM–Canada’s governing council.

“…why can’t the UN make the big, urgent decisions? In one word, because of sovereignty – the belief that each state has the right to do as it wants without fear of foreign interference in its domestic affairs.”

DECEMBER 2013

mondial 5

Why Canada was not elected to Security Council three years ago… and why we will never be elected until there is a fundamental change in our foreign policy

by Robert Fowler This article is adapted from the publication The United Nations and Canada: What Canada has done and should be doing at the UN, published September 2013 by the World Federalist Movement – Canada.

How tiresome, how smug and, I will argue, how un-Canadian is the stolid simplicity of the Harper-Baird “we won’t go along to get along” mantra. But it is that arrogant, me-first, ‘I’m all right, Jack and to hell with you’ posture, coupled with extravagant insensitivity, which destroyed Canada’s bid for a seventh term on the Security Council three years ago. Until that changes, those attitudes will ensure that Canada is excluded from any important role within the community of nations.

The fact is, the pony we had entered in the Security Council lists in the fall of 2010 was lame and there was nothing hardworking Canadian diplomats in New York and around the world

Canada can be positive influence ▼

Robert Fowler was the foreign policy advisor to prime ministers Trudeau, Turner and Mulroney, Deputy Minister of National Defence, Canada’s longest serving ambassador to the UN, ambassador to Italy, and personal representative for Africa of prime ministers Chrétien, Martin and Harper. He retired in 2006.

could do to disguise that fact.

Three years ago the nations of the world, voting according to their own interests, did not believe that they needed more of the Canada they had been getting on the Security Council.

How preposterous it was to claim that our defeat was a triumph of our values over theirs!

Canadian environmental policy was, and remains, a fiasco. Canada had taken strong stands in the global effort to combat environmental degradation, beginning in Stockholm in 1972, and over the years worked hard to build momentum behind efforts to create a global climate treaty. The Montreal Protocol to phase out materials that were damaging the ozone layer was a good start.

However daunting, our obligations as a party to the Kyoto Protocol represented a formal engagement, and our decision in December 2011 to become the first nation to withdraw from Kyoto represented a blow to our international reputation from which we have not begun to recover.

ing rights and equality via constitutional democratic institutions, elections, federalism, liberalism, rule of law, local police and decentralized governance.

How Canada can move the world ahead?

Canada can help develop a constituency and a community of practice that values co-operation and global governance. If we put our heads together as

suggested at the outset, we will come up with a plan. Reform will not be easy. It will be opposed by those who have an interest in war rather than peace, who feel more secure in their narrow national vision, or those who are opposed to “rule by the ignorant mob.” I am convinced they will be outweighed by those everywhere who are wise enough to recognize that the world will learn to govern itself or it will self-destruct.

And then, only a few months ago, Canada announced its intention to become the first (and only) country to withdraw from the “UN Convention to Combat Desertification.” One hundred and ninety-four states had become a Party to the Convention following its adoption in 1994. Imagine for a moment how those desperately impoverished states suffering the daily encroachment of the Sahara felt about Mr. Harper’s insistence that such efforts were but a “talkfest” and that our annual contribution of $350,000 was a waste of money.

For the 37 members of the Alliance of Small Island States, climate change is an existential issue. If it isn’t fixed, they will be under water. When offered the opportunity to vote on Canada’s disdain for their concerns, they did so with clarity of purpose.

Our refusal to understand, let alone empathize with, such deeply held views has sorely damaged the reputation of our country.

I have emphasized the extent to which Canada’s stand on environmental issues has caused much of the world community to lose faith in us, to mistrust our words and misconstrue our motives. But rest assured, we have offered the world community lots of other reasons not to support us. In the eyes of the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the UN, the Harper government’s insistence on an unbalanced “Israel right or wrong” posture which countenances no criticism, while characterizing other states See “Canada has…” on page 6

6 mondial

DECEMBER 2013

Accountability for corporate Canada abroad These guidelines are voluntary in nature and do not have the force of law. And host state governments are often too weak or corrupt to properly enforce regulations in their own jurisdictions.

But without consequences, there is little hope that corporations will change their ways.

The problem made headlines around the world following the collapse of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh last April, killing 1,129 workers. CEO Galen Weston of Loblaws, owner of the Joe Fresh clothing brand, said in public that he was “deeply troubled” and that it was a “senseless tragedy… Based on what we know, the top floor should never have been built.” He pledged to make sure factories manufacturing products for their stores would conform in future to local construction and building codes and he promised to compensate vic-

tims of the Rana Plaza collapse.

Recently, the compensation package was announced to provide victims or their families with three months pay.

One might view his reaction as responsible and evidence that the corporate social responsibility policies of Loblaws are effective.

Dig a little deeper and a different picture emerges.

CBC’s The Fifth Estate demonstrated that most garment factories in Bangladesh, including most of the 47 where Loblaws has production facilities, are unsafe. Often orders by Western garment retailers, including Joe Fresh, are placed through middlemen who in turn source work to a network of far-flung factories, which conveniently provides companies with plausible deniability when things go sideways.

