In this issue: CIDA-DFAIT merger
Illegal trade with Israel UN peace ‘enforcement’ Rio + 20
6 8 10 11
‘Building a World Community’
May 2013
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.
Arms Trade Treaty: Will it really be effective?
Fergus Watt is Executive Director of World Federalist Movement – Canada.
“Six years of negotiation among governments has yielded a treaty text that is far from perfect.”
by Fergus Watt Will the recently concluded Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) actually lead to meaningful limitations in the international trade in arms? Estimated at $45 billion annually, the arms trade fuels conflict and armed violence affecting millions of people, and inhibits the UN from carrying out its mandate to maintain peace and security. After numerous delays and years of campaigning by a great many civil society organizations around the world, a majority of governments at the United Nations voted April 2 in the General Assembly to adopt the ATT. There were 154 votes in favor, 3 against and 23 abstentions. The treaty enters into force after 50 states have ratified it. The ATT sets international standards for the trade in conventional arms. It covers exports of tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre weapons, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and launchers, small arms and light weapons. Governments will now be required to publish annual reports of their arms exports. The treaty explicitly prohibits transfers that violate arms embargoes authorized by the UN
Security Council, or when a country “has the knowledge at the time of authorization” that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. And in addition to these prohibitions, governments are required to conduct (and make available to the public) an “assessment” of the transfer, to determine that there is not an “overriding risk” of weapons being used to: – undermine peace and security; – commit or facilitate serious violations of humanitarian law or human rights law; – commit or facilitate violations under international conventions relating to terrorism and to transnational organized crime; – commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children. Six years of negotiation among governments has yielded a treaty text that is far from perfect. According to an analysis by Glenn McDonald, senior researcher for the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, some of the ATT’s weaknesses include the following: • The treaty focuses on arms
sales, and not on all the ways in which conventional arms are transferred, including gifts, loans, leases and aid. • Definitions of weapons systems covered don’t include the full range of military equipment present in national arsenals, including transport, refueling, and command and control systems. Further, provisions relating to ammunition, parts and components have one foot inside the treaty and another foot outside of it; the export licensing obligations apply to these items, while most other provisions, including those relating to import, transit/ trans-shipment, brokering, and diversion, do not. The ATT requires states parties to submit annual reports on authorized or actual exports and imports. Transparency is limited, however. These measures do not apply to ammunition or parts and components. Export/import reports for conventional arms may also exclude “commercially sensitive or national security information.” Further, the ATT does little to advance the cause of weapons traceability. The treaty does not specify that export must records See “Treaty…” page 2
2 mondial M a y
2013
Treaty getting mixed reviews Continued from page 1___________
contain sufficient information so as to allow for the unique identification of the conventional arm, indispensable for tracing. In addition to these flaws, China, Russia and some of the other governments that abstained point to the lack of an explicit prohibition on the supply of weapons to non-state actors that would, for example, restrain the ability of Syria’s armed opposition from building up its stockpiles.
Will the treaty succeed? According to McDonald, while important weaknesses remain in the final text, these do not call the treaty, as a whole, into question. What impact it will have on the global conventional weapons trade — and over what period of time — is a more difficult question. The UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) believes the treaty will be largely ineffective. CAAT points out that many of the largest arms exporters were quite comfortable to go along with the treaty’s provisions. CAAT spokesperson Ann Feltham said: “This treaty legitimizes the arms trade. If governments are serious about ending the trade in weaponry, with its dire consequences for peace and human rights, they should immediately stop promoting arms exports.” Although the treaty has no enforcement mechanism, it exposes the arms-trade process to new levels of transparency that proponents of the treaty say could help severely limit illicit weapons deals by shaming violators. Ernie Regehr, former executive director of Project Ploughshares considers this cru-
cial to the long-term likelihood of success for the ATT. According to Regehr, “Adherence to the treaty’s export principles and restraints will depend heavily on political considerations. And that, in turn, highlights the crucial importance of transparency. Implementation is political for two primary reasons: one, there is no sheriff to issue an arrest warrant if the treaty is violated; and, two, the treaty establishes broad international standards for regulating arms transfers and those standards as well as the treaty’s key prohibitions are subject to interpretation. Notably, if there is prior knowledge that a piece of military equipment is likely to be used in the commission of crimes against humanity or violence against civilians, and so on, then an export is prohibited. Well, that is all subject to lots of interpretation. No independent authority will sit in judgment and hand down rulings.” “But it is very important to force the interpretation process more into the open. That’s what reporting helps to do. State reporting will now be subjected to critical attention, as well as verification by independent gatherers of export information, particularly civil society organizations. In the process, the debate about standards and exports will be elevated and particular exports and interpretations will be subjected to heightened political censure. This treaty will not change things quickly or radically, but for those of us working politically to restrain international arms transfer, there is an important new tool available.”
WFMC – ‘Building a world community’ part of new brand The debate over whether WFMC should implement a “branding name change” was discussed extensively during 2012, at three meetings of our governing Council and at the national meeting last summer in Winnipeg. Council has decided not to change the organization’s name, i.e., the name “World Federalist Movement – Canada” will be kept, but a “tagline,” to help introduce and explain the World Federalists, has been added. A tagline is a brief phrase that summarizes the tone and premise of an organization. The adopted tagline WFMC has chosen is “Building a world community.” Expect to see “Building a world community” on the WFMC website and print materials in the near future. You may have already noticed it in the monthly TakeAction emails. In addition to the tagline itself, similar phrasing is being adapted to identify the specific program areas WFMC is active in: Building peace and security, Building international justice, and so on. Each month, in addition to our monthly E-Newsletter (last week of the month), a TakeAction email (second week of the month) indicates specific ways individuals can support campaigns that build a more just and sustainable world community. If you’re not receiving the monthly TakeAction emails but would like to, send an email to the national office (wfcnat@web.ca) or sign up at the TakeAction section at the home page of the WFMC web site (www.worldfederalistscanada. org).
