Mondial June 2012

In this issue: Cluster bill a stink bomb EU’s phoney fiscal union Disarmament’s weak pulse Operationalizing R2P

P

U B L I S H E D

I N

C

A N A D A

B Y

T H E

W

O R L D

F

5 7 10 15

J

E D E R A L I S T S

U N E

2012

Canada and multilateralism: Missing in action

Carolyn McAskie

by Carolyn McAskie Multilateralism is a word little heard and less understood in today’s Ottawa. The government now tries to use multilateral instruments as an extension of narrow short-term Canadian objectives, rather than as part of a wider vision of global security and prosperity in which

Canadians have a vital stake.

As our failed bid to sit on the Security Council testified, Canada is no longer a respected international player. Compromise, co-ordination and consensus, Canadian values which gave us influence are seen by the government as contrary to a new aggressive Canadian posture

based on loosely defined “principled action.” Economic objectives trump social and diplomatic objectives. Military solutions are favoured over diplomacy and development. A one-sided view of the Middle East excludes the possibility of a nuanced solution Continued on page 2

WFM global congress agenda varied: See you in Winnipeg

“To be successful, social movements like the World Federalists depend on the commitment, participation, ideas and inspiration of dedicated individual supporters.

Good ideas… don’t “just happen.”

Dear friends, colleagues, fellow federalists: From July 9 to 13, World Federalists from around the world will gather in Winnipeg for the 26th International Congress of the World Federalist Movement, and national meetings of the World Federalist Movement – Canada.

We are indeed fortunate as Canadians to be hosting this historic gathering. Our organization not only reflects a framework and worldview for understanding many of the needed changes to international politics. On many global governance issues, we are at the forefront of progressive change for a more effective United Nations, the rule of law and the needed reforms to ensure a more peaceful and democratic future for humanity.

To be successful, social movements like the World Federalists depend on the commitment, participation, ideas and inspiration of dedicated individual supporters. Good ideas for positive change don’t “just happen.” We are doing our best, here in Winnipeg, in collaboration with the WFM–Canada office in Ottawa and also the WFM Secretariat in New York, to ensure that the Winnipeg Congress is both productive and enjoyable.

All of the essential registration, accommodation and program information regarding the Winnipeg

events are available at the WFM–Canada web site (www.worldfederalistscanada.org).

I can tell you, however, that, as I write this note, five weeks before the event, we are fielding numerous requests for additions to our formal program agenda. Our time together in Winnipeg will also include numerous “side events,” receptions pretty much every night of the week, formal remarks from our international president, Lloyd Axworthy, and international secretariat staff, web-cast forums on the International Criminal Court, UN reforms including a parliamentary assembly, peacekeeping… not to mention the networking and renewal of friendships that make these events rather special milestones in one’s time spent in an organized social movement like the World Federalists. We look forward to seeing you soon, this July, at the University of Winnipeg.

Sincerely, Dr. James Christie Council Chair, World Federalist Movement

2 mondial

JUNE 2012

Multilateralism promotes global democracy to a complex situation, even withholding consensus for G-8 efforts. Our treaty obligations are ignored, whether on climate change or refugees. We operate independently in developing countries despite international agreements to co-ordinate with other donors.

Why does multilateralism matter to Canada?

Multilateralism has evolved to mean a large number of states co-ordinating national policies to address international challenges, either through the UN and its agencies or other international bodies. It promotes a more democratic approach to global decision-making on a broad range of issues. All members play a role in maintaining the institution, the provision of resources and the implementation of decisions.

Multilateral institutions are not without faults and limitations, hence the constant presence of reform on the international agenda. However, initiating or contributing to such reform requires at the very least a constructive attitude and informed presence by interested countries.

As Tom Keating noted in a 2003 paper published by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, Canadians have consistently identified with the multilateralist approach, seeing it as “a way to support a stable global order, serve particular Canadian interests, distinguish Canadians from others, and help define Canadians’ identity.”

Indeed, it enabled Canada to play a major role in many of the big international decisions taken

since the Second World War. Most recently, the ‘responsibility to protect’, an essentially Canadian-designed concept, was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in the Millennium Plus 5 Summit declaration. However, recent statements by leading government ministers do not reflect this view of multilateralism.

Foreign Minister John Baird, for instance, in his 2011 address to the UN General Assembly, told the world that Canada will operate multilaterally “based on what is in Canada’s interests….”

There is no intrinsic problem in protecting our interests, but surely the General Assembly is the one place to recognize that it IS in our interest to work collectively to address global challenges. Instead, Mr. Baird quoted Margaret Thatcher: “Consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes….”

Now we know where we stand: unbending, unable to compromise for the greater good, not even believing in the possibility of consensus-based management of global issues. The most obvious statement was the absence from the UN of Prime Minister Harper himself, one of the few heads of government not to attend.

It was not always so After the Second World War, Canadians were aware that a global system of crisis management and governance was the best protection against big power conflicts, as well as the way for Canadians to influence global decision-making. With its new

post-war confidence and an effective diplomatic capability, Canada had significant influence in the creation of new structures and played key roles in the drafting of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the shaping of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council in which it achieved membership in 1948-9 and every decade since, until now. It also played a role in bringing existing agencies into association with the UN, and in the formation of new agencies such as UNICEF and the High Commission for Refugees.

This ushered in a period of ‘middle power’ politics in which Canada truly did ‘punch above its weight.’ Far-sighted Canadian representatives understood that although we were not a big power able to impose our views, we could play in the big power league and create conditions which would work for both our own interests and the greater good. By recruiting allies to causes that mattered to us and resonated with others, Canadians became known as innovators and power brokers, trusted in many international forums.

Fundamental to this worldview was a deliberate policy to continue an approach based on multilateral institution-building to address global and regional political, financial and development issues. Canada became a member of the Regional Development Banks and Funds and was an active player in such bodies as the OECD, ASEAN, APEC, Colombo Plan, Commonwealth Programs for the Caribbean and Africa and - belatedly - the

▼

Continued from page 1 _________

“Now we know where we stand [with the Harper government]: unbending, unable to compromise for the greater good, not even believing in the possibility of consensusbased management of global issues….”

JUNE 2012

mondial 3

Author Erna Paris to highlight WFMC awards banquet (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 “International Criminal Court’s first conviction,” “EU future dim?

Blame phoney fiscal union,” “Some optimistic on nuclear talks with Iran,” “Nuclear weapons: In, of, and out of the world,” and “Our military’s role: warriors? Or peacekeepers?”

Material is not copyrighted. Submissions are wel-

come. Il nous fera plaisir de publier les articles présentés en français.

Mondial’s editorial working group: Leonard Angel Robin Collins Monique Cuillerier Karen Hamilton Donna Lindenberg Simon Rosenblum Fergus Watt ISSN number: 1488-612X

Publications mail agreement No. 40011403 Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: World Federalist Movement – Canada Suite 207, 145 Spruce Street Ottawa, ON K1R 6P1 E-mail: wfcnat@web.ca Web site: worldfederalistscanada.org

Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice, explores the little-known history of global justice and the advent of the world’s first permanent International Criminal Court.

The World Peace Award has been presented annually or every second year since 1972.

Erna Paris There have been 31 previous recipients, including most recently, Lloyd Axworthy, Louise Arbour, Philippe Kirsch, Roméo Dallaire, Ernie Regehr, Gerry Barr and Flora MacDonald.

Recipients of the Hanna Newcombe Lifetime Achievement Award have included Hanna Newcombe, Peter Langille and William Pace. Jim Christie’s active involvement in the World Federalists dates back 30 years and includes service on the WFM–C council, two terms as WFM–C national president and (from 1995 to present) as chair of the International Council of the World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy. •

Multilateralism put Canada at the table Organization of American States. We managed to get into the G7 and later inspired the creation of the G20. And when it came to taking our turn at the table in governing councils or executive committees, Canada could always be counted on to do more than its minimum share.

This had the advantage of putting us at the table in almost

▼

Published by the World Federalist Foundation

Acclaimed Canadian author Erna Paris is the 2012 recipient of the WFM–Canada World Peace Award. The award, to be presented July 12 in Winnipeg, recognizes an outstanding Canadian whose work advances awareness and action in support of a more peaceful future for humanity.

