PUBLIUS: The McLeod Group Blog |
06/01/2012 02/08/2011 11/05/2011 27/04/2011 03/22/2011 15/02/2011 12/01/2011 12/12/2010 22/11/2010 15/10/2010 04/10/2010 03/08/2010 |
|
Haiti: More Announceables It has been two years since the devastating earthquake in Haiti that killed over 300,000 people and left 1.5 million homeless. In January, on the anniversary of the event, Canada’s Minister for International Cooperation, Bev Oda, paid a visit to Port au Prince, with the customary blizzard of press releases. One is hard-pressed to imagine the joy of Haitians at yet another visit from the Honourable Bev, who has made multiple trips to the country during her tenure as minister responsible for CIDA. But Haitians would be fully justified in asking “So what?” in the face of more promises from Canada. The official line from CIDA, on behalf of the Canadian government, is that Canada’s generosity to Haiti knows no bounds. “Canada is on track to disburse more than $1 billion in Haiti (2006-2012) to implement long-term development and to meet immediate humanitarian and reconstruction needs….” according to Ms Oda’s letter marking her visit. But just what is happening to this impressive amount of money? The showcase announcement during the Minister’s most recent Haitian sojourn was $20 million for the resettlement of 5,000 families who have been living since the earthquake in makeshift shelter on the Champ de Mars, a major park in the centre of Port au Prince. The label on this project is “Canada to resettle Haitians from Champ de Mars.” No mention of Haitian partners, whether government or civil society. Isn’t it their country? Maybe we just forgot. In digesting the news of this latest component of Canadian largesse, a certain degree of scepticism is understandable. When will this wonderful – and very necessary – work actually be done? Canada is very adept at making announcements, but delivering is another matter. Look at the saga of the national police academy, an $18 million project announced in October 2008, in recognition that a strong and competent police force is an essential component of Haiti’s sustainable development. Good for Canada to support this initiative. Obviously Ms Oda thinks so too, which is why she re-announced the project in April 2010, though nothing had been done by CIDA to implement the project to that point. All right, there had been an earthquake in January, but even before then the project had become embroiled in contractual gridlock. In a press release in October 2011, the last time Oda was in Haiti, there was again mention of the national police academy project (“Canada is committed to the construction of the National Police Academy….”) but no word on when it would happen. Hence the cynicism in reading the fulsome announcement regarding the displaced persons resettlement project; it’s natural to speculate a bit on just when anything will actually occur. In dealing with Haiti, is Canada following the pattern of so many donors and external agencies scrambling to do things right – Ms Oda’s well known preoccupation with her version of accountability – rather than doing the right things, and helping build Haiti’s capacity to develop itself? In the absence of meaningful details from CIDA on what has been and is being done with the $1 billion-plus devoted to Haiti – as opposed to press releases extolling ministerial commitments – one is left to speculate how many other commitments made in the last three to four years are also languishing somewhere in bureaucratic limbo. More transparency regarding Canada’s aid performance is long overdue. This would be welcomed by Canadians, and even more by our partners in developing countries. Now that Canada has signed on to the International Aid Transparency Initiative, can we hope for some change? Aid Transparency: It's About Time On November 28, CIDA announced that Canada was joining the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). This is a welcome move. In recent years there has been a growing demand for greater transparency in foreign aid: how much is being spent, where, on what and for whom. And of course, taxpayers want to know what effect it is having. The problem is that while governments do publish annual statistics on aid-giving, data is often general, incomplete, out of date and it cannot be readily compared with that of other countries. Many donor countries, Canada included, count things in their “aid envelope” that do not meet the OECD definition of official development assistance. “Aid” is frequently used to advance the commercial, strategic and military priorities of the giver. Pledges are announced with much fanfare, often more than once, but they are not always redeemed. Finding out precisely what Canada pledged in response to the Haiti earthquake, for example, is virtually impossible. Getting trustworthy data on what has actually been spent cannot be obtained, it seems, without applying to Access to Information. The problem is bigger than that, however. Most donors do not have timely information about what others are spending. The result is a badly coordinated mish-mash, with donors crowding into some sectors and some countries, while completely ignoring others. Recipient countries cannot plan or balance their own spending