Saturday, July 18, 2020

Has Canada’s stand on Israel-Palestine conflict cost it the UNSC Seat

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Nikhita Gautam

Article Title

Has Canada’s stand on Israel-Palestine conflict cost it the UNSC Seat

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 18, 2020

URL

United Nations Security Council meeting

United Nations Security Council meeting | Source: Cancillería Argentina  via Wikimedia

On the 17th of June, 2020, Canada lost its bid for a temporary seat in the UN Security Council, the only UN body which can put binding resolutions on the member countries.. In the competition were Norway and Ireland, which won by 130 and 128 votes respectively where the votes required to secure a seat were 128. Canada, however, fell short by 20 votes.

It is a jolt to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who had declared “Canada is back” to the world stage after the conservative government. He had personally campaigned for the seat but Canada received even fewer votes than what it received in 2010 under the conservative government of Stephen Harper. That is why Bessma Momani, a senior fellow at the Centre of International Governance and Innovation, calls it “embarrassing” and a “bit of a wake-up call.”

There have been many mixed reactions within Canada on the reason for the loss as well as the significance of this loss.

A professor at the Munk School of Global Affairs at U of T, Jance Stein, talks about how Canada in UNSC would have got trapped in the crossfire between US-Canada clashes. Andrew MacDougall, the ex-director of communications with the former PM Harper, says “UNSC hasn’t been relevant to global peace and security for more than 15 years”, implying that UNSC seat is not worth much.

There have been many reasons ascribed to the loss, the first and foremost being Canada’s staunch support of Israel. Canada has voted 116 times against UN resolutions for Palestinian rights, against Israel’s occupation, since 2000. It has also not opposed Israel’s planned annexation of the Jordan valley. “Just Peace Advocates” in association with over a hundred non-governmental organizations sent a signed letter to UN members countries, urging them to consider Canada’s votes against Palestinian refugees and illegal settlements while deciding on their votes for UNSC seat. It also pointed out how Canada considers Israel’s illegal territories as a part of it in trade, which is directly against UNSC Resolution 2334 which calls on member states to distinguish between Israel and its new territories occupied in 1967. As majority of the countries in UN show support for the Palestinian cause of a separate state and the well being of the war-wreckin Palestinian citizens, Canada’s unwavering support for Israel might have contributed to its defeat in winning UNSC seat.

Tamara Lorincz, a member of the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute pointed towards a more fundamental issue with Canadian foriegn policy management. He talked about how Canada hasn’t drafted a foreign policy to explain its stances on important global issues, hasn’t set aside enough funds for overseas development aid, has exported weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia, has snubbed negotiations on a treaty against nuclear weapons and many other shortcomings which make it undeserving of the seat.

This development, however, is beneficial for the Palestinians, since Canada would have supported Israel in the UNSC and opposed all such resolutions which may favour Palestinians and are critical to Israel. This loss may also force Canada to give a serious rethink to its Israel First policy. According to a poll by EKOS Research Associates, three in four Canadians want their government to oppose Israel’s annexation plans and 42% of them wanted sanctions against the country. There is also a campaign in Canada which calls on the Prime Minister “to fundamentally reassess Canadian foreign policy.”

It is too early to predict whether the loss of the UNSC seat will trigger some introspection in the foriegn policy circles of Canada or it will be business as usual.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 5:06 PM

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 2020: Why the draft is being opposed in India?

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) sent a shockwave through the country when it released the Environmental Impact Assessment 2020 draft notification on March 12, 2020, amending the 2006 version.

The EIA serves as a means for the industries to obtain environmental clearances for their projects. The proposed projects are brought in front of the concerned public to be discussed and debated. If the projects proposed by the industries disturb the ecology and people living in that particular area to a large extent, then the Government cannot give permission for the project to continue.

There are several things included, or excluded, in the 2020 version which have enraged environmentalists, nature lovers and numerous concerned citizens across India.

Firstly, it includes post-facto approval. This means that any factory which has already begun with construction, will get a clearance, irrespective of the environmental damage it has already caused. However, the owners of the concerned factory will have to pay a fine of a certain amount.

Secondly, the new draft notification is released only in Hindi and English. Considering the lingual diversity of India, the communities which are not fluent in either languages will not know what the notification is about. This will reduce transparency and the livelihoods of such communities might get demolished without any warning.

The 2006 notification made it mandatory for every company involved in a project to submit a report every six months, verifying that the company is working within the terms of the granted permission and not going overboard with the available resources. The 2020 draft has extended the timeline of report submission once in twelve months. Moreover, certain projects like expansion of highways and road construction through forests are exempted from getting clearances.

Himalayan foothills, Sikkim, India | Source: Flowcomm via Flickr

Such features of the 2020 draft violate norms of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA, 1986) and also indicate that the scales are tipping dangerously towards the big industries, at the cost of our planet’s health. Livid cries have erupted from the people, especially those living in North-Eastern India and foothills of the Himalayas.

Himalayan ecology is at the brink of fragility and it requires stringent monitoring laws, the opposite of what EIA 2020 offers. "The Himalayan region today is in the most vulnerable position with massive climate-induced disasters, increasing deforestation, loss of biodiversity etc. Amending environmental norms will accelerate the ecological crisis in the Himalayas" says Ravi Chopra, a renowned environmentalist from Dehradun.

Since the draft has not come out in regional languages, the Karnataka High Court restrained the government from publishing the final document till it was accessible to a wider audience.

Although the government extended the deadline from June 30 to August 11, 2020, for the general public to pool in their opinions through emails, it shut down three main online websites on which youngsters of this country protested against EIA 2020. “We reasonably have a clear basis, based on our correspondence as well as our technical analysis, that this was a domain seizure by the government of this website” says Apar Gupta, executive director of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF).

The EIA 2020 amendment does not do justice to the fundamental principles of environmental impact assessment and is more focussed in easing the clearance for the industries than the protection of the environment.

Economic growth, no doubt is important, more so at this trying time. However we should also bear in mind the cost which is to be paid for it, sooner or later.

Read More