CANADA AND THE WORLD
We are right to be in Afghanistan, participating in a mission of great moral and strategic significance. Canada must be at the forefront of new means of civil-military cooperation – increasing our military strength to enhance our effectiveness in the growing number of areas of complex conflict requiring delivery of humanitarian and development assistance. An unstable Afghanistan can destabilize its nuclear neighbours – Pakistan, India, and, if it has its way, Iran. Prior to 9/11, the Taliban in Afghanistan provided the operational centre and a shelter for Osama Bin Laden.
We are there to ensure that the international community does not turn its back too soon as arguably it did in 2001 when the Americans sent a totally inadequate number of troops, limited to Kabul, to assist the Afghan people to achieve stability, peace and democracy. Building a functional sovereign and democratic state is not an 18-month job, a 3-year job or even perhaps a 10-year job.
Canada must take steps to instill a sufficient sense of hope and progress in developing societies so that despair and anger do not send more masses into the arms of extremists.
We must continue to stay engaged in establishing stability in Afghanistan. Rebuilding a failed state while fighting guerillas who have a safe sanctuary is arguably the most significant international commitment Canada has made since World War Two.
Of course we must also continue at all times to reassess our goals and military strategy. The Manley Report of January 2008 provided a long overdue discussion of our national purpose in Afghanistan. The key points have been succinctly summarized as follows: The options are not security or development, combat or training, Canada or NATO allies. The choice is both or neither.
Because Afghanistan must be rebuilt village by village, our goal must be to devise new means of civil-military cooperation to provide essential military support for the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance. Among other things, more NATO troops based in Kandahar will of course help, as will much greater CIDA effectiveness in building up the public administrative capacity of Afghanistan. Also, we must urgently correct the fact that Canada does not yet have troop transport helicopters and ways to avoid dangerous overland travel. Most of our casualties continue to be caused by IEDs – improvised explosive devices.
In the meantime, every single Canadian casualty is a terrible loss to each and every Canadian. We must reassure our brave men and women on the front lines that we will never waver in our support for their endeavours and sacrifices, and will always be guided in our decision-making by their best interests.
Canada- U.S. relations will remain of paramount importance, wherever the forces of globalization lead, and however much American power may decline relative to China and India. The answer to the perennial question of whether we can maintain our overall distinctiveness from the United States is yes, just as we have done successfully ever since 1867. We have almost always agreed with Americans on the rules of democracy, the rule of law, shared geography, our respective political systems and so forth. The sympathy and outpouring of emotions and support/aid in the wake of September 11th and Hurricane Katrina reflect our closeness.
We are unquestionably closely tied to the United States economically, most obviously through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). We are great friends and allies. Millions of people cross the 49th parallel every year. But we must not be naïve: as important as trade and exchange with the United States may seem to us, the converse is not true. Less than one quarter of American trade is with Canada; the vast majority is not.
To ensure that our concerns are heard clearly and constructively in the United States, we must put a great deal of effort into diplomatic and other channels to increase American awareness of Canadians. As difficult as it is to believe, most Americans know very little of Canada or its politics and are occasionally too quick to assume the worst of us. For example, it was disturbing to find Americans, including those who produced the brilliant television series, The West Wing, assuming that Canada had harboured many of the terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks. Clearly, we must improve this situation in order to strengthen our hand in our bilateral relations, while at the same time, acknowledging that Canadians for their part do not know enough about Americans and the United States.
We also need to assume our responsibility for the defence of North America with a maturity that befits a modern sovereign state. For example, we must do much more to secure our borders and extensive seacoasts, as well as bolster our internal defences – and it must be done in close cooperation with the Americans. Such cooperation does not constitute a loss of sovereignty; rather, it strengthens our sovereignty by ensuring that joint policy and decisions reflect our country’s interests and needs.
Energy cooperation with the United States is quickly becoming a critical element of our bilateral relationship, as Americans focus on developing secure energy supplies within North America in order to reduce their dependence on Middle East oil supplies. One proposal put forward by Thomas Axworthy is the conclusion of a Resources Security Pact between our two countries in which “Canada would use energy to tempt the United States Congress to end the harassment of agriculture and softwood lumber exports.”
