For many years CIDA was a proud beacon of Canadian vision and values in international development. In the early 1990’s the Official Development Assistance budget became one of the few federal pots for discretionary funding. Canada’s use of those funds as a tool for creating a better, more secure world unraveled into a tool for the domestic policy agenda. It became a constituency builder for the party in power. With the Harper government, it got worse. He tested his anti-abortion and contraception policy out in the guise of a mother and child health initiative. Minister Oda took control of programs that used to be within the authority of CIDA country directors and Vice Presidents. Delays caused by her micro-management stretched from weeks to months and months. And choices about who got funded and who didn’t were arbitrary, not based on solid analysis and transparent policy principles.
CIDA could once be counted on to contribute to core funding of UN agencies and other international agencies. This government reduces their capacity by largely funding only specific projects instead each with expensive reporting and oversight protocols.
In 2005, donor countries and developing countries signed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness to harmonize aid delivery and to focus on countries’ own desired results. The goal was to empower countries to set their own objectives with stringent requirements for due diligence. Canada signed the Declaration and then Oda promptly ignored it.
This is serious. In many developing countries there are tens of official donors in each major area of government like education and health and sometimes hundreds when you include other organizations such as foundations, non-governmental organizations and multilateral institutions. Each one has its own strategies and reporting systems. Harper and Oda wanted Canadian flags on every Canadian funded school and road - eroding the confidence of citizens in their own government’s ability to govern and creating incentives for more roads and more schools…not faster movement of commercial goods or better educated kids.
If Harper wanted a profile for Canada, he should have built on Canada’s tradition of doing the right thing at the right level for real change regardless of recognition. He should have managed aid for development outcomes not for ribbon cutting and ersatz accountability …compliance checks on large numbers of idiosyncratic projects by mid level staff.
A responsible Canadian Government leads through partnership with others to promote innovative approaches to end poverty and promote peace. A Canadian government acts fast to move into areas of opportunity (like a democracy building agenda for Egypt.) And Canadian government is transparent about its interventions abroad what it is doing and where, reporting on what counts, not what can be easily counted or attributed to Canada only interventions.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Not Speaking the Truth to Power: Another Side of the Oda Affair
The Oda affair has dominated the attention of Parliament and the media in recent weeks. The mysterious insertion of the word “not” in a document and the contempt charge against CIDA Minister Bev Oda have been the focus of considerable media interest. The McLeod Group weighed in on this matter in a letter to Speaker Milliken. (That letter can be found on this website.) Experts, such as David Dacherty of Sir Wilfrid Laurier University and Ned Franks of Queen’s, say Minister Oda should be held in contempt because she deliberately misled the House.
There are other issues in this affair that concern the McLeod Group. While ministers clearly have the right to ignore the advice of their deputies, they must not make them the scapegoats when something goes wrong. This is what Tony Clement did so blatantly in the brouhaha over the long-form census. That prompted Munir Sheikh, the head of Statistics Canada, to resign. And this is what Minister Oda did when before a Commons committee she testified that the Kairos proposal no longer fit with CIDA's objectives, suggesting she was acting on her department's recommendation. By adding “not” to a document that had already been signed by two senior officials, she misrepresented their views in a way that would be treated as outright fraud if this were a banking situation. What surprises the McLeod Group was that there were no resignations in this case.
Public servants are supposed to provide ministers with their best advice, and that advice ought to be “fearless, unvarnished and professional” as Mel Cappe, the former Clerk of the Privy Council said on CBC Radio’s The House. In short, the mark of a professional public service is that it speaks truth to power. Public servants can even push back a little, if a minister chooses a different path. They should, for example, caution ministers about the potential risks and consequences of not taking the bureaucracy’s advice. When a minister gets into hot water, having ignored the advice of the bureaucracy, that minister ought not to pin the blame on public servants. Clearly, that is misrepresentation and it’s a good way of alienating the public service and prompting high-level resignations, which inevitably become public. No right-minded minister wants that.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Oda affair and the long-form census debacle is that these have undermined the integrity of Canada’s public service. This should be of great concern to all Canadians because of what it does to the morale of our public servants, to the reputation of the public service as a whole, and to public policy.