A second award, the Hanna Newcombe Lifetime Achievement Award, will also be presented at the July 12 WFMC Awards Banquet. The 2012 recipient of the Hanna Newcombe Award is Dr. James Christie.

Erna Paris (www.ernaparis. com) is the author of seven books and the winner of 10 national and international prizes. Her writing, including frequent contributions to the opinion pages of major Canadian newspapers, chronicles humanity’s intermittent but genuine progress in establishing the social, political and legal foundations of the ongoing battle against impunity, and for the rule of law. Her most recent book, The Sun Climbs

every important international issue. In the Cold War period, Canada was a participant in every UN peacekeeping mission, though our leading role in the Blue Berets ended a decade ago.

The list of Canada’s past international achievements is long and impressive.

Continued on page 4

4 mondial

JUNE 2012

Multilateralism: death by a thousand cuts Continued from page 3 _________

How did we lose it?

How did a country so admired for its co-operative international effort allow multilateralism to slip so low on the totem pole?

The change began gradually with cuts in international diplomacy and development from the late 1980s onwards to address the runaway deficit, even as the number of international institutions greatly increased. Even before the budget cuts of the mid-1990s, Canada – a G7 member – no longer had a G7 development budget. While political pressure remained for Canada to be present on almost every issue, the need to be effective called for concentration and hard choices.

The 1990s saw the erosion of our international reputation as a serious player. Canada was no longer in the top 10 of multilateral development contributors and was losing influence. Our diplomatic presence was being hollowed out. During the slaying of the deficit, we told our development partners not to worry and that we would be back, but we did not come back. Ottawa was not willing to use its hard-won financial stability for something as nebulous as restoring Canada’s place on the international stage. The political focus was on getting or staying elected, which was seen to require more attention to domestic affairs than to our place in the world.

In the new century, the international scene continued to change, with the lack of UN support for the invasion of Iraq and U.S. disdain for further multilateral efforts. In Canada, the new Conservative government turned

away from the UN in matters of international security. Mistrust of the UN after Rwanda, Somalia and Bosnia persisted among Canadian generals, despite UN reforms in the following decade and success in several peacemaking operations.

Where are we now?

The Harper government has made it clear that it has little use for the UN. After losing its bid for membership on the Security Council, government members made disparaging comments about that “corrupt organization.” How can they behave in this childish manner, spurning a whole system of institutions critical to world peace, security and development?

On the development side, the retreat from multilateralism betrays a serious misunderstanding of the functioning of the institutions concerned. Support for the ongoing existence of Israel is the responsibility of all democracies, but the recent cuts to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is particularly egregious. Ignoring the important role that UNRWA plays operating in support of Palestinians and advancing stability in the Middle East, Canada has redirected support away from UNRWA’s core functions and instead to a few specific projects.

This is particularly egregious, weakening the institution’s basic capabilities to deliver even on Canada’s own stated objectives of good management and accountability. Such “cherry picking” is not responsible multilateral behaviour.

Again, Canada waited two years for its turn on the newly created Peacebuilding Commission, designed as a new multilateral mechanism to support countries in various ways to rebuild after war. Inexplicably, in its two-year term Canada committed not a penny to any country on the Commission’s agenda.

It is said that showing up is half the battle but, in this case, it would have been better not to show up at all.

What can the future bring?

It is unlikely that Canada’s current government will change direction. There is no strong commitment to maintain multilateral instruments or any understanding that the world’s challenges can only be met by collective effort backed by intellectual and financial resources. In the drive to redefine Canada in more militaristic terms, our diplomatic and development capability is being gutted with cuts to missions abroad and overseas development budgets.

A renewed commitment to global causes, as an expression of our values, would extend our influence and protect our long-term interests. It is badly needed. • Carolyn McAskie is a former Canadian and international civil servant living in Wakefield, Quebec. She held posts as CIDA VicePresident for Africa and most recently as the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding, before that as Head of the UN Peacekeeping Operation in Burundi. She is currently a professor with the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

“In the drive to redefine Canada in more militaristic terms, our diplomatic and development capability is being gutted with cuts to missions abroad and overseas development budgets.”

JUNE 2012

mondial 5

Stink-bomb: Draft law would gut cluster treaty

Fergus Watt is WFM–Canada’s Executive Director.

“The problem with Bill S-10 is that many of its provisions are contrary to the purposes and provisions of the treaty.”

by Fergus Watt The Government of Canada has tabled draft legislation, Bill S-10, “An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” that is so conspicuously bad, that it undermines the very treaty it purports to help implement.

The legislation was introduced April 25, 2012 in the Senate.

Civil society organizations, in Canada and internationally, immediately called for major changes to remedy the draft bill.

Cluster munitions are explosive weapons that release small sub-munitions or bomblets.

Because cluster bombs release many small bomblets over a wide area, they pose considerable risks to civilians both during attacks and afterwards. Most importantly, many cluster munitions may remain unexploded, posing a risk to civilians long after a conflict has ended. Due to these indiscriminate effects, many governments agreed to join international negotiations leading to their legal prohibition.

By April 2012, a total of 111 states had joined the convention, either as a signatory (signed but not yet ratified) or a state party (having ratified or acceded to the treaty).

Most international treaties like the Convention on Cluster Munitions require national implementing legislation. Canada became a signatory to the cluster munitions convention soon after the May 2008 conclusion of negotiations. By signing the treaty, Canada signaled its intention to uphold and be bound by the treaty’s terms and eventually ratify and implement the provisions of the treaty in domestic law.

The problem with Bill S-10 is that many of its provisions are contrary to the purposes and provisions of the treaty. Under the convention, each state party undertakes never under any circumstances to: – use cluster munitions; – develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone directly or indirectly, cluster munitions; – assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under the convention.

Particularly controversial during negotiation of the treaty was Article 21, which dealt with possible co-operation by states which had ratified the treaty with states which had not (for example, Canadian military co-operation with the U.S.). Article 21 makes provision for such military co-operation. But it also makes clear that this co-operation does not authorize a state party: – to develop, produce or otherwise acquire cluster munitions; – to itself stockpile or transfer cluster munitions; – to itself use cluster munitions; – to expressly request the use of cluster munitions in cases where the choice of munitions used is within its exclusive control.

So what’s wrong with the draft Canadian legislation? Plenty!

The legislation specifies a number of “exceptions” to the general prohibitions as set out in the treaty. These exceptions provide that, while Canadians may not use cluster munitions, we will be allowed to a. request that others use them; or (when in position of com-

mand authority) command that others use them; and b. transport them (including assistance with import or export) on behalf of others.

(There are a number of other exceptions in the draft legislation that are reasonable and uncontroversial, such as allowing possession for the purpose of disassembling, or for military training, etc.)

Thus, as a general rule, Canadian military personnel would phase out the capacity to use cluster munitions when acting alone. Canadian stocks of these weapons are reportedly being dismantled, but this has not been completed. But when acting in concert with others, they would be allowed to command, request, conspire to use, assist, etc., the use of cluster munitions by those with whom they are co-operating.

And when one considers that 1. much of the activity undertaken by Canadian military personnel is precisely in such co-operation with other military forces, either in NATO, the UN or bilateral contexts, and 2. our closest ally, the United States, is not party to the treaty. then these “exceptions” pose a significant problem for a treaty regime that is dedicated to an eventual ban on the use of these weapons.

By comparison, there are no such similar “exceptions” to be found in the 1997 Canadian legislation implementing the landmines treaty. Indeed, the norm created by that treaty to proscribe the use of landmines has See “Cluster…” on page 6

6 mondial

JUNE 2012

International Criminal Court’s first conviction Honduras, Korea and Nigeria.

Current Cases

ICC and Palestine’s statehood

In March 2012 in its first verdict, the International Criminal Court (ICC) found Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the Democratic Republic of Congo guilty of the war crimes of conscripting and enlisting children under the age of 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities.

A second trial, that of Congolese nationals Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, has begun closing arguments. The trial of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, of Central African Republic, is also continuing.

There remain seven cases and situations currently ongoing: in Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Darfur (Sudan), Central African Republic, Kenya, Libya and Côte d’Ivoire.

