It is a pleasure to be here. St. Petersburg has long been the gateway to Russia's north and circumpolar neighbours, including Canada. With over four million inhabitants, at 59 degrees latitude, your city is also the world's largest truly northern metropolis.

Our relations were born in this city. This year we celebrate the centenary of Russia's first mission in Canada -- a consular office in Montreal -- where Nikolai Struve was consul. St. Petersburg remains a cultural magnet for Canadians: I for one have long admired your great poetess of the House on Fontanka, Anna Akhmatova.

It is a particular delight for me to be speaking at the Ethnographic Museum, whose recent exhibitions of Aboriginal art and handicrafts have had an enduring impact in Canada. I am grateful to the Museum's leadership for opening its doors to us.

The northern connection and Aboriginal heritage are two of the human bonds between our countries. Climate, geography, history and culture are also linkages. In my talks over the past two years with your talented foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, I have been pressing for a people-based approach to world affairs. The United Nations Charter begins with the words, "We the peoples...." It is not "we the members of the Security Council," "we the diplomats" or "we the states," but "we the peoples."

In the Canadian view, if we are to ensure that the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE] and other international bodies have better success this century in achieving their objectives, "we the peoples" have to become their central concern. We call this approach "human security."

What is human security? It is an approach that takes the protection and well-being of individual human beings as the main criterion for international action. In diplomacy, it establishes legal instruments, responsive institutions and tailor-made foreign policy tools to improve the lot of ordinary people.

The impact of this approach can be rapid and profound. Only one year after the entry into force of the Ottawa Convention banning landmines:

• the number of mine victims is declining;

• the once-flourishing trade in anti-personnel [AP] mines has all but vanished;

• 14 million stockpiled mines have been destroyed; and

• the number of mine-producing countries has decreased.

Russia embraced the Ottawa Process by banning landmine exports and undertaking eventually to sign the Convention. To ensure that these death traps continue to disappear, we are looking to Acting President Putin for a timetable for signature and for action on destroying Russian stockpiles.

The impact of the Ottawa Process goes well beyond the campaign to ban AP mines. The landmines campaign -- and the overwhelming positive response to it -- shows that a human-centred approach to global challenges makes sense.

It has provided new momentum and scope to the international legal framework that advances human rights and holds individuals accountable for their actions. It is no coincidence, for example, that after achieving the landmines ban, the international community moved to create the International Criminal Court.

Human security is also about the plight of war-affected children -- young people under arms in conflicts from Colombia to Kosovo. Last month, an international consensus emerged on the need to ensure that military personnel under the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities. This Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also binds non-state actors, may ultimately save thousands of children from the scourge of war. It cannot save those who are already victims, such as those who endured the long civil war in Sierra Leone. But, at long last and with Russia's support, a UN-mandated peacekeeping operation, which makes the protection of civilians a central component, is now taking shape in that country.

Human security has to include a wide variety of non-state actors. In Africa, NGOs [non-governmental organizations] have too often been the only ones addressing basic human needs. In the Balkans, it is humanitarian organizations, not states, that have had the most positive impact.

But it is at the United Nations, and above all the Security Council, where responsibility for human security weighs most heavily -- especially in situations of massive violations of human rights and humanitarian law. However, the Council's paralysis during the Kosovo crisis -- which compelled NATO to intervene for humanitarian purposes -- underlines that it has not yet come to grips with this difficult but pressing issue. For this reason, one year ago, Canada used its presidency of the Security Council to stimulate a discussion of the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

As we begin this new century, civilians are often the principal cannon fodder of war, especially wars that pit states against regions, and regimes against factions. In World War I, 5 percent of casualties were civilians; today that figure is closer to 80 percent.

In September, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan produced a road map for ending this carnage. His report The Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict sets out 40 recommendations for action, from measures to reduce the availability of small arms to more robust rapidly deployable military capacity on the part of the UN to meet these new security challenges.

I take pride in the role that Canada and Russia played last spring in bringing about a G-8 consensus that led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from the embattled province of Kosovo. Human security has been behind all of Canada's actions -- past and present -- to bring peace and stability to the western Balkans. It remains at the heart of our efforts to establish criteria and capacity for humanitarian intervention elsewhere in the world, which we hope Russia will support.

Russia is engaged in one conflict where the principles of human security are clearly at stake. Long before the current war, Chechnya was a dangerous place, a haven for counterfeiters and arms dealers. Canada and others have upheld Russia's right to deal with terrorists as we would: firmly.

And while we agree that terrorist acts must be dealt with, we also maintain that in doing so, all reasonable means must be taken to protect the very people that terrorism affects -- the elderly, young families, individuals like you and me.

