Diplomacy in a COVID World: Ambassador Bob Rae

October 27, 2020

The Empire Club of Canada Presents

Diplomacy in a COVID World: Ambassador Bob Rae

Chairman: Antoinette Tummillo, President, Board of Directors, Empire Club of Canada

Moderator
Dr. Bessma Momani, Assistant Vice-President, International Relations, Professor of Political Science, University of Waterloo

Distinguished Guest Speakers
The Honourable Bob Rae, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations, New York
Izzie Abrams, Vice President, Corporate Development & Government Relations, Waste Connections

Introduction
It is a great honour for me to be here at the Empire Club of Canada today, which is arguably the most famous and historically relevant speaker’s podium to have ever existed in Canada. It has offered its podium to such international luminaries as Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Audrey Hepburn, the Dalai Lama, Indira Gandhi, and closer to home, from Pierre Trudeau to Justin Trudeau; literally generations of our great nation's leaders, alongside with those of the world's top international diplomats, heads of state, and business and thought leaders.

It is a real honour and distinct privilege to be invited to speak to the Empire Club of Canada, which has been welcoming international diplomats, leaders in business, and in science, and in politics. When they stand at that podium, they speak not only to the entire country, but they can speak to the entire world.

Welcome Address by Antoinette Tummillo, President, Board of Directors, Empire Club of Canada
Good afternoon, fellow directors, past presidents, members, and guests. Welcome to the 117th season of the Empire Club of Canada. My name is Antoinette Tummillo. I am the president of the Empire Club of Canada, and your host for today's virtual event, "Diplomacy in a COVID World," featuring Ambassador Bob Rae and Dr. Bessma Momani. I now call this meeting to order.

Before we begin today, I have a few logistic items to let you know of. If you're finding your internet feed is slow, please see below and click the "Switch Streams" button. There's also a "Request for Help" button available to you if you are experiencing technical difficulties.

I want to take a moment to recognize our sponsors who generously support the Empire Club and make these events possible. Thank you to our Event Sponsor today, Waste Connections of Canada, who's also one of our Season Sponsors, and the Canadian Bankers Association, who are one of our seasoned sponsors as well. I want to thank our event sponsor, VVC Communications, and LiveMeeting.ca, Canada's online event space for webcasting today's event.

Now, for today's topic. Seventy-five years ago, the leaders of the victorious powers in the Second World War created the United Nations to save humanity from the scourge of war. Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King was there to make a mark. Ten years later, a diplomatic breakthrough made the UN the universal organization we so badly need today. Canada's Paul Martin Senior brokered this historic deal. In 1956 amidst a Middle East war, UN peacekeeping began, and its Blue Helmets are now preventing accidental wars from erupting around the world. UN peacekeeping was invented by Canada's Foreign Minister Lester Pearson, earning Canada its first Nobel Peace Prize.

In the 1990's, the UN returned to summit diplomacy, first for children in 1990, and then to protect the planet's precious climate and biodiversity in 1992. Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney played a key role in this advance. Today, these challenges of preventing conflict in the Middle East, protecting the world's children, and controlling climate change, are even more compelling amidst the deadly COVID-19 pandemic, and the unprecedented economic devastation we face. Canadians need our universal UN, and the UN needs Canada more than ever before.

So, it's good to know that Canada is back at the UN in the person of Bob Rae, and that Bob Rae is back at the Empire Club to tell us how Canada is helping there in our COVID-transformed world. We have long known Bob Rae for his impressive contribution to Canada's political life, and his wife, Arlene Pearly Rae, at his side at all times, including today. Here in Ontario, he was the first and only NDP premier, serving from 1990 to 1995. Then, on the national stage, he was interim leader of the Liberal Party from 2011 to 2013, keeping the party alive at a crucial time and helping pave the way for Justin Trudeau's majority government in 2015. He also did important charity work, including a stellar job as chair of the Toronto Symphony Organization. Now, we are proud to see him contribute as a global statesperson, implementing the UN's responsibility to protect people's rights and lives in Myanmar and in China too. And we know there is much more he will do. So, that's why we are so eager to hear from him directly about what he and Canada have been doing at the UN, since he was appointed ambassador in July, and how he, Canada, and the UN, have been using the new diplomacy brought by COVID to build a better world. Ambassador Rae, the podium is yours.

The Honourable Bob Rae, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations, New York
Well, thank you very much, Antoinette. It's a great pleasure, once again, to join you at the Empire Club. I think I gave my first speech at the Empire Club in the late '70s, early 80s. And I've been back a few times since then. So, it's always good to speak—albeit remotely. I am in my home office today, speaking to you directly from New York City. I have been here for about seven weeks. And it is, indeed, the time of COVID. It's a strange moment. Just yesterday, we got word from the President of the General Assembly that a mission—not ours—has been affected by COVID, and therefore, the in-person meetings that were scheduled today have been closed. And we are living with this uncertainty like everyone else, working at a distance. In New York, everyone wears a mask. It's not an issue, it's not a question, because of the trauma of the last few months in New York. The UN itself is working really hard in the field. And it's always important to remember that the key thing about the United Nations is that what you see in New York City, the things that catch the headlines, are really just the tip of the iceberg of the United Nations organization and system itself. And the system is working really hard, in a number of—you know, all across the world, to try to address the humanitarian, economic, social, and political consequences of the times in which we are living.

