I want to tell you that I have been enjoying my new portfolio very much. That said, I do hope you have not come tonight to hear me speak about Canada's trade performance or our international market objectives. I could certainly do that.

I could tell you about how Canada has become one of the world's most successful trading nations and how our goods and services enjoy an excellent reputation around the world -- and how Canadian businesspeople are known internationally as dynamic, competent and fair people.

I could talk about how Canada's exports have increased from 25 percent of GDP a short 10 years ago to 43 percent today -- four times more, proportionately, than the U.S., and three times more, proportionately, than Japan.

I could point out that one in three jobs in Canada are now related to our trading activities and that 80 percent of the two million new jobs in the Canadian economy since 1993 are attributable to our success in international markets -- which is a good argument for continuing to increase our marketing efforts abroad. I could add that when we do business overseas, we are not just selling goods and services, we are also exporting our society's fundamental values.

For that matter, I could also speak passionately and at some length -- as I often do with my colleagues and my staff! -- about how Canada has chosen to embrace its diversity and to regard it as a strength rather than a weakness, to see it even as an essential element of its identity. Indeed, Canada's rich mosaic -- with millions of people emerging from diverse origins and vastly different experiences -- gives us a special advantage when it comes to approaching international markets. Our exceptional international performance is bound to be even better because of this characteristic.

I could talk about how Canadians refused to create a traditional nation-state, and how the country they founded has progressively reinvented itself on the basis of a decidedly original model whose culmination is the famous Canadian mosaic. About how in Canada there is not one language which mercilessly ousts all others, there is not one culture that is indiscriminately imposed on everyone, there is not one religion which supplants the others, there is not even one legal system whose hegemony is entrenched. About how, from this point of view, Canada as a country is not the norm but the exception -- a country of accommodation.

I could talk about all these things for the full 40 minutes that you've allocated to me -- or more, if you let me. But, I won't.

Instead, I have come here tonight with a different purpose. I would like to share with you where I think that Canada should be going, not only internationally, but also domestically in terms of the way we govern ourselves and the way we respond to important changes that are upon us.

In doing so, I will share with you a little of my experience as the leader of the Canadian delegation to the World Trade Organization [WTO] ministerial meeting in Seattle last December. Having survived the so-called "Battle in Seattle," and having spent considerable time since then reflecting on not only the significance of what went on there but also on the subject of globalization and world trade, I can say with more certainty than ever that we are in a very, very different kind of world than we were. I think Seattle has really crystallized a lot of forces, emotions, tensions and creative evolutions that have been in the air for the last 50 years. I'll discuss this at greater length later.

As reflective people, as policy-makers and academics, we are all aware that there are enormous challenges facing individuals, societies and governments today. We all know that the world has become much more complex. Information, capital and people move faster than ever thought possible even as little as 10 years ago.

But, while this new world is exciting and ripe with opportunities, there are looming challenges, some well-known, and others emerging and unclear. It is up to people like us, and the leaders and thinkers of the next generation, to manage the transition in a way that provides comfort to individuals in these turbulent times and ensures that groups in society are not left behind. This is a tall order which will require creative new approaches.

Tonight, my goal is to offer some useful and relevant observations in an attempt to shed some light on a phenomenon which, in the final analysis, we should find far more inspiring than alarming -- globalization.

Before I get deep into it, however, I think I should tell you a little bit about myself and how I came to have such a strong interest in these subjects.

Origin of my Interest in International Affairs

As you heard when I was introduced, concern and involvement with international affairs has been my life. I have lived it as a political advisor at the NATO Assembly and as a foreign policy advisor in the Privy Council Office. I have lived it for 12 years on the business side (10 years with Samson Bélair Deloitte and Touche in Montreal) and I have had the privilege of living it as a trade minister and leading the Canadian delegation in Seattle. This latter experience really meant something quite special.

All of this experience, as well as my training at Oxford, has allowed me to formulate some thoughts and perspectives on international affairs and, more recently, on this new phenomenon that we call globalization.

In fact, I became so captivated by the subject that I took some time to write a book about globalization and the future of Canada in an era of globalization.

So against that backdrop -- I mean having worked in the field as an international business consultant; having the responsibility for trade and for leading the Canadian delegation to Seattle; having written a book and thought a great deal about it -- you can well understand why Seattle was a determining week in my life personally and why I would like to share some of my thoughts on it with you.

