Canada at the table

May 21, 2008
The Ottawa Citizen
Original Source: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=13833f05-16d8-4339-85da-33c6979d2825

Today, 15 new members will be elected to United Nations Human Rights Council. And, as always, at least a few of those new members will be rights-abusers.
This problem has dogged the council, and its predecessor, and, indeed, the whole project called the United Nations. Many of its member states are proven enemies of peace, security and human dignity. It would be naive to expect a human rights council that includes Saudi Arabia and Angola would speak strongly on behalf of the rights of women, or against government corruption.
The actions of the council have reflected its membership. It has all but ignored most of the world's major crises, focussing instead on criticism of the West. At the instigation of Cuba, it is now set to investigate the global right to food - but has not yet found time to inquire into Burma's overt and unabashed denial of food to its own population.
The guidelines for the election stipulate the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights is a factor in their election. This demonstrates the gap between rules and reality at the UN.
A report from Freedom House and UN Watch points out that of the 20 candidates for 15 seats, five have records that should disqualify them for membership: Bahrain, Gabon, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zambia.
Gabon and Zambia -- which don't respect freedom within their own borders -- are almost certain to be elected, because there are four empty seats for Africa this year, and only four candidates.
One reason that reform is so difficult at the UN is the fear that if the participation of rights-abusers were limited, the UN would be dominated by western democracies. But Freedom House and UN Watch have deemed some candidates qualified from every region - such as Ghana, South Korea and Chile.
If a region is unable to offer enough qualified candidates to fill the seats, it should have to live with less representation on the council. That's not an ideal solution, but the alternative is the travesty we have today.
Meanwhile, Canada must decide whether it will try to get one of the rotating two-year positions on the other high profile UN body, the Security Council. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been coy about his intentions. There is speculation he's worried Canada will be embarrassed if it tries but fails to get a seat.
It's true that Canada's global leadership is not all it could be: on foreign aid and the environment, the Harper government should do better. But Canada's sacrifices in Afghanistan, its sponsorship of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, and its strong statements in support of human rights in places such as Burma have given it every right to speak at the UN.
And the prize is worth some effort. Even non-permanent members can influence world events, for good or ill. South Africa, for example, has supported Russia and China in coddling dictators - thereby lending them legitimacy and creating the impression of an anti-West consensus.
If the only way to win a seat on the council is to flatter odious regimes, Canada can say thanks but no thanks. But an honourable lobbying campaign is worth the effort. The United Nations can do less harm - and is more likely to do some good - if Canada is at the table.