So, this is really where I want to spend a few minutes talking with you. And I'm delighted that Dr. Momani is here, and she's going to be asking me some further questions, and probing. And I promise not to walk away from the microphone at any time. I'll be happy to answer any questions. It's a moment, really, when it's important for us to reflect, as Antoinette did in her introduction, a little bit on the UN as it's emerged over the years, the decades, the criticisms that often are levelled at the United Nations, and how things are actually working in this particular moment.

We made a critical decision in 1945. And it was really based on the Atlantic Charter in 1941-42, when Roosevelt and Churchill famously came together. And I think they realized that it was not enough to simply oppose aggression. To say that you were against Hitler was not going to do the trick. And in order to create a solid alliance, it had to be based on some affirmative goals, which are set out in the Atlantic Charter, which talk about the importance of self-determination and the rule of law, and a number of other things that we often forget. On that was built, in 1945, the San Francisco Declaration, the Charter itself. I have my copy of the Charter, which was my dad's copy. As, you know, he was Ambassador of the UN. He worked with Mr. Martin in 1955, he was his assistant. He was assistant to Mr. Pearson when he was President of the General Assembly. And my dad later became Ambassador in the '70s. So, for me, this is an emotional appointment that I have accepted with great alacrity, when it was offered by Mr. Trudeau.

The Charter is not perfect. And the main problem with the Charter is the structure of the Security Council that was created, because the five countries with permanent members having a veto has really meant that at different moments and times in history, the Security Council itself has had a very hard time agreeing on what was the path forward and how to get things done. And there are many people who point the finger at that, the paralysis in that institution, as being a demonstration that the UN is just a talking shot.

Well, from my experience, the UN is a place where people talk. And now, of course, we have talking virtually—not virtuously but virtually—and that is not always the best way to have a conversation. Dr. Momani and I are going to do our best to have a conversation in a few minutes. But we need to understand that the tendency to speechification is exaggerated by COVID. And that's something we have to find ways of overcoming, which we do by, you know, WhatsApp, Zoom calls, every, every means of communication that are possible and a small growth in in-person discussions, which we're starting to see. But again, it's challenging because of the pandemic.

I like to say that COVID has been a great revealer. Not a leveller. I don't think it's a leveller at all, because it affects different people in different countries and different regions differently. But it is certainly a revealer. And I think it's emphasizing, today, the very dangerous friction and gaps that we're seeing, and the lack of consensus and agreement on what is the best way to move forward, how do we move forward. And this is heightened by COVID, because of the way in which the pandemic has affected healthcare, obviously, killed a lot of people, in which it's still making a lot of people sick, and we're seeing the second and third wave coming through, and the impact that that is having on, universally, on everyone's healthcare. But again, how you do and how you come out of the health situation, it depends a lot on your circumstances, and a lot on the circumstances of your country's healthcare system, and your country's economy and social system.

But even as significant as the health impacts of COVID are, the economic and social impacts are even more significant, I feel. And in the longer term, I think you're going to have a very significant lasting impact. A couple of interesting statistics that you might not have been aware of: in the last eight months, the wealthier countries in the world, the OECD countries, have spent somewhere between 12 and 15 trillion dollars on providing stimulus protection insurance intervention to their own economies. And we've seen this in Canada, we've seen it in Europe, in the United States where, you know, countries that have had the means, and have the room, have the fiscal capacity—and we can debate that all you like, but the reality is, the fiscal capacity in the industrialized world is much greater than it is in the developing world. And what we're beginning to see is the gap between the rich and the poor is getting greater not smaller, and that's having a very significant impact on the life and work of the United Nations and the globe, and I think this is going to be a major preoccupation.

So, Canada is the chair of a group called Friends of Financing Development (or FFD for short). We're the co-chairs with Jamaica, and we're joined with the Secretary-General in working out how are we going to create plans to move us beyond where we are today. And that's proving to be a very significant part of my job, of my time, has been helping to shepherd that process at the UN. The Prime Ministers and the Secretary-General are the chairs, the co-chairs of this process, but they've delegated to us in New York the actual work to get things done. We've now spent the summer working and have produced some options for countries to consider. It's being considered at the IMF, at the World Bank, in the regional development banks. There will continue to be very intense discussions about this growing gap between the rich and poor.

Because what COVID has done, it's created a severe humanitarian crisis in a number of countries, food shortages—delighted to see the World Food Program got the recognition it's so richly deserved for the outstanding work that it does to relieve hunger. But we're seeing how COVID has magnified this gap, and how it's magnified the problems of countries that were already experiencing great difficulty. And of course, that magnification is not only affecting the humanitarian condition, the condition of the people, the fact that they have much less work, that they have food insecurity, they are, we're looking at the possibility, the prospect of famine in several different countries in the world. But we're also looking at increased conflict, more forced displacement, more migration, more challenges with refugees, and with internally displaced people. And we're looking at economies and countries that are not able to respond. They don't have the means, the financial means, to do what we have been able to do in Canada. They don't have the means to be able to intervene. There is no safety net. There is no floor that people can say, "Now I know where I stand, and I've got some help from government at a moment of difficulty." That's not there. The only place that comes from is actually from the UN. In many countries, the UN functions as a kind of auxiliary deliverer of services and the way of protecting people. And it's an extraordinary role, which the UN is now being asked to play in a number of countries. We're going to see more financial crises. We're going to see more financial difficulty. And that's a very important part of the focus of what the UN is all about these days, and how we have to look and see what can be done.