The Differences between Internationalization and Globalization

I'll turn now to the issue of our evolution from the era of internationalization to that of globalization.

Not so long ago we witnessed the "too exclusively" political state, which all too often committed enormous blunders due to its inherent inability to read the market's signals. Now we are seeing the "too exclusively" economic market -- which is no longer able to read the state's signals -- leading to mistakes that are no less enormous.

While markets are the best system we have for creating prosperity, it would be foolish of us to expect markets to answer all of the social needs of our citizenry. As such, we need to think creatively about how to govern in this new world.

I think that only an appropriate interpretation of the situation can produce an appropriate organization of the future. As such, while I do want to focus on the future, I hope you will indulge me by allowing me to give you a few brief observations and reflections on the background of this imposing challenge.

At this point, I usually spend some time discussing the treaties of Westphalia, the emergence of the nation-state and national markets and the resultant improvements in the quality of life of citizens in developed countries. But, as you are all undoubtedly well-versed in the historical evolution of modern day society, I'll jump right to my perception of the differences between internationalization and globalization.

In the past, in the era of internationalization, ties between states, each in control of its own territory, multiplied: official legal ties within international organizations and organic ties through various modes of co-operation: for example, between companies working in different states wherein vertical authority continued to be exercised.

Internationalization thus implied two things: first, expansion of the geographic space in which economic, commercial and an increasing proliferation of other activities were carried out; and second, the existence of national borders which this expansion specifically aims to envelop within increasingly large entities or "wholes."

Internationalization increased the interdependence among societies designed as nation-states. Indeed, the very term internationalization evokes increased exchanges "among nations," and thus connotes a certain impermeability of national, i.e. political, spaces.

The more recent phenomenon of globalization is of a qualitatively different order. Globalization is the result of technological advances, trade liberalization and deregulation. In this world, corporations can decide to carry out a given industrial function in a given geographic region for economic reasons, notwithstanding any political considerations. This new international distribution of work observes a technological hierarchy.

Unlike the multinational, which needed to repeat precisely the parent company model from country to country, the global corporation is showing more flexibility, often using networks or strategic alliances to integrate its various production, research, financing, marketing and informatics functions, carrying out each of these in the part of the world that is best suited to it, without any real regard for political borders.

In short, globalization ignores political borders and merges economic spaces. And thus, on the margin of the state's areas of responsibility, there emerges a new anonymous and stateless power, a power that is at once intoxicating and fearsome. In this time of globalization, then, the vertical power of the state is gradually replaced with the horizontal power of the marketplace. And, evidence shows that the benefits of this have gone well beyond just companies -- we are also seeing increased flexibility and power of other horizontal organizations working throughout the world, such as NGOs [non-governmental organizations], scientific and other bodies.

This is quite accidental but nevertheless fortuitous, because globalization has important implications that go far beyond the world of governments, the marketplace and businesses. Many people worry, for example, that we have moved too far too fast, without stopping to concern ourselves sufficiently with the impacts on the environment or the individual. Indeed, these are the "flashpoint" issues that have brought concern about the impact of globalization into the world of the average citizen.

And, frankly, I understand why people have grown concerned. For the truth is that, while markets and corporations are adjusting quickly to the new world, and in many cases, encouraging the pace of change, governments everywhere are having trouble defining their role -- we did not create this phenomenon! No wonder so many people gathered to make their voices heard last December in Seattle.

The Meaning of Seattle - Collision Between Two Worlds

What happened in Seattle? What I saw in Seattle is two worlds that met -- one might almost say collided. Two international orders finally met: the traditional one, the international world of the states who were getting together to negotiate between themselves the launch of a new trade round and the globalized round, and the emerging one.

The first were democratically elected governments, on the whole, coming to negotiate deals representing the best interests of their population, who, if they didn't like them, in most cases would have the opportunity to fire the government at the next election.

This is the world we are used to. It has been evolving for 400 years, it is the traditional nation-state that we have known since the Westphalia Treaty. That international world is made up of a finite number of actors -- very finite, in fact, with 135 member countries. It is codified, it is ritualized, it is a world that is more or less predictable -- so predictable that it can sometimes get very boring.

That is the world that was meeting in Seattle to launch a ninth round of trade talks. It has very little to do with globalization. It is the world of internationalization, which is a known and understood phenomenon. It is a phenomenon that dates from after the war, in particular when we decided that the best way to avoid war was to make sure that between nations we become more inter-dependent.

