
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 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY LAW SCHOOL ONCANADA AND HUMAN SECURITY - CALGARY, ALBERTA</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 2000/8 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY LAW SCHOOL ON CANADA AND HUMAN SECURITY CALGARY, Alberta February 17, 2000 I am very pleased to participate in the University of Calgary's international law week. A forum devoted to the subject of international law as a millennium project could not be more appropriate. International law, including international human rights and humanitarian law, is not static. It has evolved and adapted to a changing world. And the current global context is certainly defined by change. It is therefore timely to consider the impact recent shifts in global affairs are having on human rights and humanitarian law. The most important development is that people, not just states, are increasingly the subject of global affairs and central to international concern. Assuring the security and rights people, not just the absence of conflict between states, is key to world peace and stability. Professors Mahoney, Martin, Pask and other members of the Law Faculty know this. It is reflected in their valuable human rights research and work, especially gender-related issues. Canada's foreign policy also needs to be updated to take into account this change -- in other words to put people first. This is behind Canada's human security agenda -- an approach to the world that makes sense for Canadians. First, it responds to the fact that Canadian lives and interests are directly affected by the new global context. I speak from direct experience: during my first week as Foreign Minister I found myself dealing with the situation of Canadians directly affected by modern threats: a Canadian nurse victimized by conflict in Chechnya, a young Canadian couple in Paris victimized by an act of terrorism, and a Canadian victimized by kidnappings in Latin America. This was no passing phase -- ask Shirley Macklin from Winnipeg who was held hostage by terrorist hijackers in the Air India ordeal this past December or the six Albertan oil workers kidnapped in Ecuador last fall. As students, tourists, business people - indeed as ordinary Canadians -- our lives and interests are clearly affected by global change. The impact is felt not just abroad but at home. Consider the consequences of the drug trade on our youth, the use of our shores by smugglers of human cargo, and the spectre of global terrorism in our midst. The human security agenda addresses these problems of direct concern to Canadians. It is also an approach that reflects Canadians' own experience and allows us to project this on the global stage. We have a history of accommodation. We built a country based on rule of law, tolerance, respect for the individual. The Canadian emphasis on negotiation, creative ideas, and openness are precisely the tools we need to solve international problems. The human security agenda puts a premium on using these strengths to advance the well-being of people. Finally, it is an approach that includes all Canadians, reflecting the new more inclusive realities of global governance that involves input and responsibilities for a variety of players. Governments continue to be important -- but globalization, world markets, instant communications have given a role and profile to others. The human security agenda takes advantage of new synergies and coalitions between governments, civil society, and the private sector. It also highlights the duties of all Canadians, not just government but individuals and companies, to act when human security is at stake. In sum, putting people first is a foreign policy approach suited to Canadians' experience, needs, interests, and capacities. It is also an approach that is entirely suited to the realities of the world we live in, and in particular to the new dynamic of global peace and security. First, there is the reality that modern armed conflict puts people more directly at risk -- in more varied ways and in greater numbers than ever. The victimization of civilians is no longer the tragic byproduct of war, but often the principal aim -- and, more often than not, the main result of violent conflict. At the same time, there is much greater awareness of the world around us. Consciousness stimulates conscience. Globalization has made individual human suffering an irrevocable universal concern. In our interconnected world, our own security is increasingly indivisible from that of our neighbours -- at home and abroad. This conference is eloquent testimony to this new reality. There is also dramatic change in the actors and instruments of global affairs. Civil society and non-governmental organizations [NGOs] are playing an increasingly important role. The Internet and more rapid communications improve people's capacity to connect directly, to participate in world affairs, and to mobilize support for the less fortunate. There is, finally and perhaps most importantly, an increasing willingness to speak up -- a disposition to take action on behalf of people regardless of who they are and where they are -- and, in the process, to challenge the most absolutist notions of non-interference. In this new world, our lives are inextricably connected and we share a common destiny. Canada's human security agenda is aimed at developing new concepts, adapting diplomatic practice and updating the institutions on which the international system is based, with a view to enhancing the well-being and security of all people. Human security covers the entire gamut of international relations -- from conflict prevention, to humanitarian intervention, to post-conflict remediation. Since the end of WWII, the principle of international protection of human rights has progressively gained weight at the expense of the most rigid interpretations of state sovereignty. This does not mean that the state is obsolete. Quite the opposite. For one thing, international promotion of human security does not weaken sovereignty, but strengthens it by reinforcing democratic, tolerant, open institutions and behaviour. For another, the state remains the most powerful instrument for collective action. Those who have suffered under colonialism and other outside involvement in their countries might well be sceptical. However, preventing abuse, stopping atrocities and dealing with the impact of war are also their issues, pertaining to their realities and clearly affecting stability in their backyards. Some argue that human security policies divert funds from the more basic priority of development. But far from being mutually exclusive, human security and human development are just opposite sides of the same coin. It is hard to improve one's GDP [gross domestic product] when so much of one's