The second issue, of course, is peace and conflict. As Antoinette pointed out, that's the origin of the idea of the UN: how do we stop wars from happening? The record there is not great. And we have to recognize that it's been difficult to resolve conflict, it's been difficult to reduce conflict, and to get to a better point. The breakout of the fighting between the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis, which we've seen over the last few weeks and has killed several thousand people, and creating great challenges and problems for civilians, and for people who've been, who are being displaced by the conflict. It's difficult when countries say "no, actually, we want to keep fighting." It's very difficult to make it stop. And countries are coming to bear to try to do that. And of course, we've seen less consensus among the major countries as to how that should be done. So, you have great power rivalry, the way, you know—a little different than the Cold War, but still, still very, very significant. And I think this question of peacebuilding—which again, Canada this year happens to co-chair the Peacebuilding Commission—peacebuilding, and conflict resolution, and peacekeeping, are going to become increasingly important. Not less important but more important.

And then you've got the issue of climate change. Which again, Antoinette referred to in the famous phrase, "There is no planet B, there is just this planet." And we have had to make the very difficult discovery in our generation really, really coming home to us that the planet has limits, and that everything we do affects the health of the planet. Whether it's how we treat the waters of the world, how we treat the air, how we treat the land. Every one of the things that we do in order to make wealth, create, create wealth in the economies that we have, can have the impact of polluting the planet. And the planet is under stress. We're seeing a lack of, a reduction in biodiversity, we're seeing a mass extinction, as David Attenborough calls it, we're seeing serious pollution of the oceans, and growth of plastics and other issues, we're seeing of significant challenges to air quality in a number of countries, as a result of how people are making things, and how they're not passing strict regulations in terms of controlling emissions. And most significantly—I think most people are agreed now—most significantly, is the increase in emissions, of global emissions, linked to fossil fuels, which are threatening the life of the planet itself, because they're having the impact of increasing, increasing the heat of the planet, as we look at the effect of global warming and of climate change.

This is a huge issue. It requires a global response. There is no national answer to climate change. There is no national answer to global pollution. There has to be a global answer to it. But how to do that? How to enforce treaties and how to get countries to take it seriously is, is a growing challenge. I think if we talked about it, we've talked about it for 25 years. Rio was it was, was that long ago. But we have not been able to—we've seen some progress. we've seen some reductions in pollution. But we've not seen it on a global scale. And we've not seen it at a level that is actually going to have the impact that it needs to have.

Finally, the issue of UN reform, of how the UN itself functions in the face of the financial crises and other crises that are at work, and how we deal with the credibility issues around the United Nations—which Canadians are certainly asking me about, and others are saying well. How does this happen? What, what does ,how does that happen what about this? What about that? I think these are all issues that we need to deal with, those of us who believe in the international institutions, and their importance.

So, it's a busy time for a Canadian ambassador at the UN. We, despite the fact that we didn't make it to the Security Council, a lot of people are still knocking on our door asking for our leadership, asking for our participation, asking us to engage. And that's exactly what the Prime Minister has asked me to do. That's what we're doing here, and we do it here in New York. We also do it in Geneva. We do it in a number of cities where we have international organizations: Nairobi, Vienna, you name it, the UN is there, Canada is there, and working multilaterally, and doing what we can to be effective. I must say it's a tremendous honour to be doing this job. I'm delighted to be doing it at this point. Because it is a critical moment, it is a moment that's testing us, and it's never boring, and it's always engaging. And it's a great pleasure to be back at the Empire Club, and I look forward very much to our chat, my chat with Dr. Momani, and to be able to answer your questions. Thank you so much for joining us today in this new circumstance. It's great to be with you. Thank you, merci beaucoup. Thank you so much.

Antoinette Tummillo
Thank you, Ambassador. I would like to now introduce our moderator, Dr. Besma Momani, Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo and Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance and Innovation. She's also a Non-Resident Fellow at the IR Gulf States Institute in Washington DC. Besma currently sits on the board of the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation and the University of Waterloo's Cyber Security and Privacy Institute. She's an advisor to the National Security Transparency Advisory Group at Public Safety Canada, and she also spearheaded the Pluralism Project with Trudeau mentor, Jillian Stark.

Now, before I turn it over to Dr. Momani, I just want to remind everyone on the call that this is an interactive event. You'll have an opportunity to ask questions of the Ambassador, so take advantage of the question box to the right of your screen and let us know what's on your mind. Dr. Momani, over to you.

Dr. Bessma Momani, Assistant Vice-President, International Relations, Professor of Political Science, University of Waterloo
Thank you, Antoinette, and thank you very much, Ambassador Rae. Really enjoyed your opening statements. I must say, you've covered a lot of the great questions that I had for you. But I think we still got a lot to discuss, nevertheless. So, let's get into it. I'm going to start with a very thorny topic, because I think one of the things that often attracts a lot of attention, at least media attention, from the UN in particular, is what is a list of countries that the UN often points as being ones that are, let's say, committing gross human rights violations. This is actually at the request of the Security Council since 2001, the UN has been compiling this list of countries. It started off by looking at recruiting of child soldiers and is, of course, brought into committing acts of violence, like attacking schools and hospitals. It's called the List of Shame. And there's a lot of accusations, unfortunately, that there are powerful countries that have either key allies, or themselves, who really pressure the UN to be removed off this list. And I'm really interested, because I think it's a prime example of what many fear, which is that the UN is just not doing enough to speak truth to power. So, what do you say to that? I mean, how can the UN do that? How can the UN use its really important function to be able to hold those very powerful actors to account?