Although the Free Trade Agreement already gives the U.S. oil export guarantees, such an agreement would ensure that development of the resource proceeded in a timely and comprehensive fashion. We must of course ensure that Canada always maintains its security of supply, and that consideration always be given to the broader context of developing joint Canada-United States approaches to resource renewability, sustainability and the development of alternative energy sources.
Canadians, new and old, do not define themselves by their ethnicity, religion, language or their province. Nor do we define ourselves with material things – not the cars we drive, the houses we own, the areas in which we live.
We do not define ourselves with borders.
We are Canadians without borders, looking outward to an exciting future.
We have come together to continue to build a progressive, vigorous multi-ethnic democracy. We are prepared to embrace the responsibilities that have been thrust upon us because of our unique place in the international community.
For Canada to be a global leader, as we can and should be, Canada’s strength must come from a unity of purpose – our ability to pull together our huge and growing pool of exceptional human talent, to build a better world for our children and grandchildren.
Our destiny must be to show that Canada can be a model for a troubled world increasingly challenged by religious and sectarian friction, and environmental catastrophes.
We have a mission to export the type of pluralistic, creative, modern society we are building in Canada.
And we have every right to be proud and assertive, not weighed down by “middleness”, diffidence, the all too typical Canadian “Excuse me, sorry to bother you” attitude.
Our national purpose must be to improve the quality of life both in Canada and elsewhere, to promote a common sense of humanity, good government and good citizenship around the globe, to collaborate globally to ensure that economic prosperity coincides with environmental preservation.
We must remember that Canadians choose Canada because of the opportunity, both economic and social.
With some exceptions, most notably the extraordinarily unacceptable third world conditions among aboriginal Canadians, Canada represents the best of universal values ─ justice, equality, diversity, the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, equal rights, non-discrimination, and a chance to live in peace and humanity.
Canada provides a safe haven, and a base from which to reach out to the troubled areas of the world and teach what we learn in Canada ─ how people with different religions, ethnicities and values can live together as full citizens in free societies, exercising the mutual responsibilities that go along with the rights of citizenship.
Almost every aspect of our daily lives has a global dimension. All the serious challenges we face whether climate change, dreadful poverty, wars, sicknesses, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, all require global cooperation and global solutions, but also decisive national leadership at home.
The longer we fail to act coherently and effectively, both nationally and internationally, the narrower our options and the greater the potential for catastrophe.
The success of Canada therefore also lies not only in ensuring our diversity remains our strength, but also in demonstrating that we can have bold and visionary national leadership in a dynamic federation.
Indeed Canada’s influence and effectiveness on the international stage depends on maintaining our internal coherence and stability, and strengthening our commitment to greater equity, economic and social justice, sustainable development, environmental preservation.
We must have our act together at home, and implement domestic policies which attract world-wide respect, if we are to have credibility and a knowledge base from which to act internationally.
We need bold and visionary national leadership to inspire us to confidently take on our complex world, and convey a sense of forward motion, leadership that convinces Canadians once again to believe that those in public life can translate rhetoric into action.
We need bold and visionary national government that brings forward national initiatives with clarity and conviction.
Our prime minister and foreign minister, in particular, must provide clear directions for national and international action.
But what is the reality?
We have foreign policy going off in potentially 10 or 12 different directions. With Quebec’s proliferating delegations, critical cutbacks at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Canada’s voice in the world is confused.
We are too defensive with respect to the United States, there is too much promotion of mediocrity, and our federal government is risk averse and indecisive, most notably with respect to the crucible issue of our time, global warming.
With so many of us active outside Canada and globally-connected, Canadians must demand a clear Canadian voice on the world stage, and coherent national government at home, to inspire us to pull together for the common good.
We must demand national leadership that governs for the Canadian people, not the provincial premiers. Canada is not Quebec. Canada is not Alberta. Neither Jean Charest nor Ed Stelmach speaks to the national interest. Nor is it their job to do so: that is the job of the prime minister.
We must find and elect national politicians able and willing to defend Canadian values at home and abroad with dignity and determination. We need our politicians to move beyond petty politics, power plays, outdated ideologies, seducing voters with ill-conceived tax cuts, and commissioning useless opinion polls to gauge, not important matters, but merely the popularity of the government.
As Canada searches for its role and purpose in the 21st century, especially on the global stage, we must ask whether we are content to be a neutral broker here and there with mixed success, or do we want to achieve something more concrete and vigorous?
Once again, bold and visionary national leadership is desperately needed.