Additionally, the Office of the Prosecutor is conducting preliminary examinations in a number of situations including Afghanistan, Georgia, Guinea, Colombia,

In early April, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC announced that it was unable to proceed with its investigation of the Palestinian Territories as it did not have the authority to determine whether Palestine was a “state” for the purposes of the Rome Statute, maintaining that the United Nations or the ICC Assembly of States Parties would have to make that determination. The door was left open for future consideration of “allegations of crimes committed in Palestine, should competent organs of the United Nations or eventually the Assembly of States Parties resolve the legal issue relevant to an assessment… the Rome Statute or should the Security Council… make a referral.”

Criticism of the decision has come from various sources.

Amnesty International criticized the statement and called for “an independent judicial determina-

Cluster bomb bill better off dead Continued from page 5 ______

led to a significant decrease in their deployment by states like the U.S. which have not signed or ratified it.

Bill S-10 needs considerable amendment before it is passed

by Canada’s Parliament. If it’s defects are not fixed, the precedent that Canada would set by legislating such glaring loopholes in the treaty would significantly undermine the Cluster Munitions Convention.

Due to Canada’s previous leadership role creating the landmines treaty, others will notice what Canada does now by way of implementation of the Cluster Munitions Convention. If Parliament does not fix the legislation, it would be better to simply not pass it, postponing ratification, if need be, but at least avoiding setting the kind of precedent that would open the door for other governments to also weaken the treaty in this way. •

tion of the issue by the ICC judges, rather than a political determination by external bodies where the matter will likely remain unresolved indefinitely while victims continue to be denied justice.” International criminal law professor Dr. Kevin Jon Heller felt that, although the decision may have been politically sound, on the question of “which organ of the ICC gets to decide whether Palestine can accept the Court’s jurisdiction,” the answer is far less certain.

Law professor William Schabas stated that the prosecutor’s decision “ducks the issue and misinterprets the Rome Statute.” He suggests that although the Secretary-General has the competence to decide “whether an entity can join the Court,” the question “posed by article 12(3) is simply a question of fact, like so many other questions of fact that must be determined, in the first place, by the prosecutor and, in the second place, by the judges.”

New ratifications The most recent ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC was Guatemala at the beginning of April. Currently, 121 countries have ratified the statute.

The Coalition for the ICC’s Universal Ratification Campaign continues, with Mauritania and Turkey the focus in June and Indonesia, Kuwait and Ukraine in July.

Liechtenstein ratifies crime of aggression amendment On May 8, 2012, Liechtenstein became the first state party to ratify the amendment to the Rome Statute pertaining to the crime of aggression, which

▼

by Monique Cuillerier

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

“…the ICC announced that it was unable to proceed with its investigation of the Palestinian Territories at this time as it did not have the authority to determine whether Palestine was a “state” for the purposes of the Rome Statute…”

JUNE 2012

mondial 7

EU future dim? Blame phoney fiscal union izens can change the administration. Opinion polls reveal that the citizens are greatly dissatisfied with the way the European Union works, but nobody tells them how to change the European “governance.” Here is the gist of the European democratic deficit: in the Lisbon Treaty the word “government” does not even exist. And since the EU does not have a legitimate government, the Franco-German ‘directoire’, a non-democratic government, rules.

During the sovereign debt crisis, the strategy of the FrancoGerman directoire was to defend the euro at the least cost – the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) – compatible with the interests of France and Germany. Of course, the interest of Germany was to save the

euro, because the German economy is fully integrated into the single market, but also to lower the risk of instability deriving from member states with excessive deficits and debts. This explains the obsession on austerity policies. The smooth working of the monetary union requires the compliance of member states with the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), an EU framework for the co-ordination of national fiscal policies in the economic and monetary union (EMU). But an excess of austerity can kill the European economy.

In Greece, the GDP has fallen by 5 per cent and the risk of default is still looming. In 2012, Italy, Spain and France will be Continued on page 8

First state ratifies criminalizing aggression would criminalize the use of armed force by one state against another.

The crime of aggression had been included in the Rome Statute in 1998 but its definition and the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over the crime were left for subsequent negotiations which culminated in agreement at a 2010 Kampala Review Conference. The 2010 amendments define the crime of aggression and set out supplementary “Elements of Crimes.”

The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression after 2017, once 30 states have ratified the amendments and subject to adoption by the Assembly of States Parties.

▼

Guido Montani is vice president of the Union of European Federalists and professor of International Political Economy at the University of Pavia, Italy.

by Guido Montani For much of Europe, 2012 will be a year of recession, increasing social discontent and serious political troubles. The 2008 financial crisis spread from the United States to Europe and the world. Today, the European recession slows down the world economy and endangers the monetary union. It is the breeding ground for euro-skepticism and nationalism, not only in peripheral countries, such as Hungary, but in the actual core of Europe: in France, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. The sovereign debt crisis was not caused by the financial market but by the inadequate FrancoGerman governance.

As a rule, when a government is not able to face the problems of a political community, the cit-

10th anniversary of the ICC On July 1, 2002, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force, creating the world’s first permanent international court to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Currently, 121 nations have joined the Rome Statute. In 2011 alone, there were six new ICC states parties, the most in any given year since 2003.

The ICC’s 10th anniversary this year is a symbolic milestone that will be celebrated throughout 2012 by all actors involved in the fight against impunity for grave crimes. It is an opportunity to reflect upon the tremendous

achievements made in the field of international criminal justice in the past 10 years, as well as a reminder of the urgency for all states committed to justice to ensure continued support for the Rome Statute.

At the International Congress of the World Federalist Movement in Winnipeg this July, ICC experts in Winnipeg and from around the world will take stock of the Court’s accomplishments and the challenges ahead on the road to a universal system of international criminal justice for the worst atrocities. For more information, see the World Congress program at www.worldfederalistscanada.org.

8 mondial

JUNE 2012

Autonomous EU budget needed to end slump in recession. There is something wrong with European economic policy. It is easy to see the shortcomings. The so-called fiscal union is a deception, a new name to impose more effective rules for the members of the SGP. But what can a fiscal union do without an EU budget? Why does the European fiscal union consist only of national budget constraints? The EU budget should be the tool to finance European public goods – such as investments in research, energy grids, green investments, cohesion funds, etc. In short, it is the tool for solidarity and growth. It is worth remembering that ‘EMU’ means Economic and Monetary Union: a fiscal union should provide tools for a more coherent and effective economic union. But for the German government, Europe does not need more solidarity and more growth.

The main problem is that, in a Council of 17 members, it is clear that the main decisions will be taken by the Franco-German directoire. Can we consider this kind of governance democratic? Can the European Parliament (not even mentioned in the European Council’s December 2011 decisions) dismiss the directoire?

The Franco-German directoire had the power to push Europe towards a serious recession, but it does not have the power to plan a recovery. If half of the EU countries are in recession, only a European plan for growth, supported by the main political parties and social partners, can succeed. Europe needs

a recovery plan and a democratic government. They are two aspects of the same problem.

The real basis of a European recovery plan is a long-term political perspective on crucial goals, such as renewable energies, investments in human capital, communication networks, regional policies, and the single market. Only a European democratic government can launch an ambitious project, find the support of European citizens and national governments, and maintain a continuous dialogue with the European Parliament.

The core of a true European fiscal union – not a reinforced SGP – already exists. The linchpin of a recovery plan is an EU autonomous budget. Today, the EU budget is not autonomous and is not big enough. The authoritative report “Europe for Growth” – signed by three MEPs: Jutta Haug, Alain Lamassoure, Guy Verhofstadt – shows the main line for an effective reform: the EU budget should be financed by its own resources (a mixture of a financial transaction tax, a carbon tax, and a corporate tax). Moreover, some national expenses (such as advanced research, development aid, defence) can be managed more efficiently at the European level.

We cannot discuss the details of these reform proposals here.

Maybe they are not enough and should be improved. However, it is necessary to emphasize that a recovery plan is a political project. A recession can easily become a 10-year long depression, as in the 1930s. The inevitable social disorders and growing euro-skepticism will cause the collapse of the Europe-

an project. A directoire delivers inefficiency, division and recession.

Only a democratic government can lead Europe towards safer waters. The necessary reform to attain this goal is not too complex: the European Commission is already responsible to the European Parliament, but today it is considered a bureaucratic body, a secretariat of the Council.

