It is a great pleasure to be back at the United Nations University. The last time I spoke here, I was Opposition Critic for Foreign Affairs. Now, I have the duty of seeing that ideas become policy.

With topics ranging from Security Council reform to voluntary codes of conduct, you have undertaken a very ambitious conference agenda.

I had the opportunity to look at the report detailing your first round of discussions in Acton, Ontario. I am encouraged by the level of discussion and the ideas you generated. And I am happy to see that so many of the issues you are examining during this second round are front and centre in Canada's foreign policy agenda.

This reflects a change in the global reality. More important, it signals a change in perspective.

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. Protection of civilians, the plight of war-affected children, the threat of terrorism and drugs, managing open borders and combatting infectious diseases are now among the integral aspects of the dialogue.

This shift in language reflects a recognition that protecting people must be our principal concern. In turn, this recognition has resulted in the evolution of Canadian foreign policy and the formulation of many of the aspects of what we have termed our human security agenda.

What do we mean by human security? Who and what are we securing? Who is responsible? And how do we do it? These are all important questions.

The term human security is not really new. 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 Holocaust forced a serious examination of the place of international moral standards and codes in the conduct of world affairs. It also caused us to rethink the principles of national sovereignty.

The Nuremberg trials were an acknowledgement that grotesque and extreme violations of people's rights could not go unpunished. The United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Genocide Conventions and the Geneva Conventions all recognized the inherent right of people to personal security. And they established the basis in international law and practice for a challenge to conventional notions of sovereignty when violations occur.

Human security has evolved from this and today centres on concerns about the safety of people and their communities. This approach is at its core about putting people first.

Human security contends that people's safety is integral to the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security.

It recognizes that the security of states is essential, but not sufficient, to fully ensure the safety and well-being of the world's people. And it maintains that we are all responsible for ensuring their protection and ending their suffering.

Human security is also a reflection of the new, more inclusive realities of global governance.

In this interconnected world, our own security is increasingly indivisible from that of our neighbours -- at home and abroad. The phenomenon of globalization has made individual human suffering an irrevocable universal concern. And while governments continue to be important, global integration of world markets and instant communications have given a role and a profile to those in business, civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

We are making use of these new synergies and coalitions to promote and advance our human security agenda. These various interests may each have their own priorities and modes of operating, but each has a responsibility to not only strive to protect human security, but also to ensure that their actions do not further imperil people.

Coalition-building among like-minded states is another dynamic element of this "new diplomacy." The Human Security Network is a good example. The Network, which now includes over a dozen countries from all regions of the world, originally grew out of a bilateral arrangement between Canada and Norway -- the "Lysoen" partnership.

Since its establishment two years ago, the Network has promoted international support for UN efforts to protect civilians. It is able to identify opportune instances for collective action, like promoting initiatives in the lead up to the UN Conference on Small Arms in 2001. It is also able to bring to international attention, new and emerging issues, such as the challenge of engaging non-state actors and armed groups in complying with international humanitarian and human rights law.

The new diplomacy also requires that we update our international institutions.

Canada is working toward this end by integrating the human dimension into the work of the UN, especially the Security Council, where we continue to serve as a member. We are also undertaking efforts at the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe], the Commonwealth, la Francophonie and the G-8.

As an example of these efforts, I have just come from this year's G-8 Foreign Ministers meeting in Miyazaki. We addressed key issues including conflict prevention; non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament; terrorism; crime; and the environment.

All of these issues have an important human security dimension. And to show the increasing centrality of the human security approach, many of these issues will also be on the agenda when G-8 leaders meet in Okinawa in just over a week.

By taking co-ordinated action on these specific issues, I believe the G-8 can play an important role in developing a human security approach. As well, by taking concrete actions, it can provide important support to other states, international organizations and non-state actors in their efforts at promoting human security.

Let's look at one example, that of conflict prevention. My counterparts and I have agreed upon an ambitious plan to help nurture a "culture of prevention." We have agreed to take action to stem the uncontrolled and illegal transfer of small arms and light weapons. These armaments have had a tragic impact on civilian populations caught up in armed conflict. Limiting access to and the availability of these weapons will help restrict the means for war.

We also agreed to improve the structure of our development policies to better help eliminate the potential causes of armed conflict.

