Global Policy Forum

By James A. Paul
Executive Director, Global Policy Forum

A Presentation from Session III of "Canada on the Security Council: Options and Opportunities," A Seminar Held in Ottawa, Canada and organized by the UNA (Canada) in collaboration with the Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

In his overview, Mr. Paul noted that while the idea of human security might be revolutionary in practice, it is a concept which is firmly embedded in the UN Charter and institutional culture (most notably in the Charter's recognition of the fact that much human conflict is rooted in social injustice). In recent years, the UN has enjoyed modest success in promoting human security by monitoring elections and human rights violations, removing land-mines, and providing general support for governance in post-conflict societies. The UNTAC experience in Cambodia, according to Mr. Paul, provides an example of a largely successful UN endeavour in the realm of human security. However, these successes have been overshadowed by problems arising from within the UN, from the broader environment of global politics and economics, and from the failures of member states to fulfil their obligations.

The UN itself has drastically exceeded its capacity to support peace-building and other human security operations, and in so doing, has drawn resources (including personnel) away from its other core activities. In some cases, personnel have been reassigned to peace-building activities even though their training left them unprepared to perform such tasks.

Furthermore, the Security Council (along with domestic audiences) has a relatively short attention span and an overwhelming agenda of potential and actual crises. This makes it reluctant to take early action aimed at preventing crisis situations from erupting, and from following through with coherent programmes of peacekeeping and peace-building (backed by the often requisite threat of force) in post-conflict scenarios.

These problems have been compounded by the UN's financial crisis, which is largely a function of the failure of the United States government to pay its membership dues. This has limited the capacity of the UN to launch new initiatives, particularly those lengthy, resource intensive missions associated with peacemaking and post-conflict reconstruction. Individual states, too, have been affected by funding cutbacks, which have impaired the capacity of their UN missions to deal with the mounting workload (particularly when they are serving on sanctions committees).

According to Mr. Paul, the short-term prospects of a human security "revolution" are dim, not least because many member states are suspicious of Security Council involvement in aspects of human security which are seen as "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign states." Indeed, the particular interests of states and corporations have repeatedly caused them to block initiatives aimed at institutionalizing and implementing the human security agenda.

Moreover, when the UN and other international organizations have taken initiatives aimed at stabilizing international security and the global economic order, these activities have often undermined human security. Mr. Paul noted that the draconian structural adjustment programmes associated with neo-liberal economics have created social crises in developing states. These crises have carried grave implications for the health and well-being of individuals, and for the long-term capacity of societies to provide for their members. In addition, sanctions imposed by the UN and member states have tended both to exacerbate interstate conflict, and to contribute to poverty, malnourishment, disease, and rising rates of mortality among civilian populations in target states and their neighbours. This dynamic has undercut the credibility of the instrument of sanctions, and of the UN as a whole.

According to Mr. Paul, the UN is slowly learning the skill of self-reflexivity. However, the capacity of the Secretariat to analyze its shortcomings and assimilate those lessons is limited by the political pressures which have been brought to bear on Secretariat staff. These questions must therefore be referred to outside specialists, including academics and NGOS.

Mr. Paul identified three areas in which Canada might spur the UN to move forward with the human security agenda. First, the discourse and practice of sanctions must be reformed to take account of the impact which these measures have on human security. In particular, the Council must develop a strategy for planning and implementing targeted sanctions, including financial sanctions, assets freezes, and travel bans. Mr. Paul also suggested that effective sanctions enforcement would require more serious efforts aimed at monitoring compliance and publicizing the names of states and non-state entities which contravene sanctions.

Second, Mr. Paul called for improved co-ordination between the UN, international financial institutions, and various development agencies, with a view to creating viable societies rather than promoting growth by means of hard-line structural adjustment policies.

Finally, Mr. Paul echoed proposals made by previous speakers who had urged Canada to strengthen the institution of the Security Council presidency and improve the infrastructure of the Council and the Secretariat. Toward this end, he urged that the Council and Secretariat engage in consultations with outside experts, and provide regular briefings to member states and interested parties. He also recommended that the Council involve a broader variety of states and nonstate actors in its decision-making processes. These incremental changes, he argued, represent the best means of institutionalizing the human security agenda.

Much of the discussion following Mr. Paul's presentation focused on the nature of human security and its development in practice. Participants agreed that the level of attention accorded to human security by the Council will continue to increase gradually. One speaker argued that this trend can be viewed as a response to historical events: necessity and creativity combine to produce innovation in the Council's practices vis-í -vis human security, and innovative practices are sometimes adopted as precedent. Because the practical desire of Council members to promote human security may conflict with their general unwillingness to broaden the Council's mandate, progress will be slow and incremental. Nonetheless, it does occur: as one speaker pointed out, China is now willing, however grudgingly, to engage in human rights discussions to an extent that would have not been possible even five years ago.

There was a broad consensus behind a Canadian approach to human security which would emphasize the tenets of incrementalism, attention to contingency, and coalition-building. Canada should remain sensitive to the concerns of Council members regarding the erosion of state sovereignty by eschewing "grand initiatives" and "revolutions" in favour of carefully placed and delicately worded initiatives which are adapted to the particular P-5 interests at work in a given situation. Using this strategy as a guide, Canada can take existing models of human security practices and apply them to new circumstances, thereby encouraging the construction of a body of precedent. With regard to coalition-building, Canada should search for partners at the level of "high policy" (those who share Canada's vision of a Council which is more responsive to human security) and at the practical level (those who are instrumental to the successful completion of a given task.) It was felt that Canada should pay particular attention to developing a North-South dialogue regarding human security, with a view to enhancing the perceived legitimacy of the Council's actions in this field.

While concurring with this broad strategy, several participants offered their thoughts on specific elements of the human security agenda. Some speakers expressed frustration at the failure of the Council to recognize the economic dimension of human security and to integrate this dimension into other, related human security initiatives. Conversely, one speaker was critical of CIDA for providing "band-aid" solutions in crisis situations, rather than retaining an exclusive commitment to long-term development - a goal which many speakers viewed as central to human security.

Despite their sympathy for the goal of long-term development, some participants felt that Canada should respect the existing mandate of the Council to work primarily toward international security (particularly in light of its daunting workload), while encouraging the Council to support the work of other LTN bodies (such as UNESCO) in the broader field of human security. Other speakers agreed, but made the point that the lack of funds provided to these bodies - as well as their generally low profile - would make it difficult for them to fulfil their mandates. The general sentiment was that issues of long-term development should be raised at the level of the Council in the context of authorized 36 missions, most of which addressed discussions of preventive diplomacy and peacebuilding.

Participants also stressed the valuable role which NGOs play in promoting human security, both directly and in their capacity as advisors to the Council. Several participants reiterated their desire that the Council actively seek NGO participation in discussions of policy. Participants agreed that providing security for NGO ground operations should be made a top priority of the Council, and that general discussions regarding this matter should begin as soon as possible.

Finally, participants expressed concern that the current financial crisis was preventing the Council from undertaking effective peace-building and conflict prevention operations. One participant noted that member states - Canada included - were asking their military and police personnel to undertake more missions with fewer resources, and that this would soon pose grave challenges to the success of peace operations. This participant called for a re-invigoration of the UN's traditional emphasis on peace-keeping as opposed to peace-making, in recognition of the fact that more complex peace operations cannot succeed on a shoestring budget.