In order to change the negative image of the European Commission, it is necessary to link the choice of its president to European elections (to the will of the people), and to increase its political authority by merging the presidency of Commission and Council. The goal is ‘One President for the EU.’ Later on, it will probably become necessary to revise the method of appointing the commissioners.

But the starting point can be a quick reform of the Lisbon Treaty, before the European election of 2014. Moreover, in order to link the appointment of the president of the EU to the European election closely, reform of the EU Parliament electoral system – a European constituency, as proposed by MEP Andrew Duff – should be taken into consideration. A more radical reform is the direct election of the president of the EU, but this reform requires more time and a broad public debate, since it will lead to a presidential system.

As European Federalists, we appeal to the European Parliament. The legitimate representatives of European citizens must raise their voice. They cannot confine their role to ratifying the decisions of the national governments or to give advice.

They have the power (Article

▼

Continued from page 7 _________

“The linchpin of a recovery plan is an EU autonomous budget.

Today, the EU budget is not autonomous and is not big enough.”

JUNE 2012

mondial 9

Some optimistic on nuclear talks with Iran

“Before Tehran agrees to cease enrichment to 20 per cent levels, the P5+1 will have to be prepared to address Iran’s need for fuel rods to allow it to continue production of medical isotopes”

On a recent visit to Israel, U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that it would not be prudent to attack Iran and that to do so would not achieve Israel’s long-term objectives. He said a strike would delay the capability of Iran to achieve nuclear weapons status probably for a “couple of years.” He also said “We also know, or believe we know, that the Iranian regime has not decided they will embark on the capability or to weaponize their nuclear capability,” and that “the Iranian regime is a rational actor. And it’s for that reason… the current path for all is the most prudent path at this point.”

On April 13–14, talks in Istanbul resumed between Iran and the “P5+1” (U.S., UK, Russia, China, France, plus Germany) with Turkey playing a crucial brokering role. The main contentious issue has always been uranium enrichment. For more than 6 years, the P5+1 have insisted that Iran suspend its enrichment altogether. Fortunately, the P5+1 abandoned its absolutist position shortly before the commencement of talks.

Instead, the P5+1 are now seeking a permanent agreement whereby Iran will agree to abandon its enrichment of uranium to 20 per cent levels (concentration

Trust low in EU institutions 48 of the Lisbon Treaty) to ask for a new convention.

They must use it.

They should involve citizens, organizations of civil society, national parliaments and trade unions in a debate on the future of the Union. Today, the citizens’

▼

Bill Pearce is a member of WFMC Council.

by Bill Pearce On October 14, 2011, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the governments of the Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States made a joint statement designating Finland as the host government for the 2012 Conference on the Establishment of the Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and All Other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDFZ).

Although it is a long-term goal, the achievement of a WMDFZ in the Middle East would make an important contribution to regional security, a goal made all the more necessary in light of the recent standoff between Israel and Iran. Clearly, the success of the conference depends largely on a lessening of tensions in the Gulf with respect to Iran’s enrichment program.

Tensions between Israel and Iran have been at an all-time high. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak have been increasingly vocal in expressing concern that Israel may be “running out of time” in its ability to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. A number of senior Israeli officials are reported to favour an attack on Iran, even though this would be a clear violation of international law.

trust in EU institutions has waned with the bad governance of the directoire. The only way to regain their confidence is to involve them in the construction of a true fiscal union and a federal government.

of uranium-235 needed for weaponization) but be allowed to enrich uranium to 3.5 per cent levels to satisfy its need to produce electricity. The talks ended on a positive note with an agreement to hold a second round of talks in Bagdad on May 23. The parties to the talks have since expressed optimism that an accord might be reached. World oil prices fell on the news and U.S.-Iran tensions appear to have eased.

Before Tehran agrees to cease enrichment to 20 per cent levels, the P5+1 will have to be prepared to address Iran’s need for fuel rods to allow the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) to continue production of medical isotopes. Tehran will also be asked to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Additional Protocol which would allow for international monitoring and full disclosure of ongoing nuclear program activities. All nations will have to lift all sanctions. If talks continue on a positive note, there is no reason why a diplomatic solution to the problem cannot be realized.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister and a coalition of hawkish and neo-conservative think tanks and policy analysts have responded with alarm to the idea that Washington and Tehran might strike a deal. What should Canada do?

Canada should not only continue to provide its full support to a diplomatic resolution to the crisis but should also encourage Israel to participate in the talks later this year on a Middle East WMDFZ. Israel has so far indiSee “Mideast …” on page 14

10 mondial

JUNE 2012

Nuclear weapons: In, of, and out of the world

‘In’ the World That nuclear weapons are very much ‘in’ the world is undeniable. As of March 2012, the nuclear weapon possessors— China, North Korea, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—are estimated to possess 19,500 nuclear weapons.

As is well known, the U.S. and Russia hold about 95 percent of the world total.

The other nuclear weapons states won’t negotiate the elimination of their stocks until the U.S. and Russia reduce theirs to much lower levels. But bilateral negotiations are stuck over missile defence plans, NATO’s persistent Cold War mentality, and fear of American conventional superiority (for example, a superiority in drone attacks that is demonstrated every day).

In 2000, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) made the start of a breakthrough, with all states giving an “unequivocal undertaking” to the total elimination of nuclear weapons via a 13-step plan.

But the major states have pulled back, extended nuclear deterrence has become the new norm, and not even President Obama’s eloquent call for a nuclear weapons free world has been able to dislodge the atrophy of his own administration or the militaryindustrial complex’s chains choking off political debate.

The latest rounds of discussions at the NPT (last month’s PrepComm for the 2015 Review Conference) were a ritualistic façade oblivious of the stark dangers humanity is facing through the retention, and extension, of nuclear weapons. The stultification of the NPT process is exceeded only by the ossification of the UN’s Conference on Disarmament. Not one state is willing to start convening meetings to actually start either discussions or negotiations for a legal ban on all nuclear weapons. For their part, the P5, who are, of course, the original nuclear weapons states (NWS), pretend to be acceding to calls for transparency while using their political muscle to thwart even modest moves by states wishing to move forward on the nuclear disarmament agenda.

The only redeeming feature of the 2012 PrepComm was the statement on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament issued by Switzerland on behalf of 16 states, calling on the nuclear weapons states “to give increasing attention to their commitment to comply with international law, including international humanitarian law.”

The statement was an appeal to conscience in raising awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. Only two NATO states, Norway and Denmark, signed the statement. Canada was notably absent.

‘Of the World’ The failure to achieve even minimal concrete steps toward the elimination of nuclear weap-

ons has led to a new development: the “normalization” of nuclear weapons. New generations are coming to their maturity with nuclear weapons part of the “furniture” of life. Though nuclear disarmament may be intensely debated by a small coterie of knowledgeable persons, the subject is absent on the campuses, absent in the media, absent in the churches, and absent in most of civil society discussions and work for the human security agenda.

The apathy of the public – everywhere – is at least one factor in letting the nuclear weapons states have an easy pass in their modernizing programs. As Reaching Critical Will’s new publication, Assuring Destruction Forever, shows, all the nuclear weapons states are modernizing their nuclear arsenals and planning to keep them operative for at least another half century. The public has been fooled into thinking that somewhat smaller numbers of nuclear weapons means nuclear disarmament is taking place. Far from it: the smaller numbers are a mask for the qualitative improvements and normalization of the weapons systems, which have become an integral part of the political and economic architecture of the present global system. In the middle of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, the Obama administration brazenly committed $180 billion extra for the modernization of its nuclear arsenals to ensure they would be “safe, secure and reliable.” Modernization of their nuclear stocks is now a major priority of the U.S. and Russia. These programs

▼

Remarks by Douglas Roche, former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament and current Chair of the Middle Powers Initiative at a meeting of Canadian disarmament advocates in Ottawa, May 28, 2012.

Doug Roche

“…all the nuclear weapons states are modernizing their nuclear arsenals and planning to keep them operative for at least another half century…”

JUNE 2012

mondial 11

Canadian government silent on disarmament ▼

are contrary to the NPT Article VI obligation of cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. Over the next decade, another $1 trillion is slated to be spent on nuclear modernization, money that is desperately needed to meet the rising challenges in health care, education, infrastructure and environmental needs.

What does the Canadian government say about all this?