When workers complained about low wages and building

▼

by Bill Pearce Canadians like to think we project a positive image abroad as peacemakers and promoters of human rights. But if you are a garment worker in Bangladesh or a villager in a region of a developing nation where Canadian mining or oil companies are present, your impression of Canadians would more likely be that of a greedy people who are quite at ease with the exploitation of the poor and destruction of the environment to make a profit.

Canadian companies operating in developing countries have demonstrated a remarkable lack of respect for human rights and the environment, while paying lip service to corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies and the recently promulgated United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Canada has squandered its fine reputation Continued from page 5 _________

in the region with thinly veiled disdain, is simply an anathema.

Then there’s the Harper government’s writing off of Africa (which accounts for 70 per cent of the Security Council’s business), the largest and most diverse continent, a billion people in 54 different countries, a region deemed not worthy of interest by our government.

In recent years, our contribution to UN peacekeeping has become statistically irrelevant in what is an ever more challenging international security environment – the management of which

is the Security Council’s mandate. Canadian military professionalism, integrity and steadfastness are greatly missed in UN circles. Indeed, these days Canada is simply absent from the discussion of how to better manage international affairs.

These are the areas in which for the first 60 years of the UN’s existence Canada genuinely punched above its weight. By being an exemplary UN citizen, we were able, in six successive decades, to win election to the Security Council despite the fact that the membership of the organization grew four-fold over this period. The campaign in the late

90s was hard fought, but I never doubted we would prevail. There was then a huge reserve of sympathy and respect for Canada and Canadians within the organization. We were seen to be fair but firm, balanced and principled, yet always sensitive to the worries and concerns of others while being very clear about the promotion and projection of our own beliefs and values, and committed to an effective UN. We have, however, squandered that fine reputation, and it will not be restored until Canada adopts positions on international issues that are seen to be good for the world and for Canada.

Bill Pearce is a member of WMFC Council.

DECEMBER 2013

mondial 7

Corporations lack respect for human rights abroad ▼

structures at Rana Plaza, they were told to go back to work anyway, and did so, knowing they could easily be replaced permanently. Attempts to curb the exploitation of garment workers in Bangladesh have been thwarted by concerted government pressure and resort to police crackdowns. Attempts to form unions are met with a harsh response by management (including the torture/death of a key labour organizer in April 2012).

Of course, these problems are not limited to Bangladesh or to the textiles and garment sectors.

Canadian mining and oil companies operating in developing countries have also come in for close scrutiny.

In 2010, Mining Watch Canada released a 2009 report, conducted by the Centre for Studies in Resource Conflict, which examined 171 high-profile violations of CSR, including “community conflict, human rights abuses, unethical or unlawful practices, and environmental degradation.”

Sixty-three per cent of the violations were limited to five countries, with Canada leading the pack, committing four times as many violations as the next two highest offenders, Australia and India.

Canada is an important source of investment for the global mining industry. Sixty per cent of the world’s publicly listed extractive companies are on Canadian stock exchanges. Canadian mining companies (many with no more than an address in Toronto or Vancouver) account for 40 per cent of the world’s exploration expenditures.

Canada’s leading position as a home base for global mining, and the harm caused by some Canadian companies, make it all the more important for Canada to address these issues.

In the previous (minority) Parliament, Bill C-300 was introduced in an effort to improve CSR accountability in the mining industry. This bill would have created a CSR ombudsman with the authority to deny Canadian funding for Canadian companies complicit in human rights abuse.

“Sixty-three per cent of the violations were limited to five countries, with Canada leading the pack, committing four times as many violations as the next two highest offenders, Australia and India.”

It was narrowly defeated 141 to 134. A successor Bill C-323 is unlikely to see the light of day in this Parliament.

In 2005, in order to clarify the responsibilities of transnational companies, Prof. John Ruggie was appointed by the United Nations as Special Representative to the Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights. A six-year consultation process resulted in the formulation of new standards, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which was unanimously endorsed in 2011 by the UN Human Rights Council and approved by the UN General Assembly. The framework for the guiding principles provides for: 1. a state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third

parties, including businesses; 2. a corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and 3. a right of individuals who have been harmed through breaches of their human rights to have effective access to justice.

Regarding corporate responsibilities, the guiding principles identify due diligence as the principal tool that business should use to address the risk of its activities and relationships infringing the rights of others.

This is not dissimilar to section 217.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which establishes a legal duty for a business to conduct due diligence to protect against the risk of bodily harm of employees and the public. The Commentary to the Guiding Principles clarifies that “activities” are understood to include both actions and omissions, and that “business relationships” are understood to include relationships with business partners, entities in its value chain, and any other non-State or State entity, directly linked to its business operations, products or services. In simple terms, it makes it difficult for entities like Loblaws to assert they didn’t know or to suggest that what happens down the supply chain isn’t their concern.