with any accuracy or predictability, and while all donors speak about their desire for results, monitoring and evaluation remain as patchy as the delivery. After 50 years of what many critics call “failed aid”, taxpayers and the citizens of recipient countries have a right to know how these very large aid budgets are being spent. The multi-government 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action called, inter alia, for greater aid coordination, transparency and predictability. But on these issues there has been little or no progress and aid has actually become more fragmented than ever. Now, at last, there is a solution: the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) that CIDA has just joined. It calls on donors to put their money where their mouth is, or more precisely, to put their reporting where their money is. IATI has developed a common, international standard that sets guidelines for publishing information about aid spending. This is not a new database, and it doesn’t replace existing systems like the one managed by the OECD. It complements and supplements standards and definitions that have already been agreed. Donors that become members of IATI – and the term “donor” includes governments, foundations, multilateral institutions and NGOs -- agree to make public, in a detailed and timely fashion, information on aid volumes, aid allocations and the results of development expenditure when they are available. In addition, participating donors and developing countries will make public all conditions linked to disbursements. Donors will provide full and timely information on annual commitments and actual disbursements, allowing recipients to accurately record aid flows in their budget estimates and accounting systems. And donors will provide full and timely information on their rolling three- to five-year forward expenditure and implementation plans, allowing recipient countries to integrate them into their medium-term planning. This idea is long overdue. Britain and the World Bank have signed on and have indicated starting dates. Australia, Denmark, Switzerland and half a dozen others, including the European Union and Germany, are on the road to implementation. Two dozen developing countries have endorsed IATI, including almost half of those designated as countries of focus by CIDA. Having announced its intention to join the IATI, Canada now has some work to do. The international “Publish What You Fund” coalition, which campaigns for greater transparency in foreign aid, ranks Canada in 28th place out of 58 donors – “poor” but not dismal, and better than France, Germany and theUnited States. With some effort, we could go from a B-minus to something considerably better. The proof, of course will be in the pudding. Canada passed an “Aid Accountability Act” in 2008, requiring a central focus on poverty reduction. Aid watchers are still awaiting meaningful implementation by the government. Asbestos and Harper: When Facts Don't Matter… Friedrich Nietzsche once said "there are no facts, only interpretations." With that in mind, let's try to discern what Prime Minister Harper is thinking with his latest embrace of Quebec's asbestos industry and its ridiculous assertion that the "safe use" of asbestos - outside of Canada, of course - is not some deadly joke on the world's poor. Some "facts." It is impossible to find a reputable, independent, peer-reviewed international medical research or workplace health and safety institution arguing that chrysotile asbestos can be used safely by humans without significant risk of cancer. The International Agency for Cancer Research states there is no safe exposure limit to asbestos of any kind, echoed by the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization. The WHO says more than 100,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases. The World Bank mandates that, even in disasters, asbestos must not be used for emergency construction projects. The Canadian Cancer Society, the US Government and all 27 member states of the European Union call for a total ban. Even the provincially-funded "Institut national de santé publique du Québec" argues "chrysotile asbestos is carcinogenic .... safe use of asbestos is difficult, perhaps impossible." In the cruel calculus of electoral politics, if this industry generated immense amounts of money and jobs, you could understand why "facts" could be ignored in pursuit of votes. But it does not. Quebec's asbestos industry generates annual sales of less than $100 million and supports roughly 600 jobs, most part-time. That hardly seems enough influence, even in one riding, to determine an electoral outcome. (Inconvenient truth time: it's only very recently, with the industry shrinking, that the Liberals, the NDP and the Canadian Labour Congress called for an end to asbestos production. For decades, they supported government funding for the promotion of asbestos exports.) So, the "interpretations." Maybe Prime Minister Harper is simply playing a craven waiting game, gambling that, eventually, asbestos production in Canada will wither away. Recently released government documents (obtained only through Freedom of Information requests) support this position. So why risk losing those few