M a y 2 0 1 3
mondial 3
UNPA campaign makes steady progress
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 concluding the article. These include “
” Material is not copyrighted. Submissions are welcome. Il nous fera plaisir de publier les articles 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 Suite 207, 145 Spruce Street Ottawa, ON K1R 6P1 E-mail: wfcnat@web.ca Web site: worldfederalistscanada.org
The Campaign for the Establishment of a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations (UNPA) continues to make steady progress. In recent months, there has been growing support among parliamentarians, among regional parliaments and parliamentary networks, and among various parts of the UN system. The campaign’s next international meeting will take place October 16–17 at the European Parliament in Brussels. Not surprisingly, numerous regional parliaments have provided support for the UNPA proposal. Earlier this year, the East African Legislative Assembly voted in favour of establishing a UNPA. The European Parliament, the Parliament of MERCOSUR, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Latin American Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament have also passed supportive resolutions Among the thousands of individual signatories to the international appeal are 840 parliamentarians from 105 countries. Additional support has come from hundreds of distinguished personalities from politics, science, civil society and cultural life. An important and outspoken advocate for the campaign is former UN SecretaryGeneral Boutros Boutros-Ghali. The campaign’s web site (unpacampaign.org) recently published an audio interview with Dr. Boutros-Ghali. Although no government has yet put forward a formal proposal at the UN for creating a parliamentary assembly, the idea is creeping into UN discussions in
other ways. Alfred de Zayas, the Human Rights Council (HRC) Independent Expert on “the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order” has taken an interest in the UNPA idea and has raised the proposal in his reports to the HRC as well as the UN General Assembly. UNPA Campaign Secretary-General Andreas Bummel will speak at a HRC panel discussion in Geneva on May 16. The 2013 UNDP Human Development Report included a feature article on the proposal of a world parliament by Jo Leinen, a member of the European Parliament and co-chair of the UNPA campaign’s parliamentary advisory group. In Canada, 74 parliamentarians have endorsed the UNPA campaign’s international appeal. A 2007 report of the House of Commons Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development called on the Canadian Parliament to do more in support of the establishment of a UNPA. World Federalists in Vancouver and Ottawa are working with Canadian parliamentarians on a private member’s motion, as well as establishment of a “Friends of the UNPA” group among Canadian MPs and Senators. The establishment of a parliamentary assembly at the UN is seen as a way to increase citizen representation and contribute to the democratization of international politics. A growing roster of global problems not adequately addressed on the basis of traditional bargaining among competing sovereign states, point to the need for stronger collective approaches to global governance.
4 mondial M a y
2013
Pour un gouvernement mondial par Mario Dumais L’humanité fait face à des problèmes dont la solution exige la création d’un gouvernement mondial. Parmi ces problèmes, mentionnons la guerre, la détérioration des écosystèmes planétaires, tels l’atmosphère et les océans, la mondialisation de l’économie en l’absence d’un pouvoir politique pouvant l’encadrer, l’anarchie monétaire internationale, le scandale des paradis fiscaux, les inégalités sociales mondiales, l’absence de planification mondiale de la consommation des ressources épuisables, etc. Les états nationaux actuels et les institutions internationales qu’ils ont créées sont incapables de résoudre ces problèmes. Pour illustrer cette impuissance, prenons l’exemple de la persistance des guerres. L’article premier de la Charte des Nations-Unis mentionne que le premier but de cette organisation, créée en 1945, est de mettre fin à la guerre. Or depuis cette date, le nombre de guerres qu’a subit l’humanité est considérable (des évaluations sérieuses l’estiment à 160 ou plus) et le nombre des mortalités qu’elle a entrainé est de l’ordre de 50 millions. Au-delà de ce carnage, nous subissons en permanence la menace que représentent les armes nucléaires et la multiplication de leurs détenteurs. Sur le plan économique, les dépenses militaires, la destruction d’actifs publics et privés lors des guerres et les pertes de production qu’elles provoquent, les dépenses qu’engendrent le maintien des blessés de guerre, civils et militaires, gaspillent des ressources qui pourraient contribuer sub-
stantiellement à améliorer le sort des plus démunis sur la planète. Ajoutons comme motif supplémentaire de révolte contre la guerre, l’empathie qu’un être humain normalement constitué est susceptible de ressentir envers ceux de son espèce qui vivent les drames de voir leurs proches tués, blessés ou mutilés par la guerre, ou de subir la destruction de leurs moyens de subsistance. Peu de gens sont susceptibles de nier l’existence de problèmes graves que ne peuvent régler les états nationaux ou les organisations internationales existantes. Cependant, la plupart de ceux qui admettent ce fait seront sceptiques face à la possibilité de créer un gouvernement mondial pour y faire face. La vie humaine est si courte, et l’évolution des structures sociales si lentes, que l’on a tendance à penser que celles qui encadrent notre existence sont éternelles. Mais un bref examen de l’histoire nous démontre que les états nationaux qui encadrent notre vie politique sont de création relativement récente à l’échelle de l’histoire humaine. Les règles qui régirent les sociétés humaines, avant d’être mises en place par les états nationaux actuels, ont été tour à tour le fait des familles, des tribus, des cités, des provinces, des fiefs féodaux, et d’empires. Si de longues périodes ont été nécessaires pour franchir les étapes de cette évolution, la révolution technologique dont nous vivons les résultats dans l’univers des communications est susceptible d’accélérer le cours de l’histoire en ce domaine également. L’espèce humaine a créé, par
tâtonnement, plusieurs des institutions et des outils qui ont amélioré son sort. Elle a également appris qu’en l’absence d’un état de droit, les rapports humains sont régis par la loi du plus fort. L’espèce humaine à l’échelle planétaire, ne dispose pas à l’heure actuelle d’un état de droit. Il nous incombe, si nous en souhaitons un, de le faire savoir et de militer en faveur de son avènement. Pour qu’il advienne, nous avons besoin d’un gouvernement mondial. Des mouvements existent à cette fin, et j’ai décidé d’en rejoindre un, qui se nomme : Mouvement fédéraliste mondialCanada. Il préconise un gouvernement mondial démocratique à plusieurs paliers, ce qui explique le qualificatif fédéral que recèle son nom, qualificatif qui n’a rien à voir avec le débat constitutionnel canadien.
“La vie humaine est si courte, et l’évolution des structures sociales si lentes…”
Mario Dumais est titulaire d’une maîtrise en économie de l’Université de Montréal. Il a travaillé comme économiste et comme directeur des publications à l’Union des producteurs agricoles, comme secrétaire général de La Coopérative fédérée de Québec et au Costa Rica comme directeur du Centre pour l’intégration et le développement des entreprises agroalimentaires à l’Institut interaméricain de coopération pour l’agriculture. Il fut commissaire à la Commission sur l’avenir de l’agriculture et de l’agroalimentaire québécois (« Commission Pronovost ») et pour le Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement dans le cadre de la Commission sur le développement durable de la production porcine au Québec. Parmi les expériences qui ont marqué sa carrière, il fut tour à tour membre et coprésident du Comité de consultation du gouvernement canadien sur le commerce extérieur (SAGIT) pour les produits agricoles, les aliments et les boissons, et il a participé, en tant que président de l’Organisation internationale des coopératives agricoles, au Sommet mondial de l’alimentation de la FAO à Rome en 1996.
