Mondial June 2012

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 E D E R A L I S T S J U N E 2 0 1 2

In this issue: Cluster bill a stink bomb 5 EU’s phoney fiscal union 7 Disarmament’s weak pulse 10 Operationalizing R2P 15

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 sec-urity and prosperity in which

Canadians have a vital stake.As our failed bid to sit on the

Security Council testified, Cana-da is no longer a respected inter-national player. Compromise, co-ordination and consensus, Canadian values which gave us influence are seen by the govern-ment as contrary to a new aggressive Canadian posture

based on loosely defined “princi-pled 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

“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.”

Canada and multilateralism: Missing in action

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 Federal-ist Movement, and national meetings of the World Federalist Movement – Canada.

We are indeed fortunate as Canadians to be host-ing this historic gathering. Our organization not only reflects a framework and worldview for under-standing many of the needed changes to interna-tional 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, participa-tion, ideas and inspiration of dedicated individual supporters. Good ideas for positive change don’t “just happen.” We are doing our best, here in Win-nipeg, 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.worldfederalistscana-da.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 numer-ous “side events,” receptions pretty much every night of the week, formal remarks from our inter-national president, Lloyd Axworthy, and interna-tional secretariat staff, web-cast forums on the International Criminal Court, UN reforms includ-ing a parliamentary assembly, peacekeeping… not to mention the networking and renewal of friend-ships that make these events rather special mile-stones in one’s time spent in an organized social movement like the World Federalists. We look for-ward to seeing you soon, this July, at the Universi-ty of Winnipeg.Sincerely,Dr. James ChristieCouncil Chair, World Federalist Movement

Continued on page 2

WFM global congress agenda varied: See you in Winnipeg

Carolyn McAskie

2 mondial J U N E 2 0 1 2

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 demo-cratic approach to global deci-sion-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 agen-da. However, initiating or con-tributing 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 Cana-dian-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 multilateral-ism.

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 collec-tively to address global challeng-es. Instead, Mr. Baird quoted Margaret Thatcher: “Consensus seems to be the process of aban-doning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is some-thing in which no one believes….”

Now we know where we stand: unbending, unable to compro-mise for the greater good, not even believing in the possibility of consensus-based management of global issues. The most obvi-ous 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 soAfter the Second World War,

Canadians were aware that a global system of crisis manage-ment 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 effec-tive diplomatic capability, Cana-da had significant influence in the creation of new structures and played key roles in the draft-ing of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the shaping of the General Assembly, the Eco-nomic 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, Canadi-ans became known as innovators and power brokers, trusted in many international forums.

Fundamental to this worldview was a deliberate policy to contin-ue an approach based on multi-lateral institution-building to address global and regional polit-ical, financial and development issues. Canada became a mem-ber 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

Multilateralism promotes global democracy

“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 consensus-based manage-ment of global issues….”

▼

Continued from page 1 _________

J U N E 2 0 1 2 mondial 3

Published by the World Federalist Foundation

(WFF) and the World Federalist Movement – Can-

ada (WFMC). The World Federalist Foundation is a

Revenue Canada registered charitable organization

(reg. #:123998957RR0001). The World Federalist

Movement – Canada is a national non-profit mem-

bership 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.

ISSN number: 1488-612X

Mondial’s editorial working group:Leonard AngelRobin CollinsMonique CuillerierKaren HamiltonDonna LindenbergSimon RosenblumFergus Watt

Publications mail agreement No. 40011403Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to:

World Federalist Movement – CanadaSuite 207, 145 Spruce Street

Ottawa, ON K1R 6P1

E-mail: [email protected]

Web site: worldfederalistscanada.org

Author Erna Paris to highlight WFMC awards banquet

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

A second award, the Hanna New-combe Lifetime Achievement Award, will also be presented at the July 12 WFMC Awards Banquet. The 2012 recip-ient 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 con-tributions to the opinion pages of major Canadian newspapers, chronicles humanity’s intermit-tent 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

Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Jus-tice, explores the little-known

history of global justice and the advent of the world’s first perma-nent International Criminal Court.

The World Peace Award has been presented annually or every second year since 1972. 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 New-combe 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. •

Erna Paris

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 put-ting us at the table in almost

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 interna-tional achievements is long and impressive.