asbestos industry-related votes in Quebec? (There is an argument to make that beyond electoral politics, asbestos has an iconic importance in Quebec politics that transcends its ugly truth. The asbestos industry was central to the political awakening of modern Quebec during the late 1940s and early 1950s when virtually the whole province came together to support strikers against their then-American bosses ... helping to kick-start the careers of Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier, who supported the strikers.) But more likely – and more depressing – is the idea that, once again, the Prime Minister is simply ignoring the facts because of his ideological dislike of evidence presented by experts. Think the cancelled long-form census, when Harper ignored warnings from statistical experts around the world that this would hurt Canada's economy. Think crime stats, with Harper ignoring an outpouring of evidence that crime of almost every kind in Canada is steadily declining to argue that what the country needs is tougher laws and tougher prisons. Sadly, the facts on asbestos' dangers – overwhelmingly consistent – will do nothing to convince Harper to reverse his support for the industry. Which leaves the rest of us to buckle down and fight on: perhaps as a best bet, to call for a well-funded transition program to help miners and their families find new sustainable jobs. But a fact – with no interpretation possible – is that our country must rid itself of its sadly-indisputable reputation as an industrial merchant of death. ON LIBYA, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND So, another Canadian foreign minister has visited China, presumably to sell more Canadian raw materials – as if that were a problem. The media seems satisfied that John Baird mentioned human rights – though what he said is left to conjecture. And who might care is another matter entirely. There was also the ritual nod to Canadian values, whatever those might be these days. In a hawkish July 5 Maclean’s interview, Stephen Harper did talk a bit about Canadian values. He said he was “not dismissing peacekeeping… but…” we should now be thinking mainly of what he called “the triumvirate” in Canadian values: Canada as “the courageous warrior, compassionate neighbour, confident partner”. He doesn’t have to dismiss peacekeeping, of course; that has already been done. As of June 30, out of 83,400 blue-helmeted UN peacekeeping troops, only 21 soldiers were Canadians. As for the courageous warrior, we don’t have to look a lot farther than John Baird’s June trip to eastern Libya. It is, of course, a good idea to get to know who we’re supporting in that mission, and for that Baird is to be commended. As evidence that he has perhaps watched the 1949 American war film Twelve O’Clock High a few times too many, however, he signed one of the bombs that Canadian fighters will drop on the western part of Libya, "Free Libya. Democracy." Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, CIDA’s results-obsessed Minister Bev Oda was bragging that she had taught the head of the World Food Programme the difference between outputs and outcomes. Maybe she could do the same with John Baird. The Libya mission is expected to have cost about $60 million by the end of September (probably a sizeable under-estimation), a good chunk of it in democracy-inducing bombs. By now, Canadians might ask themselves whether we should still be playing Monty in the eastern desert, signing bombs and the cheques that go with them, or whether we should be thinking about potential outcomes – not all of them, on second thought, perhaps so favourable. As for the money, as C.D. Howe might have put it, “What’s $60 million?” Especially when we get to play with the big kids? Well, it’s actually a lot where the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is concerned. The CEAA, which evaluates potentially harmful policies and projects before they get the green light, has just had its budget chopped from $30 million in 2011-12 to $17.1 million in 2012-13. This follows a 6.9% cut between last year and this. OK, maybe that’s just a red herring. But $60 million really is nothing compared to what we’re going to spend on prisons. The government’s forthcoming crime legislation is expected to increase Canada's prison population dramatically because of tougher parole rules and the elimination of “two-for-one” sentencing guidelines. That means we’ll need more prisons. The government says the cost of the package will be about $4 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Office, among others, says it will be much higher – as much as $10 billion. This, despite the fact that Statistics Canada tells us the country's crime rate has plunged to its lowest level since 1973. Using data provided by police forces across Canada, StatsCan says there were 2.1 million crimes last year, a drop of 5% from 2009. Statscan's "Crime Severity Index", which tracks violent crime, also dropped to its lowest level since the index was created in 1998. Courageous? Compassionate? Confident? Perhaps StatsCan and the Parliamentary Budget Office will get the Twelve O’Clock High treatment next, like Libya and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. TWO CUPS OF