When ministers regularly ignore the advice of their department, it causes the bureaucracy to second guess the minister. That is precisely what is happening at CIDA. Public servants there are designing programs to suit the whims of Minister Oda (or to whoever is calling the shots above her). The situation is exacerbated in Ms. Oda’s case because she micro-manages the Agency. Some of CIDA’s public servants have become fearful and increasingly partisan in what they send up to the Minister’s office, the opposite of what should be the case in a well-functioning public administration. One consequence is that we see important, longstanding policies—Canada’s principled stance on gender equality for one—being steadily eroded, diminished without public consultation and without public debate. This is in part why Canada’s international reputation has been in such sharp declined since the Harper administration came to power. This concerns the McLeod Group. We hope that it will concern voters in the next election.
There are other issues in this affair that concern the McLeod Group. While ministers clearly have the right to ignore the advice of their deputies, they must not make them the scapegoats when something goes wrong. This is what Tony Clement did so blatantly in the brouhaha over the long-form census. That prompted Munir Sheikh, the head of Statistics Canada, to resign. And this is what Minister Oda did when before a Commons committee she testified that the Kairos proposal no longer fit with CIDA's objectives, suggesting she was acting on her department's recommendation. By adding “not” to a document that had already been signed by two senior officials, she misrepresented their views in a way that would be treated as outright fraud if this were a banking situation. What surprises the McLeod Group was that there were no resignations in this case.
Public servants are supposed to provide ministers with their best advice, and that advice ought to be “fearless, unvarnished and professional” as Mel Cappe, the former Clerk of the Privy Council said on CBC Radio’s The House. In short, the mark of a professional public service is that it speaks truth to power. Public servants can even push back a little, if a minister chooses a different path. They should, for example, caution ministers about the potential risks and consequences of not taking the bureaucracy’s advice. When a minister gets into hot water, having ignored the advice of the bureaucracy, that minister ought not to pin the blame on public servants. Clearly, that is misrepresentation and it’s a good way of alienating the public service and prompting high-level resignations, which inevitably become public. No right-minded minister wants that.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Oda affair and the long-form census debacle is that these have undermined the integrity of Canada’s public service. This should be of great concern to all Canadians because of what it does to the morale of our public servants, to the reputation of the public service as a whole, and to public policy.
When ministers regularly ignore the advice of their department, it causes the bureaucracy to second guess the minister. That is precisely what is happening at CIDA. Public servants there are designing programs to suit the whims of Minister Oda (or to whoever is calling the shots above her). The situation is exacerbated in Ms. Oda’s case because she micro-manages the Agency. Some of CIDA’s public servants have become fearful and increasingly partisan in what they send up to the Minister’s office, the opposite of what should be the case in a well-functioning public administration. One consequence is that we see important, longstanding policies—Canada’s principled stance on gender equality for one—being steadily eroded, diminished without public consultation and without public debate. This is in part why Canada’s international reputation has been in such sharp declined since the Harper administration came to power. This concerns the McLeod Group. We hope that it will concern voters in the next election.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
At Least He Made the Trains Run on TIme: Canada's Maternal and Child Health Initiative
The Globe’s John Ibbitson is not alone in cutting the Harper government some slack in the realm of foreign affairs when it comes to the maternal and child health “initiative”. He says that Mr. Harper “convinced the major developed nations to sign on.” (“Harper Abroad...” Oct 22.) This has now passed into the realm of urban myth, where announcements often take the place of action.
In fact the entire MCH “initiative” was little more than smoke and mirrors. The claim, trumpeted by CIDA, is that the G8 committed $7.3 billion to this important endeavour. The truth is a little different. Counted in the total is $1.75 billion worth of ongoing Canadian money long ago committed to MCH. Then came an additional $1.1 billion in “new money”. This isn’t actually new; it’s money that will be taken from somewhere else in the CIDA budget – perhaps from agriculture or education. Or maybe they will just recode existing projects, a favourite way of dealing with unanticipated political brainwaves.
Germany coughed up $100 million a year for five years, as did Japan. France came up with $80 million a year for four years, the US committed $1.36 billion over two years and the UK $150 million a year for two years. Even adding in other countries and foundations, you’d have a hard time coming up with $7.3 billion in new money, but the Harper government hasn’t tried.
The truth is that maternal and child health have been two UN Millennium Development Goals for a decade, and many donors have consistently devoted more attention to them than Canada. Germany, the US and Britain do not need to be lectured by Canada on this subject – they have always been well ahead of us in the funding sweepstakes. Their “commitments” at the G8 were like Canada’s: polite announcements to avoid embarrassment, but probably not new money; maybe there wasn’t even any serious recoding. Unless aid budgets rise, as they certainly will not in Canada under this government, robbing Peter to pay Paul is not exactly “initiative”.