All liberal democracies, big and small, need to participate in networking and international agreements that result in effective cooperative action on global problems of energy security, economic inequality, ethnic conflicts, regional militarization, pandemics and global warming.
In the foreseeable future, national power will no longer depend primarily on military, or even economic, might. It will depend on social stability, access to safe, clean sources of energy, clean air and water, a good healthcare system and adequate national preparedness to enable a nation to withstand a pandemic.
Even the United States appears slowly to be learning the lesson of Iraq the hard way: that even a powerful state such as the United States in a currently unipolar world, gains an advantage by supporting, and operating within, an international system of rules and institutions.
In the near future, hundreds of millions of poorly educated young people around the world will lack the necessary skills for employment, and find very few employment opportunities except in the informal economy. They are living in the crowded mega-cities and will be attractive recruits for radical groups, alienated from the global economic, social and political system, and who consider the U.S. to be simply the supporter of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib. Such mass poverty is the greatest moral challenge/moral dilemma of our time.
The international community must be fully engaged, for example, in supporting international initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals, established in 2000. Canada at the very least must increase our foreign aid level from the current pathetic 0.28% of GDP to the 0.7% promised back in the 1960s. We must instill a sufficient sense of hope and progress in developing societies so that despair and anger do not send more masses into the arms of extremists.
But at the same time as ramping up international development initiatives, we must deal firmly with the corrupt self-interested regimes, in too many developing areas of the world that rule by fear and threats, and siphon off aid intended to advance the local social economy. They are guilty of manufacturing poverty to enhance alienation and anger for their own political ends.
Crises in states from Sudan to Afghanistan are potential threats to security at home here in Canada. Destabilizing civil wars are much more common than they were 40 years ago. As Rwanda and now Darfur demonstrate, the potential for horrific genocides is all too real. And rants by the president of Iran, advocating the elimination of the nation of Israel, are ominous.
We need a forceful Canadian presence at all the bargaining tables around the world – in Afghanistan, Rwanda, Darfur, to the ongoing Kyoto conference negotiations, to the World Trade Organization, to the United Nations, and so many more.
We must support and encourage the many many Canadians involved outside Canada in business, education, arts and culture, sports, the foreign service, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and our military.
Our military in particular is now at the forefront of forging new means of civil-military cooperation – using our military strength to make possible the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance in the growing number of complicated conflicts worldwide.
We must invest the necessary resources in our peacekeeping capacities, our military, our international activities, and our defence of North America. Our international reputation and influence is a source of pride, but is never something to be taken for granted. It is something to be earned and maintained through hard work and, at times, great sacrifice.
There is an urgent need for Canada and all nations to deal more effectively and multilaterally with the tragedy of human trafficking, an illegal modern-day slave trade in women and children that closely follows drugs and guns in profitability. The U.S. Department of State 2008 Annual Report on human trafficking states that 600,000 to 800,000 persons are victimized each year. Canada has the legislation in place to deal with both increased penalties for human trafficking, and assisting the victims of trafficking. But as the Department of State Report notes, the RCMP Human Trafficking National Coordinating Centre has only two officers and one analyst. Canada must do much more to put an end to human trafficking both within Canada and abroad. Among other things, much more resources are required, especially in support of effective NGOs fighting the scourge of trafficking.
Immigrants built Canada and are the backbone of, and enrich, Canadian society. The federal government must vastly improve the process of applying to immigrate to Canada and, once and for all, facilitate the recognition of foreign educational credentials and foreign work experience, while recognizing that both skilled and unskilled workers have invaluable contributions to make.
An immigration system that generates a backlog of 850,000 applications, with many in the queue for 5 or 6 years, is a dysfunctional nightmare and an embarrassment to a country like Canada which increasingly depends on our interconnectedness with the rest of the world. Indeed by as early as 2012, immigration will account for all net labour force growth.
The solution does not lie in the Harper government’s ill-considered proposal to give the immigration minister sweeping powers to pick and choose different types of immigrants and establish arbitrary caps on categories of applicants. Nor does it lie only in ad hoc, albeit laudable,steps such as creating a new category of “Canadian Experience Class” which allows temporary workers and foreign students to apply for landed status without first returning to their home countries.
The proper route is to undertake a serious and complete overhaul of the immigration and refugee protection system and take the time necessary to get it right.