Nothing. The voluminous literature injected into the NPT PrepComm by Canada is filled with efforts toward non-proliferation.

I commend the Canadian government for its work in the 10nation Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative and the Global Partnership Program (securing and preventing the spread of existing radiological materials), but these scarcely deal with nuclear disarmament, which is the heart of the nuclear weapons issue. One looks in vain for any manifestation of Canadian interest in supporting the mounting efforts to build a law banning all nuclear weapons.

Canadian political speeches and DFAIT papers are devoid of any reference to the unanimous motion in Parliament calling on the Canadian government to support the UN Secretary-General’s Five-Point Plan for nuclear disarmament, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. There has been no action to implement Parliament’s call for “a major worldwide Canadian diplomatic initiative,” and the voices of the 570 distinguished Canadians who signed the Order of Canada call for Canada to support negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons

“The longer nuclear weapons remain ‘in’ and ‘of’ the world, the harder it will be to get them ‘out’ of the world. To do this, we must focus on developing a law to ban all nuclear weapons.”

Convention appear to have been ignored.

The complicit willingness of many states, including Canada, to stay silent in the face of the extensive modernization of nuclear weapons is a comment on how nuclear weapons in the hands of “friendly” nations have become normalized; and also how democracy is being undermined by the powerful tentacles of the military-industrial complex.

‘Out of the World’ The longer nuclear weapons remain ‘in’ and ‘of’ the world, the harder it will be to get them ‘out’ of the world. To do this, we must focus on developing a law to ban all nuclear weapons. The insidious policy of incrementalism must be exposed as a fraudulent device whose real result will be the perpetuation – and eventual use – of nuclear weapons.

The 2010 consensus NPT Final Document stated: “The conference calls on all nuclear weapons states to undertake concrete disarmament efforts and affirms that all states need to make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons.” All states – the strong and weak, the rich and poor – stand on common ground: the global need to reduce nuclear dangers by making it unlawful for anyone to use, deploy, produce, or proliferate nuclear weapons.

Support for starting work now is widespread. More than threequarters of the countries of the world have voted for a United Nations resolution calling for the commencement of negotiations

leading to the conclusion of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

Support comes from across the geo-political spectrum, including from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and parts of Europe, and includes support from some of the countries possessing nuclear weapons, including China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. In fact, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has noted that nations that support a ban make up 81 percent of the world’s population.

Despite this growing support for a treaty, many major states are still unwilling to enter such negotiations. To overcome this obstacle, a practicable action would be a core group of countries starting an informal process to start building the framework for a nuclear weapons free world.

This could include preparatory work on some of the elements of a framework, such as verification, national prohibition, exploring what would be required to ensure compliance with a global ban, advancing alternative security frameworks to nuclear deterrence, and further refining the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention to make it into a realistic working draft for actual negotiations. Such work would pave the way for eventual formal negotiations. This could be complemented by actions by like-minded states to build political momentum for such negotiations through advocacy at the highest level, or through establishing a full-scale international diplomatic conference as called for by numerous commissions.

See “Time for …” on page 14

12 mondial

JUNE 2012

Our military’s role: warriors? Or peacekeepers?

by Robin Collins There’s been a gradual erosion of the notion of Canada as the lead peacekeeping country, the Canada formerly known as an honest broker middle power, and leading advocate for treaties banning anti-personnel landmines and creating an International Criminal Court. These legacies, critics are saying, have origins in a bygone Trudeau or Pearsonian era. They are dated vestiges of soft liberal idealism. The new grown-up version of Canada, post-9/11, is a harder, tougher country, forged in blood, and equipped to fight terrorists and “scum-bags” (in the words of former Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier). Now we can put our troops in harm’s way, which is how they will achieve genuine heroic status, and how Canada will earn her stripes. Blue berets are out.

Noah Richler’s new book, What We Talk About When We Talk About War, will infuriate advocates of that new ‘Canada-aswarrior’ attitude. But many others, such as supporters of the Canada-as-peacekeeper brand, will find confirmation of their fears in these pages. What we Talk About is aimed at a popular audience. It is a collection of anecdotes and analysis, sprinkled with corroborating statements made by well-known military leaders, politicians and academics (such as Rick Hillier, David Bercuson, Jack Granatstein and Doug Bland) and media personalities (such as hockey commentator Don Cherry and journalist Christie Blatchford), that, taken together, create an instructive picture of a significantly changed country.

The book’s title is a reference to a well-known short story by Raymond Carver (What We Talk About When We Talk About Love) in which a group of friends struggle to discuss their widely differing views. They disagree, they bicker, but at least they are willing to talk. Richler is taking us on a literary and conversational ride.

To compare and contrast changing roles, and explore the competing foundation myths within our policy options, Richler uses the analogy of epic sagas versus the modern novel. In one, there is the national projection of Canada seeking self-interest, currying favour with key allies, surrounded by threats, defended by heroic soldiers. We support our troops without questioning the justice or correctness of their missions. In the other, Canada is humanistic, more cosmopolitan, and a country rich in resources that is willing to share her good fortune because we can and should. Perhaps too cute as nonoverlapping contrary frameworks, but as an explanatory tool, the analogy generally works. It makes you think, which is the idea.

To state the obvious, Richler doesn’t believe the new fit is good for Canada. He thinks the world has changed since the Cold War: multilateralism, co-operation, policing (distinguished from warfighting) are necessities and no longer romantic choices.

The revival of heroic myths such as Vimy Ridge, the War of 1812, and other battles, Richler argues, is to invigorate the idea of Canada as a warrior nation, actual history notwithstanding, where Canadians came together

as a unit because blood was spilled. But this view is being promulgated to condemn the other peacekeeping Canada, where soldiers allegedly avoid stepping into harm‘s way. Richler wonders: Shouldn’t we ask ourselves which set of tools works best?

What We Talk About usefully proposes an expanded role for Canada in peace operations, including the development of a permanent standing regiment.

An enhanced college that Richler proposes is not that different from the former Pearson Peacekeeping Centre (that appears to be in the final stages of contraction through budget cuts) but Richler’s reconditioned version would specialize in peace operations studies, combining expertise in languages, engineering, financing and economics. A new Community Corps (not unlike a volunteer Peace Corps) could focus on international development programs and recruit young Canadians for duties as world citizens.

These concrete ideas need more elaboration. But even in their summary form, they seem a reasonable fit with some of our own world federalist ideas. Richler’s standing regiment might be modified or enhanced, for instance along the lines of a permanent UN Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS).

“The success of peace operations,” Richler writes, “is measured, in the short term, by a cessation of killing and, in the long term, by the ability of democratic institutions to take hold and prevent a society slipping See “Canada…” on page 14

Robin Collins is a member of the Executive Committee of WFM– Canada.

“the world has changed since the Cold War: multilateralism, co-operation, policing (distinguished from warfighting) are necessities and no longer romantic choices.”

JUNE 2012

mondial 13

Democratizing global governance, step by step

Andreas Bummel is the secretarygeneral of the international Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly.

“The UNPA represents a practical step toward a more democratized global governance, a goal that makes more and more sense to more and more people.”

by Andreas Bummel I would like to thank the active members and supporters of the World Federalist Movement– Canada for the outstanding work that has taken place in the first part of 2012 on behalf of the campaign for the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA).

The number of Canadian parliamentarians endorsing the UNPA campaign’s international appeal has nearly doubled, from 39 in January, to 73, representing all political parties in your House of Commons and Senate.

I am informed by Larry Kazdan and Fergus Watt that the WFM–Canada working group on the UNPA campaign comprises 11 members across the country who contributed their personal time and energy to contact MP and Senate offices, to ensure awareness of the UNPA Campaign appeal letter. This is precisely the type of step-by-step citizen support that has enabled the campaign to develop and grow.

This past April marked the five-year anniversary of the launch of the campaign. And it coincided with another milestone: more than 1,000 sitting parliamentarians have endorsed the campaign. Of course, from time to time, these parliamentary endorsers subsequently leave parliament. Therefore, the present tally of support shows 848 current members of parliament from 102 countries, as well as hundreds of distinguished personalities from politics, science, civil society and cultural life.

The UNPA represents a practical step toward a more democratized global governance, a goal

that makes more and more sense to more and more people.