But it gets worse. In addition to playing fast and loose with the numbers, the MCH “initiative” gave our government an opportunity to cut off funding for important reproductive health programs in the developing world and to cancel all funding to Match International, the only Canadian international NGO working exclusively on women’s issues.
Then, in December, the UN created a “Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health” which is supposed to propose a framework for global reporting, oversight and accountability on women’s and children’s health. It says it “will create a system to track whether donations for women’s and children’s health are made on time, resources are spent wisely and transparently, and whether the desired results are achieved.”
Nice, but the UN already had this in the Millennium Development Goals and a variety of reporting mechanisms. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this “new” commission, with Stephen Harper as one of its Chairs.
Until it produces some hard numbers and some real facts, however, the whole exercise should perhaps be listed under “embarrassment” rather than “initiative”.
In fact the entire MCH “initiative” was little more than smoke and mirrors. The claim, trumpeted by CIDA, is that the G8 committed $7.3 billion to this important endeavour. The truth is a little different. Counted in the total is $1.75 billion worth of ongoing Canadian money long ago committed to MCH. Then came an additional $1.1 billion in “new money”. This isn’t actually new; it’s money that will be taken from somewhere else in the CIDA budget – perhaps from agriculture or education. Or maybe they will just recode existing projects, a favourite way of dealing with unanticipated political brainwaves.
Germany coughed up $100 million a year for five years, as did Japan. France came up with $80 million a year for four years, the US committed $1.36 billion over two years and the UK $150 million a year for two years. Even adding in other countries and foundations, you’d have a hard time coming up with $7.3 billion in new money, but the Harper government hasn’t tried.
The truth is that maternal and child health have been two UN Millennium Development Goals for a decade, and many donors have consistently devoted more attention to them than Canada. Germany, the US and Britain do not need to be lectured by Canada on this subject – they have always been well ahead of us in the funding sweepstakes. Their “commitments” at the G8 were like Canada’s: polite announcements to avoid embarrassment, but probably not new money; maybe there wasn’t even any serious recoding. Unless aid budgets rise, as they certainly will not in Canada under this government, robbing Peter to pay Paul is not exactly “initiative”.
But it gets worse. In addition to playing fast and loose with the numbers, the MCH “initiative” gave our government an opportunity to cut off funding for important reproductive health programs in the developing world and to cancel all funding to Match International, the only Canadian international NGO working exclusively on women’s issues.
Then, in December, the UN created a “Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health” which is supposed to propose a framework for global reporting, oversight and accountability on women’s and children’s health. It says it “will create a system to track whether donations for women’s and children’s health are made on time, resources are spent wisely and transparently, and whether the desired results are achieved.”
Nice, but the UN already had this in the Millennium Development Goals and a variety of reporting mechanisms. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this “new” commission, with Stephen Harper as one of its Chairs.
Until it produces some hard numbers and some real facts, however, the whole exercise should perhaps be listed under “embarrassment” rather than “initiative”.
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Transparency and Accountability in Foreign Policy: Not
Three events in recent weeks underline the lack of transparency in the way the government is implementing foreign policy. Everyone agrees that the government has a right to frame foreign policy. “But it should make these changes in full public view with a full public explanation. The paper-shuffling, obfuscating and insinuating have to stop”. (The Citizen, Dec. 20, 2010)
Kairos: Bev Oda tied up in “nots”
Just before Christmas some things in the Kairos saga became clearer. CIDA President Margaret Biggs, testifying before the Parliamentary Committee, said that when she signed off on the Kairos proposal she recommended that the Minister approve it, because it was in line with CIDA priorities. Subsequently Minister Oda’s signature and a handwritten “not” was added to the proposal – making the recommendation to “not” approve the proposal. When asked by the Parliamentary Committee, Minister Oda said that she did not know who put the “not” in the document and she also seemed unsure whether she herself had signed the document or whether it was done using an automatic pen.
All three opposition parties subsequently sought a motion of contempt of Parliament against Minister ODA for having misled the House when she suggested that the Kairos proposal was rejected at the CIDA level. Bob Rae said that the document had been altered to make it look as if the CIDA President and VP had made the “not” recommendation. In the House he suggested this could constitute fraud. The Speaker has "put over" the matter to allow the Government to prepare its response.
