This webinar will attempt to pull back the analysis of the current crisis and delve into questions related to the legitimacy of the Lebanese state, the role of the Lebanese leaders throughout history, the current unprecedented levels of the leaders’ selfishness and ignorance, and the resulting outcomes. This analysis is crucial not only for understanding Lebanon’s trajectory but also for assessing potential future governance options for Lebanon.
Our 2020 Policy Forum, The Future of Peacekeeping in the Transition to a More Peaceful World: Why UN peace operations are critical and need to be expanded, videos are available for viewing. Keynote Address: Jean-Marie Guehenno PANEL 1: Successes and Failures and Lessons Learned Panel 2 CONTROVERSIES Impartiality Consent Use of Force Panel 3 FUTURE Options for UN… Read More »
We will outline what UN peace operations can and cannot do, and how they might be improved and expanded. We will assess what changes will help transition national defence establishments, and encourage UN options for a more peaceful world. We will explore Lessons Learned for conflict prevention and protection of civilians (POC) and what they mean for future UNPK/peace operations.
Therefore, questions we will address include:
1. What are the strengths and limits of UN Peacekeeping?
2. Can UN peacekeeping advance both rule of law and negotiated solutions to spoilers and groups designated as terrorists, and can mandates retain mission impartiality?
3. If UN peace operations cannot effectively address these challenges, what else may be needed when they increasingly encounter difficulty, as we have seen in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Haiti and South Sudan?
4. Can peacekeeping be adapted to respond more rapidly and effectively to crises before they escalate and become full-blown armed conflicts?
It is likely that even a one-term Trump will go down in history as a president who (more than Obama, Bush, Clinton) symbolized a “new era” in the history of the West. The new era will last for a few decades, as the “social democratic era” lasted for three decades (1945-1975) and the “neoliberal era “ lasted for three plus decades (1980 to 2010+). It is marked by a shift in the center of gravity of western politics/policies in the direction of (1) authoritarian-nationalism and exclusionary identity politics; (2) illiberal internationalism — including less commitment to free international trade and free international capital movements, and less support for legacy multilateral organizations, like those of the UN.
Moderator: Margaret Huber, Speakers: Peggy Mason and Daryl Copeland
On June 17, Canada lost its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, the second time in a decade that it has tried and failed to do so. This event has stoked debate about Canada’s standing in the UN, and much self-searching about the role Canada plays (or should play) on the world stage. The world of 2020 is fundamentally different from the postwar world of 1950 when the foundations of Canada’s foreign policy were laid. Lamentably, the threat of nuclear annihilation remains. But in addition, the climate crisis poses an additional existential threat. And Canada is no longer the leading peacekeeper and aid donor that it once was. The Canadian foreign service is understaffed and under-resourced to meet the challenges of today. All that being so, a review of Canada’s foreign policy is overdue. This webinar will take stock of emerging global and national realities, along with Canada’s international aspirations and capabilities, in thinking about the shape of foreign policy in the decades ahead. Just as important, perhaps, it will consider how a sweeping review of our foreign policy should be structured, to make it open and inclusive, and not simply a dialogue among foreign policy experts.
On February 6, 2020, just 7 sitting days into Canada’s 43rd Parliament, and a week and a half after the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg confirmed Canada’s first case of Covid-19, I launched a Senate Inquiry into finding the right pathways and actions for Canada and Canadians to meet our net zero carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions targets in order to slow, arrest and hopefully reverse human- caused climate change, to ensure a healthy planet, a healthy society, a healthy economy and a healthy democracy.
During our June 23rd Group of 78 virtual gathering, I will highlight the intention behind the launch of the inquiry, the substance of my speech, the contributions of my fellow senators and ambitions for amplifying the conversation and its impact.
Letter to PM urging support for developing countries in the current economic and health crises, Pdf The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 Dear Prime Minister, On behalf of the Group of 78, I am writing to commend you for your current initiative at the UN to tackle the… Read More »
Hill Times By ROY CULPEPER, LAURA MACDONALD, AND SAM VAN OORT MAY 15, 2020 The pandemic and its economic repercussions promise to be with us for some time. Canada should support a new issuance of SDRs as the case in favour of using them to assist the poorest countries strengthens over the next year. In March, Kristalina Georgieva, managing director… Read More »
Drug coverage in Canada is a patchwork; an inequitable inefficient and unsustainable patchwork with no coherence or purpose. Some people think that we can solve the problem by adding more patches, but the core of the problem is that it is a patchwork. For the working population, access to medicines is still organized as privileges offered by employers to their employees. Universal pharmacare would not only provide better access to needed prescription drugs, but also eliminate waste, ensure value-for-money and help improve drug safety and appropriate prescribing. Opponents fear that a universal pharmacare plan would ration drugs, and impede drug access for some patients. However, these claims misunderstand the reality of drug coverage, pricing and access. Opponents propose, instead, to “fill the gap” of current drug coverage by implementing catastrophic coverage, which would serve commercial interests without maximizing health outcomes for the Canadian population. In spite of overwhelming evidence and consensus in the academic community in favour of universal pharmacare, the battle is far from over.