M a y 2 0 1 3
mondial 5
Post-2015 development goals
From global consultations to political bargaining
“There is a fear that the panel may not adequately reflect the broad-based concerns that were brought forward in the global consultations.”
The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), adopted in 2000 at the UN Millennium Summit, set a 15-year framework of poverty reduction objectives for the international community. With less than 1,000 days remaining in that 15-year framework, there is growing concern and discussion regarding what the “Post-2015 development agenda” should look like. From the UN’s perspective, the MDGs have resulted in real improvements, particularly in specific areas of health and education. The “post-2015 agenda” is intended to reflect new development challenges, and will need to be harmonized with the “sustainable development goals,” whose creation was agreed to at last summer’s Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. A High-level Panel of Eminent Persons, co-chaired by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, and Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom, was appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in July 2012 to advise on the beyond-2015 framework. The panel was to submit a report to the Secretary-General this May containing their recommendations. The panel’s report is the result of wide-ranging consultations and meetings with stakeholders that included representatives of civil society, academia, the UN, national governments and the private sector, and the the result also of experience gained through the implementation of the MDGs. National consultations have taken place in over 100 countries. There have also been 11
“thematic consultations.” Civil society organizations around the world, particularly with large coalitions such as the Beyond 2015, World We Want 2015 and the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP), have been heavily engaged in most of the discussions of a possible post-2015 framework. As the deadline for the work of the High Level Panel approached, civil society networks had become concerned over the direction of the HLP’s work and final report. There is a fear that the panel may not adequately reflect the broad-based concerns that were brought forward in the global consultations. In the report National Deliberations: A Synthesis Report from Beyond 2015 and GCAP, some of the key civil society recommendations suggest that the new post-2015 framework should: • be explicitly linked to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights; • acknowledge the fundamental rights of all people to live free from poverty, and enjoy a minimum level of social protection; • be universal; that is, incorporate the responsibilities of both northern and southern governments and other stakeholders; • combat extreme inequality by addressing unfair terms of trade, agricultural subsidies, and corporate accountability; • provide for a mitigation of the effects of climate change on the most vulnerable people; • be a unified framework, which links the poverty eradication
and environmental sustainability agendas; • acknowledge both the imperative and the possibility to eradicate poverty; • require a minimum level of universal social protection; • explicitly acknowledge gender justice as an essential element in eradicating poverty; • incorporate targets on the reform and democratization of global institutions. Following the panel’s report release in May, and a report of the working group on the sustainable development goals to this fall’s 68th session of the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General is tasked with preparing a synthesis report. Civil society networks have identified September 15 to October 17 as a “Mobilization Month” to put pressure on governments and build a development agenda aligned with citizen concerns for a more just and equitable world. Some of the concerns related to the High Level Panel’s approach (in contrast with what civil society networks feel should form the new paradigm for development) include: • rather than a list of specific poverty reduction targets, like the MDGs, civil society organizations (CSOs) emphasize the importance of a post-2015 framework of “one-world goals,” recognizing that poverty reduction is an agenda to be addressed in poor and rich countries alike; • rather than a focus on delivering poverty-reducing programs and services, focus on enhancing human rights and goverSee “Civil society…” on page 6
6 mondial M a y
2013
CIDA-DFAIT merger
Whither Canada’s development effort? reflected the concerns of a number of development organizations when she said the decision “raises the question of how trade, foreign policy and international development objectives will coexist under the same roof and which ones will have precedence, if any. Given the recent tendency at CIDA to associate overseas development assistance (ODA) to Canadian commercial interests, there is reason for concern.” According to Sanchez, “the most important challenge with the Canadian government’s announcement to shift the responsibility for managing Canadian aid within DFAIT will be to ensure that the specific mandate of the government for ODA, which is to eliminate poverty and promote human rights in the developing world, is realized.”
Roy Culpeper, former president of the North-South Institute, noted that the government’s announcement included a commitment to provide a legislative mandate for the minister. “The idea of a legal charter for Canada’s aid program is not new. Ever since Canada’s development assistance program began in 1968, no such framework has existed. For four decades, it has been much debated, since the aid program – currently capped at around $4 billion – accounts for a significant amount of the federal government’s discretionary spending.” “Now that Canada will have a legislative framework for its aid program, the question is: what kinds of policies will such a framework enshrine? Will the legislation affirm Canada’s commitment to the principles
Civil society organizations mobilizing on MDGs post-2015 Continued from page 5___________
nance for those living in poverty; • rather than a limited focus on the North-South aid agenda, CSOs call for a more holistic framework, one that includes other factors that affect development effectiveness, such as the terms of trade, tax justice, international monetary policies, foreign direct investment and technology transfer. Once the Secretary-General’s synthesis report is published later this fall, a period of discussion and negotiation, as well as lobbying and campaigning by CSOs, will follow in 2014 and 2015.