Foreign Affairs: Changing Language, or Not
Things weren’t any clearer over at the Committee on the Status of Women where they were also discussing words. Last year Embassy Magazine reported that the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was making changes to the language used in the Department – not through a formal statement but more subtly through altering phrases used in multilateral meetings, speeches, and letters. “Gender equality” became “equality between men and women”, “international humanitarian law” became “international law”, and “child soldiers” was to become “children in conflict”. The Committee on the Status of Women decided to call witnesses. Among them was Alan Kessel, Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In his testimony he said,
I know the objective of the discussion here has been about terminology. My objective is to show you that the terminology hasn't changed; the policy hasn't changed. The terminology we use is carefully negotiated language that came out of many years of negotiation in international fora.
Then the Liberals tabled an internal memo written by Jamieson Weetman, Deputy Director, West and Central Africa Relations, which expressed concern about the policy implications of the changes in language coming from the Minister’s office (see below). The changes are real, they are important, and they have important policy implications.
Transparency at Rights and Democracy: Not
And then there is the forensic audit of Rights and Democracy. Following the government-led debacle at this once-respected human rights organization, interim president, Jacques Gauthier called for an audit of the organization’s recent activities. According to The Citizen, some Board members insisted that the “disagreement isn’t over ideology. No, they said, it’s about fiscal management. They complained that they were dealing with a staff ‘revolt against accountability’ and made reference to ‘transactions that require the attention of forensic auditors’.” The audit was completed in August but in spite of its concern about accountability, the Board did not release it. In December The Globe and Mail published a summary. Surprise – the audit didn’t reveal any major irregularities. Deloitte & Touche, however, concluded that the main problems at Rights and Democracy stemmed from the Board’s attempts to control the organization’s activities, especially in relation to Middle East issues.
And so it goes. The lack of professionalism, incompetence and outright deceit are breathtaking. It is hard to imagine what would move this government to expose the policy-making process to the light of day – and democratic process.
______________________________________________________
Memo from Jamieson Weetman read into the record at the December 7th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
Dear All:
Some of you will have already noted over the past few months the tendency from OMINA to change or remove language from letters, speeches, interventions at multilateral meetings, etc. on such interrelated issues as child soldiers, International Humanitarian Law, human rights, and R2P.
A recent example is a fairly extensive set of suggested revisions to a standard docket response on DRC. Suggested changes to this letter include removing the term “impunity” in every instance, e.g. “Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to do whatever is necessary to put an end to impunity for sexual violence”. That is changed to “Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence”. Furthermore, the word “humanitarian” is excised from every reference to International Humanitarian Law. References to “gender-based violence” are removed and every phrase “child soldiers” is replaced by “children in armed conflict”.
Some of the changes suggested by OMINA are more than simply stylistic changes. For example, “The sentence cited above changes the focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention”. Only this morning, Glen Coutts and I discussed the term “gender equality” with OMINA to be informed that current lexicon is instead “equality of men and women”, which actually takes something away from the internationally used terminology, as well as being more cumbersome and awkward.
So far we have largely been managing these issues as they come in on a case-by-case basis. However, Jim Nichol and I have been wondering if it might be necessary for a more coordinated approach as these issues interest a number of different bureaux, and are recurring fairly frequently. It is often not entirely clear to us why OMINA advises on making such changes and whether they have a full grasp of the potential impact on Canadian policy in asking for changes to phrases and concepts that have been accepted internationally and used for some time.
We would like to know whether you might find it useful to meet with us to discuss these issues as a possible precursor to a meeting with OMINA staff. I do not believe the request from OMINA to make these kinds of changes to language will diminish. It will be useful for us to know here when OMINA-suggested changes are not consistent with accepted Canadian policy. The ultimate objective would be to work with OMINA to find a language that is more palatable to them and which also accurately reflects Canada's policy approach.
Signed, Jameson Wheatman, (actually Jamieson Weetman) from the Ministry of International Affairs. He is Deputy Director Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.
Kairos: Bev Oda tied up in “nots”
Just before Christmas some things in the Kairos saga became clearer. CIDA President Margaret Biggs, testifying before the Parliamentary Committee, said that when she signed off on the Kairos proposal she recommended that the Minister approve it, because it was in line with CIDA priorities. Subsequently Minister Oda’s signature and a handwritten “not” was added to the proposal – making the recommendation to “not” approve the proposal. When asked by the Parliamentary Committee, Minister Oda said that she did not know who put the “not” in the document and she also seemed unsure whether she herself had signed the document or whether it was done using an automatic pen.