The Hon. Bob Rae
Well, I would, I would first of all preface my comments, Dr. Momani, by just saying, look, I think the UN is, is an imperfect institution, like all of our institutions. We could equally well ask in Canada, you know, how do we catch all the criminals? Do we charge all the people who we think are, are guilty of something? Do they all get convicted? And we go down the list institutionally, look at our own situation at home, and recognize that it is not a perfect—our justice system is not perfect, and our institutions are not perfect. And that's certainly true here at the UN. And I can, I can say that sometimes, I, you know, there are countries that are not on a list that we feel, well, wait a minute, how, how would they not be on a list when we know that certain things have happened, certain attacks have taken place?

All I can tell you is that I think we've made enormous progress in, generally—and, and it, and the UN system is not doesn't work in a vacuum. We now have a number of very powerful NGOs—and I say powerful in a good sense. They're well financed, they, they are, are working hard in a number of areas, and they develop a lot of credibility by virtue of, you know, how much they are fact-based and how strong their research is. And I can tell you in New York, we talk and meet with them all the time, and we engage with them all the time. And there's very much a debate, you know, when these lists come out, why wasn't so-and-so on the list, or what about this attack? And I can also tell you that that has an impact on the secretariat.

Now, you know, do we agree always with the decisions that are made in those calculations? No. But the fact is the list is there, and the fact is it has to be done. And the fact is it's, it's increasingly, now, a matter of, of public debate, which I think is an entirely good thing. The transparency always makes things better.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Yeah, absolutely, I couldn't agree more with you. Let me ask you, I mean, two weeks ago, you had a very interesting speech—or let's say comment, response, at the UN General Assembly Third Committee. And this was really in response to the Chinese ambassador, who started talking about Canada. And you raised the case of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, which was really important. Because I think for many, they had seen tough talk for the first time. You've pointed it out that it was unjust, that it was arbitrary. And a few days later, we saw, in fact, the very first virtual consular visit for The Two Michaels. And it spawned a lot of chat online that, you know, we need more tough talk on, on countries like China. Especially when we look at what's happening with the Uighurs, Hong Kong political activists, Taiwan. So, you know, I'd love for you to talk about, sort of, these, let's say, thorny, you know, diplomatic situations. And, you know, you have this great illustrious career, both in provincial and federal politics, you know. What's your personal approach or style to dealing with these kinds of thorny bilateral relationships?

The Hon. Bob Rae
Well, I mean, I think you've got to be—I mean, I also grew up in a diplomatic household. So I, I know that my father would have probably said, "careful there, you know, like wait a minute, think carefully." And I did think fairly carefully. Although it was interesting. That exchange—there were two exchanges that took place after my prepared remarks. My prepared remarks were, I mean, approved by Ottawa, they went through a process, a filter, and I read them out. And, you know, they were what they were, on the human rights situation in a number of countries. I was opening up the debate on the Report of the Third Committee on our approach to all the discussions in what's called the Third Committee, which human rights and social issues are, are dealt with. And mentioned the issue of, of, of China more broadly, with respect to human rights. Did not actually mention the issue of The Two Michaels by name. It was a Chinese ambassador who, in his reply—and the Syrian ambassador, the first reply took great exception to what we said about Syria—and then the Chinese representative took great exception to what we said about China. It's all a bit, you know, staged, if you like, in terms of what people are saying. And when that happened, I was sitting there. And one of the good things about, for me—although it's dangerous, sometimes, you're alone, because we're all socially distanced, we're spaced in the committee. So, the UN General Assembly, which is this huge hall as, you know, we could only have one, one person there. And in that case, it was me. So, you have a right of reply ,there's a reply to what you've said, and then you have a right to, to reply, then they can reply, and you can reply.

So, there's a chance for an exchange. It's sort of like question period. So, anybody who's seen me in question period will know that I, you know, I, I don't mind it. I like the questions and I like the answers. And, and it's a chance to, to tell the truth and to say, well wait a minute—not to be, not to be argumentative for the sake of argument, but to say let me try to clarify what you're saying. Because what the Chinese and Syrians were saying was, you can't talk to us about human rights because it's, that's our own business. This is, you know, we have borders, and we're nationally sovereign, and, you know, don't—mind your own business. And the second thing they said is, "oh by the way you have a terrible human rights record, look at the way you treat Indigenous people in your own country." And so, what I tried to do in my exchange with them was to say, well let's, let's, let's analyze that argument, let's go through it. First of all, human rights are in fact—the dignity of the person is a universal value which has been, which is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Everybody's signed up for it. We have a Genocide Convention; we have a Convention Against Torture. We have things that we've decided this goes beyond the pale. And we're not going to allow national sovereignty to prevent us from talking about these kinds of abuses.

And the second thing I said was, look, what we do is not perfect. Our record is subject to criticism. Go ahead criticize us, we'll respond. But, but don't say that just because you've got a problem in your own country doesn't mean you can't comment on others. If we did that, then there would never be a dialogue, there'd never be any, any chance to respond. Then the Chinese ambassador got back into it again, the representative, and he said, "oh, yeah, but what about the way you treat Madam Mong? He didn't mention Kovrig and Spavor." And, and I said, "Madam Mong? Wait a minute. Compare our application of the rule of law to yours. There's no question that the, the treatment of, of Kovrig and Spavor has, The Two Michaels, is an example of arbitrary detention. And there's no justification for arbitrary detention in this circumstance." So, I don't I don't think there's anything wrong—in fact I think it's a good idea if we describe and, and say this is what's happening.