• • • As part of its global governance reforms program, WFM–Canada supports a rights-based social protection floor as part of the post-2015 framework. In January, WFM–Canada council member Myron Frankman gave a presentation to Montreal Branch on the topic of “The Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals: Will Rhetoric Outpace Commitment?” in which he explored the basis of the MDGs and the reframing of the discourse from poverty alleviation to human rights and the collective responsibilities of world citizenship, which includes the provision of a social protection floor for all. According to Frankman, “The
Social Protection Floor is based on the idea that everyone should enjoy at least basic income security sufficient to live, guaranteed through transfers in cash or in kind, such as pensions for the elderly and persons with disabilities, child benefits, income support benefits and/or employment guarantees and services for the unemployed and working poor.” A universal social protection floor has been endorsed by civil society “synthesis” reports on global consultations; it was not clear whether the May 2013 report from the High Level Panel of governmental experts would endorse this approach. Report from WFMC national office staff
“the most important challenge… will be to ensure that the specific mandate… is to eliminate poverty and promote human rights in the developing world…”
▼
The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is to be merged with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), to create a new Department of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Development. Is this a good thing? Mondial spoke with a number of international development experts about the decision. Terminating CIDA as an independent agency was not mentioned in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget speech on March 21. Furthermore, it is somewhat hidden in the text of the budget document, appearing, rather oddly, on page 241, in a chapter on “Supporting Families and Communities.” Julia Sanchez, President-CEO of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation (an NGO umbrella organization)
M a y 2 0 1 3
mondial 7
Development aid integrated with foreign policy ▼
of development effectiveness, including those articulated in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Paris Declaration?” The government’s budget implementation bill (C-60) was tabled in Parliament April 29. It included the draft legislation that would implement the CIDADFAIT merger. C-60 creates the position of minister for international development on par with the trade minister (with overall policy coordination in the hands of the foreign minister), and transitions the current CIDA president into the role of deputy minister. The new minister for international development will have responsibilities relating to “international development, poverty reduction and humanitarian assistance.” The legislation also spells out the minister’s duties: “Undertaking activities on, ensuring the effectiveness of, and fostering relations with other countries and organizations on international development and humanitarian assistance, and ensuring that this contribution is in line with Canadian values and priorities.” The new act didn’t raise any red flags for CCIC analysts. However, as Sanchez points out, “the legislation is just the starting point. How the mandate and agenda of the minister translates into practice will be key both in terms of the mechanics of the merger and how it ensures policy coherence for development.” In Norway, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) functions as a specialized directorate under the
“It’s not the merger of CIDA with foreign affairs that’s the issue. The problem is this government’s gutting of development assistance.”
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Similar to the emerging Canadian governance model, there is a separate minister for international development (MID), as well as the minister for foreign affairs (MFA). The MFA ranks above most other ministers in the Norwegian order of precedence, but he/she generally doesn’t override decisions made by the MID or their directorates. According to Kjartan Almenning, executive director of En Verden (the World Federalist Movement’s member organization in Norway), a strong popular consensus in favour of development has been important. “In Norway, there is a common public understanding that we should not only reach, but exceed the 0.7 per cent target (i.e., development assistance at 0.7 per cent of gross national income). Both Conservative- and Labour-led governments have had a 1 per cent target and, in 2010, we actually reached 1.1%. I don’t think the organizing of the political executive has much to do with it. Public debate, pressure by NGOs, are important factors. The most consequential factor, however, is that both the Conservatives and Labour rely on smaller parties in coalition governments, and those parties tend to make international development a priority. Should the right-populist Progress Party end up in government after our elections in September this might very well change.” Former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who presently serves as president of the University of Winnipeg and is also co-president of the interna-
tional World Federalist Movement, supports the combining of CIDA and foreign affairs. “This is something I strongly endorse. In the five years I spent as minister, I believed that we needed a more integrated approach that would enable the government to use the various tools of diplomacy, trade, and development to achieve its goals.” “The point is that the mechanics of an integrated foreign policy are welcome and needed. But now we need a comprehensive policy to make it effective. The government needs to articulate a more comprehensive set of objectives.” However, Carolyn McAskie has seen enough of the current government’s implementation of development programming to be worried. McAskie served as an assistant deputy minister at CIDA before taking a number of assignments with international organizations, including as first head of the UN’s Peacebuilding Support Office, a secretariat body for the UN Peacebuilding Commission. According to McAskie, “It’s not the merger of CIDA with foreign affairs that’s the issue. The problem is this government’s gutting of development assistance. The money that’s supposed to be spent is not being spent. We hear that large amounts may have been lapsed this year. It’s cutting ODA by stealth, over and above the cuts they’ve announced. I’m very concerned for the future of Canada’s development programming.”
8 mondial M a y
2013
Trade with Israel
Canada is violating international law er measures that Canada should take, borrowing ideas from the EU. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its nonbinding advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the OPT on July 9, 2004. The court noted that article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies and that the Israeli settlements in the OPT including East Jerusalem “have been established in breach of international law.” The court also relied heavily on Security Council resolutions which declared the illegality of the settlements invoking article 49 paragraph 6. The court also confirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, that all States Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation to respect the United Nations Charter and international law by not recognizing the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. Although directed at the situation arising from the construction of the wall, such remarks are also applicable to the unlawful settlement activity. The basic principles of the law governing occupation are also found in Article 55 of The Hague regulations, which imposes an obligation on the occupier to administer real estate under occupation in accordance with
the rules of usufruct, a legal principle which emphasizes that the occupier may use but does not own the property. Ownership of the land and resources remains with the people who are occupied. The report of an independent international fact finding mission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council in July 2012 to investigate the implications of Israeli settlements on the Palestinian people (made public in January 2013) shows that the agricultural sector, considered the cornerstone of the Palestinian economy “has not been able to play its strategic role because of dispossession of land and the denial of access for farmers to agricultural areas, water resources and domestic and external markets.” Denial of water and the banning of fertilizers has, for example, “resulted in a shift from irrigated to less profitable rain– dependent crops and a decrease in productivity.” All of these practices are in violation of international law relating to occupiers. The degree to which the Palestinian economy is discriminated against by these unlawful practices was highlighted in the Trading Away Peace report, which states the EU imports over 100 hundred times more per settler than per Palestinian. The ICJ in its advisory opinion on the wall made reference to the principle of non-recognition, an ICJ advisory opinion on the South African occupation of Namibia that states are under an obligation not to recognize the unlawful South African occupation of Namibia and not to
▼
by Bill Pearce Following Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza following the Six-Day War in 1967, the UN Security Council passed resolution 242. This resolution called for the return of the occupied land, under the principle of land for peace consistent with the Fourth Geneva Convention (which was passed in 1949 and ratified by Israel in 1951). To the disappointment of the international community, Israel acted in contravention of the law by establishing settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT). The settlement policy has continued unabated to the point where now close to 43 per cent of the OPT has been settled with an estimated 520,000 settlers. As Hans van de Broek, former EU Commissioner for External Relations, put it in a foreword to the EU report Trading Away Peace (published October 2012), “As the window of opportunity for peace between Israel and the Palestinians is closing before our eyes, the EU now faces a fundamental challenge and possibly last chance to translate its principal positions into effective action if Europe wants to preserve the two-state solution.” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned recently there may be only one or two years left to reach a peace agreement. President Abbas went further to say the current push may be the “last opportunity.” In this context, it is useful to examine Canada’s legal obligations to uphold international law as it relates to illegal settlement activities in the OPT and consid-
Bill Pearce is a member of WMFC Council.
“…the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies….”