To begin with, we need to speed up the immigration application process by hiring more staff in all our offices abroad and ensure that enough individual attention is given to potential immigrants to ease their arrival in Canada and maximize their chance of successful integration. But staffing up to adequate levels will only work if we have adequate capacity within Canada to integrate new Canadians once they arrive. We must provide the necessary infrastructure, especially individualized human assistance, to help new Canadians maximize their potential – language training, settlement services, internship programs that provide work experience, expeditious certification mechanisms to recognize foreign credentials and work experience.
Given the backlog, it may be advisable to establish a new system for processing all new applicants as of a certain date, this time sufficiently staffed in all areas, while creating specialized teams over the short-term to attack and eliminate the backlog in an equitable and very expeditious manner. This will require a significant and long overdue investment of public funds at both the federal and provincial levels, something that is infinitely preferable to the introduction of extraordinarily arbitrary ministerial powers.
Ensuring the efficient and equitable operation of our immigration system will relieve the pressures on the refugee determination process which arise when would-be immigrants attempt to circumvent the clogged and frustrating immigration stream by making unfounded refugee claims. To some extent, our refugee protection system has functioned as an overflow mechanism for the immigration system, and this has unfortunately fuelled much exaggerated claims that our good will and humanitarianism are being abused.
But minimizing unfounded refugee claims is neither the only nor the most serious reform that merits our attention. While we should be proud of Canada’s record in assisting refugees fleeing persecution in their country of nationality, our refugee determination process too often gives rise to incomprehensible situations in which a deportation offends our standard of basic fairness and compassion, in addition to defying common sense. This situation must be corrected at the earliest opportunity.
Among other things the current refugee determination structure and process should be changed as follows:
- The members of the refugee board should comprise experts in the field, appointed by an arms-length commission, who decide both whether a person falls within the legal definition of a refugee or whether, in any event, the person should nevertheless stay in Canada on humane and compassionate grounds. (Currently there are two separate, costly and time-consuming proceedings).
- The board must be adequately staffed so that backlogs do not build up. Equally, our overseas offices must be adequately staffed to allow much greater processing of refugees in transit points and hot spots around the world.
- There should be an appeal to a quasi-judicial Refugee Appeal Division.
All persons who have been welcomed within our borders as immigrants, refugees, or people meriting humanitarian and compassionate relief, become eligible for Canadian citizenship. As part of the process of applying Canadian citizenship, we must also promote the responsibilities that go along with the rights of citizenship. In gaining the rights of Canadian citizenship, all persons must accept the responsibility to maintain a civil society and a political community that espouses democratic ideals and acts on them, upholds the rule of law and outlaws the use of violence as a means of political expression. As well, all persons must accept the responsibility to maintain a civil society and political community in which women have equal rights and privileges with men.
At the same time, all Canadians must discharge our serious collective responsibility to ensure that new Canadians have real equality of opportunity. The evidence is clear that the latest wave of immigrants, while perhaps better educated than their predecessors, face more difficulties with respect to employment, reuniting their families, proper housing and health services. The huge mismatch between the skills of new Canadians and what they are actually employed to do here is astonishing. It seems that newcomers are now seen as a source of low-income workers, not as a solution to the much-needed upgrading of skills in both the manufacturing and knowledge sectors, and as much-needed new professionals.
No less than 41% of immigrants with university degrees are now in chronic low-income categories, compared to only 13% in 1993, before the immigration laws were changed to encourage more educated immigrants to come to Canada. Especially among the young there is a real sense of exclusion as the disaffected lash out against a society that fails to give them equal opportunity in practice. Canadians, particularly employers in Canada, must identify what barriers are preventing many new Canadians from advancing their careers, and then address those barriers with positive action. According to a 2007 report of the Conference Board of Canada, “although Canadian organizations say they value diversity, they have not yet fully committed their policies, practices and resources to embedding diversity in their operations.”
We clearly require much more public investment in education and training, sector by sector, so that we stop shedding so many valuable middle-income jobs that traditionally have allowed workers to climb the income ladder, and so we can really focus on keeping people employed. Wouldn’t dramatic national action be great for a change? Like offering free employee training to employers who locate or expand their operations in Canada? For that matter, why not the Irish route of free college tuition? But this takes us to another area of discussion, to be addressed at another time.