All three opposition parties subsequently sought a motion of contempt of Parliament against Minister ODA for having misled the House when she suggested that the Kairos proposal was rejected at the CIDA level. Bob Rae said that the document had been altered to make it look as if the CIDA President and VP had made the “not” recommendation. In the House he suggested this could constitute fraud. The Speaker has "put over" the matter to allow the Government to prepare its response.
Foreign Affairs: Changing Language, or Not
Things weren’t any clearer over at the Committee on the Status of Women where they were also discussing words. Last year Embassy Magazine reported that the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was making changes to the language used in the Department – not through a formal statement but more subtly through altering phrases used in multilateral meetings, speeches, and letters. “Gender equality” became “equality between men and women”, “international humanitarian law” became “international law”, and “child soldiers” was to become “children in conflict”. The Committee on the Status of Women decided to call witnesses. Among them was Alan Kessel, Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In his testimony he said,
I know the objective of the discussion here has been about terminology. My objective is to show you that the terminology hasn't changed; the policy hasn't changed. The terminology we use is carefully negotiated language that came out of many years of negotiation in international fora.
Then the Liberals tabled an internal memo written by Jamieson Weetman, Deputy Director, West and Central Africa Relations, which expressed concern about the policy implications of the changes in language coming from the Minister’s office (see below). The changes are real, they are important, and they have important policy implications.
Transparency at Rights and Democracy: Not
And then there is the forensic audit of Rights and Democracy. Following the government-led debacle at this once-respected human rights organization, interim president, Jacques Gauthier called for an audit of the organization’s recent activities. According to The Citizen, some Board members insisted that the “disagreement isn’t over ideology. No, they said, it’s about fiscal management. They complained that they were dealing with a staff ‘revolt against accountability’ and made reference to ‘transactions that require the attention of forensic auditors’.” The audit was completed in August but in spite of its concern about accountability, the Board did not release it. In December The Globe and Mail published a summary. Surprise – the audit didn’t reveal any major irregularities. Deloitte & Touche, however, concluded that the main problems at Rights and Democracy stemmed from the Board’s attempts to control the organization’s activities, especially in relation to Middle East issues.
And so it goes. The lack of professionalism, incompetence and outright deceit are breathtaking. It is hard to imagine what would move this government to expose the policy-making process to the light of day – and democratic process.
______________________________________________________
Memo from Jamieson Weetman read into the record at the December 7th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
Dear All:
Some of you will have already noted over the past few months the tendency from OMINA to change or remove language from letters, speeches, interventions at multilateral meetings, etc. on such interrelated issues as child soldiers, International Humanitarian Law, human rights, and R2P.
A recent example is a fairly extensive set of suggested revisions to a standard docket response on DRC. Suggested changes to this letter include removing the term “impunity” in every instance, e.g. “Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to do whatever is necessary to put an end to impunity for sexual violence”. That is changed to “Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence”. Furthermore, the word “humanitarian” is excised from every reference to International Humanitarian Law. References to “gender-based violence” are removed and every phrase “child soldiers” is replaced by “children in armed conflict”.
Some of the changes suggested by OMINA are more than simply stylistic changes. For example, “The sentence cited above changes the focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention”. Only this morning, Glen Coutts and I discussed the term “gender equality” with OMINA to be informed that current lexicon is instead “equality of men and women”, which actually takes something away from the internationally used terminology, as well as being more cumbersome and awkward.
So far we have largely been managing these issues as they come in on a case-by-case basis. However, Jim Nichol and I have been wondering if it might be necessary for a more coordinated approach as these issues interest a number of different bureaux, and are recurring fairly frequently. It is often not entirely clear to us why OMINA advises on making such changes and whether they have a full grasp of the potential impact on Canadian policy in asking for changes to phrases and concepts that have been accepted internationally and used for some time.
We would like to know whether you might find it useful to meet with us to discuss these issues as a possible precursor to a meeting with OMINA staff. I do not believe the request from OMINA to make these kinds of changes to language will diminish. It will be useful for us to know here when OMINA-suggested changes are not consistent with accepted Canadian policy. The ultimate objective would be to work with OMINA to find a language that is more palatable to them and which also accurately reflects Canada's policy approach.
Signed, Jameson Wheatman, (actually Jamieson Weetman) from the Ministry of International Affairs. He is Deputy Director Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Harper, Multilateralism and the UN: How will he manage demands from his base?
Moving to the centre in order to get elected is a time-honoured tradition in Canadian politics. That’s basically what Stephen Harper did recently when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly in October in an attempt to shore up Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council.