TEA: MIRACLE CURES AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT SNAKE OIL A recent 60 Minutes investigation found that best-selling author and philanthropist, Greg Mortenson, may not be all he has cracked himself up to be. The ex-mountain climber has told the story many times of being rescued by Pakistani villagers and discovering how terrible their educational facilities were. One thing led to another and he eventually built them a school, and that school led to hundreds more around the country. His books, Three Cups of Tea and Stones into Schools have sold millions, and his Central Asia Institute, a registered US charity, has taken in tens of millions of dollars in donations. But 60 Minutes told a different story, one repeated on television and in newspapers worldwide: Mortenson was not rescued by villagers. He did build a school – many, in fact – but not as many as he says, and a lot are simply not being used. The charity, 60 Minutes said, was paying for a lot of the promotion of Mortenson’s phenomenally successful books, but all proceeds go to Mortenson, not the charity. Mortenson refused to answer questions put to him by CBS news. There is a double tragedy in this story, one reported in the media, the other created by the media. The first is that Mortenson, perhaps a well-meaning naïf, seems not to have delivered on his promise. That will fuel the cynicism about foreign aid that his books did so much – for a while -- to dispel. People will add this to the list of reasons for not supporting development assistance. The bigger tragedy is that Mortenson – and the media that so lionized him for five years – created an idea of development that is fundamentally fictional. Yes, individuals can make a difference, but genuine development is much more complex than well-meaning Westerners charging about like Lady Bountiful, wiping the tears from the faces of unhappy children. Although Three Cups of Tea is all about schools, it contains no discussion about what goes on inside a school: education. The closest the book came to education, was when Mortenson’s wife made her first trip to Pakistan and stopped in Islamabad to buy some appropriate books for one of the school libraries. How might she have known what was appropriate for a rural Pakistani school? What language were the books written in? The same shallowness bedevils other silver bullets, or at least how they are purveyed. The promise of microfinance is that a $25 loan can get a poor family out of destitution. Child sponsorship will save one of those crying kids that are sold on television like a buffet lunch for people wanting a quick feel-good opportunity. Too harsh? As part of a broader program of training and economic opportunity, microfinance can help. If it supports solid development programs, a child sponsorship agency can make a contribution. But it’s time for an adult discussion about development. There are no silver bullets; poverty cannot be ended with small, one-off feel-good investments. Development takes time and money, and it requires strong support and leadership from the people who will benefit. It requires consistency as well, from the $25 donor and from institutional donors like the Canadian International Development Agency, which in recent years has been about as constant and dependable as Wile E. Coyote. If you want to support education in Pakistan, ask about teachers and curricula and running costs – the same questions you would ask in this country. If you want to support children, find organizations that support their parents. Paternalism only works if it is applied by genuine parents, not faraway benefactors. If you want to make a $25 loan through Kiva or some other mechanism, ask how borrowers are being advised, and ask how a poor person can find an investment good enough to repay the $25 with interest in a year, if not months. Think about it. There is a lot of great work being done out there, but there is no substitute for hard work, experience and long-term commitment. CANADIAN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION - BACK TO THE 1860s WITH A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY? On April 6th, the Canadian International Council hosted a “conversation” on the “three D’s” among two senior Conservatives, Derek Burney, former Ambassador to the US and Chief of Staff to the PM, Senator Hugh Segal, former Chief of Staff to the PM, and Paul Heinbecker, former Foreign Policy Advisor to the PM and Ambassador to the UN on the subject of Diplomacy, Defence and Development. What was disturbing about the session was that the two senior Conservatives equated international development assistance – they repeatedly referred to it as “aid” – with charitable handouts – and humanitarian handouts at that. This level of awareness relates back to the 19th century image of “Lady Bountiful”, and has not even become as “modern” as the 1950s Marshall Plan vision of economic growth as the engine of “Third World” development. These two Conservatives are viewed as leaders of their party’s thinking on international development, as evidenced by Senator Segal’s role in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on Africa (“Overcoming 40 Years of Failure: A New Roadmap for Sub-Saharan Africa”). Little