resources go to repair the damage of war and to mend broken lives. Others who defend the strictest interpretation of sovereignty undoubtedly have more dubious motives. Sovereignty is clearly less and less of a shield behind which massive abuse can occur. This certainly must be disturbing to those given to violating the security and safety of their own citizens. And how curious that the most ardent defenders of state authority are the very ones who have few qualms about ceding it elsewhere to global economic institutions when their economic interests are at stake. The paradigm of international politics is clearly shifting to take more direct account of the rights of people. So, too, is the practice. Indeed, as is often the case, practice is leading theory. The protection of people was the inspiration behind the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, a movement strongly supported by Canadians -- and one that is producing global results. Protecting people likewise provides the impetus behind Canada's active efforts to create the International Criminal Court; to curtail the proliferation and abuse of small arms and light military weapons; and to help war-affected children. For example, Canada led in developing consensus on the text of the recently announced protocol on the recruitment and deployment of child soldiers. These are not discrete, unconnected events, but part of a wider effort to shape a world in which the security of people is defended. Protecting people also requires updating our international institutions. Canada is doing so by integrating the human dimension into the work of the G-8, the OAS [Organization of American States], the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe], the Commonwealth, la Francophonie and the UN. The UN Security Council has not always responded resolutely to the challenges posed by new human security threats. Canada, with other Council members, is trying to change that during our current term on the Council -- and with some success. Through Canadian efforts, among others, the protection of civilians in conflict is now firmly on the Council agenda. At Canada's initiative, the Secretary-General has prepared a report on the subject containing recommendations for action. We will continue to promote human security at the Council. To that end, we plan to promote a more targeted approach to sanctions, work to reassert the Council's lead in peacekeeping, and continue to forge increased and more open links between the Council and others. Last but not least, we will continue to progress on the issue of humanitarian intervention. Let me be very clear on this point. I am not talking about minor violations of human rights. There are other ways to censure such misgovernance. What I am talking about is international intervention to prevent or stop massive human suffering. Humanitarian intervention is called for only in severe cases -- genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and massive and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law. In these cases, the international community's record is not good. Consider the legacy of Pol Pot and Idi Amin. Consider the findings of the independent inquiries on Rwanda and Srebrenica. These reports are a catalogue of failure and inaction by the world in the face of enormous human suffering. Certainly, preventive and non-coercive action is best -- mediation, confidence-building, promoting good governance, democratic institution building, preventive deployment or sanctions. They should always be tried. Indeed, we should put a premium on improving capacity, increasing resources and acting sooner in these areas in order to avoid the necessity of stronger measures. It remains true, though, that these actions are not always feasible and they don't always work. When they don't work, humanitarian intervention becomes an option. It is one of the most difficult decisions that leaders can make. It is fraught with complications. It challenges established thinking about the international order. However, what validity is there to a rule of international law that cannot be enforced. A full discussion about humanitarian intervention is, therefore, unavoidable and indispensable, because we will undoubtedly be confronted with new humanitarian tragedies in the future; and because in the absence of clarity, we will certainly be faced with the same questions, the same paralysis and the same lack of preparedness -- with the same tragic results. The lack of action in Rwanda and Srebrenica raised the question. NATO's action in Kosovo sparked the debate. Last September, in a statement to the General Assembly, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan took up the challenge, laid out the arguments and made clear the stakes. It is now a discussion that the UN Security Council -- indeed, the international community -- must engage in. In doing so, three issues need to be addressed: strengthening the norms and practices regarding the protection of civilians; mobilizing the political will to act when necessary; and developing the military and civilian capacity to succeed. The basis for humanitarian intervention can rest on the UN Charter, developments in international humanitarian and human rights law, and perhaps most significantly, on Security Council practice. The opening articles of the UN Charter refer not only to the maintenance of international peace and security but also to the reaffirmation of faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person. This is a powerful symbol of the international community's obligation to protect people, and serves as the foundation for international action to that end. International humanitarian and human rights law, specifically the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention, support the Charter concerning international responses to crimes against humanity and war crimes. Article 1 of the Genocide Convention, for example, confirms that genocide is a crime under international law, which contracting parties undertake to prevent and to punish. The creation of International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the adoption of a statute for the International Criminal Court further reinforce growing international consensus that those responsible for massive and systematic violations of human rights within state borders are neither immune from international law, nor can they escape international sanction. Finally, the UN Security Council has authorized armed intervention for humanitarian purposes in a number of cases -- Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and East Timor. To be sure, the circumstances in each are different. There are nuances to the mandates. There are certainly questions about the results. But there is little doubt that, taken together, these Council decisions recognize that genocide and other crimes