His speech was, well, almost Pearsonian, replete with references to “the sovereign equality of countries,” justice and human rights, and its affirmation of Canada’s role in UN peacekeeping and aid efforts. The most commonly used words in Harper’s address were “UN”, “Canadian”, “development”, and, interestingly, “also.” Even Bob Rae liked it.
As the public record painfully shows, Canada lost the vote and Portugal won the seat.
Still, Canada must continue to work with and through the United Nations and other multilateral bodies on a host of complex files. Haiti, Congo, Sudan, Sri Lanka and Burma are but five hot spots; there are dozens more.
So what are the chances that the Harper government will maintain the moderate and cooperative multilateralist stance we saw at the General Assembly?
The odds don’t seem good. On the contrary, Mr. Harper will face strong pressure to move to the right. With a federal election in the offing, the Prime Minister cannot ignore the demands of his domestic base. Broadly speaking, Canadian conservatives—both the economic (the neo-cons) and social (the theo-cons) streams of the movement—don’t like the United Nations. In their view, it is too statist, too liberal, too anti-Israel, too anti-American and too committed to a broad definition of human rights. Many on the right see it as a troublesome, bloated bureaucracy that should really be dismantled and tossed into the Hudson River.
One of the mother-ships of North American conservative thinking is the Heritage Foundation in the United States. Its website contains repeated, trenchant condemnations of the UN. The Foundation’s experts recommend radically reducing American government funding of the institution, bypassing the international aid apparatus altogether, and relying essentially on “economic freedom” and foreign direct investment to lift developing countries out of poverty.
Conservative think tanks in Canada have also been carving out their positions on foreign aid. They provided cover for International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda when she cut funding for feminist and progressive NGOs earlier this year, arguing that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for what they termed left-wing activism. And when Ms. Oda unveiled Canada’s maternal and child health initiative, right-wing commentators praised the government’s refusal to include abortion services in the program, arguing that an anti-abortion stance is consistent with the laws of many sovereign states.
But the UN doesn’t see it that way. At the recent summit on the Millennium Development Goals, member states, including Canada, not only rededicated themselves to achieving what’s known as MDG 3, the gender-equality goal, they also reaffirmed the importance of “full reproductive rights” for women around the world. Moreover, member states declared once again their full support for the new UN agency for women, which will take the kind of robust, rights-based approach for women’s equality that conservatives love to oppose.
There will be other contradictions between Canadian conservatives and UN policies and practices. However, the Harper government will find that its room for manoeuvre will be limited in resolving the views of its political base with those of the UN system.
While it is true that the UN is often ponderous and bureaucratic, it nevertheless provides a crucial worldwide system for addressing global risks, such as, importantly, fighting pandemics. The United Nations convenes parties for the creation of norms for food safety and nutrition. And it works hard to broker and maintain peace agreements in conflict regions. A world without the UN would be much more dangerous and volatile than it is now.
And the UN’s budget is far from bloated. The UN Secretariat’s annual budget is just over $2 billion, a little less than the budget of the City of Ottawa —a modest sum to handle the whole world, hundreds of issues and dozens of specialized agencies. Indeed, several UN agencies—the World Food Programme is one—are much better run than our own foreign-aid program.
Without a seat on the Security Council, Canada remains a small player among many larger and more powerful nations, especially the permanent members of the Council. Under these circumstances, we can gain leverage only through cooperation, reciprocity and pluralism—not through unilateral action driven by a single ideology.
The bottom line, therefore, is that it will be difficult for Stephen Harper to use his government’s multilateral activities to satisfy his domestic political base. He will have to find other ways to do that.
In the meantime, there is important work to be done through the UN. Strengthening global systems to fight the drug trade and human trafficking, for example, could attract support from both conservative and progressive Canadians. So could enhancing humanitarian efforts in response to new natural disasters and civil strife. On these and other issues, even from outside the Security Council, Canada could play a leading, animating role that would enable the United Nations to achieve important results.
Maybe staying in the centre is the best course for Stephen Harper after all.
His speech was, well, almost Pearsonian, replete with references to “the sovereign equality of countries,” justice and human rights, and its affirmation of Canada’s role in UN peacekeeping and aid efforts. The most commonly used words in Harper’s address were “UN”, “Canadian”, “development”, and, interestingly, “also.” Even Bob Rae liked it.
As the public record painfully shows, Canada lost the vote and Portugal won the seat.
Still, Canada must continue to work with and through the United Nations and other multilateral bodies on a host of complex files. Haiti, Congo, Sudan, Sri Lanka and Burma are but five hot spots; there are dozens more.
