I have just finished journalist Philip Gourevitch's haunting stories about the Rwandan genocide, We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With our Families.

His chilling account of the rampages by the genocidaires captures one reality of our world: a place where intolerance, suspicion, brutality, fear, destruction, violence -- the darker side of human nature -- prevail. It is a reality that, simply put, endangers the basic safety of people.

In our world, the threats are wide-ranging: from the victimization, one by one, of people in civil conflicts to the spectre of mass annihilation from nuclear weapons. These threats, at their most basic, all imperil human security.

Some think the answer is to build walls, turn away, ignore, retreat -- shut the world out.

This is not possible. The forces of globalization, advances in technology, transportation, and communication, rule isolation out.

Isolation is not desirable. The same forces that make the problems of others our problems, highlight our common humanity and connect us in a common destiny.

Isolation is not the Canadian way. Canadians have always been engaged with the world. We have built a multicultural country based on inclusion, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for others -- a society that embraces difference.

We have sought to project these values on the global stage and to translate them into action to promote global peace and stability -- an approach that explains our high standing in the international community.

Now, in a changed world where the role of people -- their rights, safety and lives -- is assuming a greater role in the policy and practice of global affairs, our foreign policy must reflect this growing concern.

This is the impetus behind Canada's human security agenda -- putting people first in our foreign policy. It is an effort to construct a global society where the safety of people is a priority and a force for action; where humanitarian standards and the rule of law are advanced and woven into a coherent web to protect people; where those who violate these standards are held accountable; and where our global, regional and bilateral institutions are built to enhance and enforce these standards. In short, it is a way to deal with the darker side of global life.

The campaign to ban landmines, the creation of the International Criminal Court, initiatives to fight the illicit drug trade, and efforts to protect civilians in conflict, from Kosovo to Sierra Leone to East Timor, are a few different but related examples not only of how Canada is pursuing this agenda but indeed of the growing willingness in the wider international community to promote it.

T.S. Eliot called April the cruelest month. For Canada, April is a crucial month. Next month, a confluence of events -- Canada's presidency of the UN Security Council, the West African Conference on War-Affected Children that Canada is co-sponsoring with Ghana, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference -- will all focus attention -- and hopefully action -- on pressing human security concerns.

When we joined the Security Council last year, our aim was to adapt it to a changed context where the prospects for global peace -- its primary responsibility -- turn increasingly on issues of human safety.

As a result, in part, of Canada's presence, the Council is listening more directly to the voices of human suffering. It addresses issues that pose a direct threat to people. It is taking concrete and unprecedented action to protect civilians in armed conflict. In other words, the Council is becoming more relevant to the security concerns of people.

In April, we intend to consolidate this progress.

Whether as direct targets, tools, or trophies of war, the victimization of civilians is a central part of armed conflict today. The protection of civilians must, therefore, figure at the top of the Council's agenda. To this end, Secretary-General Annan's report last fall and his proposals on the subject -- a Canadian initiative -- provide a blueprint for action.

The impact on the Council's decisions is already tangible. At Canada's insistence, Council mandates for new peace operations approved last year in Sierra Leone and East Timor, explicitly included the protection of civilians, and were given the resources to do so -- a Council first.

We hope to entrench this practice so that, from now on, the interests of civilians will be a standard concern in the initiation and deployment of Council peace missions.

The situation of one group of civilians -- internally displaced people -- has not been addressed by the Council as a cross-cutting security theme. Yet, a staggering 25 million people have been forced, as a result of conflicts -- often already under Council consideration -- to flee their homes and take refuge elsewhere in their own countries.

We plan to convene a Council session in April as a first step to promoting a more comprehensive, thematic approach to the problem by the Security Council.

The emergence of the new war economies that fuel armed conflicts and aggravate human suffering is another disturbing trend. Modern day warlords -- with the complicity of unscrupulous commercial interests -- exploit both resources and people to fund violence.

It is time the Council addressed this threat seriously and resolutely. This is behind Canada's efforts to make the Angola sanctions regime more effective in ending the ability of the rebel movement UNITA to wage war. The experts' report circulated last week identified the challenges.

Next month, we will press for a concerted response to its recommendations. We will also table a major study by the International Peace Academy, sponsored by Canada, on sanctions regimes. This will feature in a general re-examination of sanctions regimes we are planning to hold at the Council. It will consider how to target them more effectively, how to reduce their impact on ordinary people, and how to find practical ways the Council can accomplish this.