M a y 2 0 1 3
mondial 9
Trade in goods from occupied land not legal ▼
lend any support in any form to that occupation, and that States must refrain from any diplomatic or other consular relations with the unlawful regime which would imply recognition of the authority of the regime over the occupied territory. The court said that States must “abstain from entering into economic and other forms of relationship or dealings with South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia which may entrench its authority over the territory.” This principle is closely allied to the customary rule of international law that states are under an obligation not to render aid or assistance to another state either in the commission of an unlawful act or “in maintaining” an unlawful situation. The International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts codifies this customary law in articles 16, 40 and 41. Canada and Israel have a number of bilateral agreements in place. Canada should ensure it does not provide financial assistance to Israel for activities occurring in the illegal settlements, or procure products or services from there. To render such assistance, Canada would be aiding Israel in the continued unlawful occupation of the OPT. Under the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, preferential customs treatment does extend to settlement goods or produce because the existing agreement defines the territory of origin of products coming from Israel as “the territory where its custom laws applied,” which includes Israeli settlements in the OPT.
“…allowing settlement products into Canada serves to entrench the unlawful situation and, by that account, obliges Canada to prohibit the importation of all products emanating from the illegal settlements.”
Since the beginning of the occupation, Israeli customs services have consistently mis-certified such products as originating in the state of Israel. By granting subsidies to goods and produce from the illegal settlements, Canada is giving recognition to and providing legitimacy to illegal settlements and undermining the prospect of Palestinians attaining their right of self-determination, in violation of international law. Since Canada possesses control over what goods and produce are allowed into Canada, it is also arguable, leaving aside preferential treatment issues, that the act of allowing settlement products into Canada serves to entrench the unlawful situation and, by that account, obliges Canada to prohibit the importation of all products emanating from the illegal settlements. Ireland has called for an EU-wide ban on such imports. In the face of government trade practices that actually support the Israeli occupation, civil society in western countries has shown a growing interest in boycott and disinvestment campaigns that target exports from the occupied territories. To conform with international obligations not to recognize or assist an unlawful situation, Canada should at the very least amend its free trade agreement with Israel, as the EU did in 2004, to restrict its application to products within the territorial boundaries of Israel as they existed in 1967 or as they may be altered through the peace process. At the same time, it should
insert a requirement to ensure that the certificate of origin correctly designates the origin of settlement products. This would serve the dual purpose of ensuring settlement products would not benefit from preferential market access and, as a consumer protection measure, provide true origin information to allow consumers to make informed choices. Great Britain, Denmark and, most recently, the Netherlands have taken action to strengthen labelling requirements to ensure products from illegal settlements don’t receive preferential treatment. Foreign ministers from 13 EU countries issued a statement recently calling on the EU to establish guidelines on the labelling of products from Israeli settlements. The Palestinians deserve to live a normal life in freedom and dignity. The relationship between the parties is one of gross inequality. The right wing of the new coalition government of Israel holds key cabinet positions, which portends a continuation of the expansion of settlements and the demise of the two state solution. A continuation of the vicious cycle of violence is predictable unless Canada stands with the international community and upholds the rule of law. “The world no longer has a choice between force and law; if civilization is to survive, it must choose law.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
10 mondial M a y
2013
UN peace operations veer toward peace enforcement
MONUSCO’s intervention brigade On March 28, the Security Council authorized the deployment of an intervention brigade within the new mandate for MONUSCO (the UN Stabilization Mission in the DRC). The intervention brigade will carry out targeted offensive operations against armed groups that threaten peace in the eastern part of DRC, a region that has been prone to cycles of violence for many years. MONUSCO is the UN’s largest peace operation, with more 22,000 troops, police and civilian personnel. The intervention brigade will be made up of 3,069 peacekeepers. Troops from South Africa, Malawi and Tanzania are expected to contribute to the brigade, which will function within the overall command structure for MONUSCO, under force commander Lieut. Gen. Chander Prakash of India. The UN was embarrassed last year when a rebel group known as M23 took control of the city of Goma, overrunning MONUSCO troops in the process. Subsequent negotiations led to M23’s withdrawal from Goma. In February, 11 central African governments
plus the UN signed yet-another peace agreement, paving the way for the creation of the intervention brigade as part of the newlymandated MONUSCO. Earlier in March, following factional in-fighting among the rebel groups, one of the M23 leaders, Bosco Ntaganda, turned himself in at the U.S. embassy in Rwanda, and was transferred to The Hague for trial before the International Criminal Court. Despite the current disarray among rebel groups, media reports questioned whether the new intervention brigade was at a sufficient strength to make a significant difference. The greater challenge in the DRC is the failure, following successive efforts at peace and reconstruction over the years, to bring about a credible, functioning state and a monopoly on force that can advance the rule of law and security in the DRC.
MINUSMA… with French support On April 25, the UN Security Council authorized the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). This mission will take over from the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA) and the current UN multidimensional presence in Mali (UNOM). At a projected 12,600 military, police and civilian personnel, it will be larger than the combined AFISMA and UNOM. The transfer of authority from AFISMA to MINUSMA is scheduled for July 1, 2013, pending a Security Council decision regarding current security conditions in the north of Mali. Mali has been in turmoil since
March 2012 when Islamist militant Tuareg rebels seized the northern part of the country and ousted the sitting president and later the prime minister. France, with the assistance of approximately 2,000 Chadian troops, has pushed much of the Islamist extremists out of the cities and main hubs, and into the desert. Canada had provided one C-17 transport aircraft and support personnel to assist the French mission in January. WFM–Canada had called for Canada to contribute troops to the UN peace operation in Mali as well. However, the Canadian ‘mission’ in Mali was abruptly terminated in early April. The key components of MINUSMA’s mandate are: • stabilizing key population centres and supporting the reestablishment of state authority throughout the country; • supporting the implementation of the transitional roadmap, a set of political objectives set out by Mali’s transitional government that aims to restore democracy and support reconciliation; • protecting civilians and UN personnel; • promoting and protecting human rights and; • supporting humanitarian assistance, cultural preservation and national and international justice. Discussions at the Security Council related to the DRC cast a shadow over the negotiation of a mandate for Mali. UN officials were keen to make clear that the creation of an “intervention brigade” was not precedent-setting. Reso-
▼
Two recent decisions by the UN Security Council are raising questions about the challenges they pose to an already overstretched UN peacekeeping system. Both decisions – one regarding the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and another on Mali – stretch the conceptual and political boundaries of UN peace operations by involving peacekeepers in missions that require “peace enforcement.”
Two recent decisions… stretch the conceptual and political boundaries of UN peace operations by involving peacekeepers in missions that require “peace enforcement.”