To date, at least three major transnational corporate accountability cases have been instituted in Canadian courts. All have run aground either on the basis that the judge found that the local court lacked jurisdiction to hear a case (based upon wrongful actions that occurred outside the Continued on page 8

8 mondial

DECEMBER 2013

Canadian courts should be able to hear abuse cases Continued from page 7 _________

country or that the country in which the wrongs occurred is a more convenient jurisdiction to try the case) or on the basis that the facts failed to disclose any legal duty on which liability could be established.

However, a decision dated July 22, 2013 by Justice Carol Brown of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario in Choc v. Hudbay Minerals gives hope that judicial attitudes may be changing.

In that case, the plaintiffs, indigenous residents of Guatemala, allege that security personnel working for a Hudbay subsidiary committed human rights abuses, including a shooting, a killing and gang rapes, in the area of the proposed open pit nickel mine as part of a forced removal operation. However, the legal remedy they seek is not based upon the wrongs that were committed in Guatemala, but on the negligence of the Canadian company in failing to properly manage the project and in particular the security personnel who allegedly shot and raped the plaintiffs.

The defendants made a preliminary application to stop the claim on the basis that the facts as alleged did not give rise to a legal remedy. The judge dismissed their application on the basis that it was “reasonably foreseeable that requesting the forced eviction of a community using hundreds of security personnel, as Hudbay/Skye is alleged to have done, could lead to security personnel using violence, including raping the plaintiffs.”

Because of the nature of the application, the ruling has no value as precedent. But if, when the case goes to trial, the judge decides that the directors of Hudbay did have a duty to take precautions to ensure the removal was conducted without violence and failed in that duty, causing damage to the plaintiffs, this case would act as an important precedent to assist victims of human rights abuses in other cases.

While the Hudbay case is

“…by and large judges in this country have shown a reluctance to assume jurisdiction for corporate breaches of human rights abroad.” promising, by and large judges in this country have shown a reluctance to assume jurisdiction for corporate breaches of human rights abroad.

That is why ultimately, legislation should be considered to grant jurisdiction to Canadian courts to hear cases, based upon the law of negligence in Canada.

Where it can be demonstrated that individuals have suffered loss or harm from the breaches of human rights of Canadian companies abroad, they should be entitled to bring an action in Canada, based on negligence principles, on the same footing as Canadians who have suffered from similar behaviour. Such claims would include loss or harm resulting from the discharge of harmful chemicals into the environment, polluting the land, water and/or air.

The legislation could take many forms. Canada could institute a grievance procedure with a human rights ombudsman who could investigate complaints and, where companies are found to have not complied with due diligence obligations, impose penalties. Or alternatively, noncompliance with due diligence obligations could be made an offence with criminal liability.

This would amount to an extension of existing criminal law, imposing criminal liability on directors who knowingly were complicit in the death or serious injury of individuals resident abroad.

Non-compliance could also result in the withdrawal of state support or membership in Team Canada initiatives in prospective foreign markets, withdrawal of financial or other government support, placement on a blacklist for public procurements, ineligibility for claim-related tax credits or identified tax-expense deductions.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie said recently that the law needs to be changed so that individuals can sue companies in Canadian courts for alleged human rights violations committed abroad. He said “you cannot have a global economy with a dysfunctional global legal system.”

Corporate social responsibility norms as well as the guiding principles have not adequately engendered respect by the business sector for human rights.

Canada should build on the guiding principles and enact legislation that provides meaningful avenues for redress within the Canadian legal system.

DECEMBER 2013

mondial 9

Defining development: Whoever said it was easy?

“…the knowledge exists within civil society to eradicate poverty, uphold human rights, respect the planet, and build a more just future.”

by Fergus Watt September is always a busy time at United Nations headquarters in New York. This year’s opening of the 68th session of the UN General Assembly was particularly hectic. The conflict in Syria grabbed headlines, but the challenges of poverty reduction and sustainable development also took centre stage.

With the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set to expire in 2015, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon used the week to focus international attention on accelerating progress to achieve the MDGs, and also on the need to define a successor vision, known as the “post-2015 development agenda.”

The idea behind the MDGs, of course, is to provide a set of concrete, measurable objectives to guide UN agencies, member governments and others in a global effort to eradicate poverty, promote gender equality and ensure sustainable development.

The fact that the initial 20002015 “goals” resulted from a controversial, backroom process hatched in Kofi Annan’s office following the Millennium Summit has led civil society organizations to redouble efforts this time around to ensure there is a large “global conversation” on the successor goals.

Following a two-year process of consultations that reached well over 100 countries, as well as extensive discussions online, a number of reports were issued this past summer. First, the UN’s “High-Level Panel,” led by the heads of government from Liberia, Indonesia and UK, reported in May. The HLP report

describes “five transformative shifts” as its priorities for development after 2015: 1. Leave no one behind; 2. Put sustainable development at the core; 3. Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth; 4. Build peace and effective, open and accountable public institutions; and 5. Forge a new global partnership.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the content underlying many of these nice-sounding generalities lacked specificity. Civil society networks issued parallel reports. As well, the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) organized a ‘mobilization month’ from September 15 to October 17 to draw public attention to the need for meaningful commitments to the post-2015 agenda.