We also have to negotiate. We also have to—I don't mean on this particular the situation in any way, shape, or form—but I'm just saying we also have to be, there's room for quiet diplomacy, there's room for negotiation, there's room for all kinds of discussion, there's room for discretion. All those things are important values, not just in diplomacy, but even in politics. But there's also room for open discussion and, and not simply the ritual reading out of, you know, the speeches. I mean, you can listen to the speeches, here, until you until you go blurry, and you really don't get very much further, in terms of what the actual description of the situation is. So, yes, from time to time, I think it's appropriate for us to try to describe things as we think they actually are. And if others have another view, let them express it.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Speaking of the mechanics of diplomacy. I mean, obviously, this is an abnormal world we're living in. You know, Zoom diplomacy, let's call it, or the fact that you're socially distancing in this wonderful hall that I also had a chance to, you know, see. You know, the, the beauty of it is actually seeing the room full, right, of all these great delegates representing their countries. So, can we talk about the mechanics of diplomacy in this very odd time, when we're, we're looking at Zoom diplomacy, we're looking at social distances? And I'm sure some of the, the sort of hallway chatter that could have taken place under normal times is not happening. I mean, how—just reflect on that, because we would love to get your impressions on it.

The Hon. Bob Rae
Well, I mean, I have to say, for me, as a, as a former politician—and, you know, I, I or maybe a recovering politician would be a better a better description—I miss people. I miss the contact. I miss the, the jokes and the exchanges and the, you know, the subtleties of conversation. And, and also being able to probe, as the longtime negotiator in my, my labour law work years ago and, and everything I've done since. There's so many ways in which we communicate non-verbally. We communicate in a whole variety of ways. And it's really hard to do that on, on Zoom. It's really hard to, to get at that. And we miss a lot.

And so, yeah, it's a strange time. It, it means that there's less there's, there's less room for, for real, real dialogue. And, and there's much more of this kind of ships passing in the night, make your statement, get off, you know—then you can just turn off your camera, and say goodbye and, and, and you're done. And it, it, it makes for more, more speechifying, which is not good. But life still goes on. People still use the phone, and we, we, we do, we do have, we are having a few more meetings in person, although distanced, dinners are—there's no, you know. There's a whole, in the, in the fall season in New York with the UN—and I've, I've been here a couple of times for it—you know, you have a lot of gatherings, and meetings, and, and chit chat, and all kinds of things going on. I mean, that's, that's not happening, that just isn't, that isn't taking place. We, we had what's called a high-level week which was actually low-level week, because there was, there was, people were, you know, sending in their videos, and we people were dutifully, you know, noting what was said in the video. But it wasn't a real conversation.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Yeah no kidding. I think we're all feeling that nowadays. Work from home has really disrupted so much of our, of our comforts, if you will. Let me ask you about the Security Council bid, as you pointed out we had lost our, our bid to sit on the Security Council. And yet there were a lot of critics, at the time, in Canada, that even suggested, you know, "look, the UN is not worth our time, it's not worth our political effort, it hasn't been able to stop gross human rights violations at the hands of many governments across the world, it feels like, you know, light is right is taken over." What do you say to those, those naysayers—I'm playing a bit of a devil's advocate, here, because I have a firm belief in the, the value of the UN—but, you know, why should Canadians still have faith in organizations like the UN?

The Hon. Bob Rae
Well there's two things I would say the one is I mean, I, I'm borrowing, here, from a famous American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who said that, you know, blaming the UN for all the failings of the world is sort of like blaming Madison Square Garden for every time the Knicks lose a basketball game. I mean, the UN is the structure where people come. It's, it's the organization itself, in the vast majority of what it does. Where, where does Canada's money go? It goes to development, it goes to the UNI Commission for Refugees, it goes to it goes to peacekeeping, it goes to, to peace building, it goes—it doesn't go to, to the Security Council. It goes to the, the real lifeblood of, the work of the, of the UN and, and all of its agencies. So, the idea that you, you wouldn't contribute to that or you wouldn't be part of that, to me, is just incomprehensible. I mean, we, we do benefit enormously as a country from increasing the security of the world, and from increasing the well-being of the world. And the UN has made its important contributions to that, to that well-being over the last 75 years.

Where I think the frustration grows is, is with aspects of—it's not so much the UN, as aspects of modern political life, where a dialogue and conversation is frequently very difficult, and where decision making is, is not as, as effective as it needs to be. And, and certainly, when you look at, you know, you look at a constitution—the Charter is the constitution—you say, well, we know what they were thinking in 1945. But that really doesn't help us very much in, in where we are today. And so, as in other contexts—I won't try to be too controversial but, you know, you have originalists of all kinds of constitutions. There are people who read the Charter and say, well, "the Charter says this," and then other people say, "well the c9 also says that." And you can pretty well find a lot of things that the Charter has to say. But institutionally, the veto structure, and the limited small, the small number of participants in the security council, and the veto structure, make it less dynamic and functional than, than it needs, then that institution needs to be, because that's effectively the executive of the of the UN. But I mean, I'd always say to the naysayers, look, if we if we didn't have the United Nations we just have to invent it all over again, because you having a global organization is, is necessary in, in today's world.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Yeah, absolutely. Let me ask you, I mean, you know, public goods. And it feels like, you know, managing, detecting, responding, and managing COVID-19, it's the perfect public good, in many ways. And multilateral organizations like the UN are really created to thrive where there is a public good, because you think it's such an easy consensus. So, let me ask you, where do you think the UN on the issue of managing this pandemic has really been able to make a difference?