M a y 2 0 1 3
mondial 11
Rio+20 – Sustainable development strengthened
UN beefs up environmental protection and more profile in the UN family of organizations. Last summer, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said that, “Universal membership of UNEP’s Governing Council establishes a new, fully-representative platform to strengthen the environmental dimension of sustainable development, and provides all governments with an equal voice on the decisions and action needed to support the global environment, and ensure a fairer share of the world’s resources for all.” Another commitment resulting from Rio+20 was the decision to create a “high-level political forum” (HLPF), to discuss sustainable development issues with more political impact than the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) that had come into being following the 1992 Earth Summit. While the Rio+20 summit iden-
tified the need for a successor to the CSD, many of the details regarding how such a forum would be constituted, its functions and powers, have been left for subsequent discussions at the UN General Assembly. The report listed various functions the HLPF could provide, such as “political leadership, guidance and recommendations for sustainable development”; “enhance integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development in a holistic and cross-sectoral manner at all levels”; and “follow up and review progress in the implementation of sustainable development commitments” that are contained in various international plans and strategies. Kate Higgins, a senior researcher for the Governance for Equitable Growth program at The North-South Institute, See ‘UN …’ on page 12
UN peacekeepers deployed into ongoing hostilities lution 2098 establishing the new MONUSCO mandate was agreed “on an exceptional basis and without creating a precedent or any prejudice to the agreed principles of peacekeeping.” According to Security Council Report, Argentina, Guatemala, and Pakistan, along with Russia, introduced language that more clearly defined tasks MINUSMA was mandated to undertake. They also successfully pushed for a clear mention in the preamble of the resolution reaffirming the basic principles of peacekeeping, including consent of the parties, impartiality, and non-use of
▼
“Universal membership of UNEP’s Governing Council establishes a new, fullyrepresentative platform to strengthen the environmental dimension of sustainable development.”
Following last year’s UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), there are a number of changes in store for how the world body deals with issues related to governance for environmental protection and sustainable development. These changes revolve around the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and include increased funding, the strengthening and upgrading of UNEP’s status and the establishment of universal membership. As a result of last measure, all 193 UN member states were able to participate in the 27th session of the UNEP’s Governing Council/ Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GC27/GMEF) held in Nairobi in February. Previously, the Governing Council consisted of 58 members. The entity will now function as the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), with a larger budget
force, except in self-defence and defence of the mandate, with the intention of more clearly distinguishing between traditional peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Nevertheless, it is also clear that the new peace operation in Mali is being deployed in a context where hostilities are far from over. While UN peacekeepers will perform stabilization operations, the resolution also mentions (and relies upon) the fact that French troops will carry out combat and counter-terrorism activities in northern Mali. So, while combat operations are not, strictly speaking, part of
the mandate of the peace operation, they are nevertheless essential to its success. Many are wondering whether these fine distinctions, so important to UN diplomats, will matter a great deal to the various rebel groups in northern Mali, or whether they will target UN personnel as well as their French adversaries. Unlike the DRC, prospects for success of the Mali operation are reasonably good, primarily because the country has a tradition of democratic governance and functioning state authority, which the UN mission and the international community will be at pains to rebuild.
12 mondial M a y
2013
Integrated world has become ‘less governed’ by Simon Rosenblum I first saw mention of The Unfinished Global Revolution in the Economist – yes, I admit that I am a subscriber – and immediately ordered this important book. So should you. The author, Mark Malloch-Brown, has had a front row seat at the global table serving as a senior official at the World Bank, United Nations Development Program, chief of staff and then deputy secretarygeneral to Kofi Annan, and as a cabinet minister in Gordon Brown's British Labour government. This book is part autobiography, part history and part policy analysis of global issues. He has pretty much seen and heard it all and is well worth reading. His basic thesis is that the citi-
UN and Rio+20 Continued from page 11__________
describes the establishment of an HLPF as “one of the few actionable outcomes of the largely disappointing Rio+20 conference.” In a recent post on the Canadian International Council’s OpenCanada.org site, Higgins writes, “the forum could demonstrate real political commitment to sustainable development; it could do a much better job at promoting the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development in an integrated way; and it could provide a new, more fit-for-purpose institutional home for sustainable development within the UN.” As yet, it is unclear what kind of structure the forum will take Continued on page 16
zens of the world face a huge predicament since, as the world has become more integrated, it has simultaneously become less governed with serious implications for complex global issues such as economic management, climate change, and peace and security: “There is almost no sensible debate about how to manage a runaway world… when the global level has become largely a laissez-faire space that allows those who operate in it to choose which, if any, national jurisdiction they will subject themselves to and on what issue.” That might overstate matters a little, but Malloch-Brown succeeds in putting the phenomenon of globalization and the challenges it poses for national and international governance into context. His call for “a global contract that builds on the emerging common values of solidarity and compassion in a shared world” is hardly misplaced. The clash, as he sees it, is between international co-operation and old-fashioned nationalism, and national governments must commit to an international framework of rules and institutions that would make the world a fairer and safer place – as World Federalists would be quick to agree. He is not particularly optimistic: he says that “national politics in much of the world is turning its back on the future, unable to embrace the concept that some parts of national power will have to be pooled with that of global neighbours.” Yet Malloch-Brown is not all doom and gloom. During his time at the World Bank, he saw it evolve from an institution wed-
ded to the ideologically loaded Washington Consensus to one that places more of a priority on the poor through its poverty reduction programs. At the United Nations, he witnessed the emergence of the International Criminal Court and, through the responsibility-to-protect doctrine, a more muscular humanitarianism. He notes, of course, that while R2P continues to gain traction its “results remain precarious.” I wonder what he would say now that R2P has become too closely caught up with and identified with regime change. As the book winds down, Malloch-Brown wonders if the global financial meltdown that began in 2008 would usher in a new era of global co-operation. The glass today is not even half-full in that regard. He concludes with a call for another “San Francisco moment” (when the UN was created) and for “a real meeting of minds around how the world might co-operate better to govern itself” and for a UN that matters “to people, to voters.” By both words and deeds, Mark MallochBrown continues to make a big contribution to that end. Are we heading in that direction? Let me end with the conclusion of the Economist's (where he once worked) review of MallochBrown's book: “With every international agreement to reduce poverty, regulate finance, combat terrorism, or protect the environment, we may be moving, tortoise-like, toward the global revolution he advocates so eloquently.” The Unfinished Global Revolution Mark Malloch-Brown Penguin Books, 2011
Simon Rosenblum is a member of the WFMC Executive Committee.