A submission to this September’s UN meetings by GCAP and two other international networks (Beyond 2015 and the International Forum of National NGO Platforms) includes the following: “We have a unique opportunity to transform the current social, economic and environmental system into one that is more just and inclusive. It is clear from the national, local and community deliberations that have taken place that the knowledge exists within civil society to eradicate poverty, uphold human rights, respect the planet, and build a more just future. As the MDGs come to an end, civil society has provided a roadmap for a framework that is holistic and inclusive in ensuring a more just world. This includes the following key demands:

– Gender justice and social inclusion are essential for realizing rights; nobody should be left behind.

– Human rights, economic, social and cultural rights specifically, must be at the center of a post-2015 framework.

– Equality - including income equality - should be central to the post-2015 framework, and included prominently in goals and targets.

– The obligation of governments to uphold the economic, social and cultural rights of all people, through adequate and universal social protection, should be recognized.

– For poverty to be eradicated, a post-2015 agenda must fundamentally transform the economy to serve people, not corporate interests.

– Global governance structures must be democratized for any discussion of equality to be meaningful.

– Development must respect planetary boundaries.”

While civil society will continue to exert a strong influence over the process, this September’s high level discussions also marked a political changing of gears. Debate that had (in UN parlance) been characterized as primarily consisting of “external inputs” (local, national, regional, and online consultations) has turned to the more familiar process of bargaining among member states.

It won’t be easy. The political road to 2015 is made more complex for at least four reasons: See “Post-2015 goals…” page 10

10 mondial

DECEMBER 2013

UNPA achieves greater level of acceptance Continued from page 3 _________

resentative. Complementing the General Assembly with a parliamentary body could be a key to achieving other reforms to the United Nations system.”

Two weeks after the Brussels meeting, De Zayas presented a report to the UN in New York recommending that the UNPA proposal be taken up by the Advisory Committee of the UN’s Human Rights Council.

UNPA Campaign Coordinator

Andreas Bummel notes that such a step would require a vote by governments at the Council. “But it’s a viable strategy. Sometimes institutional innovation can begin within the UN’s bureaucratic machinery. An example is the work in the UN International Law Commission in the early nineties that advanced the proposal for an International Criminal Court, leading to a treaty-making process beginning in 1995. We know where that process led. We’re delighted with

Professor DeZayas’s initiative.”

According to Bummel, “The Brussels meeting demonstrated a much greater level of acceptance and interest in a UNPA.” The UNPA meeting in Brussels coincided with a globally organized “Week for World Parliament.” Activists in 54 cities around the world (including Vancouver and Winnipeg) participated in demonstrations, banner actions and flash mobs to call for a world parliament.

Post-2015 goals must find new ways to organize society Continued from page 9 _________

1. The need to merge the discussions on (1) a post-2015 development agenda with (2) the development of “Sustainable Development Goals,” a process mandated at last summer’s Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development.

2. The need to provide some meaningful role for a new UN organ, known as the High Level Political Forum (HLPF), also mandated at the Rio+20 Summit. As an effort to strengthen political engagement in support of environment/development linkages, a body such as the HLPF, which succeeds the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, seems like a sound idea, in principle. But ‘high-level’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘high-frequency’; heads of government will only convene at this forum every five years.

And the HLPF’s complementarity with the existing UN Economic and Social Council is also still under discussion.

3. What influence will the climate change discussions have on the post-2015 agenda? The deadline for reaching a new climate deal has also been set for 2015. While it may be possible to keep these negotiations separate from the post-2015 development discussions, the lines are likely to become blurred. The climate talks nearly collapsed entirely in November at a heated meeting in Poland. The failure of northern governments to take responsibility (and bear the associated costs) for developing-country adaptation to climate impacts was the principal sticking point. The post2015 goals are intended to be more aspirational commitments, i.e., less legally binding. But with climate talks on life support, southern governments might well ask why any post-2015 “commitments” can be relied upon.

4. Who pays? Many important voices, including the High Level Panel, have noted that, besides domestic resources, the most important source of

long-term finance for development will be private rather than public capital. These include remittances from diaspora communities and contributions from philanthropic foundations as well as business investment. However, it is still not clear how the post2015 agenda can effectively harness public and private capital as well as aid and ‘non-aid’ in a politically coherent and accountable process.

The September submission by GCAP inter alia laying out demands for a post-2015 development agenda states that, “There is a collective understanding across national contexts that the world is in crisis. There is an urgent need expressed to collectively find new ways of organizing society, our relationship to the planet, and the logic of our economy. Across the world, civil society is concerned about rising inequality.… There is a strong need for a development framework to express universal values (i.e., addressing poverty in all countries).…”

“There is a strong need for a development framework to express universal values.…”

DECEMBER 2013

mondial 11

Responsibility to protect:

‘Growing pains’… but still growing

“R2P has been described… as the fastest developing international norm in history.”