wonder that the third “D” – development – took up little air space in the conversation. This underlying and extremely inaccurate perception of development assistance runs counter to what development practitioners have learned over the past 50 years. Stable, prosperous, healthy societies are built through a combination of transparency and accountability – “good governance” – between citizens and the state, accompanied by a sound fiscal framework and the provision of services like health, education, public safety and basic physical infrastructure. Handouts generate resentment and dependency. Wealth for the few and poverty – or debt – for the many is both destabilizing and unsustainable. Many Conservatives seem not to have learned these hard-won lessons of development cooperation experience: they search for simplistic solutions like “focus”, moving the deck chairs on the CIDA Titanic, or reverting to head-in-the-sand Victorian thinking. If the government listens to advice like this rather than searching out evidence-based direction, it risks continuing Canada’s slide into irrelevance in international development cooperation. The development pillar of Canada’s foreign policy is dangerously weakened by immature discourse, and a foreign policy built only on defence and diplomacy, with primacy to the former, ill serves Canada’s interests in the world and the interests of those we purport to help. AID ACCOUNTABILITY THAT MATTERS 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. 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. NOT 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. AT LEAST HE MADE THE TRAINS RUN ON TIME: 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”. 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. HARPER, MULTILATERALISM AND THE UN: 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. FOREIGN AID: TELLING PARLIAMENT 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. 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?
04/10/2010 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. |
|
|
THE HARPER GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY: THE CCIC DEBACLE Not satisfied making Canada a foreign aid laughing stock among its G8 and G20 peers, the government, led by CIDA minister Bev Oda, is now hunting down any organization it doesn’t like, and is doing whatever it can to put them out of business. The latest victim is the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the well-respected umbrella organization that represents the interests of hundreds of Canadian organizations delivering aid programs to poor countries. CCIC’s failing? It went to bat for some of its members – such as Kairos and Match International -- that have already been axed because CIDA didn’t like what they had to say about human rights in the Middle East or their work with women. CIDA has used an insidious methodology, one it has perfected over the past year with NGOs it doesn’t like. It allows funding to run out, says nothing for months while the organization eats up its reserves, and then the Minister says, often as an aside in a media scrum, that the organization in question doesn’t “fit” with CIDA’s priorities. CCIC, which has been a CIDA “partner” organization for more than 40 years, was treated a bit better. It was given an extension on its funding from April to July this year while CIDA ostensibly carried out a review. If there really was a “review” it was never shared with CCIC. Instead, the minister told CCIC in July that its funding was now at an end. CCIC could reapply to CIDA if and when it had some overseas programs for consideration. When a minister of the Crown makes a suggestion this daft, one hardly knows whether to laugh or cry. Any hope that the Prime Minister might call the RCMP again came to nothing. CCIC has laid off more than two thirds of its staff, and its office building is up for sale. An important coordination body and a respected voice, one that speaks not just for its members but for the poorest of the world though efforts like its “Make Poverty History” campaign, has been attacked and damaged. Another important Canadian institution is being brought to its knees. Some say that organizations like CCIC should be funded by their members, not the government. That’s fine, but after 40 years of support, don’t give them that message 24 hours before the “partnership” is cancelled. In July in Krakow, Foreign Minister Cannon addressed the Community of Democracies’ high-level ministerial meeting. He also opened the session of the Working Group on Enabling and Protecting Civil Society, which Canada chairs. Under the circumstances, it is hard to imagine what he said. His website, which is chockablock with Cannon speeches, leaves this one out – perhaps because what Canada says about civil society in the world is very different from what the government is doing at home. The logic of what Stephen Harper, Lawrence Cannon and Bev Oda are doing to Canada’s aid program and to courageous, hard-working NGOs makes no sense. They are hurting Canadians who are trying to help and they are wrecking Canada’s once-deserved good reputation. More importantly, they are reducing the Canadian potential for good in many very poor countries to rubble. |