“There is almost no sensible debate about how to manage a runaway world… when the global level has become largely a laissez-faire space…”
M a y 2 0 1 3
mondial 13
ICC update: ongoing trials and new signers
Monique Cuillerier is WFMC’s membership and outreach co-ordinator.
by Monique Cuillerier The International Criminal Court is engaged in ongoing cases in eight situations: Uganda, Central African Republic, Kenya, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Mali and Libya. Preliminary examinations by the Office of the Prosecutor are currently taking place in Afghanistan, Georgia, Guinea, Colombia, Honduras, Korea and Nigeria.
Updates of current cases
“There is still turmoil in North Mali and populations there continue to be at risk of yet more violence and suffering.… The international crimes committed in Mali have deeply shocked the conscience of humanity.”
Uganda: The case of the Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen is being heard by Pre-Trial Chamber II, although the four suspects still remain at large. Central African Republic: This situation was referred by the government of the Central African Republic. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, remains at trial stage, the trial having begun in November 2010. Kenya: There are two trials regarding the situation in Kenya – the Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, and the Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta. All are accused of committing crimes against humanity during the violence that followed the 2007 Kenyan presidential elections. In March 2013, charges were withdrawn against Francis Kirimi Muthaura. The trial against William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang was scheduled to start in this May and the trial against Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta is scheduled to start in July. Notwithstanding the charges against him, Kenyatta was elected President of Kenya in March 2013.
Côte d’Ivoire: A hearing confirming the charges in the case of The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo was held in February 2013. Written submissions from the Prosecutor and the legal representatives of the victims, along with the replies to such from the Defence, are now being considered. By the end of May, there should be a decision on whether there is currently sufficient evidence to confirm the charges. Laurent Gbagbo is charged with four counts of crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the post-electoral violence in Côte d’Ivoire between December 2010 and April 2011. Democratic Republic of Congo: In the case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Trial Chamber II decided to separate the charges against the accused in late November 2012. In December, Trial Chamber II acquitted Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui of the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity and he was later released from custody. The Office of the Prosecutor has appealed the verdict. Germain Katanga’s verdict is still pending. Ngudjolo has applied for asylum in the Netherlands, claiming it would not be safe for him to return to the DRC. His lawyers are seeking to have the Netherlands hand him back to the ICC pending the outcome of the appeal his acquittal. In March 2013, Bosco Ntaganda voluntarily surrendered himself and is currently in the custody of the ICC. The hearing of the confirmation of charges in the case of The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda will begin in September 2013. Mr Ntaganda is
suspected of seven counts of war crimes allegedly committed in Democratic Republic of the Congo between September 2002 and September 2003. Darfur, Sudan: The trial in the case The Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus is scheduled to begin in May 2014. In 2011, charges were confirmed against Abdallah Banda and Saleh Jerbo for three war crimes allegedly committed in September 2007. Mali: An investigation into alleged crimes committed in Mali since January 2012 was opened by the Office of the Prosecutor in January 2013 and has been assigned to Pre-Trial Chamber II. In opening the investigation, Prosecutor Bensouda said, “There is still turmoil in North Mali and populations there continue to be at risk of yet more violence and suffering. Justice can play its part in supporting the joint efforts of the ECOWAS, the AU and the entire international community to stop the violence and restore peace to the region. Key regional and international organizations have acknowledged the need for justice as part of the resolution of the crisis in Mali. The international crimes committed in Mali have deeply shocked the conscience of humanity.” The situation was referred to the Court by the Mali government in July 2012.
New Ratifications Côte d’Ivoire has become the 122nd country to ratify the Rome Statute. It will enter info force in Côte d’Ivoire on May 1, 2013. See “ICC…” on page 15
14 mondial M a y
2013
Branch News dedicated to broadening support for the recognition, investigation, and prosecution as economic, social, and environmental crimes in national and international law Three meetings of the MarieBerthe Dion Issues Action Group in 2013 have discussed the following topics: “The Idle No More Movement: Response Needed”; “Bribery Abroad by Canadian Companies and proposed amendments to the 1999 Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act”; and “The World Bank’s Review of its Environmental and Social Safeguards Policy”. Copies of the background papers are available on request from Carol Greene. Three members of the executive committee of the Montreal branch met with Blake MacLeod, vice-president of the Vancouver Branch, over an evening meal on Saturday, April 13 to exchange views on prospects and challenges facing their respective branches. Mr. MacLeod outlined progress to enlist support for the idea of a UN Parliamentary Assembly, particularly from members of the Canadian Parliament. Victoria—In January, Victoria Branch held a discussion, led by member Michael Wheatley, on electoral systems worldwide, comparing the Canadian system with other systems and the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches. Victoria Branch’s annual general meeting was held at the end of April with Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May as the keynote speaker. Vancouver—On January 17, Vancouver branch hosted a dis-
cussion on overseas Canadian mining investment. Filipino physician and human rights worker Dr. Chandu Claver spoke on international mining projects in the Philippines which have generated widespread resistance due to displacement, environmental destruction, repression of dissent, police brutality and state-sanctioned violence in the form of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances. At Vancouver branch’s February meeting, branch member Larry Kazdan discussed “Canada’s Trillion Dollar Coin” and the proposal of platinum coin seigniorage as a way to manoeuvre around the U.S. debt ceiling, as well as the implications of seigniorage in Canada. In March, the branch hosted Jenny Uechi of the Vancouver Observer, for another installment in their ‘People Talk Back’ series. Uechi discussed the climate change impact of a giant oil pipeline with oil sands crude, the Harper government’s fight against environmentalists and the lobbyists who want to see Canada expand its oil to Asia. The April meeting of the Branch featured Former MP and internationally recognized legal scholar Ted McWhinney whose address was titled “The new, representative and inclusive, multicultural world community, and the contemporary crisis of international law and the 1945-based world public order system.” Mr. McWhinney was Liberal MP for Vancouver Quadra from 1993 until 2000. On February 21, WFMC Vancouver held its annual
▼
Montreal—Myron Frankman, WFMC Council member and Senior Research Fellow with the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law, spoke at the Montreal branch post-holiday luncheon in late January on the topic “The Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals: Will Rhetoric Outpace Commitment?” In addition to reviewing the process leading up to the 2015 review, Frankman focused particularly on the proposals for a universal, rights-based Social Protection Floor. In February, the branch experimented with a new series of informal morning meetings under the title of “Coffee and Discussion.” From four to six people gathered once a week at the Second Cup on McGill College Street and each meeting lasted about an hour. The meetings are continuing but at intervals of from two to three weeks. The objective has been to provide a forum to examine core World Federalist ideas as well as to discuss more practical issues such as to how to publicize the work of the WFM–Canada and how to increase membership in Montreal and more generally in Québec. Sébastien Jodoin spoke about the “One Justice Project: Ending Impunity for Economic, Social and Environmental Crimes” on May 2 at Concordia University. M. Jodoin is director of the project and a lawyer with a master’s in international relations from the University of Cambridge, currently a Trudeau Doctoral Scholar, completing a PhD in environmental studies (law, public policy and governance) at Yale University. The One Justice Project supports research and policy
Ted McWhinney
M a y 2 0 1 3
mondial 15
New president elected at Vancouver branch ▼
general meeting. Vivian Davidson was elected president. Past President Leonard Angel, retired philosophy professor at Douglas College, guided the branch for 17 years. The many members present expressed warm appreciation for Leonard’s ongoing contributions to the growth and effectiveness of the branch. In her remarks prior to the election, Davidson said, “Having lived in different countries and now calling Canada my home… I came to realize that no matter what country I lived in, language I spoke or ethnicity of my friends, certain issues affect us all equally.… It is because of our common humanity as well as our common necessities that I
“It is our duty as fellow humans to care for one another with equal passion as we would our own kin.”