On September 11, 2013, the United Nations General Assembly held its fifth annual debate on the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P). The dialogue was based on the Secretary-General’s report entitled Responsibility to protect: State responsibility and prevention (A/67/929) and focused on the first pillar of the R2P norm, which articulates that states have the primary responsibility to protect their own populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. (R2P’s pillar two addresses the international community’s responsibility to assist states. Pillar three addresses intervention measures that may be taken when states are “manifestly failing to protect their civilian populations.”)

The Secretary-General’s report explored the risk factors that can lead to the perpetration of mass atrocities and provided policy options for states to consider in order to strengthen national capacities to prevent such crimes.

An important part of the discussion was the ongoing crisis in Syria, with governments deploring the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity the loss of more than 100,000 lives and denouncing the use of chemical weapons during the civil war.

Many states cited the need for a political solution to the crisis as the only means of protecting populations from future atrocities.

But options for a “political solution” immediately stumble upon the widely reported problems associated with the veto power held by the permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council,

(China, France, Russia, United States and the United Kingdom).

At this year’s R2P discussion, the government of France reiterated support for the proposal, supported by Switzerland and approximately 20 others, for the recently launched “Accountability, Coherence and Transparency” (ACT) initiative to address Security-Council working methods, including the use of the veto.

These governments are calling for a range of reforms, including a General Assembly resolution that would see the P5 adopt voluntary restrictions on use of the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Prospects for the future of R2P were addressed by Dr. Simon Adams, Executive Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, speaking at an October 30 forum in Moscow, hosted by the Russian foreign ministry’s diplomatic academy.

The following is an excerpt from that address:

“

Those dismayed by NATO’s ‘mission creep’ while protecting civilians in Libya, or alternatively, by the bitter failure of the UN Security Council to do anything to stem the bloodletting in Syria, may well answer that R2P is endangered as a principle. I believe they are wrong.

R2P has been described by the former UN Special Adviser on the ‘responsibility to protect’, Dr. Edward Luck, as the fastest developing international norm in history. At a meeting we both attended at the UK Houses of Parliament under the aegis of the all-parliamentary group for mass atrocity prevention, Dr.

Luck compared the trajectory of R2P since 2005 to the evolution of human rights norms after World War II. Despite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the human rights situation in much of the world was still wretched during the 1950s. Cold War hypocrisies plagued the international system. Human rights terminology was worn thin by opportunistic misuse by all sides. It is only from the vantage point of a new century that we can look back and proclaim that despite this, human rights still made gradual but cumulative, normative progress over the second half of the twentieth century.

Acceptance of R2P is slowly but steadily increasing. Following the UN World Summit, the ‘responsibility to protect’ was reaffirmed in Security Council Resolution 1674 (2006) and Resolution 1894 (2009). The Council also made reference to R2P in Resolution 1706 (2006) on Darfur. Although there have been divisive debates about R2P with regard to Sri Lanka and elsewhere, Libya and Syria have provided R2P with its biggest challenges.

These cases are difficult precisely because they raise issues of accountability and coercion to halt mass atrocities – matters the UN Security Council has always struggled to address with consistent and proximate determination. Yet, despite rancour over Syria, the Security Council still invoked R2P more often in the year after Libya and the start of the Syria crisis than it had done in the five years prior.”

12 mondial

DECEMBER 2013

Women, peace and security: How committed is Canada?

by Monique Cuillerier It has only been in this century that the ‘women, peace and security’ agenda has been specifically recognized by the United Nations. UN Security Council Resolution 1325 that was adopted in October 2000 was the first resolution to exclusively address ‘women, peace and security.’

Since then, there have been five subsequent resolutions, the latest being Resolution 2122 adopted this past October.

To some degree, all of these resolutions have included references to sexual violence in conflict, although this has become an area of growing interest and concern. Resolution 2122 includes calls to “focus more attention on women’s leadership and participation in conflict resolution and peacebuilding,” as well as participation in electoral processes.

As well, the resolution acknowledges that aid should include “provision for the full range of medical, legal, psychosocial and livelihood services to women affected by armed conflict and post-conflict situations,” which includes “the need for access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, including regarding pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination.” The resolution also recognizes the value of civil society organizations and the need to maintain open communication with the women affected by conflict.

Along with the UN Security Council resolutions, there has been, internationally, a growing movement towards declarations and campaigns that specifically target the issue of sexual vio-

lence in conflict. In April of this year, a meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers, including Canada’s John Baird, resulted in a declaration that outlined key commitments to prevent sexual violence in conflict. These commitments include: • a common approach that conforms to international law for the investigation and documentation of cases of sexual violence in conflict; • strengthening partnerships with civil society; • providing appropriate and accessible health, psychosocial, legal and economic support for victims of sexual violence in armed conflict, especially children; • reviewing 1325 National Action Plans; and • reviewing training for national militaries and police to ensure the inclusion of training on the implications of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations.