Continued on page 4

▼

Multilateralism put Canada at the table


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 diplo-macy and development from the late 1980s onwards to address the runaway deficit, even as the number of international institu-tions greatly increased. Even before the budget cuts of the mid-1990s, Canada – a G7 mem-ber – no longer had a G7 devel-opment 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 multilater-al development contributors and was losing influence. Our diplo-matic presence was being hol-lowed out. During the slaying of the deficit, we told our develop-ment 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 Cana-da’s place on the international stage. The political focus was on getting or staying elected, which was seen to require more atten-tion to domestic affairs than to our place in the world.

In the new century, the inter-national scene continued to change, with the lack of UN sup-port for the invasion of Iraq and U.S. disdain for further multilat-eral 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 peacemak-ing 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 Secu-rity Council, government mem-bers made disparaging comments about that “corrupt organiza-tion.” How can they behave in this childish manner, spurning a whole system of institutions criti-cal to world peace, security and development?

On the development side, the retreat from multilateralism betrays a serious misunderstand-ing of the functioning of the institutions concerned. Support for the ongoing existence of Isra-el is the responsibility of all democracies, but the recent cuts to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is particularly egregious. Ignoring the impor-tant role that UNRWA plays operating in support of Palestin-ians 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 account-ability. Such “cherry picking” is not responsible multilateral behaviour.

Again, Canada waited two years for its turn on the newly created Peacebuilding Commis-sion, designed as a new multilat-eral mechanism to support countries in various ways to rebuild after war. Inexplicably, in its two-year term Canada com-mitted not a penny to any coun-try 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 com-mitment to maintain multilateral instruments or any understand-ing 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 mili-taristic terms, our diplomatic and development capability is being gutted with cuts to mis-sions abroad and overseas devel-opment budgets.

A renewed commitment to glob-al causes, as an expression of our values, would extend our influ-ence and protect our long-term interests. It is badly needed. •

Carolyn McAskie is a former Canadian and international civil servant living in Wakefield, Que-bec. She held posts as CIDA Vice-President for Africa and most recently as the UN Assistant Sec-retary-General for Peacebuilding, before that as Head of the UN Peacekeeping Operation in Burundi. She is currently a pro-fessor with the University of Otta-wa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

Multilateralism: death by a thousand cutsContinued from page 3 _________

“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.”


Stink-bomb: Draft law would gut cluster treatyby Fergus Watt

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

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 explo-sive 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 muni-tions 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 lead-ing 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 Muni-tions require national imple-menting legislation. Canada became a signatory to the cluster munitions convention soon after the May 2008 conclusion of nego-tiations. By signing the treaty, Canada signaled its intention to uphold and be bound by the trea-ty’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 pro-visions of the treaty. Under the convention, each state party undertakes never under any cir-cumstances 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 activ-ity prohibited to a State Party under the convention.

Particularly controversial dur-ing negotiation of the treaty was Article 21, which dealt with pos-sible co-operation by states which had ratified the treaty with states which had not (for exam-ple, Canadian military co-opera-tion 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 other-

wise acquire cluster muni-tions;

– 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 num-ber 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 uncon-troversial, such as allowing pos-session for the purpose of disassembling, or for military training, etc.)

Thus, as a general rule, Cana-dian 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 undertak-

en by Canadian military per-sonnel is precisely in such co-operation with other mili-tary 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 leg-islation implementing the land-mines treaty. Indeed, the norm created by that treaty to pro-scribe the use of landmines has

“The problem with Bill S-10

is that many of its provisions

are contrary to the purposes

and provisions of the treaty.”

Fergus Watt is WFM–Canada’s Executive Director.

See “Cluster…” on page 6


by Monique Cuillerier

Current CasesIn March 2012 in its first ver-

dict, 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 partici-pate actively in hostilities.

A second trial, that of Congo-lese 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 prelimi-nary examinations in a number of situations including Afghani-stan, Georgia, Guinea, Colombia,

Honduras, Korea and Nigeria.

