scholarly journals Canada in the United Nations General Assembly from Trudeau to Trudeau

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srdjan Vucetic ◽  
Bojan Ramadanovic

All Canadian governments say that Canada must look to its “friends and allies” and “like-minded partners” to achieve greater cooperation on global issues. But who are these countries exactly? To gain a better understanding of where Ottawa stands in the world, with whom, and under what conditions, we analyze Canada’s voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly from 1980 to 2017. We find that Canada’s overall record tends towards that of Western European states. We find no evidence of greater affinity with US positions either when the Democrats are in power in Washington or when the conservative parties reign in power in Ottawa. We identify a sharp pro-US turn in the Harper years, and also confirm that the government of Justin Trudeau started off by maintaining rather than reversing this trend.

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-98
Author(s):  
Srdjan Vucetic ◽  
Bojan Ramadanovic

AbstractAll Canadian governments say that Canada must look to its friends and allies and like-minded partners to achieve greater cooperation on global issues. But who are these countries exactly? To gain a better understanding of where Ottawa stands in the world, with whom and under what conditions, we analyze Canada's voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly from 1980 to 2017. We find that Canada's overall record tends toward that of Western European states. We find no evidence of greater affinity with US positions either when the Democrats are in power in Washington or when the conservative parties are in power in Ottawa. We identify a sharp pro-US turn in the Harper years and also confirm that the government of Justin Trudeau started off by maintaining rather than reversing this trend.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Khan

<p>Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s historic speech at the 29th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was the first ‘strategic communication’ by the father of the nation at the Assembly following Bangladesh’s admission to the United Nations. Apart from the well-known and much-to-be-proud of fact that the speech was delivered in Bangla, the content of this speech stands out as a key document, begging to be studied from an international relations perspective and the enduring ideals it enunciates and has been in practice by Bangladesh. This paper seeks to answer: to what extent has Bangladesh remain seized supporting the enduring ideals on key global issues enunciated by Bangabandhu in his speech at the United Nations? Accordingly, the paper carries out a (i) content analysis to identify the enduring ideals (ii) comparison of Bangladesh’s positions on the 1,284 UNGA resolutions that were put to vote between 2001-2017 to assess country’s support to those ideals. The paper finds that, except for the politically sensitive country-specific human rights resolutions, Bangladesh has consistently remained seized in supporting Bangabandhu’s ideals in all thematic categories (between 92-100% ‘yes’ votes). It demonstrates that Bangabandhu’s emphasis on the primacy of the United Nations to build a peaceful and just world, non-alignment, peaceful co-existence, economic emancipation and global solidarity has become much more relevant in the Covid-19 era and the current geopolitical context of South Asia. The paper opens new avenues to use a novel methodology to conduct evidence-based research on the policy ideals and its practices. </p>


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Jelsma

AbstractThis paper explores key lessons from the 1990 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Drug Abuse (UNGASS 1990) and the 1998 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 1998), and tracks subsequent policy events and trends. It discusses the wide array of increasing tensions and cracks in the “Vienna consensus,” as well as systemic challenges and recent treaty breaches. Various options for treaty reform are explored and the following questions are considered: Given policy developments around the world this past decade, what outcomes can the 2016 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 2016) have in terms of a new political compromise? How can UNGASS 2016 contribute to more system-wide coherence where previous attempts failed? Can UNGASS 2016 realistically initiate a process of modernizing the global drug control system and breathe oxygen into a system risking asphyxiation? Finally, is there a chance that treaty reform options will be discussed at all, or do today’s political realities still block possible future regime changes?


SAGE Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 215824402096111
Author(s):  
Mohammad Zahidul Islam Khan

This article explores Bangladesh’s voting coincidences at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with China, India, Russia, and the United States for the period 2001–2017 to draw inferences about country’s political proximity and policy preferences on global issues. Although Bangladesh’s voting coincidence shifted from China toward India since 2013, country’s “opposite” votes with India remained 3 times higher compared with that of China, suggesting that the post-2013 change in voting coincidence is more about the types and content of the resolutions and not fundamental. Bangladesh maintained a principled position on disarmament, conventional arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, and prohibition of chemical weapons resolutions, which are greatly at odds with India and China. Such voting coherency suggests that the small developing countries can maintain a higher level of voting consistency on issues that are of great interest to them. However, Bangladesh’s voting inconstancy in the country-specific human rights resolutions reflects a selective adherence to the policy of non-interference, particularly with respect to neighbors. Bangladesh’s voting records on the human rights situation in Myanmar, reveals that it joined the majority member states condemning Myanmar only when the resolutions started mentioning Bangladesh as an affected country. Although the voting coincidence alone may not capture the whole dynamics of a state’s leanings, this article has revealed that systematic research of UNGA voting records has the capacity to add to the knowledge of political proximity and policy preferences of states in terms of the way they weigh their choices and chart their path through idealism and opportunism.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Khan