At the beginning of September, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague chaired a side event at the opening of the UN General Assembly with Zainab Hawa Bangura, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, at which they presented a Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict.

To date, 137 countries have endorsed the Declaration, including Canada. The Declaration is similar and complementary to the G8 Declaration, calling for: • sufficient funding for prevention and response to sexual violence in conflict; • appropriate medical and psychosocial care for survivors;

• the participation of women in decision-making capacities; • military and police training; • improved data and evidence collection of sexual violence in conflict; and • the development of an international protocol on the documentation and investigation of sexual violence in conflict.

Additionally, the United Kingdom will be hosting a global summit in London in June of next year, co-chaired by Hague and UN High Commission for Refugees Special Envoy Angelina Jolie.

Canada has endorsed the various international declarations and at the April 2013 G8 foreign ministers’ meeting, Foreign Minister Baird made a $5 million unspecified commitment. Other projects concerning sexual violence in conflict that fall under the purview of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) include projects in Africa’s Great Lakes region (Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo) and in Colombia.

With regard to Canada’s formal national action plan on women, peace and security (2010), however, there has been less apparent enthusiasm. The national action plan is intended to function as a guide for the government of Canada’s implementation of the various UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security, including the area of sexual violence in conflict. Despite the promise of regular reporting, nothing has been released as of November 2013.

In an op-ed in the Ottawa CitiSee “Where’s…” on page 14

Monique Cuillerier is WFMC’s membership and outreach co-ordinator.

The national action plan is intended to function as a guide for implementing of the UN resolutions on women, peace and security.

Despite the promise of regular reporting, nothing has been released.

DECEMBER 2013

mondial 13

Euro-zone crisis: finding a way out

Simon Rosenblum is a member of the WFMC Executive Committee.

“…the survival of the euro will require ceding more authority to pan-European institutions and to the directly elected European parliament…”

Jurgen Habermas The Crisis of the European Union Polity Press, 2012 Cambridge UK

by Simon Rosenblum Jurgen Habermas is probably the best known European political philosopher of his generation and his reputation far transcends academia. He is a public intellectual in the best sense of the term. I studied his works as a graduate student 40 years ago and have paid attention ever since. His most recent book, The Crisis of the European Union, while not all that easy to read, provides important insights into how best to move forward from the current crisis in the European Union. I write here solely as a keenly interested but non-expert observer of European developments.

Our starting point is the economic crisis in the euro-zone economy. It is often said that the 2008 American financial crash morphed into the euro-zone crisis. That is only partly true as there is plenty of blame to go around. Greece has been particularly lax in regards to tax collection, Spain and Ireland failed to restrain speculative housing bubbles financed largely by German banks, and European banks in general were greatly under-capitalized. There is a clear need to revive the euro-zone economy as austerity has taken a very large toll, with unemployment rates in excess of 25 per cent in Greece and Spain and rates far in excess of that for young people. One frequently hears talk of a “lost generation.”

There is now a growing appreciation of the basic design flaws in the Euro which likely cannot be resolved without further fiscal and political union. Considerable discussion now takes place on the need for a more powerful

European banking union, including: the creation of a European bank / resolution authority with the power and monies to wind up or restructure troubled banks and allocate losses through genuine risk-sharing; bonds issued separately by each euro-zone government but guaranteed by all; and the creation of more unified European-wide fiscal and economic policies. For example, Bini Smaghi, a former executive board member of the European Central Bank, now writes that the survival of the euro will require ceding more authority to pan-European institutions and to the directly elected European parliament. In short, there needs to be a strengthening/deepening of the European Union.

This is where the economics may be headed, but will the politics allow it? There is little doubt that European-wide institutions are currently quite unpopular, regardless of which particular country one is discussing. The surge in euro-skepticism is palpable. The turnout for European parliament elections is very small and falling, and there is every likelihood of strong populist gains, particularly of the far right, in next spring’s European parliamentary elections. Political disillusionment with the EU is such that giving it even more powers is highly unpopular.

Hence, the clear need for the European project to gain a lot more political legitimacy among its citizens. Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer defines the challenge as “how to find the right combination of a Europe of nation-states with a Europe of citizens.”

Obviously, there is no European people or common identity as such. So how to construct a credible European-wide public sphere with new political structures beyond the nation-state? Here is where Jurgen Habermas has important things to say in regards to reducing Europe’s democratic deficit. His point of departure is that the EU must realize its democratic potential by evolving from an international into a cosmopolitan community.

His main specific proposal is to bridge national and European sovereignty by having “certain members of the European Parliament at the same time hold seats in their respective national parliaments” in order to increase political legitimation. Others have similarly suggested synchronizing national and European elections, as well as the direct election of the European Commission, with candidates nominated by each of the main party groupings in the European Parliament.