ICC and Palestine’s statehoodIn early April, the Office of the

Prosecutor of the ICC announced that it was unable to proceed with its investigation of the Pal-estinian 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 determina-tion. The door was left open for future consideration of “allega-tions of crimes committed in Pal-estine, should competent organs of the United Nations or eventu-ally the Assembly of States Par-ties resolve the legal issue relevant to an assessment… the Rome Statute or should the Secu-rity 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-

tion of the issue by the ICC judg-es, 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 political-ly 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 deci-sion “ducks the issue and misin-terprets the Rome Statute.” He suggests that although the Secre-tary-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 sec-ond place, by the judges.”

New ratificationsThe 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

“…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…”

International Criminal Court’s first conviction

▼

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 prece-dent that Canada would set by legislating such glaring loop-holes in the treaty would sig-nificantly 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 Conven-tion. If Parliament does not fix the legislation, it would be bet-ter to simply not pass it, post-poning 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. •

Cluster bomb bill better off deadContinued from page 5 ______

Monique Cuil-lerier is WFMC’s membership and outreach co-ordi-nator.


would criminalize the use of armed force by one state

against another. The crime of aggression had

been included in the Rome Stat-ute 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 supple-mentary “Elements of Crimes.” The Court may exercise jurisdic-tion over the crime of aggression after 2017, once 30 states have ratified the amendments and subject to adoption by the Assembly of States Parties.

10th anniversary of the ICCOn 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 through-out 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 Move-ment 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 Con-gress program at www.worldfed-eralistscanada.org.

EU future dim? Blame phoney fiscal union▼

First state ratifies criminalizing aggression

by Guido MontaniFor 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 breed-ing ground for euro-skepticism and nationalism, not only in peripheral countries, such as Hungary, but in the actual core of Europe: in France, the Neth-erlands, Germany and Italy. The sovereign debt crisis was not caused by the financial market but by the inadequate Franco-German governance.

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

izens can change the adminis-tration. Opinion polls reveal that the citizens are greatly dis-satisfied with the way the Euro-pean Union works, but nobody tells them how to change the European “governance.” Here is the gist of the European demo-cratic deficit: in the Lisbon Trea-ty the word “government” does not even exist. And since the EU does not have a legitimate gov-ernment, the Franco-German ‘directoire’, a non-democratic government, rules.

During the sovereign debt cri-sis, the strategy of the Franco-German 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 econ-omy is fully integrated into the single market, but also to lower the risk of instability deriving from member states with exces-sive deficits and debts. This explains the obsession on aus-terity policies. The smooth work-ing of the monetary union requires the compliance of mem-ber states with the EU’s Stabili-ty and Growth Pact (SGP), an EU framework for the co-ordina-tion 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

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

Continued on page 8


in recession. There is something wrong with European economic policy. It is easy to see the short-comings. 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, cohe-sion 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 gov-ernment, 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-Ger-man directoire. Can we consider this kind of governance demo-cratic? Can the European Par-liament (not even mentioned in the European Council’s Decem-ber 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 part-ners, can succeed. Europe needs

a recovery plan and a democrat-ic 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 ener-gies, investments in human cap-ital, communication networks, regional policies, and the single market. Only a European demo-cratic government can launch an ambitious project, find the sup-port 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 linch-pin 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 effec-tive reform: the EU budget should be financed by its own resources (a mixture of a finan-cial transaction tax, a carbon tax, and a corporate tax). More-over, 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 proj-ect. A recession can easily become a 10-year long depres-sion, as in the 1930s. The inevi-table social disorders and growing euro-skepticism will cause the collapse of the Europe-

an project. A directoire delivers inefficiency, division and reces-sion.

Only a democratic government can lead Europe towards safer waters. The necessary reform to attain this goal is not too com-plex: 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 nega-tive 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 merg-ing the presidency of Commis-sion 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 Trea-ty, before the European election of 2014. Moreover, in order to link the appointment of the president of the EU to the Euro-pean election closely, reform of the EU Parliament electoral sys-tem – a European constituency, as proposed by MEP Andrew Duff – should be taken into con-sideration. 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 Parlia-ment. The legitimate represen-tatives of European citizens must raise their voice. They can-not confine their role to ratifying the decisions of the national gov-ernments or to give advice. They have the power (Article

Autonomous EU budget needed to end slump

“The linchpin of a recovery plan is an EU autonomous budget. Today, the EU budget is not autonomous and is not big enough.”

