
Français		Home		Contact Us		Help		Search		canada.gc.ca		Canada International

Home > Media Room

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

Canadian Offices Abroad

Services for Canadian Travellers

Services for Business

Canada in the World

About the Department

SPEECHES

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips

<html> <head> <meta name="Generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 8"> <title>MR. AXWORTHY - ADDRESS TO THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 1998 FOREIGN POLICY CONFERENCE - OTTAWA, ONTARIO</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 98/67 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 1998 FOREIGN POLICY CONFERENCE OTTAWA, Ontario October 16, 1998 (3:15 p.m. EDT) This document is also available on the Department's Internet site: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca It gives me great pleasure to be here with you this afternoon. I would like to thank the Canadian Institute of International Affairs for inviting me to address such a distinguished audience. I was particularly pleased that this year's CIIA conference is being held in association with the World Affairs Councils of America. This cross-border joint venture of the mind exemplifies precisely the kind of continental co-operation I think is needed to explore the North American identity -- an idea I will return to later. I would like to focus my comments today on three issues: the changing global agenda, Canada's efforts to fashion new approaches to these challenges, and how we might apply these to build a North American community. The Challenge of Human Security The course of world affairs has radically changed since the end of the Cold War. The tremors of that seismic event are still being felt. A number of certainties have nevertheless emerged from the new world disorder. The face of war has been transformed. The majority of violent conflicts occur inside states rather than between them. Regardless of where these conflicts happen, civilians are now increasingly the main victims and targets -- especially the most vulnerable. As a result, the world has witnessed human tragedies of devastating proportions -- massive refugee flows and the grossest violations of humanitarian law, including genocide. The nature of the challenges we face has changed. For the most part, they are transnational. The threats posed by illicit drugs, terrorism, environmental problems, human rights abuses and weapons proliferation do not respect state boundaries. They do, however, have a direct impact on us through the safety of our streets, the air we breathe, the quality of our lives. We are all affected -- no one is exempt. Some may feel the answer to the cacophony of the "outside world" is to raise the drawbridge. The inescapable truth is that our lives are more connected than ever before. Once-distant concerns are as close as our television screens and computer terminals. And while globalization presents opportunities, it can also expose all of us -- especially the most vulnerable -- to economic and social insecurity. We continue to grapple with how to deal with these changes. However, one thing is clear. These new realities have put the individual -- more precisely, the security of the individual -- front and centre in world affairs. The axis of world attention is tilting to issues directly affecting the well-being of the individual. Promoting humanitarian objectives -- increasing protection from abuse, reducing risks of physical endangerment, improving quality of life, and creating the tools to guarantee these goals -- these are the new impetus for concerted global action today. From Kyoto to Kosovo, the international community is being mobilized to address subjects that affect the everyday lives of ordinary people. Our basic unit of analysis in security matters has shrunk from the state to the individual. This human security lens produces new priorities -- everything from countering terrorist bombs to child labour and climate change. These issues have now become the daily concern of foreign ministers and governments. They are the human security agenda. The latest crisis in the Balkans demonstrates the humanitarian imperative as a force for global action. It was the plight of innocent Kosovar civilians, deprived of their livelihood, chased from their homes by the thousands, with hundreds beaten and massacred -- all delivered in real time direct to our living rooms -- that demanded a response from the rest of us. It was the prospect of a quarter of a million human beings left without shelter, with winter approaching, that gave the international community the resolve, if somewhat belatedly, to come to their aid. It was an impending humanitarian disaster that induced NATO, ironically the symbol of Cold War realpolitik, to take steps to avert a human tragedy. To be sure, the old realities of power persist. Classic interstate conflicts and their consequences remain an unfortunate feature of the global landscape. But let there be no mistake. At the end of the 20th century, the human security agenda is no sideshow. On the contrary, it is rapidly becoming the main event of global affairs. Canada's Response It is within this context that Canada has been reshaping and refocussing its foreign policy priorities. We are increasingly occupied with issues that strike directly home to the individual. This human security-centred approach to global relations is based on a number of elements. Engagement, not isolationism, is the guiding principle for action. Canadians have long been open to the world. The transboundary nature of many of the challenges we face makes co-operative action at different levels -- global, regional and local -- all the more essential if they are to be tackled effectively. New, innovative partnerships are indispensable. The foreign policy arena is no longer simply the preserve of nation-states and diplomats. New players on the international scene, including non-governmental organizations [NGOs], business associations, trade unions and regional organizations, have a growing influence. They can play a positive role bringing new tools to the table that we cannot, including first-hand knowledge of issues. New tools are needed, and existing institutions need to be updated. New international humanitarian instruments will help to guarantee protection for individuals. They will also serve to expand the reach of humanitarian norms. International humanitarian law sets the standards for global behaviour. New law sets new standards to which we are all bound. A retooling of existing institutions, such as the