Opinion Analysis by Annabelle Ghanem, Staff Writer

June 26th, 2020

The Coronavirus pandemic has triggered great changes in all sectors of our existence, proving once again how important it is for leaders to solidify their nation’s presence within the international arena. With a global economic shift, brewing political tensions, and social eruptions happening in all corners of our planet, establishing an impactful international voice has never been more pivotal for the nations of our world, and the United Nations has given its members the opportunity to do just that. Four seats at one of the United Nation’s six principal organs, the Security Council, have been made available. However, the race for those very spots began long before they ever became vacant. 

With no competition, Mexico and India managed to secure the votes needed to solidify their presence within the 2021-2022 Security Council. However, the real races were between Norway, Ireland, and Canada, for the remaining two “Western Europe and other States” spots, as well as between Kenya and Djibouti for the “African and Asian States” seat. No expense was spared as the three western nations campaigned with hopes of grabbing one the last two spots at the Council, developing their international relations with leaders in all corners of the globe, and continuously promoting the impact they believed their presence within the principal organ would generate. However, despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s great investment in Canada’s bid for a Security Council seat, he came up short against the EU member states. Simultaneously, in a second vote count between the two African contenders, Kenya managed to secure its seat in the council, replacing former member South Africa. But why are nations devoting so much time and resources to winning just one seat in a UN committee? What exactly does it mean to be a member in the Security Council?

As the Wecond World War came to an end, five great nations, now known as the P5 veto-powers, ratified a Charter I’d like to call the Constitution of The World, with hopes of protecting and promoting principles of human rights and security within every nation’s borders. With that constitution came the United Nations, an organization said to uphold the values and articles written within the Charter, creating multiple committees tasked with eradicating distinctive world problems and promoting global values. At the head of the organization lies the Security Council, a fifteen-member committee able to deploy a world army, commence peacekeeping missions anywhere in the world, and so much more. However, the distinguishing factor possessed by the council is its influential decision-making authority that, unlike other principal bodies such as the General Assembly, “has the power to take decisions which Member States are obligated to implement.” For years, being a non-permanent member of the security council has not only provided great international cohesion and cooperation between so many member states, but has allowed nations to showcase their ability to steer the international community towards more positive political outcomes, and prove to the world why they are a force to be reckoned with. 

The race was exceptionally important to PM Trudeau, who led his campaign for Prime Minister in 2015 with a promise of bringing Canada back to its glory days as an influential player on the world’s playing field. With that being said, it is no surprise that the nation’s high-profile loss against the Europeans has placed him under extreme criticism, with Canadian government officials and citizens all asking the same question: What went wrong?

Canada’s loss can be traced back to two significant mistakes. The first being Canada’s low contribution to the international community, despite its heavy involvement in previous years. The liberal nation provides very low foreign aid to the world, around 50% less than the amount Norway continuously invests. Furthermore, the nation once known for its large participation in peacekeeping missions, deploying over three thousand peacekeepers to various international conflict zones, now has contributed the lowest numbers of peacekeeping personnel in Canadian history, with a total of thirty-five peacekeepers. Ireland on the other hand, is currently deploying over four hundred peacekeepers for international causes, ultimately strengthening its position against the liberal state. Investing in the international community is one of the key factors looked upon by voters as they decide which member-state to vote for in positions such as a Security Council seat, and unfortunately, Canada was not favored in that category.

The second mistake is one made by the Canadian Prime Minister himself, thus explaining the people’s current distaste towards him. While Norway and Ireland have been campaigning for their respective seats for years, PM Trudeau was criticized for trying to steer votes towards Canada at a much later stage. The Canadian delegation began a sum of diplomatic visits only months before the voting dating, traveling to nations such as Germany and Senegal with hopes of grasping very late insurance. However, Trudeau’s 2020 tour du monde was cut short, as various protests erupted within his borders, forcing the Prime Minister to cancel the remainder of his visits within the Caribbean and African regions. In a final attempt to gather votes, the Canadian delegation reached out to leaders of nations such as India and Mexico, two countries with secured council seats, only days before the elections. Unfortunately, by that time, votes had already been promised, and Canada came up short against the Europeans, with one-hundred and eight votes total. Norway managed to accumulate one-hundred-thirty votes, while Ireland received one-hundred and twenty-eight votes, the exact number needed to secure a seat at the Security Council table.

Despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s high-profile loss, he issued a hopeful statement in an attempt to assure Canadians, as well as the international community, that this loss will not stop the advancements of his nation and mission, within the global arena. “Canada is large enough to make a difference,” Trudeau explains, “but we know we can’t do it alone. As we move forward, we remain committed to the goals and principles that we laid out during this campaign, and we will continue to play a vital role in advancing global cooperation and building a more peaceful, inclusive, and sustainable world.”

However, considering Trudeau’s recent performance, and failed attempt to convince the international community to help him implement those very goals, his words have been rendered meaningless due to his lack of execution. All eyes are now turned towards Justin Trudeau. Will he be able to carry out his promise of strengthening Canada’s presence within the international community? Or is this loss the beginning of Trudeau’s downfall?