There is no doubt about the tremendous negative impact high-value commodities like diamonds can have in prolonging and intensifying conflict. Angola and Sierra Leone are two examples of the extreme impact personal greed can have. We have agreed to better co-ordinate our efforts to help prevent the use of profits from diamond sales to finance those waging wars and committing crimes against civilians. The recently imposed Security Council embargo on rough diamonds from Sierra Leone is a positive step.

We also agreed on the importance of international civilian police as a critical element of conflict prevention.

And the G-8 has begun to address the impact of armed conflict on children -- long on Canada's foreign policy agenda -- including ending the use of child soldiers.

The issue of children in conflict is of particular concern to me. Canada will host an important international conference on war-affected children this September. The objective will be to take stock of global child protection efforts and map out an agenda that can be taken to the UN special session on children in 2001.

Canada has also made the issue of humanitarian intervention a priority.

There will be instances when prevention does not succeed. When it doesn't, the international community must be prepared to act to end the suffering of people. Deciding when intervention is warranted poses serious questions. Under whose auspices? By what criteria? Recognizing what standards? Using what tools?

Canada is leading efforts to establish an International Commission on Humanitarian Intervention to find answers to these questions.

The Commission would work to prepare a report for the 2001 United Nations General Assembly. It would be charged with preparing the political-legal framework for international action. By furthering international debate and dialogue, the Commission would give due consideration to a critical issue, which up to now has not received the attention it deserves.

Before leaving for Asia, I deposited Canada's instrument of ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at the United Nations in New York. As each day goes by, whether in Kosovo or Sierra Leone, the need and necessity for a permanent court becomes more compelling. It will hold individuals responsible for their atrocities and has great promise for preventing the future abuse of defenceless civilians. This court is the first significant new international institution in the battle against war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It is a major step toward real international accountability.

Canada has also been striving to include a stronger human security dimension into the work of the United Nations, and particularly the Security Council. Our focus during our current term has been to put the security of people on an equal footing with that of states. We have also focussed on adapting the workings of the Council to the changing nature of security and the demands of greater democracy. On both counts we have had some success.

Canada's initiative on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, which we advanced during our two Council presidencies, has placed human security firmly on the Council agenda.

In practice this has led to explicit peacekeeping mandates for the protection of civilians in places such as Sierra Leone, East Timor and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These mandates now routinely include human rights units, child protection advisors and other measures aimed at protecting civilians.

We have also promoted the reform of Security Council sanctions in a bid to make them more humane and effective.

By attempting to anchor human security concerns to core aspects of the Council's mandate and instruments, we believe the results of our efforts during our short time on the Council will endure long after we leave.

We have also made greater transparency in the Council's operations a priority. Canada believes that a more open, democratic and inclusive Council will become more effective. Whether as a result of permanent member prerogative or the secrecy of Council deliberations, too many pressing security issues are excluded from the agenda, and too many voices that should be heard are not. For example, Canada's efforts last April to have the Council discuss the Sudan conflict -- a human security crisis of staggering dimensions -- was rejected. Some progress has been made toward more open and inclusive working methods, but more needs to be done.

In a time of increasing attention to "codes of conduct," it is striking that the Security Council, in its fifty-five years of history, has never formally adopted rules of procedure.

This lack of transparency, while preserving the discretionary power of the permanent members, has not always served the interests of the Council's global constituency.

From Canada's perspective, therefore, the goal of a more accountable and representative Security Council would not be served by adding to its permanent membership. Let us instead focus on increasing the elected membership of the Council as a way of asserting greater democracy and accountability in the world's paramount peace and security body.

Any efforts at UN reform must be accompanied by sufficient levels of political will, and physical and financial resources, if they are to be effective. Japan, like Canada, has always been committed to ensuring that the United Nations is provided with the necessary resources to carry out its functions -- too many others have not.

Too often national or regional interests, as well as bureaucratic inertia, get in the way of the UN fulfilling its Charter-mandated obligations. The recent crisis in Sierra Leone is a perfect example of both.

When Canada and Norway offered staff to bolster UNAMSIL's planning capacity at the height of the recent crisis, we never received a reply to our offer to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The reason behind this was that since these staff would be provided as gratis personnel, they had become politically unacceptable. A coalition of nations unable to provide such free support had collaborated in the General Assembly over a year ago to prevent any nation from doing so. This doesn't serve the UN well, nor did it help the people of Sierra Leone. The United Nations has also expressed reservations about accepting these sorts of offers because it fears that it lacks the capacity to absorb such contributions.

