In the nearly five years that I have been Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, a shift has occurred in what it means to be secure. As a result, the language of international affairs has begun to change. No longer are we limited to discussions of states' rights and national sovereignty. Protecting civilians, war-affected children, the threat of terrorism and of drugs, open borders and infectious diseases are now among the integral aspects of the dialogue.

This shift in language reflects a change in perception -- a recognition that the needs of individuals must be our principal concern. We arrived at this point via the broader realization that there is a changing world reality.

This recognition has resulted in the evolution of Canadian foreign policy and the formulation of the many aspects of what we have termed our human security agenda.

What does this mean? Why have we done this? What is different?

During the past decade we have witnessed the eruption, reigniting or intensifying of civil conflicts on five continents. From ethnic cleansing in Bosnia to mass displacement in East Timor and Kosovo, to the genocide in Rwanda, sovereignty has protected the perpetrators, not the millions of victims.

Many of today's wars are fought within rather than between states; they are often conducted by ragtag groups of irregular forces; they are most likely waged with small arms and light weapons; and they have had a devastating impact on civilian populations, especially the most vulnerable:

• In the First World War, civilians accounted for 5 percent of casualties.

• In Mozambique, they accounted for 95 percent.

• In Sudan they accounted for 97 percent.

These figures are not a revelation to any of you in this room, nor even to the non-expert outside. By simply reading the newspaper or watching the news, it is clear that civilians are increasingly the victims, if not the primary targets of conflict. It became just as clear to us, then, that the practice of foreign policy needed to change to include their protection.

Times have changed in other ways too. More people, more of them poor, live in areas prone to disasters. And climate change brings those disasters with increasing frequency.

In response to this new global reality, Canada began to develop a new foreign policy, replete with a fresh set of priorities and initiatives. These would become the basis of our human security approach.

It is not necessarily a new concept.

The term "human security" was used first by the United Nations in the early 1990s. The concept itself predates even that. A recognition that people's rights are at least as important as those of states has been gaining momentum since the end of the Second World War. The UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the genocide conventions all recognize the inherent right of people to personal security.

What Canada has done is focus the concept on protecting people from acts of violence and helping to build a greater sense of security for the individual.

A major milestone of this new agenda was the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines. The indiscriminate carnage they inflict upon civilians during and after conflict makes these weapons unacceptable.

This campaign succeeded despite the fact that some said this ban was not practical or politically possible.

We pressed on with our allies in civil society and had a ratified treaty in record time.

Since 1997, the 137 signatories and 96 states that have ratified the Ottawa Convention have destroyed 20 million stockpiled mines. Of the 54 states previously known to produce mines, only 16 continue to do so. Of the 34 countries known to export mines, all but one have instituted moratoriums or full bans on any further export. Casualty rates have dropped by more than 50 percent in Cambodia, and by 90 percent in Bosnia and Mozambique.

U.S. demining and survivor assistance efforts and the U.S. government's intentions to adhere to the Ottawa Treaty are very welcome. I hope that the United States will be in a position to join us before the 2006 date set by President Clinton.

The landmines treaty also represents a new kind of global politics -- one in which governments, civil society and non-governmental organizations work together to effect positive change for people. The Government of Canada has actively sought the partnership of civil society. This new diplomacy, engaging citizen diplomats, is integral to human security.

Just a few years ago, no one was talking about human security. When I delivered my first speech to the United Nations General Assembly outlining the concept as a "protection for civilians," few understood or accepted it. Today, at the UN, the G-8, the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] and in many other forums, issues of human security are front and centre.

This centrality is evidence that human security is not "a one-trick pony."

At the time that landmines were being addressed, the idea for a permanent international criminal court was emerging. As these issues were being developed, we were examining the plight of the world's young people and started to put together a framework on children's issues.

Each of these initiatives has produced substantive results, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on minimum ages for the deployment of soldiers.

On the establishment of the Court, Canada's House of Commons has just passed ratifying legislation enabling our country to comply fully with the Rome Statute. And as each day goes by, whether in Kosovo or Sierra Leone, the need and necessity for a permanent court become more compelling.

U.S. support of this new institution is important.

As Chair of the Preparatory Committee under way now in New York, Canada will continue to work with you to find a way forward that addresses U.S. concerns while maintaining the essence and purpose of the Court.

We believe that a country-specific exemption is not the way forward; it might very well undermine what could be a truly innovative institution for this new century. It could also reduce others' commitment to the Court and weaken its ability to carry out its sole purpose -- to hold those responsible for the worst acts of inhumanity accountable for their deeds.

It is a court of last resort. National court systems are the main line of protection when they are fit and able. The Statute as it stands contains ample safeguards against politically motivated prosecutions. Americans have nothing to fear from a permanent international criminal court; only the likes of Radovan Karadic and Foday Sankoh need worry. Our aim is to bring them and others like them to justice and to deter others from perpetrating similar crimes.