And then there is an emerging world -- and that is the real world of globalization. This other world is a "multicentric" world, comprised of an almost infinite number of participants who must be acknowledged as having a capacity for international action that is more or less independent of the state under whose jurisdiction they supposedly exist.

Their sphere of action is very often in the zone that escapes the attention of government because of new technologies and because of all kinds of developments. They have this "zone of irresponsibility," not in the pejorative sense, but where responsibility does not exist because it has not been assigned. And it is the case.

Take, for example, e-commerce or capital flows that go across the borders without any control, or technology that will make a plan of a house here available in Buenos Aires in absolutely no more than one second. It is very hard for government to control that.

But, the real world of globalization has created or at least greatly empowered the very players who were decrying globalization and they emerged in Seattle for the first time in a very forceful way. The irony is that they came to decry the very movement that brought them there.

The juxtaposition of these two worlds yields a very complex configuration of allegiances. The world of the state is based on the exclusivity of its citizens' allegiances and depends on its capacity to act while fully engaging a given number of individuals. The multicentric world is based, on the contrary, on a network of allegiances that are not at all well-codified, whose nature and intensity depend on the free will of the players concerned.

So, to put it bluntly, these two worlds met in Seattle and they didn't like one another very much. The predictable outcome was, and remains, considerable tension, which we will be living with well into the next century. And, though governments will have to deal with it, this tension is not exclusively between governments. It involves competing sectors of society, industries and entire socio-political, cultural, ethnic and economic blocks as well as traditional nation-states.

We previously had this wonderful, predictable, international system; so predictable that we knew everyone's speeches ahead of time because they were usually repeated so often, and in any case, everyone would check them with everyone else to make sure that no one was offended. And then came this new world, quite anonymous, quite bizarre, absolutely unpredictable because of the number of participants, and it is sometimes real, often virtual.

I do not have to tell you that globalization is not a decision that we have made in Cabinet. It is something that we are confronted with. It is not something that is being imposed by corporations and big business either, because many of them are finding it very tough and challenging.

At the same time, globalization is strengthening the opposition, both to business and to government. These people are more empowered now than they have ever been. They can now, in 24 hours, organize thousands of people in any city of the world through the Net -- and at very little cost. So that is what globalization is all about. And, while Seattle was the most striking evidence of this to date, we can be assured that there will be more. In fact, we saw a mini-Seattle in Washington just a few weeks ago.

I regard what I witnessed in Seattle as a development, in the sense that one talks of a photograph being developed. And the photo revealed what everyone could feel to some point, albeit some with more understanding than others:

• the strength of horizontal associations which have no use for the vertical power of states;

• the intuition - often ominous - of artistic circles that sense the advent of changes with weighty consequences for culture and for differentiated humankind; and

• the eruption of an ethical concern which can no longer be satisfied by the standards that are usually applied.

In short, far from representing the final collapse of a trade negotiating process -- which will continue, no matter what anyone says -- Seattle is probably the starting point, in the form of a manifestation of discontent, for a process of political renewal.

Who can deny that the intention at Seattle was to remind us of the human purpose of economic activity?

Who can deny that the political leaders there were sent back to do their homework, with instructions to be true to the humanistic values that the West so strives to promote? Who can deny that what we saw at work was another way of doing things, whose effectiveness is now beyond question?

Who can deny that we saw the differences in reaction time and spheres of influence of the official national and international public authorities, on the one hand, and of the informal international groups which were focussed on certain strategically defined concerns, on the other?

Who can deny the claims and concerns of those pre-occupied with accountability, who maintain that this new era of globalization has brought a "democratic deficit," with governments losing power and influence while horizontal -- and non-democratic -- bodies of all types see their power and influence grow?

In short, who can deny that a new model came to light in Seattle?

Ruptures in Space and Time

Most will agree that the transition from the national to the international and then to the global is largely to be explained by the evolution of technology. More importantly, however, is the concurrent and related phenomenon whereby economic spaces are increasingly integrating, while political spaces are tending to fragment. This fragmentation of the political sector has further strengthened the economic power. A result is that the political authority of countries becomes further undermined.

Thus placed in a now fragile situation, the state can no longer assume the responsibilities to which its citizens have become accustomed. It becomes even less capable of this because the reduction of its vertical authority tends to render its efforts at inter-state co-operation in many fields quite ineffective. This serves as yet another example of the democratic deficit.