Apart from being able to contribute what is needed in a crisis, we must also give the UN the capacity to deploy rapidly. If we do not, the international community will have to depend on the willingness of individual states or regional alliances to carry out the work of maintaining international peace and security.

Without the rapid deployment by Britain of some 800 paratroopers, events in Sierra Leone in all likelihood would not have been stabilized as quickly as they were and the violence would probably have been much worse. The same is true of the Australian-led INTERFET force that prevented untold misery by intervening in the early stages of the crisis in East Timor. NATO action in Kosovo accomplished much the same.

Promoting human security globally also requires that governments work more closely with the non-governmental sector. For example, the business community has an important role to play. Increasingly, the private sector is recognizing the value of developing corporate social responsibility initiatives for its domestic and international operations.

In 1997, we welcomed the announcement by a coalition of Canadian companies, of an International Code of Ethics for Canadian business. Since its adoption, I have urged the Canadian private sector to take this code into account and act responsibly wherever they operate.

The Canadian government continues to work with the private sector, academics, NGOs and international agencies to develop and implement voluntary codes of conduct. Several initiatives are currently underway that involve various sectors of the Canadian business community. At the same time, I am spearheading a dialogue among key federal government departments on the issues surrounding corporate social responsibility to better equip Canada to deal with Canadian companies, which by their actions, can add to instability or fuel conflict.

The role that corporations can play in the promotion of good governance has also been a topic of our international discussions.

Canada has called for serious attention to be given to developing corporate social responsibility guidelines in forums such as the OAS [Organization of American States], the OSCE and the G-8.

I also want to highlight the OECD's [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] recent adoption of the revised Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

These guidelines now cover important new issues such as human rights, consumer protection and anti-corruption measures. They have also updated their coverage of environmental protection and labour standards. They provide a mechanism by which governments can assist businesses, labour groups and NGOs in addressing difficult issues.

The activities of corporations make a positive contribution to the economic and social development of communities and human security by advancing human rights, good governance and democracy. By developing clearly enunciated principles and guidelines regarding corporate social responsibility, companies will be better prepared to navigate some of the, at times, difficult ethical decisions businesses can face when operating internationally.

The need to work in partnership with civil society and the NGO community is perhaps more important now than ever before. NGOs can play a variety of important roles: they bring technical expertise and experience to the policy-making process; they often work with government to implement international agendas; they inform citizens about challenges and choices on the international agenda; they mobilize human and financial resources to help solve local and global problems; they work to end human suffering; and they hold governments accountable.

Working with civil society and the NGO community is critical to forwarding our human security approach.

With their help we are attempting to create a new political constituency to enforce existing international law and create new conventions to deal with emerging threats. This unique coalition adds strength to the belief that the protection of the individual is an essential precondition for international peace and security.

One only need look at the Ottawa process leading to the Anti-Personnel Mine Convention in order to recognize the benefits of this new type of coalition. One of the most important aspects of this convention process was the unprecedented degree to which international and non-governmental organizations were partners with a coalition of states. Similar issue-specific coalitions have formed to stem the spread of small arms, protect war-affected children and secure justice for war crime victims through the International Criminal Court.

Activism, the likes of which we witnessed during the Ottawa process and the lead up to the Rome Statute, would not have been possible without a very important new tool that business uses to much greater effect than we do -- information technology. By expanding our use of information systems we can change the politics of human security. But, we in this field are only at the beginning of the curve in determining the potential of this new tool.

The explosion in dot.com enterprises, e-commerce and integrated networks that is rising for purposes of marketing, financing and advertising in the private sector is having a profound impact on how business is conducted. We need an equivalent creative burst to serve the common good -- to advance the welfare and safety of individuals.

As I have outlined today, human security requires all international actors -- whether states, international organizations, NGOs or the corporate sector -- to act responsibly. This includes developing codes of conduct where appropriate, working to establish new international norms regarding the protection of people, and incorporating the human dimension as part of our work in international organizations.

At the start of this new century, the protection of people is among the most important issues before us. Peace and security -- national, regional and international -- are only possible if they are derived from people's security. The degree to which we are successful in advancing this concept will depend on our collective willingness to forge new partnerships -- with governments, international organizations and non-state actors.

All of us have an important role to play. All of us have a stake in this agenda. All of us have a responsibility to ensure people's safety and help end their suffering.

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