▼



Some optimistic on nuclear talks with Iranby Bill Pearce

On October 14, 2011, UN Sec-retary-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 Estab-lishment of the Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and All Other Weapons of Mass Destruc-tion (WMDFZ).

Although it is a long-term goal, the achievement of a WMDFZ in the Middle East would make an important contribution to region-al 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 increas-ingly 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 interna-tional law.

On a recent visit to Israel, U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that it would not be pru-dent 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 weap-ons status probably for a “couple of years.” He also said “We also know, or believe we know, that the Iranian regime has not decid-ed they will embark on the capa-bility 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 Istan-bul resumed between Iran and the “P5+1” (U.S., UK, Russia, China, France, plus Germany) with Turkey playing a crucial brokering role. The main conten-tious issue has always been ura-nium 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 com-mencement of talks.

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

of uranium-235 needed for weap-onization) but be allowed to enrich uranium to 3.5 per cent levels to satisfy its need to pro-duce electricity. The talks ended on a positive note with an agree-ment 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 pre-pared to address Iran’s need for fuel rods to allow the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) to con-tinue production of medical iso-topes. Tehran will also be asked to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Additional Protocol which would allow for interna-tional monitoring and full disclo-sure of ongoing nuclear program activities. All nations will have to lift all sanctions. If talks contin-ue on a positive note, there is no reason why a diplomatic solution to the problem cannot be real-ized.

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

Canada should not only contin-ue 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 indi-

“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”

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’

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 fed-eral government.

Trust low in EU institutions

See “Mideast …” on page 14

Bill Pearce is a member of WFMC Council.

▼


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

‘In’ the WorldThat nuclear weapons are very

much ‘in’ the world is undeni-able. 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 elimi-nation of their stocks until the U.S. and Russia reduce theirs to much lower levels. But bilateral negotiations are stuck over mis-sile defence plans, NATO’s per-sistent Cold War mentality, and fear of American conventional superiority (for example, a supe-riority in drone attacks that is demonstrated every day).

In 2000, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) made the start of a breakthrough, with all states giv-ing an “unequivocal undertaking” to the total elimination of nucle-ar weapons via a 13-step plan. But the major states have pulled back, extended nuclear deter-rence has become the new norm, and not even President Obama’s eloquent call for a nuclear weap-ons free world has been able to dislodge the atrophy of his own administration or the military-industrial complex’s chains chok-ing off political debate.

The latest rounds of discus-sions at the NPT (last month’s PrepComm for the 2015 Review Conference) were a ritualistic façade oblivious of the stark dan-gers humanity is facing through the retention, and extension, of nuclear weapons. The stultifica-tion of the NPT process is exceeded only by the ossification of the UN’s Conference on Disar-mament. 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 disarma-ment issued by Switzerland on behalf of 16 states, calling on the nuclear weapons states “to give increasing attention to their com-mitment to comply with interna-tional law, including international humanitarian law.” The statement was an appeal to conscience in raising awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nucle-ar 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 develop-ment: the “normalization” of nuclear weapons. New genera-tions are coming to their maturi-ty 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 cam-puses, 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 fac-tor in letting the nuclear weapons states have an easy pass in their modernizing pro-grams. As Reaching Critical Will’s new publication, Assuring Destruction Forever, shows, all the nuclear weapons states are modernizing their nuclear arse-nals and planning to keep them operative for at least another half century. The public has been fooled into thinking that some-what smaller numbers of nuclear weapons means nuclear disarma-ment is taking place. Far from it: the smaller numbers are a mask for the qualitative improvements and normalization of the weap-ons 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 adminis-tration brazenly committed $180 billion extra for the moderniza-tion of its nuclear arsenals to ensure they would be “safe, secure and reliable.” Moderniza-tion of their nuclear stocks is now a major priority of the U.S. and Russia. These programs

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

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

▼

Doug Roche


are contrary to the NPT Arti-cle 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, infra-structure and environmental needs.