In addition to your achievements in Canada, some of the recent UNPA Campaign accomplishments include: • the third international gathering of Green parties worldwide (Global Greens Congress, March 29 to April 1 in Dakar, Senegal) passed a strong resolution in support of a UNPA. Other international parliamentary networks, like the Liberal International and the Socialist International have in recent years also called for a UNPA. • in December, the parliament of the Mercado Comùn del Sur (MERCOSUR – Southern Common Market consisting of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela) endorsed “the creation of a parliamentary assembly within the United Nations, with the goal of strengthening the effectiveness, transparency, representativity, plurality and legitimacy of the institutions that are part of the UN system.” MERCOSUR is the fifth regional parliament to endorse the call for a UNPA. Since 2007, the Pan-African parliament, the Latin-American parliament, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe and the European parliament have adopted similar resolutions. The UNPA campaign expects the European parliament to renew its support for the UNPA with another resolution in the coming weeks.

Support for the campaign is growing rapidly in India. Fiftytwo Indian parliamentarians

have endorsed the international appeal. A recent launch for the Indian edition of the book A Global Parliament, published by U.S. law professors Andrew Strauss and Richard Falk, was chaired by Vilasrao Deshmukh, Indian Minister of Science and Technology.

The creation of some sort of global parliament was hotly debated at the Lund (Sweden) conference on Earth System Governance. There was widespread agreement on the goal of strengthening global democracy.

However, participants were divided on the practicality of creating a global parliament. This Lund conference brought together more 200 researchers from 30 countries to explore ways in which a more legitimate democratic and accountable earth system governance might be achieved.

The goal of a more democratized global system is not only topical among parliamentarians and professors. In May, an international ‘assembly’ – formed of supporters of Occupy, Take the Square, as well as Latin American, African, Asian and Middle Eastern social movements – published an international manifesto, the “Global May Manifesto.”

It calls for “systemic change” in the global economic and political system, in particular for a democratization of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements and the United Nations. The text, published in the UK by the Guardian, asserts that “all decisions affecting all mankind See ”Governments…” on page 14

14 mondial

JUNE 2012

Governments remain silent on the need for UNPA Continued from page 13 ________

should be taken in democratic forums like a participatory and direct UN Parliamentary Assembly or a UN people’s assembly, not rich clubs such as G20 or G8.”

The declaration demands “full democratization of international institutions, and the elimination of the veto power of a few governments.” Among other things, the activists also suggest global taxation of financial transactions and an abolition of tax havens.

These are a few examples of recent progress. The reality is that, to date, no government supports the goal of establishing a

parliamentary assembly at the UN. Ironically, while democracy is a universally accepted value and governments declare their support for expanding democracy at the national level, they nevertheless remain silent on the need to democratize global governance.

This is a huge contradiction and a glaring political problem that is becoming more apparent to more people around the world.

But turning awareness into political progress takes the organized actions of committed individuals. You have had a great success in Canada these recent months. I look forward to meet-

Canada dampens ‘new swagger’ (from page 12) back into violence in the future.” Canadians’ “predilection” for peace operations has been mostly successful. We should stick with it and not be embarrassed by it. Richler also emphasizes the importance of distinguishing “missions for political convenience” from, for instance, “authentic humanitarian interventions,” referring to the ‘responsibility to protect’.

In the final pages, the author optimistically presents evidence that the ‘us-against-them’, Canada-as-warrior and cheerleader, cannot be sustained forever. Richler sees some indications of softened rhetoric.

After a decade of war in Afghanistan, driven by “epic thinking and the vaunting of the hero,” both hush-hush soldier burials and public processions, Canada has begun to “veer away from its new swagger and to return, again, to being a country cogitating along more internationalist lines.” Even historian Jack Granatstein reluctantly admits Canadians want to return to their ever-popular peacekeeping.

The Canadian government starts to talk about hearts and minds. In the modern global neighbourhood, that’s a prudent approach.

What We Talk About When We Talk About War

by Noah Richler, Published by Goose Lane, 2012, 370 pages.

ing Canadian and international colleagues and activists at the Winnipeg Congress of the World Federalist Movement in July.

See you soon! •

Mideast NWFZ? Continued from page 9 _________

cated it does not intend to participate, but Finland, which will host the meeting, is engaged in discussions with Israel. The matter is far from settled.

Israel is the only state in the Middle East that has not signed the NPT and it continues to bar International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from its territory, despite the fact that it is a full member of the agency. It has repeatedly said that it is not prepared to sign the NPT until it is assured of its security in the Middle East. But Israel has become more engaged in arms control since the 1991 Madrid conference (an early attempt at a Mideast peace process) and has itself endorsed the eventual establishment of a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.

While no one doubts the difficulties the upcoming conference presents, there appears to be international consensus that it is more important than ever for the states in the region to pursue a diplomatic solution to the security issues that plague them.

Time for Canadian government to ‘modernize’ its position Continued from page 11 ________

The crucial point is to start preparatory work before the present window of opportunity closes. We need to find a way to energize the Canadian government to action.

The government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, has so far taken the position that a universalized NPT, a fully inforce Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and a fully implemented Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) are prerequisites

before a Nuclear Weapons Convention should be considered.

DFAIT should “modernize” its own position and recognize that the time has come to start preparatory work that could enable negotiations for a comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Convention.

JUNE 2012

mondial 15

Implementing R2P: It doesn’t get any easier

“R2P will never become the hopedfor vehicle for change if it is seen to represent nothing more than a wishful exhortation for governments to play more conscientiously in future by the same old rules…”

by Fergus Watt The ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) norm has travelled a slow, gradual road to the level of international acceptance it enjoys today. After its adoption at the 2005 World Summit, there were many governments that still contested the applicability and meaning of the new norm. It was not until 2009 that the United Nations General Assembly once again debated R2P. UN General Assembly debates have been held annually since then, and other UN organs have also more frequently referenced the norm.

But 2011 was when R2P really arrived. Twice last year, the responsibility to protect was invoked by the United Nations Security Council in Chapter VII resolutions mandating the protection of civilians, in Côte D’Ivoire and in Libya.

Gareth Evans – Australia’s former foreign minister and former co-chairman of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), and a leading R2P advocate – trumpeted this view last November in an article in Foreign Policy magazine entitled “End of the Argument: How we won the debate over stopping genocide.” Evans claimed that 10 years ago, “the international response to massatrocity crimes – genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other large-scale crimes against humanity – was a consensus-free zone.” Now, “R2P has become a commonplace of international diplomacy.” He claimed that the international community has gone from “complete ideological division on the response to mass-atrocity crimes to the current overwhelming consensus, at least on basic principles.”

Maybe so. But, having won the battle for acceptance of the idea “on basic principles,” now what?

More recent events, including failure to stop atrocities in Syria, Mali, Sudan and South Sudan, demonstrate the challenges to be overcome if R2P is to be implemented successfully on anything more than an occasional basis. It is time to turn our attention to what is colloquially called the “R2P toolkit.”

R2P will never become the hoped-for vehicle for transformational change if it is seen to represent nothing more than a wishful exhortation for governments to play more conscientiously in future by the same old rules that have so often been distorted or ignored in the past.

Operationalizing R2P necessarily entails major reforms to global governance.

Two recent campaigning initiatives by World Federalists demonstrate the challenges posed by the kinds of reforms to global governance suggested by R2P.

1) UNEPS and R2P A United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) would provide the UN with a standing, multidimensional (civilians, police, military) capacity to respond rapidly to humanitarian emergencies for operational civilian protection or as a start-up force for UN peace operations.

In an Ottawa Citizen article, Lloyd Axworthy (Canada’s former foreign minister) and Allan Rock (Canada’s former UN ambassador) considered some of the important lessons learned following the conflict phase of the international community’s “R2P” intervention in Libya.

“First, Libya should be recog-

nized as a major precedent for international engagement to protect people while respecting safeguard rules set out by ICISS, namely multilateral action sanctioned through the UN, using proportional force. Second, the time has come to discuss creating UN capacity to respond in such cases. There are strong arguments for a standing multilateral force, drawing from all the world’s regions. NATO performed well in Libya, but this is not its role. For political and practical reasons, European and North American countries should not be left to do the heavy lifting.”