The report of the independent inquiry on the Rwandan genocide released in December raised serious issues about the Security Council's action -- and inaction -- when faced with egregious violations of human rights and humanitarian law, and the dilemma of whether and how to intervene, issues it also faced in Srebrenica, and again in Kosovo.

The Council needs to discuss its role in these situations. We plan to organize a debate on the Rwandan report for this purpose. It will not be an easy exercise, but we think it is one that must be done if members of the international community are to accept their responsibilities.

These efforts to promote human security would be incomplete without attention to enduring conflicts that, everyday, continue to claim lives. That is why we will work for closer Council involvement in often neglected conflict zones -- including the humanitarian suffering in Sudan and the treatment of women in Afghanistan.

From the outset, one of the ways we wanted to make the Council more relevant was to ensure that it is better linked to human security initiatives elsewhere, and that its activities complement efforts to promote human security in other forums.

This is the case concerning war-affected children -- a Canadian priority. The devastating toll exacted on children this past decade alone makes the tragedy clear: millions killed, disabled, orphaned, displaced, traumatized or forced into military servitude.

Security Council action in this area -- for example, the deployment of child protection advisers as a regular part of peacekeeping operations -- strengthens the momentum for international action.

In January, the Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child was finally concluded. It addresses the involvement of children in armed conflict, in particular the heinous practice of child soldiers. Yesterday, the Canadian government tabled legislation -- raising to 18 the minimum age for the deployment of Canadian soldiers into hostilities -- thereby putting Canada at the leading edge in this area.

The conference Canada will co-host in April on war-affected children in West Africa aims to catalyze regional efforts to protect the rights and welfare of children in an area that is among the most acutely affected.

And in September, Canada will chair an international conference on war-affected children, bringing together governments, international organizations and civil society to formulate a comprehensive global plan of action.

Promoting human security at the Security Council or elsewhere means addressing threats to human safety. But we can derive little satisfaction from the progress we have made -- and there has been progress -- while the risk of nuclear annihilation looms over our collective safety. There is, quite frankly, no greater potential menace to human security.

Yet the risks associated with nuclear arms appear to have faded from the radar of international concern, the urgency for action has ebbed, and the structure we have built to manage the threats is on increasingly shaky ground. We seem to have lost our way -- or our will -- to act resolutely and together to move forward with nuclear arms control and disarmament.

The dangers are real enough.

The threat of horizontal proliferation is evident. Nuclear testing in South Asia has added a frightening new dimension to political instability in that region.

Vertical proliferation remains a challenge. There has been undeniable progress in nuclear disarmament, but the trend by some to justify retaining nuclear arsenals as a defence against other weapons or on economic grounds is a real worry.

The prospect of illicit transfers of nuclear weapons grade material is emerging as a new threat.

Finally, discussions in the United States about National Missile Defence could complicate efforts to advance the global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament agenda.

We cannot allow the global nuclear non-proliferation regime to wither passively in the face of any of these challenges. Now is the time to refocus energy and imagination in strengthening it. This, not the chimeric appeal of unilateralist actions -- whatever their origins -- offers the best guarantee for our collective security.

Canada remains firmly committed to that goal.

An effective NPT is the centrepiece of the non-proliferation regime. With only four states who have not signed, it is the most widely adhered-to international security accord in history. In a month's time the international community will gather for the NPT Review Conference -- the first since its indefinite extension in 1995.

The success of this conference is crucial. The future course of nuclear weapons' attitudes, policies and arsenals is at stake. Yet the outlook is clouded.

There is a sense that the fundamental deal at the heart of the Treaty -- a promise by those without nuclear weapons not to acquire them, in exchange for an undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to eventually get rid of them -- is not being respected by some on either side.

There is, likewise, a feeling that the commitment by the nuclear weapon states to the concept of "permanence with accountability" -- extending the NPT indefinitely in exchange for greater accountability to others -- is not being met.

Canada's approach is threefold: securing agreement to an updated five-year action program with new, concrete objectives for disarmament and non-proliferation; seeking a more robust review and assessment process to give full meaning to the principle of "permanence with accountability;" and promoting universal adherence to the NPT with renewed commitment by Treaty member states to live up to their obligations.