So what are the chances that the Harper government will maintain the moderate and cooperative multilateralist stance we saw at the General Assembly?
The odds don’t seem good. On the contrary, Mr. Harper will face strong pressure to move to the right. With a federal election in the offing, the Prime Minister cannot ignore the demands of his domestic base. Broadly speaking, Canadian conservatives—both the economic (the neo-cons) and social (the theo-cons) streams of the movement—don’t like the United Nations. In their view, it is too statist, too liberal, too anti-Israel, too anti-American and too committed to a broad definition of human rights. Many on the right see it as a troublesome, bloated bureaucracy that should really be dismantled and tossed into the Hudson River.
One of the mother-ships of North American conservative thinking is the Heritage Foundation in the United States. Its website contains repeated, trenchant condemnations of the UN. The Foundation’s experts recommend radically reducing American government funding of the institution, bypassing the international aid apparatus altogether, and relying essentially on “economic freedom” and foreign direct investment to lift developing countries out of poverty.
Conservative think tanks in Canada have also been carving out their positions on foreign aid. They provided cover for International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda when she cut funding for feminist and progressive NGOs earlier this year, arguing that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for what they termed left-wing activism. And when Ms. Oda unveiled Canada’s maternal and child health initiative, right-wing commentators praised the government’s refusal to include abortion services in the program, arguing that an anti-abortion stance is consistent with the laws of many sovereign states.
But the UN doesn’t see it that way. At the recent summit on the Millennium Development Goals, member states, including Canada, not only rededicated themselves to achieving what’s known as MDG 3, the gender-equality goal, they also reaffirmed the importance of “full reproductive rights” for women around the world. Moreover, member states declared once again their full support for the new UN agency for women, which will take the kind of robust, rights-based approach for women’s equality that conservatives love to oppose.
There will be other contradictions between Canadian conservatives and UN policies and practices. However, the Harper government will find that its room for manoeuvre will be limited in resolving the views of its political base with those of the UN system.
While it is true that the UN is often ponderous and bureaucratic, it nevertheless provides a crucial worldwide system for addressing global risks, such as, importantly, fighting pandemics. The United Nations convenes parties for the creation of norms for food safety and nutrition. And it works hard to broker and maintain peace agreements in conflict regions. A world without the UN would be much more dangerous and volatile than it is now.
And the UN’s budget is far from bloated. The UN Secretariat’s annual budget is just over $2 billion, a little less than the budget of the City of Ottawa —a modest sum to handle the whole world, hundreds of issues and dozens of specialized agencies. Indeed, several UN agencies—the World Food Programme is one—are much better run than our own foreign-aid program.
Without a seat on the Security Council, Canada remains a small player among many larger and more powerful nations, especially the permanent members of the Council. Under these circumstances, we can gain leverage only through cooperation, reciprocity and pluralism—not through unilateral action driven by a single ideology.
The bottom line, therefore, is that it will be difficult for Stephen Harper to use his government’s multilateral activities to satisfy his domestic political base. He will have to find other ways to do that.
In the meantime, there is important work to be done through the UN. Strengthening global systems to fight the drug trade and human trafficking, for example, could attract support from both conservative and progressive Canadians. So could enhancing humanitarian efforts in response to new natural disasters and civil strife. On these and other issues, even from outside the Security Council, Canada could play a leading, animating role that would enable the United Nations to achieve important results.
Maybe staying in the centre is the best course for Stephen Harper after all.
Monday, 22 November 2010
Foreign Aid: Telling Parliament - The Second Report to Parliament on Canada's Official Development Assistance, 2009-10
Lost amidst the welter of recent government announcements about the wonderful things Canada is planning to do with its aid budget was the tabling in the House of Commons of the second Report to Parliament on the Government of Canada’s Official Development Assistance (ODA), 2009-2010. You would think that a government which places great store in action and principles – if we are to believe the Prime Minister’s explanation for losing a seat on the Security Council – would be eager to tell Canadians what a swell job it is doing in foreign assistance. But it didn’t. Instead it opted to publish the report on line, with no mention on CIDA’s website and no printed copies available except on request.