Far be it for me to speculate which of these or other specific proposals is better, or doable. The European Union is an unfinished project and likely cannot just muddle through. It must broaden some of its powers but if this is to happen, there is a need for citizens to be better represented at EU levels. The euro was supposed to be the manifestation of a grand political project but more is needed. Likely it will inch towards greater integration but the question remains, how much integration the Europeans really need and want? There is no better guide to this unfolding question than Jurgen Habermas.

14 mondial

DECEMBER 2013

Birthday gift ideas? How about a WFM donation?

You have probably all been asked the dreaded question from family or friends: “What do you want for your birthday?”

As a child, it was a magical question, instantly engaging the imagination with limitless possibilities. As an adult, maybe there is a book, CD or techno-gizmo that you can suggest but, if you’re like me, you often draw a blank. Mainly, you don’t want to be reminded that you are another year older!

This year when my family asked, my response was “Please make a donation to the World Federalist Foundation.” They did and our incredible organization was a little better financially for it! So, if you are looking for a

wonderful way to celebrate your birthday, a holiday or any other special occasion, please consider requesting that a donation be made to the World Federalist Foundation or to the World Federalist Movement – Canada.

There is even a coupon on the last page of this publication that you can clip out and give to family members or friends as a very strong hint! Thanks!

Cameron Laing National Treasurer WFF and WFM–Canada

PS: The World Federalists receive no ongoing support from government. We rely on donations from individual Canadians for our continued existence.

Some of us – me and several others on the WFM–Canada Board of Directors – have taken the step of including the World Federalists in our will. Please consider making a bequest to the World Federalists Foundation in your will.

Where’s the report?

Continued from page 12 ________

zen (“A shaky commitment to women,” November 15), Kristine St Pierre writes that “according to a government memo from DFAIT (now DFATD) staff to Minister John Baird obtained through access to information, the first report has been ready since last year.” In May, a DFAIT official told the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights that the report would be released in the spring. It is not entirely clear why the report has yet to be released but its absence is a barrier for researchers and civil society organizations charting Canada’s progress. As St Pierre concludes, “only by upholding its own commitment and publishing yearly reports on a timely basis will we be able to have a meaningful discussion on the way forward.”

WFM–Canada Executive Director Fergus Watt received the annual Achievement Award from Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (CNWC) “In recognition of your sustained and dedicated work for responsible global governance and nuclear disarmament.” Fergus was presented the award by long-time friend, colleague and peace activist, Murray Thomson, O.C pictured at left above with Fergus. The Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention is an organization of more than 700 recipients of the Order of Canada who also support United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s “Five-point plan” for nuclear disarmament. The presentation took place as part of a December 3 program in Canada’s Parliament, where the guest speaker was Angela Kane, United Nations High Representative for Disarmament. Kane recently made headlines for her contribution to the agreement with Syria to join the Chemical Weapons Convention.

DECEMBER 2013

mondial 15

Branch News Ottawa — On September 22, WFM–Canada hosted a meeting discussing UN Peacekeeping, one of many events in this year’s Ottawa Peace Festival.

WFM–Canada Executive Director Fergus Watt led a discussion on Canada’s current contributions to UN peacekeeping. This was followed by Dr. Peter Langille discussing the proposed UN Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS). UNEPS would provide the UN with a standing peacekeeping capacity, one not dependent on contributions from member states.

On September 28, World Federalists also joined an all-day program at Ottawa City Hall, the 11th Annual Friends for Peace Day. Vancouver — UBC political science professor Philip Resnick was the guest speaker at a meeting in July. His address, entitled “Democracy and its Discontents,” sparked a wide-ranging discussion, with a focus on the rise of the one per cent protest movements like Occupy Wall Street and recent popular protests focused on inequality issues in Turkey and Brazil. In August, the monthly meeting featured a discussion led by film maker Twyla Roscovich called “Salmon Confidential” about the research of scientist Alexandra Morton on the effects of salmon farming on BC’s wild salmon population. Branch president Vivian Davidson spoke at the September meeting on “To Cambodia with Hope,” about her recent experience in Cambodia as a volunteer with the development agency Hope International.

The annual Richard B. Splane

Lecture in Social Policy, hosted in partnership with the UBC School of Social Work and the Vancouver chapter of the United Nations Association in Canada, took place on November 18. The topic this year was “Exploring reconciliation: What does it mean to me? What could it mean to Canada?” presented by Marie Wilson, Commissioner, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Another meeting in November was led by Rand Chatterjee of Chatterbox Educational Productions on the topic “The future of education in a world without borders.” Chatterjee discussed the culturally-determined assumptions that underlie pedagogy, and prospects for the establishment of a more global education.

Toronto - On October 24, Dr. Peter Langille spoke on “The Initiative for a UN Emergency Peace Service” at a forum held at the University of Toronto.

Sponsored jointly by a number of NGOs, the forum was part of the “Vital Discussions of Human Security” lecture series. Langille is a member of WFMC’s board of directors and also Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria.