What does the Canadian gov-ernment say about all this? Nothing. The voluminous litera-ture injected into the NPT Prep-Comm by Canada is filled with efforts toward non-proliferation. I commend the Canadian govern-ment for its work in the 10-nation 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 Canadi-an 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 sup-port the UN Secretary-General’s Five-Point Plan for nuclear dis-armament, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. There has been no action to implement Par-liament’s call for “a major world-wide Canadian diplomatic initiative,” and the voices of the 570 distinguished Canadians who signed the Order of Canada call for Canada to support nego-tiations for a 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 nucle-ar weapons is a comment on how nuclear weapons in the hands of “friendly” nations have become normalized; and also how democ-racy is being undermined by the powerful tentacles of the mili-tary-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 insidi-ous 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 confer-ence calls on all nuclear weapons states to undertake concrete dis-armament efforts and affirms that all states need to make spe-cial efforts to establish the neces-sary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nucle-ar 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, pro-duce, or proliferate nuclear weapons.

Support for starting work now is widespread. More than three-quarters 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 pos-sessing nuclear weapons, includ-ing China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. In fact, the Inter-national Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has noted that nations that support a ban make up 81 percent of the world’s pop-ulation.

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 coun-tries 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 verifica-tion, national prohibition, explor-ing what would be required to ensure compliance with a global ban, advancing alternative secu-rity frameworks to nuclear deter-rence, and further refining the Model Nuclear Weapons Conven-tion to make it into a realistic working draft for actual negotia-tions. Such work would pave the way for eventual formal negotia-tions. This could be complement-ed by actions by like-minded states to build political momen-tum for such negotiations through advocacy at the highest level, or through establishing a full-scale international diplomat-ic conference as called for by numerous commissions.

Canadian government silent on disarmament▼

See “Time for …” on page 14

“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.”


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 ban-ning 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 for-mer 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 advo-cates of that new ‘Canada-as-warrior’ 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, sprin-kled with corroborating state-ments made by well-known military leaders, politicians and academics (such as Rick Hillier, David Bercuson, Jack Granat-stein 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 signifi-cantly 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 strug-gle to discuss their widely differ-ing views. They disagree, they bicker, but at least they are will-ing 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 non-overlapping contrary frame-works, 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 war-fighting) 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 our-selves 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 Peace-keeping Centre (that appears to be in the final stages of contrac-tion through budget cuts) but Richler’s reconditioned version would specialize in peace opera-tions studies, combining exper-tise in languages, engineering, financing and economics. A new Community Corps (not unlike a volunteer Peace Corps) could focus on international develop-ment 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 rea-sonable fit with some of our own world federalist ideas. Richler’s standing regiment might be mod-ified or enhanced, for instance along the lines of a permanent UN Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS).

“The success of peace opera-tions,” Richler writes, “is mea-sured, in the short term, by a cessation of killing and, in the long term, by the ability of demo-cratic institutions to take hold and prevent a society slipping

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

See “Canada…” on page 14

Our military’s role: warriors? Or peacekeepers?

Robin Collins is a member of the Executive Com-mittee of WFM–Canada.


by Andreas BummelI 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 Parliamenta-ry Assembly (UNPA).

The number of Canadian par-liamentarians endorsing the UNPA campaign’s international appeal has nearly doubled, from 39 in January, to 73, represent-ing 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 compris-es 11 members across the coun-try who contributed their personal time and energy to con-tact 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 parlia-mentarians have endorsed the campaign. Of course, from time to time, these parliamentary endorsers subsequently leave parliament. Therefore, the pres-ent tally of support shows 848 current members of parliament from 102 countries, as well as hundreds of distinguished per-sonalities from politics, science, civil society and cultural life.

The UNPA represents a practi-cal step toward a more democra-tized global governance, a goal

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

In addition to your achieve-ments in Canada, some of the recent UNPA Campaign accom-plishments include:• the third international gather-

ing of Green parties world-wide (Global Greens Congress, March 29 to April 1 in Dakar, Senegal) passed a strong reso-lution in support of a UNPA. Other international parlia-mentary 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 with-in the United Nations, with the goal of strengthening the effectiveness, transparency, representativity, plurality and legitimacy of the institutions that are part of the UN sys-tem.” MERCOSUR is the fifth regional parliament to endorse the call for a UNPA. Since 2007, the Pan-African parlia-ment, the Latin-American parliament, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe and the European par-liament have adopted similar resolutions. The UNPA cam-paign expects the European parliament to renew its sup-port for the UNPA with anoth-er resolution in the coming weeks.