Now, more than ever before, states must take the views of their citizens into account, and consult the ethnic groups and interest groups in each part of their territory. They must conduct these consultations even before they confer amongst themselves to co-ordinate their initiatives and policies. I can attest to this personally, as I and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade engaged in extensive consultations with business, NGOs and provinces before, during and after the Seattle meetings.

Now inherent in an already complex decision-making process, these broad consultations, which often also include the courts, take a lot of time and very often conclude with little evident positive effect. Despite this, my commitment to maintain and expand our policy of consultation and inclusion is very strong.

Political time, the state's time, is thus obviously slowed down, as is the state's capacity to act and react. Meanwhile, the NGOs have seen a rapid acceleration of their time, and are now able to mobilize in a matter of hours.

The Problem of Exclusion and the Issue of Values

Acknowledging that the age of internationalization has definitely given way to the age of globalization is one thing. As a member of the government, I believe we have a responsibility to also acknowledge and deal with the fact that even though globalization brings significant progress in terms of efficiency, productivity, scientific and technological advancement, and cultural exchange, it can have certain perverse effects.

First of all, globalization is not only posing a formidable and radical challenge to the state, it is understandably provoking an identity crisis among individual citizens. The unprecedented identity crisis being experienced by so many people everywhere is not just political and cultural, however. It is also economic. For in moving from industrial capitalism to financial capitalism, we have too often moved from the phenomenon of exploitation to the much more radical and disturbing phenomenon of exclusion.

In years past, those who were exploited existed within a social relationship; they had a place on a social ladder, as the expression goes. The exploited could organize themselves and make demands, because their labour was generally still required.

The era of globalization has given rise to a spin-off phenomenon -- exclusion. The situation of excluded persons is different, since capital can be generated without them. Because they do not even enjoy the benefits of a social relationship where, while exploited, one is nevertheless needed, they can be, and are, ignored. Without a social relationship to fall back on, those who find themselves in such a situation are at a loss as to how to cope with it and become increasingly isolated from mainstream society. They feel unproductive, unwanted and ostracized.

Exclusion could be the most pressing public policy challenge facing governments around the world today.

And, another problem -- this risk of exclusion applies just as much to states that are marginalized on the world stage as to the people who are marginalized within each of our societies. For example, another possible perverse effect of this phenomenon is the withdrawal of the political sector, particularly the state, which risks jeopardizing the redistribution of wealth, so necessary to the creation of equal opportunities for all -- something the market is not concerned with, because that is not its business. The result is powerful downward pressures on social programs, and the danger of even further excluding the less advantaged.

A Redefinition of Political Activity is Required

Why do I raise these issues? I believe that a redefinition of political activity is required. Today, we are facing the challenge of reconciling a global economy that functions internationally with a political and law-making system that remains nation-centric.

The political realm -- politics in the noblest sense of the term -- must find a way to restore to the economic realm its human purpose. Globalization can realize its full potential only if it acknowledges that the "reinvented" political power assigns it a direction that is more respectful of all individuals.

What the state did in the past for the economy, and hence for the people, in creating national markets, the political authority must now do again, by acting as the vigilant and diligent guardian of the human goals of economic activity.

I believe that in such a context, education -- which is the basis of all human development, in fact the foundation of the battle against exclusion -- becomes of paramount importance. Today's advanced technologies make it possible to substantially enhance the power of education and bring it to more people than ever before in history. In other words, for all that the new technologies can generate exclusion, they can also combat it -- a happy paradox, whose full potential must be tapped by the political level.

The IMF and World Bank Meetings in Washington: Seattle Revisited?

The protests we witnessed on the streets of Washington a few weeks ago can attest to the level of concern and perhaps the growing fears of exclusion among many people in society. While I could tell you that some very narrow concerns are at the forefront of these protests or that many of the participants are ill-informed, it would be dishonest of me to suggest that there are not at least a few legitimate concerns being raised by some credible and well-informed organizations and interests.

There were two major items on the agenda of the Development Committee on April 17 in Washington. One was the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the other was trade and development. This was the first time that the World Bank and the IMF [International Monetary Fund] had focussed specifically on the contribution that trade can make to economic growth and development, and it demonstrated the increasing attention that multilateral actors are paying to the need to co-ordinate their efforts. In a word, it spoke to the need for coherence in international economic policy making.