The Hon. Bob Rae
Well, I mean, the, the role of the WHO is, is now being reviewed by, by Helen Clark, and by her committee, which I'm hoping it's going to do good work; we are certainly very supportive of, of that, of that process. I think it's too early to give a report card, kind of thing on, you know, what could have been done sooner—and that's, the same applies to us, right? It's also the nation states. The thing we need to remember is that the institutions, in many cases are, are only as strong as the nation-states want to make them. So, let's take something as simple as information-sharing. The information that is shared is information that is provided by national institutions. If their information is not accurate, then the information of the WHO is, is not going to be accurate. And that's, I think, something that I hope the review looks at says, well, what more could we do to get independent information? Now in today's world, we have a lot more ways of communicating, and gathering information and data. And, and we see that happening all the time, and we see very open debates that are taking place in different places about, well, you know, you say this, we say that, what works ,what doesn't work. I, I think we can we have a lot to learn from the pandemic. And I'm a big believer in learning from what's happened, and, and doing reviews, and assessing how we've done. I think it's very important for the world to do that, for the UN to do that.

I think in, in defence of the UN, in terms of how it's responded, I would say we, we, we have to remember—as I said this, a little bit, in my speech—for a lot of countries, particularly in healthcare, the UN is really critical. It's a critical institution in providing information to those governments, to a great many governments, and in really encouraging the development of public policy to respond to the pandemic in effective ways. And then delivering services, providing, you know, vaccine programs and, and remedial help, and helping to really build up the strength of the healthcare systems to, to be able to respond to the impact of the pandemic. And then there's the economic and social impacts, which I've talked about. Which, again, it's not what, what's the UN going to do? It's, it's what are we going to do? What's Canada going to do to contribute to the global effort? What—how much of the UN doesn't have any money? And, and I think many people don't even understand this, as well: the UN as an organization, and all of the agencies of the UN, cannot borrow money; they don't borrow money. And so, if we don't give them the money, they don't have it. It's that simple. And that's something that people need to really understand. That, you know, the, the global financial institutions, like the World Bank and others, they have some capacity to finance what they do, to borrow, and sell bonds, and so on. But the, the, that's not true for most of the, for the UN agencies, and it's not true for the secretariat. It's not true for peacekeeping. If we don't fund peacekeeping, it doesn't happen.

And one of the things that I, I see happening now is that inside the UN, they're having to rob Peter to pay Paul. They say, well we can't pay this, so we, we got to move the money over here; we'll save this money here, we'll pay—which is, you know, which is okay to a point, and then you realize that actually what's happening is that services are not being provided. So, we—and it's, inevitably, it's the worst off who are, who are impacted by, by what goes on.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Well, let me point to, I mean, I think that, you know, climate change and climate change action has become such an important issue of our time. And, and clearly, there's a scientific consensus at this point—I don't think it's disputable, in terms of what we see is obviously damaging to our environment from fossil fuels to, you know, releasing carbon dioxide other greenhouse gases. But is it difficult at this moment in time when we, you know, we are in a global economy that is sputtering along, some might even argue on the verge of stagnation? You know, is it more difficult at this time for the UN to push this agenda forward? Is it hard to get attention when there's just seems to be, like, there's so many pressing economic issues before?

The Hon. Bob Rae
Well, I think the key thing is that they're, you know, as in Canada, there's a scientific consensus. The question is, is there a political consensus? Because, you know, you, we talk about the public good—public good doesn't fall from the sky; the public good has to be fought for. And, and people have to decide, yes, that's an important public good. We're, we're going to create that park, you know, we're going to, we're going to do this as a public, as a public good, we're going to, we're going to create this this program, and we're going to fund it properly. So, it's a huge challenge right now on, on climate change. The one thing I think that's important that's emerging, and it's quite exciting, is that there's two big things that are going on that I think Canadians, I think, can see happening.

The first one is that the economy, the leaders of the economy, of the global economy, are increasingly focusing on this question of climate change, carbon pricing, moving to sustainability. So, people like Mark Carney, Nicholas Stern, and others, are playing a very important role in really contributing to the discussion around, it's the private sector that has to affect the change, it's the market that, that has to that has to start to make this happen. And of course, the market doesn't work on its own; it's a relationship with other forces at work. But we're beginning to see that happen. And that's I think a very, very important development that that we, people should, should not underestimate at all ,in terms of the impact this is going to, going to have.

The second is that, in the recovery that people are talking about now and the need to recover, I don't think we're on the verge of stagnation; I think we're in stagnation, with the exception of a couple of economies that are showing signs of recovery like China. But the reality is, in many, many parts of the world, the, the economy is really in trouble—in fact, most of the world, the economy is in serious, serious trouble.

But when we look at, well, what are we going to do to rebuild, and how are we going to rebuild? That's where the sustainability argument has to be brought right into the picture, and say, okay, we've now got a chance to do something about, about climate change. And we've got an opportunity to make the infrastructure and the other investments that are actually going to make a difference. Can we do this? And I think that's going to be a very, very important part of the, of the discussion between governments and institutions about, well, what, what, what form is this global recovery going to take? You know, can we get past COVID?

Dr. Bessma Momani
M'hm (affirmative).

