Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. Canada needs 128 votes from the general assembly to earn a two-year term on the UN Security Council.

By Christopher Mason
GV Correspondent

OTTAWA-- Will Canada's shift in foreign aid policy diminish its international clout?

The decision to prioritize South America over many parts of Africa in its allocation of development assistance may risk Canada's chances of winning a two-year term on the United Nations security council, some diplomatic experts say.

That possibility illustrates the intense back room lobbying fundamental to any country's hope of winning a seat on the powerful 15-seat UN council. As fellow UN members weigh the merits of Canada's candidacy, they will be paying a great deal of attention to recent decisions by Canada, from its foreign aid policy, to its military involvement, Middle East policies and trade relationships among other issues.

The question is, do Canada's recent policy decisions help or hurt its chances of winning a 2010-2011 security council seat for the first time since 1999-2000?

"We already had Latin America locked up, but the same can't be said of Africa," said Paul Heinbecker, Canada's ambassador to the United Nations from 2000-2003, in weighing the effects of Canada's decision to refocus aid towards South America while cutting the number of prioritized aid recipients in Africa from 14 to seven.

He suggests the policy shift can only hurt Canada, since the re-prioritized aid will be headed to countries who could already be counted on for support in Canada's bid for one of the 10 rotating temporary seats that join the five permanent members-- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain-- on the security council.

There has been some speculation as to whether that change in foreign aid would compel the 53 members of the African Union to oppose Canada's bid. In a recent article, Canwest News Service's United Nations correspondent Steven Edwards wrote that some also wonder whether the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference would likewise oppose Canada's bid over its pro-Israel stance.

Unified opposition from those two groups would scuttle Canada's bid, which needs the support of 128 of 192 UN members.

But in assessing what he is hearing at the UN, Edwards said while in Ottawa recently that "there has been no groundswell that 'That's going to cost you'. Canada has already begun to get promised support from African countries such as, reportedly, Uganda."

Both Heinbecker and Edwards were in Ottawa to speak at a panel discussion on Canada's hopes for a seat on the UN Security Council for the 2010-2011 term, organized by the United Nationals Association in Canada.

All members of the panel agreed that Canada faces tough opposition in its bid. It is vying for one of two available seats against Germany and Portugal. Germany is seen as a favourite, leaving Canada and Portugal as likely opponents for the second seat.

But the panel, consisting of three former ambassadors and Edwards, were united in saying Canada's chances are strong, despite any concerns over what impact policy shifts will have on the voting outcome.

What they agreed Canada must do is convince UN members that any qualms with Canadian policy are overshadowed by the need to diversify the security council. If both Germany and Portugal win, they will join permanent members Britain and France, as well as Austria and Turkey whose mandates run until the end of 2010, to form a bloc of European Union members or aspiring members that would account for more than a third of the security council.

"I am reminded of the race for the 1989 seat, when our two opponents were Greece and Finland," said Yves Fortier, Canada's ambassador to the United Nations between 1988 and 1991. "We presented the too-many-Europeans argument and it was very successful."

Fortier also suggested that other countries, especially those with significant clout like the United States, Britain and France, recognize Canada's unique blend of influence and diplomacy where countries hesitant to lend an ear to the major powers will listen to a middle power such as Canada.

"I believe that despite whatever blemishes we may have on our CV, we should be there," Fortier said, stressing that Canada's bid should be among Prime Minister Stephen Harper's top priorities. "Being on the council is the difference between being a backbencher and being in cabinet."

The Conservative government has reason to keep the campaign front and centre. Canada has held a non-permanent seat on the security council at least once every decade since the UN was formed. Losing the current bid would break that streak, and undermine Harper's hopes of building Canada's international clout.

"You can imagine the editorial comment that would flow if there is a rejection [of Canada's bid for a seat on the security council]," said Allan Gotlieb, Canada's ambassador to Washington, D.C. from 1981-1989.

What the government has reportedly tried to do is emphasize that Canada's overall foreign aid budget has doubled since 2003-2004, distracting from any criticism that 80 percent of that aid is headed to Latin America, the Caribbean and countries like the Ukraine, rather than countries like Malawi and Uganda.

The shift is part of an effort to align policies along Canada's commercial interests-- essentially linking foreign policy, trade and aid.

It is a controversial move, and the risks of a diplomatic backlash over politicizing aid may outweigh whatever commercial benefits come from linking aid to trade.

Although many experienced diplomats feel UN members will not vote as a bloc over any single issue, they say Canada has to be more aware of the impact of its policy decisions on arguably its most important diplomatic undertaking in a decade.

"You can't take the view that you can change policies and nothing will change," Heinbecker said. "Permanent members tend to have a permanent memory of what they don't like about you."