became interested in World Federalism and later joined the World Federalist Movement’s Branch in Vancouver. The importance of planetary issues such as security, health and education among many others is something that cannot be overlooked or undermined. It is our duty as fellow humans to care for one another with equal passion as we would our own kin. This is why I am so attracted to World Federalist ideals of a global parliament, of a planetary security force, of disarmament and so on.”
Letter to the Editor––––––––––––––––––––––– Sometime ago, I read where a British TV station was going to show, briefly, graphic footage of two British soldiers killed in Iraq. Such scenes are extremely unpleasant but I daresay that if people would much more often see the human butchery we call war, in all its bloody gruesomeness, they would literally scream at their leaders to stop it. Scenes of mutilated bodies don’t sit well with any glamourized notion of war and so such photos are seldom published. During the Vietnam War, when one magazine ran a picture of a decapitated soldier, people got sick to the stomach. I hate to say this, but maybe we should start showing shattered limbs, faces shot off, bowels protruding, genitals torn off, and brains oozing out. I ‘hear’ you shout, ‘Stop already,’ but I’ve not even started on the psychological and emotional damage,
and, then, too, these are only words, not photos or TV clips, and a far cry from the moans, the gore, the stench, and the utter agony of the battlefield itself. Anyone who thinks that soldiers give their lives for their country is badly mistaken; those precious lives are brutally wrested from them (as one side or the other seeks to kill the most). People who clamour and push for war, manufacturers and dealers of arms who help create war, politicians who are ever ready to send young people to war, religious people who loudly proclaim so-called Just and Holy War theories, or even those who simply accept war as inevitable, seldom have seen the horror of it. They need to see it at its worst. Sincerely, Stan Penner Landmark, Manitoba
Incoming Vancouver branch president Vivian Davidson with past president Leonard Angel.
ICC updates Continued from page 13__________
In January 2013, Luxembourg ratified the amendments on the crime of aggression and article 8, becoming the fourth State Party to do so.
Changes in staff at the ICC A new Deputy Prosecutor, Canadian James Stewart, was sworn in on March 8, 2013. Stewart was elected by the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties in November 2012. In March, judges of the ICC elected Dutch national Herman von Hebel as Registrar for a fiveyear term. The Registrar is the principal administrative officer of the Court. Also in March, Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda appointed Mohammed Ayat as special adviser to his Office on regional cooperation with MENA (Middle East and North Africa).
16 mondial M a y
2013
High Level Panel to take on broad development issues Continued from page 12__________
and what kind of support and resources it will be able to call upon. The development of the HLPF’s form and functions is the subject of intergovernmental discussions earlier this year. The first HLPF meeting target date is in September at the beginning of the UN General Assembly’s 68th session. If the HLPF is to take on a broader role than that of the CSD, and encompass the economic and social aspects of sustainable development as well as the environmental ones, it will need to find a place for itself in an already crowded field. Existing bodies (the UN Economic and Social Council and the World Bank as examples) already address related issues within established structures. Furthermore, G20 deliberations, which have come to dominate discussions related to world economic governance, would affect the outcomes of any forum for sustainable development. In March 2012 (in advance of Rio+20), WFM–Canada had sent a letter, signed by President Warren Allmand and Executive Director Fergus Watt, to Foreign Minister John Baird, encourag-
207 — 145 Spruce Street, Ottawa, ON K1R 6P1 Phone: 613-232-0647 E-mail: wfcnat@web.ca Website: worldfederalistscanada.org May 2013
ing “the Government of Canada to support progressive proposals for a reformed institutional framework for sustainable development. Specifically, we encourage Canada to support proposals in the current draft outcome document for (a) upgrading the present UN Environment Program to a UN Environment Agency, and (b) upgrading the UN Sustainable Development Commission to a Sustainable Development Council.” Minister Baird responded that the Canadian government saw “the Rio+20 Conference as an opportunity to promote better coherence and coordination of the UN system, in particular at the country level, where the impact in people’s lives is the greatest. Our national submission includes a concrete proposal to better integrate sustainable development considerations within the UN.” He further said that, “we do not believe it is possible in the current global economic context to envisage the creation of new and potentially expensive institutions such as a UN specialized agency for the environment. Canada is working with like-minded partners to help find ways to make better use of existing structures and resources.”
Join the World Federalist Movement Name____________________________________________________ Email ___________________________________________________ Address _ ________________________________________________ ______________________________ Postal Code _ _____________
By becoming a member… n Contributor – $150 n Individual – $40
n Household – $60 n 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
n (no receipt) or n (tax-creditable receipt)
My cheque is enclosed in the amount of $_______________ OR I prefer to donate $___________ by credit card:
n VISA n MasterCard n 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
n or
n (tax receipt at year end)
Choose your monthly gift:
n $100 n $50 n $20 n $15 n $10 or $ ________ Name _____________________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Date ______________________________________________ Please include an unsigned blank cheque marked “VOID” along with this form, or provide credit card information.
n VISA n MasterCard n 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
40011403