<p>Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s historic speech at the 29th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was the first ‘strategic communication’ by the father of the nation at the Assembly following Bangladesh’s admission to the United Nations. Apart from the well-known and much-to-be-proud of fact that the speech was delivered in Bangla, the content of this speech stands out as a key document, begging to be studied from an international relations perspective and the enduring ideals it enunciates and has been in practice by Bangladesh. This paper seeks to answer: to what extent has Bangladesh remain seized supporting the enduring ideals on key global issues enunciated by Bangabandhu in his speech at the United Nations? Accordingly, the paper carries out a (i) content analysis to identify the enduring ideals (ii) comparison of Bangladesh’s positions on the 1,284 UNGA resolutions that were put to vote between 2001-2017 to assess country’s support to those ideals. The paper finds that, except for the politically sensitive country-specific human rights resolutions, Bangladesh has consistently remained seized in supporting Bangabandhu’s ideals in all thematic categories (between 92-100% ‘yes’ votes). It demonstrates that Bangabandhu’s emphasis on the primacy of the United Nations to build a peaceful and just world, non-alignment, peaceful co-existence, economic emancipation and global solidarity has become much more relevant in the Covid-19 era and the current geopolitical context of South Asia. The paper opens new avenues to use a novel methodology to conduct evidence-based research on the policy ideals and its practices. </p>


1982 ◽  
Vol 38 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 334-343
Author(s):  
Anirudha Gupta

In South Africa's apartheid the United Nations has met with its own antithesis. For, apartheid repudiates almost universally everything that the United Nations stands for. It is not merely a “form of racial discrimination,”1 it is also a system that permanently denies, “through laws, administrative decrees and practices any…role for the 19 million Blacks (in South Africa) and confers on the 4.5 million Whites a monopoly of economic, political and social power,”2 Such a system, as stated by the International Court of Justice on the Namibian issue, “is a violation of a norm, or rule, or standard of the international community.”3 And, as the apartheid regime has over the years grown more aggressive both in its domestic and external policies, the world community has come to increasingly recognize the system to be a crime against humanity which “constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security.”4 The point is that despite its abhorrent “crimes,” South Africa continues to be a member of the. United Nations and, by logic therefore, also a member of the world community. This raises an interesting question: Should the United Nations in order to be consistent to its own Charter and declarations expel South Africa and technically resolve its anti-thesis in the system of apartheid? But would this be a real solution? Whether South Africa remains a member of the United Nations or not, the oppressed population under apartheid would still constitute apart of humanity. Hence, in order to liberate this “part” the world community must act in unison to uproot apartheid from the very face of the earth. This is enjoined as much by the Declaration on all Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1965 to the effect that: “any doctrine of differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination in theory or in practice anywhere.” If this declaration has to be given a practical effect, the United Nations must deny South Africa under apartheid all attributes of an independent sovereign state. For human rights, as enshrined by the two covenants of 1948, are indivisible; hence it would depend on lawyers and jurists to provide for such rules in international law as would forfeit the right of a state to exist until it restores social, economic and political rights of its citizens in consonance with the principal ethics of the international community. To combat apartheid, we must isolate its political reality from its territorial base. In other words, the United Nations must declare that South Africa, as a territory, ceases to exist so long as apartheid has not been completely eliminated! As we shall see, this is a distinction which has not been given proper attention in the numerous debates and deliberations of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the means to combat apartheid.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232199756
Author(s):  
Julia Gray ◽  
Alex Baturo

When political principals send agents to international organizations, those agents are often assumed to speak in a single voice. Yet, various types of country representatives appear on the international stage, including permanent representatives as well as more overtly “political” government officials. We argue that permanent delegates at the United Nations face career incentives that align them with the bureaucracy, setting them apart from political delegates. To that end, they tend to speak more homogeneously than do other types of speakers, while also using relatively more technical, diplomatic rhetoric. In addition, career incentives will make them more reluctant to criticize the United Nations. In other words, permanent representatives speak more like bureaucratic agents than like political principals. We apply text analytics to study differences across agents’ rhetoric at the United Nations General Assembly. We demonstrate marked distinctions between the speech of different types of agents, contradictory to conventional assumptions, with implications for our understandings of the interplay between public administration and agency at international organizations. Points for practitioners Delegations to international organizations do not “speak with one voice.” This article illustrates that permanent representatives to the United Nations display more characteristics of bureaucratic culture than do other delegates from the same country. For practitioners, it is important to realize that the manner in which certain classes of international actors “conduct business” can differ markedly. These differences in tone—even among delegates from the same principal—can impact the process of negotiation and debate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document