The Hon. Bob Rae
Can we, can we make some decisions that will actually begin to make a difference? And when Japan and Korea are both coming on board saying, we're going to net-zero in in 2050—which has been, very important decisions that have been announced over the last few days—that has clear implications. You can't set a target to say the next 30 years we're going to be we're going to be at net-zero emission, and say and, oh by the way, we're going to produce our, our electricity and our energy exactly the same way we did, we're doing now. If you do that, you're not going to make your target. So, if you're serious about making your targets, you've got to make changes now that will allow you to meet the targets in 30 years.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Let me ask you, when you talk about Building Back Better, which has become a really important mantra—not just at home, but even international financial institutions like the IMF and others—a big part of that is also talking about the inequities in the system, you know, financial inequities and, and frankly, gender inequity. And let me ask you on that, because we do have a commitment to feminist foreign policy. Sweden, Canada, France, and most recently, Mexico launched their new feminist foreign policy. So, I'd love to ask you, sort of, what does a feminist foreign policy mean to you? You know, there are critics out there who say it's a lot of great rhetoric, its nice rhetoric. But doesn't really materially change the way we do things. So, you know, what do you say to those, to those critics, if you will, how is it substantively changing what you do?

The Hon. Bob Rae
Well, first of all, I think the fact that the discourse is changing. And I've seen this during my political life at home, as well over the last—I won't remind you, this audience how long that is, but it's over 40 years—I've seen the discourse change. And not just the discourse. The discourse is not irrelevant to the discussion. I mean, people say, that's just words, you sort of say, yeah—but words matter. How we describe things really matters. And how we, how we envision things, how we, how we think about connecting is very, very important. And we've all seen the terms of the debate beginning to change, at home and, and I think we're seeing it change globally.

I was fascinated to see a number of African leaders talk—men—talk in their speeches to the Beijing+25 meeting that we had, which is, Beijing was a great moment for the UN to kind of really embrace feminism, and embrace gender equality as a, as a global positioning of the United Nations, and of the nations of the UN. And we had a 25-year meeting of, of that declaration, the Beijing Declaration. And the number of leaders from African countries, for example, who spoke very openly about ending genital mutilation, female genital mutilation, that that's a change. That, that hasn't happened. And the practice will change as a result of that. There's a now a broad—how do you build a consensus? You build it by words, and then you build it by action. And you show people that it can be done.

For me, feminism has been an operating principle of my entire political life. So, I'm not just comfortable with it; I believe profoundly in its importance, of thinking all the time about how, how women are treated. Because, because the objectification of women, and the discrimination against women, and the abuse of women, has been such an important part of our, of our culture for thousands of years. So, now we're moving to a different way of approaching things, in changing our laws, and changing our attitudes, changing how we go forward. And Arlene and I had a meeting yesterday with the, with the UN Women Group. And it was it was really terrific to hear how, how the kinds of things that we were doing in Canada 30 40 years ago on family law, and ending discrimination in a variety of ways, and were quite, you know, tough to do—they were not, it wasn't like people just said, oh let's do this, it's easy. It took a lot of work to do, and to get it done took a lot of sacrifice, and really moving forward. We're now seeing that on a global scale. So, Canada's well-positioned to be part of this. We really have no option. We are a feminist country. It's not a matter of political ideology. We're a country that believes foundationally, we believe in the full equality between women and men, and everything that that implies in terms of our public policy, in terms of how we treat people. That is who we are, and that is that is our, our base right as a foundational principle of, of what we're all about. So, I, I have no hesitation in talking about our feminist foreign policy. It makes perfect sense. It's just a reflection of the fact that we're a feminist nation.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Thank you. Let me ask you about nuclear weapons. You know, there's a very interesting treaty that just came into law, Honduras signed on as a 50th country, which allows this very interesting Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to become international law. But Canada was not a party to it. I'd love for you to talk to us about that. Why didn't Canada's sign this? I think there are a lot of folks who kind of would have assumed that, frankly, we'd have been a participant in this really important initiative.

The Hon. Bob Rae
Well, I mean, I think I think the debate will flow, now, in Canada. I think there'll be a discussion nationally about, about the meaning of the law, and about its, its practicality. The, the fact is, there are a number of nuclear nations, and several of them are our allies of ours in, in NATO and, and elsewhere. And we have, we have been part of an alliance that has been based on the principle of deterrence—some country has them, so that therefore we will have them, and whatever happens, you, you hope and pray that there won't be a conflict. I think there's been a growing debate internationally, you know. People like Henry Kissinger, and George Schultz, and a number of other thinkers, are saying, you know, really, at the very least, we need to say clearly and emphatically that, you know, no one can win a nuclear exchange. It's unimaginable that somebody would say, you know, we're going to, we're going to use our nuclear weapons to advance this cause or the, or the other.

So, I think the question is the, the practicality of it. It's, it's, right now, I'd say it's, it's a, it's a treaty that is aspirational. Because it's only going to work if the nuclear powers say, yes, we will do it. The nuclear powers will only do it if, if there can be an assurance with respect to the mutuality of, of disarmament. And I think that's that speaks to where we are as a country. We're certainly part of a very active dialogue on, on nuclear disarmament, and on advancing the practical next steps that we need to take, to get to an effective ban. I think the treaty is there as a, as I said, as a, as an important expression of the aspiration of people for peace. Certainly, it's an aspiration that we share as a country. And now, I think the discussion is going to get into the nitty-gritty of, well, what does that actually mean? How does that actually happen in a way where there's sufficient trust, and an ability to verify that will actually get us to a point where we can talk in real terms about not only reducing the level of nuclear weapons dealing with, with, you know, the test ban treaties and so, on that, that are, that we're a part of making progress