Canada must support an effective peace process in the Middle East that leads to a Palestinian state and full respect for Israel in international forums. The road to lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians lies in the establishment of a fully democratic Palestinian government, with democratic institutions and the rule of law, equality of women in civil society and a commitment to eschew violence as a means of resolving disputes. This will require the dissolution of Hamas and its promotion of terrorist activities, and this in turn requires the collaboration of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and Syria, with the active involvement of Jordan, Russia and China. These states must step up to the plate and discharge their responsibility to contribute to greater peace and security by themselves allowing the evolution of democracy and by playing an active role in suppressing and eradicating terrorist groups. Iran and Syria, in particular, are currently much more part of the problem, not part of the solution. Arab states must be persuaded to make political space for liberal, secular movements and must allow the advance of both democratic institutions and the equality of women and men. The transition to democracy will of course take time and will create vulnerabilities that must be overcome.
A durable and equitable Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement must involve the creation of a viable state of Palestine, having the capacity to maintain public order and safety as well as to provide services, goods and jobs to people. This will depend on the Palestinians ability to resolve the divisions between Hamas and Fatah that prevent coherent leadership in negotiating forums. It will also depend on Israel’s ability to rethink and revisit its approach to building a security barrier.
A durable and equitable Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement must also ensure that Israel is accorded the proper respect in international forums. Israel is a legitimate democratic nation that is entitled under international law to defend itself against international terrorism and should not have to face calls for its destruction, and suffer ongoing suicide bombings and rocket attacks that plainly target civilian populations. It is not acceptable that it live under a perpetual threat of attack. Yet instead of encouraging Israel’s full participation on the world stage, Israel has been excluded from all key United Nations human rights committees, while Libya, hardly a standard bearer for respect for human rights, has been elected in the past to the Human Rights Commission. (See “United Nations Reform” below).
We need to put the focus back on the very serious nuclear threat and the goal of the abolition of nuclear weapons. The nuclear non-proliferation regime is on the verge of collapse. The United States is mumbling about “usable nuclear bombs” (bunker busters, mini-nukes, reliable replacement warheads (RRWs)) and continues steps that are leading to the weaponization of space. The five original signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970 – the U.S., Russia, France, Britain and China – are still committed to giving up nuclear weapons. But now there is India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and possibly Iran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and Algeria have all told the International Atomic Energy Agency that they now intend to develop nuclear power programs. And as events in Britain regarding the poisoning of a former Russian KGB agent demonstrate, much more controls are required on radioactive fissile materials.
The growing dangers of our nuclear world must force us to recognize how little the international community has accomplished in more than half a century in terms of the abolition of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear Armageddon. It is clear that we must redouble our efforts in this area especially as the pressure increases to greatly expand nuclear energy as a way to reduce global warming and too much reliance on fossil fuels.
We must invest the necessary resources in our peacekeeping capacities, our military, our international activities, and our defence of North America. Our international reputation and influence is a source of pride, but is never something to be taken for granted. It is something to be earned and maintained through hard work and, at times, great sacrifice.
History bears out the dangers of not sustaining outside help in nation-building projects. Witness what has happened in Somalia, Haiti and Lebanon. As we discovered in Bosnia, an operation of sufficient scale and duration may be the only effective way to achieve our goals of greater peace and humanity.
All this should underscore for all Canadians how increasingly important our military role will be outside our borders, and the critical need to use military power carefully as an instrument of foreign policy in conjunction with diplomacy and development strategies.
A much more effective NATO or, ideally, vigorous U.N. peace-making units, is also urgently required in Darfur, and neighbouring Chad and Central African Republic, to prevent the first genocide of the 21st century. General Romeo Dallaire, the most passionate and eloquent veteran of the horrors of Rwanda, argues persuasively that we need to rally Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, and the Scandinavian countries to commit resources and troops to NATO, as well as partner with Australia and New Zealand.
We must reinvest in our military capacities, even beyond the recent initiatives, and once again become an effective player in all domains of international affairs – defence, diplomacy and development. According to most expert observers, military expenditures currently hover about 1 per cent of GDP and may have to rise eventually to at least 4.5 per cent.
We must continue to be in the forefront of the development of the international “responsibility to protect” doctrine, which is gaining support as the legal and ethical framework within which to protect vulnerable populations at risk from civil wars, insurgency, state repression and state collapse. We must also be in the forefront of the development of effective, innovative means of civil-military cooperation, providing essential military support for the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance within the context of the increasing number of complex conflict situations around the world.