United Nations, will give us the collective capacity not only to respond but also to be proactive. In the information age, new communications tools should be, can be and have been used effectively. Finally, the use of soft power -- negotiation rather than coercion, powerful ideas rather than powerful weapons, public diplomacy rather than backroom bargaining -- is an effective means to pursue the human security agenda. In practical terms, these elements have resulted in more focus and activism in Canadian foreign policy on some of the key human security problems. Three recent initiatives -- the campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines, action to address the risks of military small arms and light weapons proliferation, and the creation of the International Criminal Court -- show this human security agenda at work. An unprecedented partnership between governments and civil society resulted in the signing of the Ottawa Convention last December. One hundred and thirty-one countries have signed. Last month, we reached the threshold of 40 ratifications needed to trigger the Convention's entry into force. The Convention sets a new norm in international disarmament. As of March 1, 1999, it will become a permanent part of the international legal framework. Our focus now turns to implementation. Governments, NGOs, regional organizations and the United Nations, which formed such an effective coalition for action, can and must continue to work together in the next phase. There is still much to be done to achieve a world without landmines. However, they are not the only weapons that take a tragic, disproportionate toll on civilian populations. Military small arms and light weapons -- cheap and easy to transport, smuggle or hide -- are the tools of choice of drug smugglers, terrorists and criminals. They are corroding the fabric of our societies. The challenges arising from the proliferation and widespread abuse of military small arms and light weapons are complex. But the impact on all of us, especially the most vulnerable, is direct and devastating. There are no easy solutions and no shortcuts. However, the need to act is compelling. Last month at the United Nations, Norwegian Foreign Minister Knut Vollebaek and I co-hosted a meeting to outline some of the measures we are taking and to exhort others to join our efforts. Over 90 countries participated -- underlining the worldwide resonance of the subject. Canada is addressing the problem along three tracks: humanitarian action through peacebuilding, attacking illicit trafficking, and controlling legal trade. Human security is at risk not only from the devastating effects of landmines and small arms but also from the most extreme violations of humanitarian law. Those who commit heinous crimes in times of conflict must be held accountable for their actions. The reverse side of human security is human responsibility. It is with this in mind that Canada played an active role in the establishment of an International Criminal Court. A framework agreement to create the Court was reached in Rome this summer. We need to move forward urgently to make the Court a reality. The International Criminal Court will help to deter some of the most egregious breaches of humanitarian law, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It will help give new meaning and global reach to protecting the vulnerable and innocent. Isolating and stigmatizing those who commit violations and removing them from the community will help to end cycles of impunity and retribution. The common denominator in these three initiatives is an effort to cast the net of humanitarian norms wider in order to enhance human security everywhere. They are efforts to build the infrastructure of international law and to change global behaviour to deal with truly worldwide human security issues. We have not always seen eye to eye with the United States government on these specific human security initiatives. Canada will continue to work with the United States in addressing official reservations and concerns. And we will co-operate where we can; for example on landmines, where we welcome the role the United States has taken as a world leader on mine action. Notwithstanding official differences, what is striking is the resonance the human security agenda has among the wider American public. American Vietnam veterans have been ardent activists in the effort to ban landmines. Other NGOs, such as Physicians Against Land Mines, with whom I met last month in Chicago, have been instrumental in organizing international action. Elsewhere, the American Bar Association was among the most outspoken in pushing forward the creation of the International Criminal Court. We will continue to push the human security agenda on the world stage. When Foreign Minister Vollebaek and I co-hosted the meeting in New York last month with a group of like-minded countries, the objective was to determine how to advance global action on the human security issues to which I have referred. We also looked at other issues, such as child labour and child soldiers, with a view to ensuring that marginalized sectors of society are on the international agenda. Canada takes its seat on the Security Council in January. The Council is the paramount global instrument to safeguard peace and security. However, it is in serious need of overhaul -- in the way it functions and the issues it deals with. Over the next two years, we will work to include human security concerns in the Council's deliberations, to make the Council more effective, transparent and responsive to the views of the international community, and to help the Council fully shoulder the responsibilities entrusted to it. A North American Community Global co-operation in promoting human security can and should be complemented by efforts on a regional level. As it now stands in North America, Canada, the United States and Mexico all deal separately with challenges to human security such as crime, drugs, terrorism and threats to the environment. Sometimes this has the unwanted side effect of building up rather than bringing down barriers along our borders. The current modus operandi raises a number of questions: whether there can be a common North American response to human security issues, what the scope of such a response might be, how it would shape or reflect a distinctly continental identity, and how this North American approach fits in globally in a changing world. Commerce and economics have until now been the focus of North American co-operation. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] have ensured that our respective economies are integrated as never before. Trade within the North American economic space has increased by 65 percent since 1994. The resulting jobs and economic opportunities are vital to the well-being of citizens in all three countries. Important though this is, promoting economic well-being is only one element in advancing human security on the continent. I recently discussed this with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Mexican Foreign Minister Rosario Green. We agreed that more attention should be placed on the human and social dimension of continental co-operation. As a result, we are exploring areas where we could work together trilaterally. We will meet again in the coming months to review progress. There are a host of concerns, affecting the daily lives of all our citizens, that could be more effectively addressed through joint efforts: education and the development of human resources, our shared natural environment, the movement of goods and people. Enhanced co-ordination in education, research and culture will help us strengthen a regional sense of identity and understand the regional nature of the challenges we face. For example, the Aboriginal peoples of North America share strong common links that could be deepened through joint cultural projects. Linking up our universities and research institutes would allow for co-ordinated work on environmental issues that affect us all. To this end, I recently announced that Canada would support the creation of an Alliance for Higher Education and Enterprise in North America by the North American Institute. Sound management of environmental and natural resource issues is fundamental to the well-being of all North Americans. Yet too often we wait until problems arise and only then look for ad hoc solutions. Effective stewardship of our shared resources means looking ahead and developing solutions together, before problems become acute. Integrated management of shared watersheds in North America is a case in point. The International Joint Commission reflects a long-standing recognition of the importance of this issue. Through joint efforts, the Great Lakes are the cleanest in over half a century. Still, access to fresh water looms large as a future human security flashpoint. We need to ensure that our co-operation keeps pace with the problems ahead. Climate change is another potential area for North American co-operation. Joint efforts on emissions reduction could give the world a model for co-operation between countries at different levels of development. Implementing the Kyoto Accord commitments within North America would be an important display of global environmental leadership. A key area for North American partnership lies in the joint management of our borders. They should be seamless and facilitate trade and movement of people, while also keeping out crime, terrorism and the drug trade. Bilaterally, the Shared Border Accord and the Open Skies Agreement have met this dual challenge with remarkable success. Air travel between Canada and the United States has increased by over a third in less than three years. We are working to make passage across the border even simpler through a nationwide in-transit pre-clearance program. However, we still need to work on getting the balance right between ease of access and control. The ongoing debate over Section 110 of the 1996 U.S. Immigration Act is a case in point. The real challenge, in my view, lies in looking ahead and preparing for the future. It lies in developing a vision of what we want our shared borders to be. You may be aware of proposals that would radically alter movement within North America by establishing continental transport corridors. I think this concept warrants serious investigation. A "Murmansk to Monterrey corridor" could enhance North America's global competitiveness. Transportation corridors also offer potential benefits for local communities, if they are developed with significant local input and in an environmentally sustainable way. Such "green corridors" would be the lifelines of an emerging North American community. They would serve as models of effective, sustainable regional co-operation. Getting there will be quite a challenge, given the many levels of government and interests involved. But if we get it right, we would be breaking new ground in effective governance and management of transboundary issues. Co-operation in these areas will help advance human security in North America. This interaction may also point the way to a wider sense of community and help shape a shared sense of "North American-ness." Mexicans, Americans and Canadians already have a strong sense of their own identity. The challenge will be to develop a North American "footprint" that treads lightly enough that it does not crush the existing landscape formed by distinctive histories and cultures. My sense is that a North American community would be institutionally much lighter and more flexible than the European Union model. It must be an arrangement that is outward looking. Let me be clear: in our interconnected world, it makes no sense to build a fortress North America. Our aim should be to construct a community that serves North Americans but that is also open to the world -- a community, for example, that is open southward to the rest of the Americas or northward to the Arctic region. If we are successful, our own countries would benefit. We would also provide an important model of regional co-operation in a changing and uncertain world. Conclusion Borders are dissolving. The Internet makes global town-hall meetings a possibility. Companies join in complex international exercises in just-in-time delivery. Governments often seem to be the ones lagging behind in adapting to globalization. However, governments have a key role to play in both mitigating the negative effects and taking advantage of the opportunities of a new era. To take up this role, we have to look at things with fresh eyes and learn to work in new ways -- to address pressing problems of human security through new partnerships with other governments and institutions, and with other sectors of society. I have outlined for you today the challenges of the global human security agenda, and a broad range of issues, both global and continental, where Canada, the United States and Mexico have a shared interest in partnership. As the century closes, we should seize the opportunity to enhance global human security while constructing a new model for North American co-operation. Thank you. </body> </html>

2007 - 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