A strengthened NPT is indispensable. So is reinforcing other parts of the non-proliferation regime. This includes renewed vigour in ratifying and implementing the CTBT [Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty] -- despite the U.S. Senate's rejection. It means the start of serious negotiations on an agreement banning the production of fissile material [FMCT]. It involves a stronger, more effective IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to restrict the flow of materials and know-how needed for the development of nuclear weapons.

Canada is pressing for action in all areas.

It also means more resolute attention and action to restricting access to the means by which nuclear and other weapons can be delivered - notably missiles.

More countries now possess missiles capable of delivering nuclear, chemical and biological warheads. More countries now possess the capability to import such missiles from abroad, to develop them domestically and to export them to others. More countries are now prepared to test and deploy them.

Yet there exists no treaty, no code of conduct, no set of guidelines for what constitutes responsible behaviour in these areas.

In these circumstances, it is not surprising there should be concern. Canada fully shares these worries. However, unilateral efforts to build defences against these dangers are unlikely to provide lasting security -- and might quite possibly increase insecurity.

The impulse to build walls, to retreat, to shut the world out, here as elsewhere, should be resisted. The answer lies instead in creating a multilateral approach to stop missile proliferation in the first place, and to make this a key part of a strengthened global non-proliferation regime.

That is behind international efforts to develop an effective Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). That is why Canada is working hard to reinvigorate these discussions -- including an offer to lead the MTCR next year.

To that end, we are committed to advancing a stricter approach to export controls on relevant technology, to widening the participation in this Regime, to broadening the approach to include effective confidence-building measures, and to working out universal norms that would distinguish between responsible and irresponsible behaviour involving missiles.

A stronger non-proliferation regime depends on effective global arrangements. It also depends on the willingness of individual countries and groups of countries to assess the validity of their own, specific approaches. That is why Canada is leading efforts at NATO, now underway, to fully review its non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament options.

After already reducing its nuclear arsenal by over 80 percent, Alliance leaders' agreement to this review gives NATO the opportunity to offer leadership to international arms control and disarmament goals.

Canada is working to ensure that NATO takes a comprehensive look at all of its policies. NATO allies know the importance non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament efforts make to their security and the opportunity this review process presents to explore further measures the Alliance can take. The results will be presented to NATO foreign ministers in December. In the meantime, the review process sends an important, positive signal to the NPT conference next month.

There is another crucial factor in all of these efforts -- the role of individual citizens and civil society. The political will and energy required to restore vital momentum to nuclear arms control and threat reduction is not generated in the stale basements of the UN in New York or the closed Council Chamber of the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

In democracies like ours, political energy and will are made in the hearts and minds of our citizens and then in the platforms offered, the mandates given and the policies pursued - at home and abroad - by our leaders. Indeed, the name of this College, the Arthur Kroeger Institute of Public Affairs and Civic Society, effectively captures this connection.

This explains why two years ago, I asked the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs to examine the nuclear challenges and provide recommendations; why Canada's Ambassador for Disarmament has just completed a tour of eight Canadian cities to speak on the subject; why last month we held consultations with civil society to discuss issues related to nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament; and finally why, today, I am pleased to announce that Canada's delegation to the NPT Review Conference will include a representative of the NGO community as a full participant.

Great things can happen when NGOs and governments join forces -- as the recent achievement of the Ottawa Convention to ban anti-personnel mines and the effort to create the International Criminal Court show. While nuclear disarmament will not be achieved as expeditiously, it will never be achieved if we -- government and civil society alike -- do not redouble our efforts.

I began my remarks with a reference to a journalist's account of the Rwandan genocide -- the truth it related about the horrors of that time and the larger reality it reflected about the darker side of human nature, about threats to human security, and about inaction.

The collection also recounts another episode, at a convent school, where the genocidaires attempted to separate a group of Tutsi students from their Hutu classmates. The Hutu girls refused. They decided to stay with their classmates. Rather than save themselves, they chose to defend their friends.

This is another reality of our world -- one of solidarity, of involvement, of common humanity, of the better side of human nature and, ultimately, of a more hopeful future.

This is the reality towards which the human-centred approach to Canada's foreign policy is directed. This is the connection between our actions -- from the protection of civilians to the prevention of nuclear destruction. At the end of April -- after our Security Council Presidency, after the West African Conference on War-Affected Children, after the NPT Review Conference -- this is the goal to which I hope we will find ourselves a little closer.

Thank you.

2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips



Last Updated: 2006-10-30	Top of Page	Important Notices