If the Court fails to receive the necessary support, what message does that send to the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity about what they can get away with? More importantly, what message does this send to their victims?

We will continue to work with you to find a productive and mutually acceptable way of bringing the United States on board. We have come a long way already, and major safeguards are now in place. There is room to negotiate further, but efforts of late in the Congress concerning proposed U.S. actions are troubling.

It is hard to imagine a case in which such a great democracy would not be part of bringing war criminals to justice.

Differences on some aspects of each other's agendas are more than balanced by our common purpose. On the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, discussions between Prime Minister Chrétien and President Clinton laid the basis for an approach that accommodated U.S. interests.

In the end, an important new protection for children was hammered out by our delegations in Geneva and accepted by the international community.

This has led to the beginning of a worldwide effort to deal with the plight of war-affected children. In April, Canada and Ghana brought together West African countries in an effort to develop practical actions to make a difference to the lives of children in that region. This September, Canada will host a global conference of like-minded governments, international agencies and civil society to develop a global strategy. The horrors of Sierra Leone must be a reminder to us all. They should strengthen our resolve and commitment to action.

Canada and the United States act together on issues of human security on our own continent as well. We co-operate on border-related issues, such as immigration, counter-terrorism and drug-trafficking interdiction.

We have rededicated ourselves to the shared defence of North America through NORAD [North American Aerospace Defence].

Each of these initiatives has at its heart the protection of our respective populations. There are differences of opinion, priority and procedure, but these are not the huge gaps that some portray them as being.

Even where we have our differences, we use dialogue and consultation to understand and influence each other's positions on important issues. On National Missile Defence, our concerns relate to approach. Our discourse is focussed on whether or not such a system will undermine the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, a concern expressed by many others in Europe and, indeed, in this country.

Just recently at the OAS [Organization of American States] General Assembly, held in Canada, Canadian and U.S. officials made strides with our hemispheric partners on issues of human rights, drugs and corruption. We also worked hard with them on an appropriate response to the situation in Peru, and agreed to dispatch a mission aimed at improving democracy in that Andean nation.

Does Canada see human security as an alternative to state or national security? Is human security foreign policy on the cheap? The short answer to both questions is no. We are not arguing that we are seeing the beginning of the end of the nation-state.

Even in the emerging cyberworld (as Joseph Nye has observed), order requires rules, rules require authority and authority is exercised on behalf of people mostly by states, the EU [European Union] Commission notwithstanding.

Nor would we be so naive as to suggest that human security is exclusively about intrastate conflict. Interstate conflict is, unfortunately, not going to disappear any time soon.

In a sense, we see national security and human security as two sides of the same coin.

Human security means building security from the bottom up. To use an analogy from economic theory, it is micro-security.

Looking down the road 30 or 40 years, one can imagine the emergence of another mega-threat or two.

But at least for now, it is the myriad of micro-conflicts that demand our attention. These are the conflicts of the warlords, fought over diamonds. These are the wars of the ethnic cleansers, where killing is a matter of colour, race or religion.

None threatens global stability, but each entails unacceptable human suffering. And they all engage our conscience and our responsibility.

Let me say a word about 'humanitarian" intervention. In the past, when the international community has decided to intervene, its efforts have often been too late, its mandate insufficient, the resources and commitment lacking.

One could argue that each case adds to our experience, and each time we learn our lessons and further develop our capacity for response.

Unfortunately, the evidence does not support this argument. The continued pitfalls of a system not quite ready, not quite willing or not willing at all are the too-consistent result.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan raised the issues in 1999, when he called for the international community to examine these questions. Since then, the negative reaction of many countries and timidity on the part of the Secretariat to push the envelope have resulted in a loss of momentum.

We made substantial efforts as a Security Council member, particularly during our presidencies, to begin just such a serious review. Issues of civilian protection, the effectiveness and use of sanctions, the role of non-state actors in the illicit trading of arms and diamonds continually point to serious gaps in international law, convention, understanding and resources.

Canada has been advocating the establishment of an International Commission on Humanitarian Intervention as a way of furthering the debate surrounding these fundamental questions.

Without honest inquiry and reasoned recommendations, we will face an unending sequence of ad hoc, sporadic decision making, which will do little to increase people's security or their faith that the international community is willing and able to uphold the basic dignity of humanity.

We all need to become involved in this dialogue. And we all need to work to reform the UN's capacity to act.

Obviously, as Canada has long held and as Dick Holbrooke has recently said, we can and must do so. We firmly believe, as do a majority of Americans, that an effective UN is in the interests of all of us.

I have tried to explain today what we mean by human security. We are convinced that peace and security -- national, regional and international -- are only possible if they are derived from people's security. That is the keystone in this global age. And it is a central pillar of Canada's foreign policy.

We hope we will persuade you to bring your enormous democratic significance, your great moral authority and your incomparable resources to this new security imperative -- human security.

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