The utility of a permanent, rapidly deployable UN peace service was also demonstrated during the 2011 conflict in Côte D’Ivoire. A UN peace operation (UNOCI) was already deployed in the country when hostilities flared, following elections in 2010. By protecting civilians at an early stage of the conflict, UN forces contributed significantly to an outcome that ultimately reflected the democratically expressed popular will.

However, just because a UNEPS makes sense, doesn’t mean that governments will agree to create it. As SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon noted in his 2009 report Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, “Despite years of study and public discussion, the United Nations is still far from developing the kind of rapid-response military capacity most needed to handle the sort of rapidly unfolding atrocity crimes referred to in paragraph 139 of the Summit Outcome.”

Although UN forces provide unparalleled legitimacy to R2P See “NGOs…” on page 16

16 mondial

JUNE 2012

Are we there yet? Sexual violence in age of R2P and political context. But the nexus of sexual violence in conflict, the development of the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) norm, and some of the ongoing cases at the International Criminal Court (ICC), provide a new and shifting context in which to consider these issues.

For example, the early development of R2P largely failed to

address gender-based issues. As Jennifer Bond and Laurel Sherret discussed at length in their 2006 paper, A Sight for Sore Eyes: Bringing Gender Vision to the Responsibility to Protect Framework, “current formulations of the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine are almost entirely gender-blind, despite the existence of multiple international

▼

by Monique Cuillerier Sexual violence in conflict is not a new problem, but only recently has it been recognized as a systemic problem and considered as an international peace and security issue, instead of as individual incidents forming a ‘women’s issue.’

Difficulties remain in placing the issue within this wider legal

NGOs mobilize on ‘responsibility not to veto’ Continued from page 15 ________

civilian protection operations, there is still considerable opposition to a UNEPS, from permanent members of the UN Security Council and also smaller states.

In 2012, WFM–Canada and Global Action to Prevent War (GAPW), based in New York, have partnered to promote regional seminars in capitals around the world with a focus on UNEPS and other needed capacity-building that would enable the UN to more effectively implement R2P. Regional meetings have taken place in Brazil, Nigeria, Cameroon, Belgium and Canada, with sessions scheduled for this fall in Denmark and the United Kingdom.

A series of meetings in New York June 10 to 13 brought together representatives of these regional meetings to meet with UN officials, in advance of the 2012 R2P debate. It will take some time before governments are ready to begin creating a UNEPS; the regional discussions and networks established through the WFMC and GAPW meetings will help ensure that the need for UNEPS becomes a

growing part of the international conversation regarding the responsibility to protect.

2) The “S5” and the ‘responsibility not to veto’ In May of this year, WFM and a number of other NGOs mobilized support for the “S5” (or Small-Five -- Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore, and Switzerland) who had proposed a resolution calling on the UN General Assembly to urge the Security Council to reform its working methods, making Council deliberations more transparent and accountable to the overall UN membership. One element of the S5 proposals calls on the five permanent members of the Security Council to consider “refraining from using their vetoes on action aimed at preventing or ending genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The S5 came under heavy pressure from the Security Council’s permanent members. At the last minute, the initiative failed after the UN secretary-general’s top lawyer, Patricia O’Brien, recommended that the resolution required the support of twothirds of the UN membership,

rather than the simple majority required for most General Assembly votes.

Under the UN Charter, a General Assembly resolution requires the support of a simple majority, unless it involves particularly “important questions,” like an amendment of the UN Charter, in which case it would require a vote by two-thirds of the GA. But in 1998, the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that the assembly would not adopt any resolution “on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters” without a two-thirds majority.

O’Brien ruled that the S5 resolution fell into that category of “related matters” and recommended it would be “appropriate” for the UN General Assembly to adopt the resolution only with a two-thirds vote. Switzerland’s UN ambassador Paul Seger, acknowledging the sponsors lacked the two-thirds majority, withdrew the draft at the last moment in the face of “procedural and legalistic maneuvers” that threatened to “engulf” the entire UN membership. •

“…the S5 proposals call on the five permanent members of the Security Council to consider refraining from using their vetoes on action aimed at preventing or ending genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

JUNE 2012

mondial 17

Change is slow on conflict-gender violence ▼

mandates for integrating gender concerns into peace and security initiatives.” For example – and most explicitly – Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) presents a structured approach to women, peace and security, calling for the participation of women in peace and security initiatives, gender training to support peace operations, the protection of women and girls in the midst of armed conflict (particularly with regards to the issue of gender-based violence) and gender mainstreaming throughout programs and processes related to conflict, peace and security. Yet there has been a lack of cross-pollination between R2P and women, peace and security issues.

Movement and change in this area has been slow and uneven, but there currently appears to be a growing trend towards addressing conflict-related sexual violence in general and in relation to R2P in particular. At a recent Security Council meeting, UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict Margot Wallström discussed the broader basis in which sexual violence has implications for peace and security, saying that, while isolated incidents of rape should be dealt with by each country’s own law and order system, “when sexual violence is driven by the dynamics of conflict, is widespread or systematic, constitutes a grave breach of international humanitarian law, or is used for military and political gain, it also warrants consideration by this body, in line with its competence under the UN Charter.”

She continued that “sexual vio-

“…sexual violence that is normalized owing to impunity, or committed by recently demobilized combatants, is also a security issue that requires a security response.

Such violence subverts efforts to cement the peace.”

lence that is normalized owing to impunity, or committed by recently demobilized combatants, is also a security issue that requires a security response.

Such violence subverts efforts to cement the peace.” Wallström also raised the issue of the effects that sexual violence in conflict has on women’s social participation, concluding that “the aim is not only to protect women from violence; it is to protect them to participate in public and economic life. Rape has a chilling effect on women’s political participation, casting a long shadow of trauma and terror. It can inhibit their access to polling booths and public squares. We must send a message that women’s lives and votes and voices count, and will be counted.”

And, at a Global Action to Prevent War (GAPW)-sponsored event on integrating gender perspectives into the third pillar of R2P, a background concept note was developed to be used ahead of this summer’s General Assembly R2P debate, with the hope that there will be more discussion on the role of women in the implementation of responses at the international and national levels, as well as encouraging the use of R2P language in national action plans on resolution 1325.

Additionally, the week of May 6 saw the official launch of an international campaign, Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict (see www.stoprapeinconflict.org). Headed by the Nobel Women’s Initiative, the campaign seeks to establish a collaborative and co-ordinated plan of action among organizations and individuals at the local, national, regional and international levels.

The campaign calls for increasing resources for both prevention and survivors, and for ensuring justice through the prosecution of perpetrators (in-country or internationally).

However, even with growing attention and discussion, there remain outstanding issues regarding how, specifically, sexual violence in conflict should be addressed. One thought-provoking example comes from the recently concluded ICC case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo.

In the ICC’s very first verdict March 14, Lubanga was found guilty of the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 years and using them to participate actively in hostilities in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2002 and 2003. Although a great deal of evidence was presented that girl soldiers were subjected to sexual violence and rape – and the prosecution referred to sexual violence in its opening and closing submissions – no charges had been laid regarding these crimes.

The prosecution took the position, in the summary of the case, that sexual violence and rape were “embedded in the recruiting of children and in their use in hostilities: It becomes irrelevant, therefore, if the prosecution submitted the charges as separate crimes or rightfully included them as embedded in the crimes of which Mr. Lubanga is accused.” Deputy Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda had previously stated that the decision to not include charges related to sexual violence was because “our child soldier case was very strong…

See “Danger…” on page 19

18 mondial

JUNE 2012

Branch News Vancouver – The branch December meeting was a prerecorded lecture, “A History of Violence” by Harvard Professor Steven Pinker, on why we may be living in the most peaceful era of human development. In January, the meeting was a report on the 2011 Ventotene International Seminar. Vivian Davidson, one of the Canadian attendees in 2011, reported on the youth conference in Italy that focused on regional unification processes, federalism, and proposals for a new economic and monetary system. The branch’s February meeting was on the topic “SciFi and the Courage to Hope.” Science fiction author Lynda Williams spoke on stories of utopia and dystopia and how they affect us. In April, Duncan Graham, long-time World Federalist and co-founder of the Global Citizens Association, which advocates a uniting of sub-national political entities as an alternative to UN reform, gave a presentation, “A World Federation, the trend to an Integrated Planet.” The topic “Trends in Human Security and Insecurity” was addressed at the branch’s May meeting, with a presentation by Sebastian Merz of the Human Security Report Project, an independent research centre affiliated with Simon Fraser University that tracks global and regional trends in organized violence, its causes and consequences.

