Battling for a Security Council Seat - will the environment play a role?

Sometimes I like to pretend I know the future.  I like to imagine how things could play out if only...

Before I get to that though, let me begin with what I know.

In 2008, Canada stated its intention to run for a non-permanent seat in the infamous United Nations Security Council for 2011-12  (Click here for more info).  As per the rules of these elections, which are designed to ensure more equal represenation, two of the five seats (there are 10 non-permanent and 5 permanent members) that are up for an election in October of this year will come from the Western European and Others Group of which Canada belongs.

Historically, every decade, Canada has had a seat as a non-permanent member on the  Security Council.  Most recently, this occurred in 1999 and 2000. Being on the Security Council puts Canada among a handful of other countries and in direct contact with the big five permanent members on a regular basis.  While the merits (and flaws) of this particular body can be discussed, it has always been - if nothing else - a source of pride and prestige for Canada to sit at this table.  Even more so because Canada has never run and lost. 

Running against Canada this time around are Portugal and Germany.  According to those in the know, Germany is a virtual lock for one of those seats meaning Canada will have to battle Portugal for the one remaining.

An election such as this is truly an effort in diplomacy.  Indeed, there are many factors that must be considered particularly given the demographics of the United Nations.  The amount of aid a state gives, the relationships between states, and a state's position on certain issues are all things that could affect the outcome.

Again, historically, Canada has been seen in a favourable light by others, which in part explains why Canada has managed to get a seat on the Security Council once every decade.  Yet, it's hard to say definitively that such a positive image continues to persist. 

Now let me begin to editorialize.  I imagine - with great despair I might add - an election campaign where Canadian diplomats, lobbying for a spot on the Security Council, time and again run into the same brick wall.

"Why should we support Canada when you have done so little on the environment?" they will be asked time and again.

Our diplomats will try to change the subject, but fail.

"Let us begin the comparison between Canada and Portugal" fellow diplomats will respond, "then you will see why we are supporting Portugal."

Undoubtedly, they would raise the following points:

On January 31st, 2010, 55 states made a submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as promised in the Copenhagen Accord, which announced their non-binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Click here for more info).  Canada and the European Union (of which Portugal is a member) did just that.

Portugal, as part of the European Union, has therefore committed to cutting its greenhouse gases by a minimum of 20% by 2020 on 1990 levels.

In comparison, Canada lowered its already previously announced (weak) commitment offering instead a shameful emissions cut of but 17% based on 2005 levels by 2020 (Click here to for more info). 

Note the different base years used.  Under Canada's commitment, our emissions would actually rise by 2.5% relative to 1990 levels. 

Portugal, itself once seen as a country moving backward in relation to climate change emissions, is fast becoming known as a leader in renewable energy.  Canada, by comparison has seen its international reputation take a beating over the  years and recently won the Climate Action Network's Fossil of the Year award (for the third year in a row) as the country doing the most to obstruct international climate negotiations.

Our red-faced diplomats will try to get a word in.  "We're not so bad," they'll try to say before being interrupted once again.  For, the discussion will quickly turn to water.

Indeed, there is also a notable difference in positions with regard to a 2008 United Nations Human Rights Council resolution which recognized that states face "obligations in relation to access to safe drinking water and sanitation."  Portugal has recognized this resolution.  Canada has not. 

In fact, only Canada explicitly voted against this resolution containing the wording "right to water and sanitation" despite there being broad support for such wording otherwise (Click here for more info).  The reason for this, has been a false perception that by doing so will open up the possibility of Canada having to bulk export its water to American companies (Click here for more info).

"In short," they will say to our diplomats "we believe that Portugal is more deserving of a seat than Canada this time around."

***

As mentioned there are likely to be many factors that would affect who wins that final seat and the diplomatic behind-the-scenes lobbying has already begun. 

Nonetheless, given Canada's environmental record alone versus that of Portugal's it would not be surprising - to me at least - if Canada were to be denied, for the first time, a seat in the Security Council.  Who knows, perhaps a loss would even be enough to push for a proactive position on climate change.  After all, given how the international system functions, what stronger rebuke - if made explicitly - could other states give to Canada for its environmental record?

I know better than to hold my breath on that one.  However, the voices in my head will continue to hyptohesize about an unknown future.