Finally, Canada must support effective international action to stop the international arms trade especially in lethal small arms that too often fuel conflict, as well as promote an international ban on IEDs -improvised explosive devices.
The key to the emergence of civil society and the reduction of extremism around the world is the rising influence of women and the promotion of the rights of women. Shirin Ebadi, the activist Iranian attorney who won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize, insists that the expansion of women’s role will itself be a force for democratization.
For example, within the Muslim faith, tolerance of women in mosques is still rare. Generally, women are not even represented on mosque committees. Signs of change, however small, are encouraging. In April 2006, Morocco’s Islamic Affairs Ministry awarded diplomas to 50 women imams. This followed some legislative changes in 2003 whereby King Mohammed VI reinterpreted the Sharia in an egalitarian direction.
In January 2006, women led an Eid prayer in Boston. In March 2006, women led Eid prayers in Canada before a grand mufti. In May 2006, Salam Yaqoob, the national vice-chair of the far-left “Respect Party” in England, was elected as Birmingham’s first female Muslim councilor with over 50 per cent of the vote. However, she was attacked by extremists and a fatwa was issued against her.
Women are critically important to the strengthening of civil society, not just as workers, but as consumers, entrepreneurs, managers and investors. Women deliver economic growth, and women in power are more likely to spend money on improving health, education, infrastructure and poverty. Investment in the education of women in the developing world could deliver huge economic and social returns.
Canada and Canadians can do a great deal to reach out to the forces of moderation of all faiths both within and outside Canada. We must ensure that the rights of women and the fundamental value of the equality of men and women are respected at all times, especially in determining the scope of our freedom to retain some traditional religious and cultural practices.
On a related matter, in 2003 Norway passed a very interesting law requiring 40% of all Boards of Directors to be women within 5 years by 2008. As of February 29, 2008, most corporations had complied. The penalty for non-compliance is dissolution. Canada would do well to implement a similar initiative.
Canada must support significant U.N. reform and changes in global governance to ensure sustained international action to save struggling populations in Darfur, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We must be clear and firm in our denunciation of the current United Nations structure. We will not merit the respect of future generations unless we insist on the fundamental changes to the U.N. that will allow the world community to put an end to genocide in Darfur, Rwanda and elsewhere, put an end to the lethal arms trade and arms build-up.
The Security Council is fatally flawed by the vetoes of the five permanent members. Among other things, the renaissance of Asia – China and India – and the increasing power of states with oil and gas, notably, Russia, demonstrate how we desperately need a new structure of global governance that reflects the growing diffusion of power.
Suggestions for U.N. reform include expanding the Security Council to include 10 rotating members, such as Brazil, India, Germany, Japan and South Africa. (This is similar to the proposal to create a permanent Group of 20 to supersede the current G-8, adding Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, India, Indonesia, China, Australia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and the EU to the United States, Britain, Japan, France, Germany, Italy Russia and Canada.) Other reforms to the international infrastructure involve merging the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to more effectively address global financial issues including development, and to ensure that critical decision-making authority better corresponds to actual global distribution of power.
The new U.N. Human Rights Council, recently created to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission, is no better than its predecessor. In fact, it may be worse because it is wrongly touted as being better. The Council still has a disproportionate number of members with dubious records, and the majority of the 44 resolutions passed during its first session failed to come to grips with the most appalling human rights abuses on the planet. Instead there were the usual condemnations of Israel, a very weak resolution dealing with Darfur, and a resolution passed by a group of African countries backed by Russia and Cuba, which would effectively ban independent UN human rights missions from investigating alleged violations of human rights, torture or human trafficking, except in Israel, an initiative that has even been criticized by Human Rights Watch. This is hardly an auspicious beginning for U.N. reform. We simply have to do better.
Yet, the January 2008 Arab Human Rights agreement and the proposals for a second UN Conference against Racism (Durban II), continues the unproductive, divisive equation of Zionism and racism and the promotion of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic sentiments. This once again trivializes the real challenges faced by the international community in taking serious action to protect human rights and enforce human responsibilities in the face of the horrible abuses and violations in Darfur and elsewhere.
The decision of Canada and others to pull out of the second Durban conference on anti-racism was welcome. The first Durban conference in 2001 became simply a counter-productive platform for blatant anti-semitism and was a waste of public energy and resources.