Support for the campaign is growing rapidly in India. Fifty-two 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 Gov-ernance. There was widespread agreement on the goal of strengthening global democracy. However, participants were divided on the practicality of cre-ating a global parliament. This Lund conference brought togeth-er more 200 researchers from 30 countries to explore ways in which a more legitimate demo-cratic and accountable earth sys-tem governance might be achieved.

The goal of a more democra-tized global system is not only topical among parliamentarians and professors. In May, an inter-national ‘assembly’ – formed of supporters of Occupy, Take the Square, as well as Latin Ameri-can, African, Asian and Middle Eastern social movements – pub-lished an international manifes-to, 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 Interna-tional Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements and the United Nations. The text, published in the UK by the Guardian, asserts that “all deci-sions affecting all mankind

“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.”

Democratizing global governance, step by step

Andreas Bummel is the secretary-general of the international Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly.

See ”Governments…” on page 14


should be taken in democratic forums like a participatory and direct UN Parliamentary Assem-bly 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 gov-ernments.” 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 sup-ports the goal of establishing a

parliamentary assembly at the UN.

Ironically, while democracy is a universally accepted value and governments declare their sup-port for expanding democracy at the national level, they neverthe-less 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 orga-nized actions of committed indi-viduals. You have had a great success in Canada these recent months. I look forward to meet-

ing Canadian and international colleagues and activists at the Winnipeg Congress of the World Federalist Movement in July. See you soon! •

cated it does not intend to partic-ipate, but Finland, which will host the meeting, is engaged in discussions with Israel. The mat-ter 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 terri-tory, despite the fact that it is a full member of the agency. It has repeatedly said that it is not pre-pared 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 diffi-culties 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 securi-ty issues that plague them.

Continued from page 13 ________

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 ‘responsibili-ty 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 inter-nationalist 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.

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 govern-ment to action.

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

before a Nuclear Weapons Con-vention should be considered. DFAIT should “modernize” its own position and recognize that the time has come to start prepa-ratory work that could enable negotiations for a comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Convention.


Mideast NWFZ?

Time for Canadian government to ‘modernize’ its position

Governments remain silent on the need for UNPA

Canada dampens ‘new swagger’ (from page 12)



by Fergus WattThe ‘responsibility to protect’

(R2P) norm has travelled a slow, gradual road to the level of inter-national acceptance it enjoys today. After its adoption at the 2005 World Summit, there were many governments that still con-tested 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 fre-quently 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 pro-tection of civilians, in Côte D’Ivoire and in Libya.

Gareth Evans – Australia’s for-mer foreign minister and former co-chairman of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), and a leading R2P advocate – trumpet-ed this view last November in an article in Foreign Policy maga-zine entitled “End of the Argu-ment: How we won the debate over stopping genocide.” Evans claimed that 10 years ago, “the international response to mass-atrocity 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 “com-plete ideological division on the response to mass-atrocity crimes to the current overwhelming con-sensus, at least on basic princi-ples.”

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 imple-mented 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 transforma-tional change if it is seen to rep-resent nothing more than a wishful exhortation for govern-ments to play more conscien-tiously in future by the same old rules that have so often been dis-torted or ignored in the past. Operationalizing R2P necessarily entails major reforms to global governance.

Two recent campaigning initia-tives by World Federalists dem-onstrate the challenges posed by the kinds of reforms to global governance suggested by R2P.

1) UNEPS and R2PA 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 civil-ian protection or as a start-up force for UN peace operations.

