How Harper Learned to Love the UN

He once shunned the United Nations Security Council, so why is Stephen Harper now working so hard to win membership for Canada?

When Stephen Harper became Canada’s prime minister in 2006, his attitude towards the United Nations seemed suspect, at best.

Just three years earlier, Harper had supported Washington’s decision to invade Iraq without Security Council approval. And like many Conservatives, he openly questioned whether the UN could serve a significant purpose in the post-9-11 world.

The new prime minister made no initial comment on whether Canada would fulfill a 2001 commitment by the previous Liberal government to seek election to the UN Security Council for 2011-12. And later, when the Conservatives finally confirmed that Canada would contest the Council seat, they were clear that Ottawa would not compromise its principles in doing so.

Nevertheless, recent days have seen Prime Minister Harper go out of his way to demonstrate Canada’s Security Council credentials on the world stage. In his first address to the UN General Assembly in four years, he even emphasized Canada’s loyalty to the organization, and to multilateralism more generally.

Why the abrupt change of heart?

Some have argued that prime minister’s office is wary of the political embarrassment that could stem from being the first Canadian government since 1946 to fail to win election to the Council. Indeed, in Canada’s last six campaigns for a Council seat it has achieved the two-thirds support of the UN General Assembly necessary for election on the first ballot.

Others argue that the government is concerned that a failure to be elected, or even election on the second ballot, would provide opposition parties with legitimate ammunition to protest a series of Conservative modifications to Canadian foreign policy since 2006.

Neither assessment is illegitimate: Australia was shamed by its unexpected failure to win election in 1996 (ironically to Canada’s major competitor this time, Portugal), and the Harper government has been outspoken about its success in taking a more principled approach to foreign policy without compromising Canada’s global reputation.

But both arguments ignore changes to the international context that have become increasingly clear to the federal government over the last 12 months.

In 2006, most Conservatives were confident that close ties to the United States would be enough to form the basis of an effective international strategy.

The combination of the economic downturn and the rise of the G20 has altered that thinking. The government’s recent outreach to China and India testifies to a newfound awareness that, when it comes to a Canadian grand strategy for the 21st century, an effective working relationship with the United States is no longer sufficient.

Next year, in addition to the five permanent members – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China – the 15-member Security Council is set to include Germany, India, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, and Colombia.

As many experts have already noted, based on this anticipated membership, the 2011 Council should be the most powerful executive body in the UN’s history.

Even if, as many Conservatives suspect, the United Nations is less powerful than its proponents maintain, Canada cannot afford to ignore the diplomatic possibilities that will arise from regular, and exclusive, meetings with this particular group of states.

The national leadership must therefore continue to pursue a seat with vigour, and must use every available resource to do so.

For the government, this means co-opting senior political leaders with international experience from the across the political spectrum to promote Canada’s bid.

For the opposition, this means expressing public support for the government’s campaign, instead of attempting to reap political gain by discrediting it.

This article was originally published in the Ottawa Citizen.