There is no question that Haiti is a difficult place for external actors to work. Nation-building has eluded the best, most well-intentioned aid donors for decades. Treating the country as a basket case worth considering only as an international trusteeship candidate is not the path to follow for sustainable development. When disaster strikes Haiti – hurricanes in 2008, an earthquake in January this year – Canada responds, lots of ministerial and media attention (are those related?) and talk of commitments of large amounts of money, but then it’s soon off to the next emergency…….hellooo Pakistan! Whereupon the relationship with Haiti reverts to the same old, same old.
Has the devastating earthquake of January 12 created an opportunity for dialogue within Haiti about development? Can Haitians reach consensus on where they want their country to go from here, and what role they want external actors, such as Canada, to play in the coming months and years? Is Canada capable of listening to Haitians, or will Canadian agencies, whether governmental or civil society, continue to develop and support projects which deal with symptoms rather than causes? Will we plough ahead with promises to construct new buildings for the Haitian government without giving thought to what the government occupying those offices should be doing to meet the needs of the population?
Haiti’s chronic political instability and the non-delivery of services by the government have held back any meaningful development. Income inequality in the country is staggeringly high as is illiteracy and the evidence of Haiti’s vulnerability to natural disasters is very well known. Yet there is a remarkable resilience in Haitian society, an entrepreneurial capacity of individuals which surely could be drawn upon to build a better future for the country.
Unfortunately, when all is said and done, much more is said than done. Canada appears to be as responsible as any other external partner for this situation – lots of promises of aid but little evidence that we are doing much to support Haiti’s own efforts. Canadian ministers (Cannon, Oda, Kenney) talk of Canada’s “long-standing commitment, as well as our experience and expertise…positioning Canada to assume a leadership role in assistance and reconstruction.” What’s been keeping us from doing this up to now? Has Canada indeed delivered on its financial commitments at the international conference in New York on March 31? Have the institutions and agencies (Haitian, international and Canadian) tasked with carrying out the work actually been given the money to do the job, or have they been told “the cheque is in the mail” without any idea when (if?) it was posted?
It isn’t easy to figure out just what Canada’s financial commitment to Haiti is. CIDA’s website lists four numbers: $85 million in humanitarian assistance between January 13 and 19; $400 million announced at the UN Conference on Haiti March 31; $220 million government contribution to the Matching Fund; and $65.5 million humanitarian assistance announced (in Haiti) on April 18. On the UN’s financial tracking system for humanitarian aid, as of August 23, Canada is shown as having committed and contributed US$139.2 million. On July 12, to commemorate six months since the earthquake, Ministers Cannon, Oda and Kenney reiterated Canada’s engagement with Haiti and the noted the allocation of over $150 million “to date” by CIDA for humanitarian assistance and initial reconstruction efforts. Apparently this is in addition to Canada’s “planned, ongoing $555 million engagement in Haiti for 2006-2011.”
Announcements, commitments, engagement, pledges, allocations, contributions – how much has actually been spent, and on what, and what have been the results? When will Canadians be told? The Canadian government needs to demonstrate that Canada’s aid to Haiti is effective and having an impact.
The trend in Canada’s aid program is to move back to a supply-driven project-based approach, which well-performing donors have abandoned. It is time for us to stop delaying, reducing, re-programming or suspending aid. It is time for us to listen to Haitians’ views, at the community level, not just the political elites, and to support activities which will make a near-term improvement in people’s lives. Haitians deserve this from us and Canadians expect this of their government. Is the Harper government capable of listening and doing the right thing?
Friday, 15 October 2010
Monday, 4 October 2010
Should Canada be on the Security Council?
Canada is lobbying hard to win a seat on the UN Security Council for a two year 2011-2012 term. The competition for this non-permanent seat on the Council comes from two member countries of the European Union, namely Germany and Portugal, and Germany is all but confirmed. It has been a decade since Canada was last a member of the Council.
With its spotty record of late in international affairs, should Canada be taken seriously as a helpful, responsible candidate, ready and able to contribute to discussions on global issues and contribute to the search for solutions and consensus?