The need for greater coherence has become more and more evident over the past few years. Seattle drove the message home even more clearly. That is one of the reasons why I have spent so much time promoting this cause in discussions with my international counterparts -- as well as in many speeches in Canada -- in recent months.

I want to return to the subject of the Washington meetings, though. It was ministers of finance along with some ministers for international co-operation who gathered in Washington. Both Paul Martin and Maria Minna were present from Canada. The assembled ministers recognized during the course of the discussion that it was critical to address trade issues when considering the broader international economic and development context. In his speech there, Mr. Martin asserted the Canadian position that it makes no sense to look at reform of the IMF and the Bank without first looking at their relationship with the other institutions for global co-operation.

He and Madame Minna also underlined the need to help integrate poor countries into the world economy, and the corollary need to provide trade-related assistance in order to do so. This tracks closely with the mandate of the organization that I spend so much time dealing with -- the WTO.

First of all, developing countries need to understand and be able to implement, in a legal sense, the Uruguay Round agreements. They also need the expertise to negotiate any new agreements that might result from current efforts in agriculture or services or from any new round. But well-trained trade policy experts cannot themselves create economic growth. Beyond countries' trade ministries, other government departments need help to develop the capacity to implement agreements, whether these involve food safety standards or customs valuation procedures.

And, if developing countries are really going to take advantage of trading opportunities, they must create an enabling environment: for example, adequate infrastructure -- transport, communications, a regulatory framework; and their private sectors will need to be brought up to speed. In other words, trade-related capacity building ultimately means addressing the entire spectrum of development needs. It means inserting the trade agenda into the development equation.

Thus one of the principal coherence issues is to determine what should be done in the area of trade-related capacity building. The WTO, the World Bank, UNCTAD [UN Conference on Trade and Development], individual donors -- all are involved one way or another in the provision of trade-related assistance. The challenge is to ensure that scarce resources are allocated in the most cost-effective way, to avoid duplication as well as gaps in coverage.

This is no small task, and it demands both international and domestic co-ordination. I have been encouraged by my discussions on this issue with Jim Wolfensohn, and I know that my colleague, Maria Minna, is sensitive to the needs and to the challenge. I intend to continue to work with both of them on ways to enhance the contribution that trade can make to economic growth and development.

You might ask why the Minister for International Trade is devoting so much attention to the concerns of developing countries.

I do so for four reasons:

• First, because we are all global citizens and as such we care about the social and economic conditions of our fellow human beings.

• Second, because the integration of more players into the global economy is in our interest. More customers for our products will help fuel our own economic growth as well as theirs.

• Third, because I believe that the future of the WTO, and hence the future health of the global trading system, depends on ensuring that all countries are productive members.

• And fourth, because the prospects for peace and our collective security -- something in which we all have a stake -- are much brighter if we work together to ensure the benefits of globalization are more broadly shared.

I see the relationship between the various factors contributing to global prosperity as a "virtuous circle." Global prosperity requires development. Development requires economic growth. Growth requires business activity. Business activity requires good governance. And, in this context, good governance requires a number of things, including investments in people, support for the rule of law and coherence.

While I don't want to diminish the importance of the latter two -- i.e., support for the rule of law and efforts to ensure greater coherence between international agencies like the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and the various UN agencies -- for example the UNEP [UN Environment Program] -- I believe that the human dimension of this good governance equation is particularly important. What I am talking about is investments in people, investments through such things as lifelong learning and skills upgrading initiatives, as well as through the provision of adequate social safety nets. These types of investments lead to greater inclusiveness and participation in the economy, thus creating more growth and generating more revenues to assist the efforts at good governance -- you get the picture. Such investments can do much to help individuals meet the inevitable challenge of ongoing structural adjustment, in developed and developing economies alike.

The Need for Greater Transparency

Before I leave the subject, I should add that the spring meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were notable, not merely for the important steps they took on the trade agenda and hence on improving coherence in international economic policy making, but also for the steps they took to enhance the transparency of their work, particularly in the case of the IMF.

As Minister I have also been advocating Canada's support for a proposal to establish an independent evaluation unit that would assess IMF programs and policies. The Canadian Executive Director to the IMF, Tom Bernes, has been chairing the evaluation group that made this proposal. At the spring meetings, Paul Martin urged that this unit be made operational by the time of the Fall Annual Meeting. This initiative should help build the external credibility and support that the IMF requires to ensure its effectiveness.