In an Ottawa Citizen article, Lloyd Axworthy (Canada’s for-mer 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 pro-tect people while respecting safe-guard rules set out by ICISS, namely multilateral action sanc-tioned through the UN, using proportional force. Second, the time has come to discuss creating UN capacity to respond in such cases. There are strong argu-ments 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 ser-vice was also demonstrated dur-ing 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 Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted in his 2009 report Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, “Despite years of study and public discus-sion, 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

Implementing R2P: It doesn’t get any easier

See “NGOs…” on page 16

“R2P will never become

the hoped-for 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…”


“…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.”

civilian protection operations, there is still considerable opposi-tion to a UNEPS, from perma-nent members of the UN Security Council and also small-er 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 capaci-ty-building that would enable the UN to more effectively imple-ment R2P. Regional meetings have taken place in Brazil, Nige-ria, 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 mobi-lized 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 Coun-cil deliberations more transpar-ent and accountable to the overall UN membership. One ele-ment 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 pre-venting or ending genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The S5 came under heavy pres-sure 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, recom-mended that the resolution required the support of two-thirds of the UN membership,

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

Under the UN Charter, a Gen-eral 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 representa-tion on and increase in the mem-bership of the Security Council and related matters” without a two-thirds majority.

O’Brien ruled that the S5 reso-lution fell into that category of “related matters” and recom-mended 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 “procedur-al and legalistic maneuvers” that threatened to “engulf” the entire UN membership. •

by Monique CuillerierSexual violence in conflict is

not a new problem, but only recently has it been recognized as a systemic problem and con-sidered 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

and political context. But the nexus of sexual violence in con-flict, the development of the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) norm, and some of the ongoing cases at the International Crimi-nal Court (ICC), provide a new and shifting context in which to consider these issues.

For example, the early develop-ment of R2P largely failed to

address gender-based issues. As Jennifer Bond and Laurel Sher-ret discussed at length in their 2006 paper, A Sight for Sore Eyes: Bringing Gender Vision to the Responsibility to Protect Framework, “current formula-tions of the ‘responsibility to pro-tect’ doctrine are almost entirely gender-blind, despite the exis-tence of multiple international

Are we there yet? Sexual violence in age of R2P


NGOs mobilize on ‘responsibility not to veto’

▼


“…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.”

mandates for integrating gen-der 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 ini-tiatives, gender training to sup-port peace operations, the protection of women and girls in the midst of armed conflict (par-ticularly with regards to the issue of gender-based violence) and gender mainstreaming throughout programs and pro-cesses 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 address-ing conflict-related sexual vio-lence in general and in relation to R2P in particular. At a recent Security Council meeting, UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Vio-lence in Conflict Margot Wall-ström discussed the broader basis in which sexual violence has implications for peace and security, saying that, while iso-lated incidents of rape should be dealt with by each country’s own law and order system, “when sex-ual violence is driven by the dynamics of conflict, is wide-spread 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-

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 pro-tect them to participate in public and economic life. Rape has a chilling effect on women’s politi-cal 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 wom-en’s lives and votes and voices count, and will be counted.”

And, at a Global Action to Pre-vent War (GAPW)-sponsored event on integrating gender per-spectives into the third pillar of R2P, a background concept note was developed to be used ahead of this summer’s General Assem-bly R2P debate, with the hope that there will be more discus-sion 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.stoprapeincon-flict.org). Headed by the Nobel Women’s Initiative, the cam-paign seeks to establish a collab-orative and co-ordinated plan of action among organizations and individuals at the local, national, regional and international levels.

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

However, even with growing attention and discussion, there remain outstanding issues regarding how, specifically, sexu-al violence in conflict should be addressed. One thought-provok-ing 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 enlist-ing and conscripting children under the age of 15 years and using them to participate active-ly 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 pros-ecution referred to sexual vio-lence in its opening and closing submissions – no charges had been laid regarding these crimes. The prosecution took the posi-tion, 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 sub-mitted 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…

Change is slow on conflict-gender violence

See “Danger…” on page 19

▼


Branch NewsVancouver – The branch December meeting was a pre-recorded 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 Janu-ary, the meeting was a report on the 2011 Ventotene International Seminar. Vivian Davidson, one of the Canadian attendees in 2011, reported on the youth con-ference 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.” Sci-ence fiction author Lynda Wil-liams 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 Fra-ser University that tracks global and regional trends in organized violence, its causes and conse-quences.

A public consultation on a private member’s bill for the creation of a federal Depart-ment 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 parlia-ment in 2009; Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, global peace-building physician and author of Enough Blood Shed, and Blake MacLeod, from the World Federalist Move-ment – Canada, helped conduct the proceedings.