It is actually very difficult to discern any Canadian agenda in seeking a seat on the Security Council. Unlike the G8 Summit in Muskoka – there because Tony Clement’s riding needed infrastructure – and the G20 conference, staged to demonstrate how the Toronto Police Force’s advanced crowd control techniques, membership on the Security Council requires a two-year plan. This could be a challenge for the Harper government, which is more accustomed to playing it week-to-week, month-to-month. What, for example, might the government’s position be on a possible international food price crisis? Where will Canada stand on UN peacekeeping efforts – to which we contribute so little? What is our position on the lack of progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals?
And how does our track record look? The Security Council is the preeminent venue for discussions on issues of global consequence. Like climate change. Like peace, security and development in poor countries. Like Middle East peace and stability. International economic relationships and security. High seas piracy. Migration and security. In recent years Canada has not shown much, if any interest in working with others to find solutions to shared problems. Cutbacks in development cooperation, little interest in UN peacekeeping, a denial of climate change, resurrecting Cold War era scares over foreign (Russian) bomber overflights, bombastic attitudes on Arctic sovereignty – these are hallmarks of the Conservative government’s approach. Not much evidence of an ability to work with others, or to lead by example. By and large, there isn’t much interest in international affairs in general, except to revert to well-known law-and-order mantras when something does pop up, like a boatload of Tamil migrants. It does not seem to have registered with the Prime Minister’s Office that the “build more prisons so we can lock up more bad guys for longer” approach doesn’t work outside our borders.
So what do we offer? A disturbing prospect – Canada as a member of a key international forum, but a member without a plan, a strategy or objectives. It’s as though the government wants to be able to add something to its corporate CV – Member of the Security Council – but is not willing to do the work and accept the responsibilities that go with the job. So the prospect if we are elected, is Canadian diplomats occupying a seat and having little if anything to say. Even that might be OK if we could be sure that Canada wouldn’t pipe up on the hugely important Israel-Palestine peace talks with an objection based on narrow domestic political considerations. That’s just one unpleasant but entirely possible scenario coming from a government that has demonstrated that it is unprepared to lead on the international stage.
With its spotty record of late in international affairs, should Canada be taken seriously as a helpful, responsible candidate, ready and able to contribute to discussions on global issues and contribute to the search for solutions and consensus?
It is actually very difficult to discern any Canadian agenda in seeking a seat on the Security Council. Unlike the G8 Summit in Muskoka – there because Tony Clement’s riding needed infrastructure – and the G20 conference, staged to demonstrate how the Toronto Police Force’s advanced crowd control techniques, membership on the Security Council requires a two-year plan. This could be a challenge for the Harper government, which is more accustomed to playing it week-to-week, month-to-month. What, for example, might the government’s position be on a possible international food price crisis? Where will Canada stand on UN peacekeeping efforts – to which we contribute so little? What is our position on the lack of progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals?
And how does our track record look? The Security Council is the preeminent venue for discussions on issues of global consequence. Like climate change. Like peace, security and development in poor countries. Like Middle East peace and stability. International economic relationships and security. High seas piracy. Migration and security. In recent years Canada has not shown much, if any interest in working with others to find solutions to shared problems. Cutbacks in development cooperation, little interest in UN peacekeeping, a denial of climate change, resurrecting Cold War era scares over foreign (Russian) bomber overflights, bombastic attitudes on Arctic sovereignty – these are hallmarks of the Conservative government’s approach. Not much evidence of an ability to work with others, or to lead by example. By and large, there isn’t much interest in international affairs in general, except to revert to well-known law-and-order mantras when something does pop up, like a boatload of Tamil migrants. It does not seem to have registered with the Prime Minister’s Office that the “build more prisons so we can lock up more bad guys for longer” approach doesn’t work outside our borders.
So what do we offer? A disturbing prospect – Canada as a member of a key international forum, but a member without a plan, a strategy or objectives. It’s as though the government wants to be able to add something to its corporate CV – Member of the Security Council – but is not willing to do the work and accept the responsibilities that go with the job. So the prospect if we are elected, is Canadian diplomats occupying a seat and having little if anything to say. Even that might be OK if we could be sure that Canada wouldn’t pipe up on the hugely important Israel-Palestine peace talks with an objection based on narrow domestic political considerations. That’s just one unpleasant but entirely possible scenario coming from a government that has demonstrated that it is unprepared to lead on the international stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)