The ODA Accountability Act of 2008 was a private member’s bill that passed with all-party support, a very rare occurrence in our parliament. The Act sets out three conditions for Canadian development aid: it must contribute to poverty reduction; it must take into account the perspectives of the poor; and it must be consistent with international human rights standards. And the government has to report on all the expenditures it is claiming as ODA (as defined by the OECD Development Assistance Committee) not just the funds disbursed by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). This explains why Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Finance Canada, National Defence and a range of other departments – including Parks Canada – get a mention in the report. If you thought that including these other departments was an exercise in sweeping up a few spilled kernels of wheat, think again. Finance Canada spent over $500 million on ODA in 2009-2010 and Foreign Affairs almost $300 million out of a total of $4.788 billion.
So what’s in the report? Essentially, it’s just a list, and a selectively short one at that. The opening section states “Canada is contributing to the global efforts to meet the needs of those living in poverty in developing countries…” and goes on to list, in general terms, “activities that are undertaken to achieve poverty reduction.” The subsequent text on CIDA lists some of the things the agency spent money on, without explanation as to how or why they meet the stipulations of the Act. There are frequent references to CIDA’s indomitable Minister, Beverly J. Oda. Human rights and the perspectives of the poor get short shrift. When it comes to Finance and Foreign Affairs there is virtually no reference to poverty reduction, the views of the poor or human rights.
The government can claim that it has reported, but it’s a skimpy effort, completely inconsistent with the spirit and aim of the Act. This is not surprising, given that the government doesn’t like the Act.
Why such a weak report? Minister Oda can’t utter a sentence about recipient governments and NGOs without demanding “results” half a dozen times. The government claims it’s throwing money at lots of good causes – Haiti, and the mother and child health initiative for example – so there should be lots of material to work with. Perhaps there’s less here than meets the eye. With the aid budget frozen for the next five years, there will be less money to spend on all the announcements made this year. And Afghanistan has an insatiable appetite for CIDA money and priority, regardless of the Act’s stipulations about poverty, human rights and what the poor might think.
Maybe if the media or the Opposition asked the right questions there would be more government accountability around an Act which is, after all, the law of the land. Don’t hold your breath though. Reporters and parliamentarians of all stripes seem content with the mantra that Canada performs well and is a respected member of the international aid donor community. Too bad the public record can’t or won’t demonstrate the facts to back it up.
The ODA Accountability Act of 2008 was a private member’s bill that passed with all-party support, a very rare occurrence in our parliament. The Act sets out three conditions for Canadian development aid: it must contribute to poverty reduction; it must take into account the perspectives of the poor; and it must be consistent with international human rights standards. And the government has to report on all the expenditures it is claiming as ODA (as defined by the OECD Development Assistance Committee) not just the funds disbursed by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). This explains why Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Finance Canada, National Defence and a range of other departments – including Parks Canada – get a mention in the report. If you thought that including these other departments was an exercise in sweeping up a few spilled kernels of wheat, think again. Finance Canada spent over $500 million on ODA in 2009-2010 and Foreign Affairs almost $300 million out of a total of $4.788 billion.
So what’s in the report? Essentially, it’s just a list, and a selectively short one at that. The opening section states “Canada is contributing to the global efforts to meet the needs of those living in poverty in developing countries…” and goes on to list, in general terms, “activities that are undertaken to achieve poverty reduction.” The subsequent text on CIDA lists some of the things the agency spent money on, without explanation as to how or why they meet the stipulations of the Act. There are frequent references to CIDA’s indomitable Minister, Beverly J. Oda. Human rights and the perspectives of the poor get short shrift. When it comes to Finance and Foreign Affairs there is virtually no reference to poverty reduction, the views of the poor or human rights.
The government can claim that it has reported, but it’s a skimpy effort, completely inconsistent with the spirit and aim of the Act. This is not surprising, given that the government doesn’t like the Act.
Why such a weak report? Minister Oda can’t utter a sentence about recipient governments and NGOs without demanding “results” half a dozen times. The government claims it’s throwing money at lots of good causes – Haiti, and the mother and child health initiative for example – so there should be lots of material to work with. Perhaps there’s less here than meets the eye. With the aid budget frozen for the next five years, there will be less money to spend on all the announcements made this year. And Afghanistan has an insatiable appetite for CIDA money and priority, regardless of the Act’s stipulations about poverty, human rights and what the poor might think.
Maybe if the media or the Opposition asked the right questions there would be more government accountability around an Act which is, after all, the law of the land. Don’t hold your breath though. Reporters and parliamentarians of all stripes seem content with the mantra that Canada performs well and is a respected member of the international aid donor community. Too bad the public record can’t or won’t demonstrate the facts to back it up.
Friday, 15 October 2010
Canada and Haiti: When all is said and done, much more is being said than done
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)