Following the International Congress of the World Feder-alist Movement in Winnipeg, July 9 to 13, Andreas Bummel, co-ordinator of the Interna-tional 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 West-ern Media Evolved into a Weap-on of War.” The presentation traced the history of the media from an institution to inform the public to a political tool of manip-ulation. 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 David-son of the Vancouver branch spoke about her experience at the international Ventotene seminar in Italy, as well as activ-ities 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 Cli-mate Change After Durban”. At the May meeting, World Federal-

ist Eleanor Powell spoke on the topic “Peace Prize Sometimes Controversial” about her experi-ences 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 lun-cheon, Desirée McGraw, execu-tive director of the Jeanne Sauvé Foundation, spoke on “Rio + 20: Canada, from Leader to Lag-gard?” 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 Cana-dian youth ambassadors.Since January, the Marie-Berthe Dion Issues Action Group has met monthly. Members have written letters on the follow-ing 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 mem-bers also held a good discussion meeting on “One World Govern-ment 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.


“…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 WattIn preparation for the 2012

United Nations General Assem-bly (GA) debate on the ‘responsi-bility 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 Parlia-mentary Group for the Preven-tion 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. Partici-pants included parliamentarians and staff from the parliamentary group, civil society representa-tives and officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The meeting was held in a parliamen-tary committee room. Six other such regional meetings are tak-ing place this year.

Guest speakers at the Ottawa meeting included:– Piragibe dos Santos Tarrago,

Ambassador of Brazil to Cana-da, who provided an overview of the Brazilian initiative “Responsibility While Protect-ing;” and

– Simon Adams, Executive Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Pro-tect, New York, who discussed the growing acceptance of the R2P normative framework and the Global Centre’s “Focal Points Initiative.”

Discussion summaryFrom an international perspec-

tive, current Canadian discus-sions of R2P are puzzling. In

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

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

responsibility to protect civil-ians.

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

– Pillar three: The international community should use diplo-matic, humanitarian and

other peaceful means to pro-tect 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 pro-tect.’ Any international use of force must be implemented in a manner consistent with the Charter’s collective security prin-ciples and after all peaceful means have been exhausted. Care should be taken to avoid unintended consequences when

In the trenches: prep’ing for UN R2P debate

Continued on page 20

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

One ICC judge, Judge Eliza-beth Odio-Benito, offered a dis-senting opinion on the judgement: by “failing to deliber-ately 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 Cham-ber 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 land-mark first case. While movement towards the consideration of sex-ual 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 dis-cussions of the further inclusion of women within the R2P norm will be of assistance in establish-ing women’s necessary and visi-ble role within peace and security issues. •


Danger in making sexual crimes invisible

207 — 145 Spruce Street, Ottawa, ON K1R 6P1Phone: 613-232-0647E-mail: [email protected]: worldfederalistscanada.orgJune 2012

Join the World Federalist MovementName __________________________________________________

Email __________________________________________________

Address ________________________________________________

______________________________ Postal Code _____________

By becoming a member…■ Contributor – $150 ■ Household – $60 ■ Individual – $40 ■ 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 ■ (no receipt) or

World Federalist Foundation ■ (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 donorYou 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 ■ or

World Federalist Foundation ■ (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 PaidPostage Paid Port payè

40011403


the use of force will cause more harm than the initial threats that it was intended to address. The use of force must be judi-cious, 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 cir-cumstances of the particular gov-ernment. The Global Centre’s initiative seeks to expand the number of R2P focal points appointed by national govern-ments and to link these focal points within a global network designed to facilitate internation-al 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 guide-lines for such an appointment. Canada is a member of the “Friends of R2P” group at the UN. It was suggested that Cana-da should also appoint an R2P focal point.

R2P is at a stage where advo-

cates have largely won the battle of ideas. (Another example: grow-ing 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 dem-onstrate that the UN lacks consistent, reliable use-of-force options. NATO will not always be desirable or avail-able; 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 media-tion 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 implementa-tion of the ‘responsibility to protect.’ •

R2P talks consider use of forceContinued from page 19 ________

Documents

Mondial June 2012