A public consultation on a private member’s bill for the creation of a federal Department of Peace (supported by the NDP, the Liberals and the

Greens) took place in early May. Three peace commissioners, Bill Siksay, former MP who first introduced the bill in parliament in 2009; Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, global peace-building physician and author of Enough Blood Shed, and Blake MacLeod, from the World Federalist Movement – Canada, helped conduct the proceedings.

Following the International Congress of the World Federalist Movement in Winnipeg, July 9 to 13, Andreas Bummel, co-ordinator of the International Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), will be in Vancouver for a series of public events on the UNPA. Victoria — In January, Bo Filter , a World Federalist and author of The Cause of War and Aggression, spoke on “How Western Media Evolved into a Weapon of War.” The presentation traced the history of the media from an institution to inform the public to a political tool of manipulation. At the branch’s February meeting, Guy Dauncey gave a talk on “Global Climate Solutions Treaties: a New Approach” to address the ravages of climate change. In March, Vivian Davidson of the Vancouver branch spoke about her experience at the international Ventotene seminar in Italy, as well as activities of the Vancouver branch.

In April, at the branch’s annual general meeting, Green Party leader Elizabeth May spoke on the subject “The Future of Climate Change After Durban”. At the May meeting, World Federal-

ist Eleanor Powell spoke on the topic “Peace Prize Sometimes Controversial” about her experiences in Norway as a member of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War when it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Montreal – In January, in conjunction with the Montreal branch’s annual post-holiday luncheon, Desirée McGraw, executive director of the Jeanne Sauvé Foundation, spoke on “Rio + 20: Canada, from Leader to Laggard?” sharing her hopes for Rio 2012, as well as her perspectives on the decades since the Earth Summit on Environment and Development (Rio 1992), which she attended as one of two Canadian youth ambassadors.

Since January, the Marie-Berthe Dion Issues Action Group has met monthly. Members have written letters on the following issues: “Quebec’s Plan Nord – Opportunity or Give-Away?”; “The Militarization of Canada without Meaningful Debate”; “Support for the Arms Trade Treaty”; and “The Financial Transaction Tax.” Branch members also held a good discussion meeting on “One World Government and World Federalism”, based on a member’s proposed resolution. In June, the branch will publish updates on these issues and others, such as the good news that the Chrysotile Institute, funded by the Quebec government, has closed its doors; not so good news that Canada’s legislative plans for ratifying the Cluster Munitions Treaty are the worst of any ratifying nation.

JUNE 2012

mondial 19

In the trenches: prep’ing for UN R2P debate

“…current Canadian discussions of R2P are puzzling. In Canada, R2P is treated as a partisan issue. But elsewhere, R2P is not an idea aligned with one political philosophy, or party.”

by Fergus Watt In preparation for the 2012 United Nations General Assembly (GA) debate on the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P), a discussion was held May 30 on UN Capacities for Timely and Decisive Response.

The meeting was organized jointly by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity (chaired by Sen. Roméo Dallaire) and the Civil Society Project on the Responsibility to Protect led

by World Federalist Movement – Canada and Global Action to Prevent War, New York. Participants included parliamentarians and staff from the parliamentary group, civil society representatives and officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The meeting was held in a parliamentary committee room. Six other such regional meetings are taking place this year.

Guest speakers at the Ottawa meeting included: – Piragibe dos Santos Tarrago, Ambassador of Brazil to Canada, who provided an overview of the Brazilian initiative “Responsibility While Protecting;” and – Simon Adams, Executive Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, New York, who discussed the growing acceptance of the R2P normative framework and the Global Centre’s “Focal Points Initiative.”

Discussion summary From an international perspective, current Canadian discussions of R2P are puzzling. In

Canada, R2P is treated as a partisan issue. But elsewhere, R2P is not an idea aligned with one political philosophy, or party. It is non-partisan. Atrocity prevention is everybody’s business.

Acceptance of the ‘responsibility to protect’ at the UN is nearly universal. It is understood primarily as a preventative doctrine and encompasses four crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing). The commitment to uphold R2P is classified in terms of three pillars: – Pillar one: the state’s primary responsibility to protect civilians.

– Pillar two: The international community’s responsibility to assist states in fulfilling these responsibilities.

– Pillar three: The international community should use diplomatic, humanitarian and

other peaceful means to protect populations from these crimes.

If a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community should take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter.

The notion of “responsibility while protecting” was introduced to strengthen the conceptual framework for civilian protection.

It is intended to help clarify and support the ‘responsibility to protect.’ Any international use of force must be implemented in a manner consistent with the Charter’s collective security principles and after all peaceful means have been exhausted.

Care should be taken to avoid unintended consequences when Continued on page 20

Danger in making sexual crimes invisible Continued from page 17 ________

and this was evidence that we could present comfortably before the court… and we proceeded.”

One ICC judge, Judge Elizabeth Odio-Benito, offered a dissenting opinion on the judgement: by “failing to deliberately include within the legal concept of ‘use to participate actively in the hostilities’ the sexual violence and other ill treatment suffered by girls and boys, the Majority of the Chamber is making this critical aspect of the crime invisible.”

And this is something that needs to be considered. The Rome Statute for the ICC marked significant progress in

codifying gender crimes. It is, therefore, disappointing that the prosecution failed to include these crimes in the ICC’s landmark first case. While movement towards the consideration of sexual violence during conflict as a broader peace and security issue – and not sidelined as a ‘women’s issue’ – is undoubtedly a positive step, the danger of it becoming ‘invisible’ within a broader peace and security agenda will have to be addressed. Perhaps the discussions of the further inclusion of women within the R2P norm will be of assistance in establishing women’s necessary and visible role within peace and security issues. •

20 mondial

JUNE 2012

R2P talks consider use of force Continued from page 19 ________

the use of force will cause more harm than the initial threats that it was intended to address.

The use of force must be judicious, limited, proportionate.

Enhanced UN Security Council procedures are needed to monitor and assess implementation of R2P mandates.

R2P ‘focal points’ are senior government officials mandated to enable national efforts to improve mass atrocity prevention and response. The precise mandate given these officials is context specific, depending on the circumstances of the particular government. The Global Centre’s initiative seeks to expand the number of R2P focal points appointed by national governments and to link these focal points within a global network designed to facilitate international co-operation and co-ordination in pursuit of protection-focused objectives.

To date, 13 governments have identified R2P focal points, with at least 20 more assessing guidelines for such an appointment.

Canada is a member of the “Friends of R2P” group at the UN. It was suggested that Canada should also appoint an R2P focal point.

R2P is at a stage where advo-

cates have largely won the battle of ideas. (Another example: growing use of R2P language by the UN Security Council) Now, the question is how to implement.

Other points raised include: – Misuse of the R2P norm will debase the overall concept.

– When does/does not R2P allow/encourage ‘regime change’?

– Libya and Côte D’Ivoire demonstrate that the UN lacks consistent, reliable use-offorce options. NATO will not always be desirable or available; UN peace operations will not always be at hand in areas (as in Côte D’Ivoire) where early deployment is needed.

The UN needs to develop standing capacity for rapid deployment.

– The “friends of mediation” group at the UN should be supported. The UN’s mediation capacities should be strengthened.

– The Charter does not reflect the growing role that regional organizations can play in implementing R2P. Regional organizations are acquiring an “informal veto.”

– In many cases, strengthening regional capacities will strengthen global implementation of the ‘responsibility to protect.’ •

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.

■ VISA ■ MasterCard ■ AMEX

Exp: ____ /____

Card No: _________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________ Please mail this form with payment to WFMC at: 207 – 145 Spruce Street, Ottawa, ON K1R 6P1.

Or donate online at www.worldfederalistscanada.org

Canada Post Corporation / Société canadienne des postes

Postage Paid

207 — 145 Spruce Street, Ottawa, ON K1R 6P1 Phone: 613-232-0647 E-mail: wfcnat@web.ca Website: worldfederalistscanada.org June 2012

Port payè

40011403