One thing I will say is, the good thing about the treaty being out there is that I think it is forcing us to have a debate and a discussion about this issue, which is ultimately an extremely significant issue, because the generation since 1945 has lived under the shadow of the of the nuclear, of the nuclear weapon—what President Kennedy referred to as the, the Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads—and I think that we will we would all aspire to not having this weapon. But we gotta figure out how to get there. And I think that's really where Canadian pragmatism, combined with our idealism can, can make a difference. I think we need to be idealistic about the objective, and we need to be pragmatic about, well, what are the next logical steps to take to actually get there? And I think we're, I know Canada is, is reflecting long and hard with other countries about what are those practical next intermediate steps that we have to take, to get us to the ultimate step.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Let me switch to something that, you know, you've talked about the fact that your diplomatic career has really been informed by your experience dealing with the crisis in Myanmar. And remember very much your, your visit to, to Cox's Bazar. Let me ask you about that. You know, we know that there's, you know, over 80 million people around the world who are being forced to flee their home. Of course, it took the spotlight in 2014 when we saw, you know, nearly 26 million refugees—who are all really very young, under the age of 18—many of those come from places like Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar of course. How do you want to use your time at the UN? I mean, you've seen this firsthand. So, what, what do you want to do personally, to help advance the cause of resolving this world refugee crisis.

The Hon. Bob Rae
Well, I mean, I mean, I think, first of all I, I think that, you know, everyone needs to appreciate what you just said, because it is a huge problem. We have more refugees now than we've had any time since the Second World War. And we know why we had refugees at the end, in 1945, you know, you had continents that were, that were completely physically devastated and, and people struggling to figure out how to, how to survive. What we need to understand is that the era in which we're living is, the continents are different, from our mindset with respect to, you know, being in Europe or whatever—it's now global. It's now in Africa, it's in Asia, it's, it's in the Middle East, it's¬ and it's involving tens of millions of people. And, and the picture I'd like everyone to have in their heads is: it's mainly kids. It's mainly, it's mainly young people. And when you think about that, you think about the tens of millions of young people who don't have a home, don't have a place to go, who aren't getting education, who aren't getting the schooling that they need, who are subjected to the worst kind of abuse and risk. It, it is heartbreaking. And, and we need to start from that, need to start with the emotional drive that says this is just not, not on. This, this can't continue in this way.

And then we have to take the practical steps to say, okay, what are you going to do? And, and I think there's a series of things you need to do. We need to, we need to look far more seriously at the causes and the underlying causes of, of the conflicts that are creating, creating the humanitarian crisis. And my friend David Miliband puts it well, in in the work that he's doing with the International Rescue Committee, when he, he talks about, you know, there, there is, there are no humanitarian solutions to humanitarian problems; there are political solutions to humanitarian problems. And that's where we really need to focus much more seriously. We spend we spend, you know, billions of dollars on humanitarian assistance, hundreds of billions of dollars in humanitarian assets, every year. We, we don't spend anywhere near enough on, on political solutions. And we need to figure out how, how to get the, the prevention and the and the peacebuilding back into the system. And I'm hoping to do that very much.

And, and the, the second thing is, we have to create a dynamic between refugees, and host countries, and donor countries, where we are all talking to each other about how we can actually improve conditions on the ground now? How can we get education into the camps? How do we persuade the host countries for refugees that it's in their interest to do this, and we can improve education for their people at the same time as we're improving education for refugees? We need to reinforce this dynamic. And that's something that I, you know, that I am working on. And, and we are, Canada is working on this. And we're going to continue to do so.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Thank you, Ambassador Rae it's been a real pleasure.

The Hon. Bob Rae
Thank you so much, Doctor. It's good to see you, and pleasure reading your work, and getting your insights. It's very valuable. Thank you so much.

Dr. Bessma Momani
Likewise.

Antoinette Tummillo
Thank you. I am now going to ask Izzie Abrams of Waste Connections of Canada to provide the appreciation remarks

Note of Appreciation by Izzie Abrams, Vice President, Corporate Development & Government Relations, Waste Connections
Thank you, Antoinette. You know, they say in times of crisis, it's always reassuring to have a steady hand at the wheel. And we as Canadians are fortunate to have Ambassador Rae's steady hand at the UN as Canada's permanent representative. So, with that, I would like to express my pleasure in thanking Ambassador Rae for his insightful and, as always, thought-provoking remarks. So, Ambassador Rae, thank you.

The Hon. Bob Rae
Thank you very much, Izzie. And thank you to all of you for listening and taking an interest. I appreciate it very much. It's a real honour to be back at the Empire Club. Thank you so much.

Izzie Abrams
Always good to see you.

Concluding Remarks by Antoinette Tummillo
And it's our honour to have you, Ambassador Rae. You've kicked off our Power Week. And we have a lot of really interesting upcoming events. Tomorrow, we've got Michael Medline, who's the President and CEO of the Empire Company and Sobeys Inc., who will be joining us tomorrow at noon. Tomorrow evening, of course, we have a 2020 US Presidential Election Panel, so that'll be interesting. And then on Friday at noon, we've got the Honourable Lisa MacLeod, Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture, coming to speak to us at the club. So, thank you again; I appreciate your time, and thank you, Ambassador Rae, for joining us as well. And terrific job, I have to say. I've spent the last three weeks in the US, and I can't tell you how proud I am to be Canadian, and how happy I am that you are there to speak on our behalf. So.

The Hon. Bob Rae
Thank you very much. Thank you.

Antoinette Tummillo
Thank you. This meeting is now adjourned.

The Hon. Bob Rae
Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you so much.