Montreal — John Trent and Gilles Gingras led a discussion in October reviewing the numerous activities and extensive media coverage that accompanied the publication of The United Nations and Canada: What Canada has done and should be doing at the UN. Trent chairs WFM–Canada’s board of directors and co-ordinated the project.

Gilles Gingras wrote one of the 17 articles and also helped with a Montreal-based conference and media outreach. Trent will also be the guest speaker at the annual post-holiday luncheon on Sunday, January 26. It will take place at the Salon privé Le Collectioneur, Le Café des Beauxarts (Museum of Fine Arts Café).

For details and/or to reserve, contact Patricia Philip, 514-3426118, or trish_philip@yahoo. ca. The “Coffee and Discussion” group continues to meet on a regular basis. At the gathering on December 3, Warren Allmand and group members all called Ottawa to congratulate Fergus Watt on receiving the CNWC Achievement Award. The MarieBerthe Dion Issues Action Group continues to meet monthly and this fall, wrote letters on topics such as “Science, Scientists and the Government of Canada” and “Putting a Price on Carbon.” Mary Rowan, a longtime WFM–Canada member and social activist, was awarded the “Outstanding Senior Citizen of the West Island” in November.

Victoria — In September, Branch President Bill Pearce led a discussion on international and domestic legal avenues to address violations of the law by Canadian corporations operating abroad. At a meeting in November, Caspar Davis led a conversation on current conditions in Cuba, following his visit to the country. Several people in the audience had also spent time in Cuba and an interesting and wide-ranging discussion followed.

The branch end-of-year holiday gathering was held December 17 at the home of Bill Pearce.

16 mondial

DECEMBER 2013

Letter to the editor An article by Bill Pearce appeared in the May issue of Mondial dealing with Israel and international law. Mr. Pearce writes of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land following the 1967 war without so much as a mention of the aggression by its neighbouring Arab states leading up to that war. He continues by asserting that United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 calls upon Israel to withdraw from territory occupied as a result of that war but fails to mention that Resolution 242 calls upon Israel to do so as part of a negotiated agreement which respects Israel’s right to exist and its security. We should not forget that it wasn’t until 1988 that the PLO was finally willing to acknowledge that Israel had the right to exist and it wasn’t long after that the peace process began. We obviously still await such an agreement and the Palestinians and Arab states can take more than an equal share of the blame for that not happening. The overwhelming bias of Mr. Pearce’s article continues

with his claim that Israeli settlements now make up 43 per cent of the Occupied Territories – a claim that is nothing short of preposterous.

Let me be clear. For over 40 years, I have been very active through my leadership in Canadian Friends of Peace Now in encouraging Israel to do everything in its power to bring about an end to its occupation through negotiating the creation of a Palestinian state bordering Israel proper. That it has often failed to do but the behaviour of the Palestinian leadership and that of the Arab states have made it a very difficult task indeed. That said, the Israeli settlements were and continue to be a very bad idea and there is little doubt that they are illegal under international law. I can also agree with Bill Pearce that the two state solution is regrettably on life support. Where we part company is on his insistence on putting all the blame on Israel.

Simon Rosenblum Toronto

Join the World Federalist Movement Name __________________________________________________ Email __________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________ ______________________________ Postal Code _____________

By becoming a member…

■ Contributor – $150 ■ Individual – $40

■ Household – $60 ■ Limited Income – $15.

Membership in the World Federalists entitles you to receive the bulletin Mondial, and to membership in the international World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy.

Or by making a one-time donation…

Donation to: WFM–Canada World Federalist Foundation

■ (no receipt) or ■ (tax-creditable receipt)

My cheque is enclosed in the amount of $ ____________ OR I prefer to donate $___________ by credit card:

■ VISA ■ MasterCard ■ AMEX

Exp: ____ /____

Card No: _________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________

Or by becoming a monthly donor You can authorize us to make automatic monthly deductions from your bank account or credit card. You can change or cancel your monthly plan donations any time, by phone, fax, or e-mail.

Choose one of:

WFM–Canada

World Federalist Foundation

■ or

■ (tax receipt at year end)

Choose your monthly gift:

■ $100 ■ $50 ■ $20 ■ $15 ■ $10 or $ ________ Name ____________________________________________ Signature _________________________________________ Date ____________________________________________ Please include an unsigned blank cheque marked “VOID” along with this form, or provide credit card information.

Please note: we’ve moved to new quarters. Check out our new address.…

■ VISA ■ MasterCard ■ AMEX

Exp: ____ /____

Card No: _________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________ Please mail this form with payment to WFMC at: 323 Chapel Street, Unit 110, Ottawa, ON K1N 7Z2.

Or donate online at www.worldfederalistscanada.org

Canada Post Corporation / Société canadienne des postes

Postage Paid

323 Chapel Street, Unit 110 Ottawa, ON K1N 7Z2 Phone: 613-232-0647 E-mail: wfcnat@web.ca Website: worldfederalistscanada.org December 2013

Port payè

40011403