The WTO, by comparison, has become much more transparent in the past few years. I feel very strongly however, that it must become even more transparent. I believe nothing will help dispel the myths of the WTO opponents more than our opening up of the process to the media and public. In fact, seeing the tortuous process and technical language in all their glory will likely put them all to sleep.

I think the WTO could show greater transparency by introducing some structural reform as well. I have often described the WTO as having a system for shareholders' meetings -- namely ministerial conferences once every two years -- and a full-time managing director, in the person of the Director General, but as lacking a board of directors. Properly addressing this problem could reduce concerns of developing countries that their voices are not heard, and could enhance transparency, while at the same time improving the efficiency of the entire organization.

A Renewed Ethic

This unprecedented global environment inevitably generates new phenomena that require adaptation -- hence the need for a new global civil society and a new ethic.

The number and might of NGOs are increasingly well known, and probably destined to increase, because basically the NGOs owe their existence and influence to the technological progress that has made the global marketplace possible.

As an immediate result of this situation, the autonomy that national governments have lost is being transformed, whether we like it or not, into a sharing of powers between those governments and a great many NGOs. These organizations have in fact come to hold a pivotal place on the world stage.

For example, the aid they provide to people in need, wherever they may be in the world, surpasses the assistance provided to those people through the entire network of UN institutions, excluding the World Bank and the IMF. And, the growth of NGOs in the environmental field is amazing.

The attention that NGOs pay to global problems extends beyond environmental issues to the survival of Indigenous peoples, social justice, human rights and the economy. As we know, the NGOs have some harsh judgments about world debt, trade and the legitimacy of the role of the banks in international development. In a number of fields, the bargaining power of the biggest NGOs can have an impact on a state's actions.

I think we must take this very seriously. Many people would simply say -- and if I were only the Trade Minister tonight I might be tempted to agree -- that the NGOs don't represent anyone anyway. Indeed, many of his critics contend that Ralph Nader is being subsidized by the U.S. textile industry, and that many of the protesters in Seattle, far from dreaming of a more idealistic world, were really only after very narrow interests. Some point out for example, that of the 50 000 demonstrators, 25 000 were workers from the AFL/CIO [American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]. All these things are at least debatable, and many would say they are absolute truths, but I think it is very cool comfort to narrow it down to that.

The important point is that the international order is not well equipped to deal with these new issues or to organize these new players. Concerned first and foremost with relations between states, the international order has not even begun to reflect the evolution in favour of civil society at the expense of the public sector. This begs the question: even though a real world community does not yet exist, can we start thinking about a world law, a new ethic? We not only can, we must. We simply do not have a choice.

Internationalization is giving way to globalization. The state is being challenged by the market. If we are to humanize globalization, a new ethic is required. And, unlike economic development, this new ethic cannot be based solely on individual interest. The good news is that this new ethic is emerging.

The change we are witnessing could perhaps best be described as a shift from an ethic of justice -- cold and technocratic -- to an ethic of care. As my colleague Paul Martin said while in Washington, we must demonstrate that countries are made up of people and not economic indicators.

I believe that the challenge is less about changing the world and a lot more about being compelled, by the forces of globalization, to change or reshape our lives to adapt to the new era.

And, I believe women will have a much, much bigger role to play in the 21st century than they did before because they are far more prepared to make a contribution to the reshaping and the reinventing of our lives than are men, who are still very much oriented on changing the world and fighting yesterday's battles. It is no accident that many new social movements are being led by women, whereas the union movement and national liberation movements were and still are mostly headed by men.

The way I see it, the distinction between public affairs and private affairs is rapidly diminishing. And, I would say that, generally speaking, women are more advanced in thinking about this because having integrated into the world of business, they have, more than men, maintained greater responsibility on the private side of things. This suggests that they will have an advantage in coping with the required change. In any case, the participation of women in the emerging society will inevitably strengthen the ethic of care, because over the last centuries men have been responsive to the ethic of justice.

I believe that immigrants have an advantage as well because they have had to reinvent themselves once already when they joined the different society. Having had to reinvent themselves, they are miles ahead of other people who haven't been forced to do so.

One other group -- the young -- have an advantage, too, because they were born into the culture of computers and the Net and all that comes along with globalization.

So that is why I say in my book that these three groups of individuals are better prepared to make a contribution. I believe that governing in the next century will be the challenge of making room for these groups who are more advanced in dealing with the issues of globalization. I think that this is one of the most important lessons that I have learned from Seattle.

