Harper at the UN

This has been a rather long and draining week, and with the new job I haven't had a whole lot of time for blogging on the issues of the day, so discussions have been slow in coming the past while. But I would be very remiss if I didn't discuss Harper's address to the UN on Thursday. I didn't see the speech, but I'm on the PM's mailing list so I got the full transcript, and that probably puts me in a pretty decent position to comment on it. Sure I didn't get the gestures or dramatic pauses, but I got the words, and that's ultimately what matters.

This was a very good speech by a world leader to a (rather small) global audience, and it sends a message that Canada intends to play a strong role in the 21st century to defend its principles and seek the expansion of the sphere of universal values such as human rights, the rule of law, and liberal democracy. I would like to highlight some of the key points in this speech that deserve due attention:

Our responsibilities in this organization are as varied as they are
important and I cannot mention them all or do each the justice it deserves. Nor can Canada be effective by diffusing our efforts across all of these matters. We must focus our considerable but limited resources where we can make a real difference.

This led to a discussion of Afghanistan, the single greatest commitment of Canada in the world since the Korean War. Harper framed our participation in the effort to transform Afghanistan into a civil society that is based on laws and rules, human rights (particularly those for women), and free of terrorism, not on the grounds of a Canadian interest but in the context of a global interest. The world, through multilateral organizations such as the UN and NATO, has stated that terrorism is a direct attack on the values cherished by states, and Canada is taking a leading role in a concerted response to terrorism and its sources. Harper astutely pointed out that the military alone will not pacify Afghanistan; rather, it will require the continued efforts of "educators, engineers, elections advisors; direct aid and technical assistance" for a prolonged period of time. People too readily ignore the past quarter-century of Afghanistan's history when they complain about how long and how uneven the progress in Afghanistan has been. Rebuilding shattered societies takes considerable time, far more than tearing them down.

He also said:

We are therefore acutely aware that the United Nations' job in Afghanistan is not done. We have no illusions about the difficulties that still lie before us. Difficulties don't daunt us. But lack of common purpose and will in this body would. After all, if we fail the Afghan people, we will be failing ourselves. For this is the United Nations strongest mission and, therefore, our greatest test. Our collective will and credibility are being judged. We cannot afford to fail. We will succeed.

This determination and resolve is admirable, as is Harper's commitment to the United Nations. For anybody who regularly accuses the Prime Minister of being a neoconservative, this should stick out like a sore thumb as to why you are wrong. Neo-cons/democratic globalists & realists/traditional realists tend to be skeptical of the utility of international organizations, particularly the UN. It's interesting that he uses similar language to that used by Bush in his 2002 UN Address to frame Iraq as the UN's great test. We know how that turned out, and those of us who are actual democratic globalists have thrown up our hands in the air and all but given up on the UN (and some, myself included, have gone to the next step and advocated for the full-scale overhaul of formal multilateralism to meet the challenges of the 21st century); Harper, meanwhile, remains optimistic, if a little wary.

Following the Afghanistan discussion, he ticked off the laundry list of other challenges before the UN: Darfur, Haiti, UN reform, the doomed-to-fail Human Rights Council, and an oblique reference to the UN's ongoing failure to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons ("Will we act to halt activities that have no reasonable purpose other than the acquisition of nuclear weapons?"). Given the parameters of a 15-minute address and the importance of the Afghan mission, this can easily be understood. I really would have liked it if he'd picked up the Responsibility to Protect gauntlet and thrown that down with more authority. It's a Canadian notion, partly developed by none other than Michael Ignatieff, and something that we should be incredibly proud of and advocating on a regular basis. I've read it, I even understand it, and I support it. But we need to start promoting it and get it a first test. Darfur should be that test, and we've dawdled on this for far too long.

All told, I found Harper's Inaugural UN Address to be a solid one. It could have been better in some areas and gone into greater detail on some of the non-military aspects of the Afghan mission, because these non-headline grabbers tend to be areas in which the UN shines but also because it's an area where Canada shines. Highlighting our role within the context of a greater global initiative serves both Canada and the UN, giving both some much-needed credibility. Canada still has a long way to go before our Prime Minister can pack the GA like the US or Britain, but Harper's speech on Thursday is a good step in the right direction.