So then, if human security is integral to meeting the challenge of Chechnya, this basic question arises. Has the security of innocent individuals in Chechnya been enhanced by military operations so far?

In determining the answer, let us look at some of the facts. Russian sources cite 1200 Russian dead and thousands more injured. Chechen casualties are also high. Add to this civilian losses -- as yet uncounted -- which most agree are many times higher and continually growing. Grozny, a city where Russian authorities say that as many as 30 000 civilians still remain, has been under continuous, punishing bombardment. Few humanitarian NGOs are on the ground. No meaningful talks are under way. In human security terms, the record to date is deeply disturbing.

Canada has been a vocal critic of Russia's policy in Chechnya. We have called for a cease-fire. We have called for an OSCE role. But our overarching interest is in working with Russia to ensure stability and end terrorism in the North Caucasus for good. The tools -- humanitarian assistance, peacebuilding projects and federalism -- are available. Unfortunately, they are not yet being used.

In my ongoing discussions with Foreign Minister Ivanov -- ones that are based on friendship -- I stress that human security must be part of a lasting settlement in Chechnya. While I do not underestimate the scale of the challenges Russia faces in Chechnya, achieving long-term peace and stability will require a dramatic change in approach -- one that shows the proper regard for the basic needs of civilians and a reinforced international humanitarian capacity, and that seeks a political solution through dialogue.

The Canada-Russia partnership has come a long way since the time of Nikolai Struve. We are now peers in the G-8, the UN Security Council, the OSCE, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum [APEC], even the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. Our troops rub shoulders in Bosnia. Our combined diplomacy is at work in the Middle East. But our most direct tie is still an obvious one: the Arctic and the North.

The North has for me been a personal passion. As a native of Manitoba -- with its vast northern expanses stretching up and along the shores of Hudson Bay -- I attribute special meaning to the North. Manitobans have strong northern roots: a significant Indigenous culture, extensive natural resources, and the port city of Churchill -- a bridge to the Arctic.

In the past year alone, I have covered ground from Bergen, Norway, to Egilsstadir, Iceland; from Nuuk, Greenland, to Helsinki, Finland.

My commitment springs from hard facts. A sense of northernness has long been central to Canadian identity. This extends even to Canadians who have never been to the North. More and more often, they appreciate its vulnerability to nuclear waste and organic pollutants. They understand its unique rhythms and its environmental fragility. They also understand its growing importance to our security and our prosperity. The Arctic is a bridge to Eurasia, complementing our ocean and continental links. It also embraces our key foreign policy partners -- the European Union, the United States and, naturally, Russia.

The North is becoming a central part of our foreign policy. It is fundamental to our sovereignty and our prosperity, to our natural environment and our Aboriginal heritage. In all of these areas, Russia is a privileged and principal partner for us. In the key fields of transportation, environment and natural resources, you are our number one partner in the circumpolar world.

Over the past 10 years, we have seen unprecedented institution building in the circumpolar North. I need not remind you of the ongoing work of the Nordic Council, the Council of Baltic Sea States, the Northern Forum, the Barents Council or indeed the Arctic Council which has taken the innovative step of inviting Indigenous NGOs to be full partners in the decision-making process. And under the leadership of your friend and neighbour, Finland, the European Union has made important efforts to develop a northern dimension to their foreign policy.

This is also a time of institution building in Canada's and Russia's relations in the Arctic and North. The challenge before us is to continue to define our shared values and interests; to put them into sharper focus, to make better use of the community of existing organizations and network of contacts in the circumpolar region; and to draw on the our collective resources to provide benefits to our northern communities and implement our new visions for the North.

St. Petersburg's institutes of higher learning and the Arctic in general helped to drive our relations through their worst period: the Canada-U.S.S.R. Arctic Science Exchange of 1984 was arguably our best Cold War vehicle for advancing co-operation. Today we are looking to you for new and more ambitious projects, such as transpolar air routes for cargo and passengers to become a reality, and northern ports such as Churchill, Murmansk, and indeed, St. Petersburg itself to reach out to one another across the Arctic bridge, as they have since the 1940s.

I am making the North a centrepiece of ties with Russia because I recognize the potential: the Working Group on the Arctic and North, which I chair with Goskomsever Chairman Goman, and with support from Igor Ivanov, is open for business.

By taking the ideals and the practice of human security to heart, we will pick up the challenge of the North, and indeed of Canada-Russia relations: one of balance, prosperity and sustainability. We look to St. Petersburg as one of the centres for leadership on these issues. Together, we can make these challenges not, as Akhmatova says, a "Poem without a Hero," but rather a rich story with many heroes all around the northern circumference that our two countries span.

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