The Common Good

I believe we must get back to the concept of the common good. As originally understood, the object of the common good was the ultimate fulfilment of the human being and human society, that is, the most complete degree of both personal and community development.

For liberal American doctrine, the common good refers to the "public good" and the improvement of the human condition everywhere on earth through virtue, creativity and the spirit of enterprise of free citizens; in its most recent version, influenced by 20th-century Catholic social doctrine, the essence of the common good is to guarantee in social life the benefits of voluntary co-operation.

But, there is such a thing as the tragedy of the global commons -- it occurs when the common good is sacrificed because no actor will engage unilaterally in policies of prevention when only concerted world action has any chance of success. To ensure this failure to act does not occur, we must help ensure the emergence of a new level of awareness, one that recognizes that the pursuit of the common good will be successful in large part if generosity is strengthened and is capable of ignoring or at least dominating the claims of self-interest.

To get there, I think we will have to reinvent democracy. The new democracy will have to reflect the reality of many, many citizens.

What is it to be a citizen? Over 400 years, the state has come to conquer the allegiances of every individual on its territory. The state began its conquest of the citizens' allegiance by giving it at first physical security -- stopping the bandits on the roads between cities in medieval Europe, for example.

The second thing the state did was to provide economic security to businesses. That is what led to the creation of what we know as capitalism and national markets. Long ago, there were no national markets, there were only city markets. We created national markets when we gave some economic rights to corporations. Later, when states chose to ally themselves with a nation, usually the majority nation on a given territory, they were able to create the emotional attachment they needed to get citizens ready to make sacrifices. The allegiance of the citizens was further gained by the state, with the advent of social security. The New Deal was one of the first and best examples in the 20th century.

So, we could say that the state won over individuals by providing -- in order -- physical security, economic security and social security.

Today, however, individuals no longer see themselves only as citizens of a given territory; of a given country. What characterizes individuals more and more is their sense of belonging to all kinds of other networks that are not necessarily limited to their own territory -- horizontal networks, such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Médecins sans frontières. More and more people in today's world belong to such groups. As a result, more and more individuals' identities are becoming extremely complex.

Even national citizenships are becoming less distinguishable. When I was in Japan last fall, for example, I asked a young Frenchman what he was and I was flabbergasted because he spontaneously answered "European". You would have never heard that 25 years ago in Europe -- never! I mean a Frenchman was a Frenchman, a German was a German. Now they define themselves more and more as European!

So already globalization has shattered some traditional identities. But I am also seeing something far more radical than just switching from one level to the other, what I would still consider a vertical identity, vertical in the sense that it is a state and a territory, whether it is Europe or France.

I think identities are becoming less and less vertical and more and more horizontal. Everything was vertical in the 19th and 20th centuries. Your social level was vertical, you belonged to the lower class, middle class, or upper class. Even your level of education was based on vertical identity.

Now our identities will be more and more horizontal. We are closer to the centre or further from the centre of a number of different circles that we all belong to. This very radically changes the way individuals think of themselves, and it is going to make governance very, very complicated.

With regard to the new altruistic values that we have to establish, we must, however, be realistic and acknowledge that the spirit of free trade will not be of much help to us. For objective concurrence between commercial openness to others and the financial advantages of that openness do not exist where the issue is the establishment of new values and the common good, as it did exist when free trade was being established. So, I believe the scale of the challenge before us is immediately clear.

The Canadian Experience of Plural Identities

In closing, I want to return to one of the statements I made at the outset regarding how pluralism lies at the very foundation of Canada. As I said, many different ethnic groups have played their role in the creation of this "abnormal" country of Canada, and continue to participate in its ongoing creation to ensure that the necessary adjustments are made to the many profound changes that arise.

That is why I believe very strongly that, in this age of globalization and the many immigration flows it generates, this country, which has refused the model of modernity, that of the nation-state, is a herald of the future.

The decisions of today have a spatial and temporal horizon of unprecedented scope. They involve not only relations between states, societies and individuals, but also the relations of the human being with the rest of the universe and future generations.

I believe that our Canadian values of solidarity and diversity are worth protecting and fostering -- especially in a world where exclusion is threatening to become widespread. A world stripped of the values of solidarity would soon become unliveable in my view.

Fortunately, however, I firmly believe that Canada is well-positioned to handle the challenges that I mentioned tonight. Not only that, I believe we have the potential to be a shining example of how to govern in this new era.

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