against humanity cannot stand unchallenged. Still, what are governments to do when the Council is divided and terrible crimes are being perpetrated behind the veil of sovereignty of an abusive state? The first issue that arises is whether the nature of the offence warrants outside intervention. In our view, that can only be the case when egregious acts of violence are being deliberately committed against the innocent. We have a very high test in mind. Once the judgment has been made that the violence -- actual or threatened -- meets this test, there are several considerations to weigh: • Urgency. Has time run out on other peaceful dispute resolution instruments? Humanitarian intervention should be undertaken only when it is clear that all reasonable non-coercive efforts to prevent or resolve a conflict have been tried and have failed. The threat or occurrence of massive human suffering and loss of life is the key factor in determining the necessity of intervention. • Prevention. Is there a danger that an intrastate conflict, if left alone, will proliferate and threaten regional or international security? Not intervening can have a destabilizing effect on regional security. Inaction in Rwanda, for example, has contributed to the spread of atrocities and civil conflict throughout central Africa. • Consistency. All civilians are inherently equally worthy of protection. In practice, however, this raises questions of international will and capacity to act in each case. Should we intervene, for example, if we believe that we cannot improve the situation on the ground, or if it is clear that such a decision would merely lead to the spread of conflict? Consistency is obviously the goal. But for those who criticize humanitarian intervention on the grounds that it is inconsistently employed, I would ask: if the international community cannot intervene everywhere, does that mean we must not intervene anywhere? Strengthening norms also requires mobilizing the will to act. The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is the focus around which action in these matters should be grounded, and the first place that the world's people look to for leadership when their security and safety are at risk. Canadians do -- explaining our strong commitment to an effective Council. That is why the Council must now resolutely rise to the challenge of humanitarian intervention. Yet, even while authorizing interventions on humanitarian grounds, some Council members have been unwilling to consistently apply a broader definition of the Charter's peace and security mandate in response to today's conflicts. Secretary-General Annan highlighted the resulting dilemma in this comment about Rwanda: "Imagine for one moment that, in those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, there had been a coalition of states ready and willing to act in defence of the Tutsi population, but the Council had refused or delayed giving the green light. Should such a coalition then have stood idly by while the horror unfolded?" In the face of deliberate, systematic, large-scale perpetration of atrocities against innocent people and if the Council is paralysed -- do we still have an obligation to act? Surely, the answer is yes. Parallels with the anti-personnel mines campaign come to mind. The human suffering inflicted by these weapons was enormous. The need, the demand and the imperative to respond were clear. Yet, the institution charged with action was incapable of doing so. An alternative route was taken -- one that had tremendous support, one that produced results, one that was brought back into the UN, and one that, ultimately, strengthened the international system. The cumulative weight of international human rights and humanitarian law, the global trend against impunity and for accountability that led to the creation of the International Criminal Court, the precedents set by the Council itself -- all justify action in the face of severe humanitarian crisis and Council inability to acquit its responsibilities. Certainly, intervention in these circumstances must be exceptional and linked as closely as possible to the Security Council -- before, during and after the conflict. But it must be an option. This raises concerns in some quarters. Key to addressing these concerns and to mobilizing the will to act is a clearer framework within which intervention can occur -- a framework that creates a permissive enough environment to stop massive and systematic violations of human rights, balanced with safeguards to ensure that it is not misused by states pursuing self-interested objectives. To that end, five important considerations come to mind: • Corroboration. Is the severity of the crisis corroborated by a credible third party? Independent confirmation that a humanitarian crisis is imminent should be a prerequisite so that the international community is not drawn in to serve the political goals of one or more countries. • Practicability. Can the humanitarian intervention generate a positive outcome for victims? Intervention should be undertaken when it is clear that with adequate resources, a clear mandate and broad support, it could bring an end to acute and widespread suffering. • Scale. Is the level of force appropriate to the circumstances? We should target the perpetrators of violence and the infrastructure on which they depend, while ensuring due regard for civilians and the environment. • Support. Is the intervention multilateral in nature and widely supported? Unilateral interventions, for example, raise questions of abuse and/or self-interest by the intervener. • Sustainability. Is the intervention part of a longer-term strategy to build and sustain peace? Humanitarian intervention should not necessarily be seen as a stand-alone activity or a Band-Aid solution. Mobilizing political will is closely linked to the availability of adequate military and civilian capacity. At a time when requests for troops to help protect civilians in times of conflict are growing, governments must plan ahead and marshal the necessary resources to carry out new missions. The capacity of the UN itself to manage complex missions is under great strain. A co-ordinated and integrated approach is required nationally and internationally to ensure that we are prepared. Rapidly identifying and mobilizing the necessary military and civilian resources is fundamental to the success of a decision to intervene for humanitarian purposes. As Kosovo showed, it was not speeches condemning Serbian President Milosevic that stopped his actions -- it was our willingness to undertake forceful action with strong international support. Yet at present, humanitarian actions such as these are carried out in an ad-hoc manner -- by NATO, ECOMOG [Military Observer Group of the Economic Community of West African States] or coalitions of the willing, such as INTERFET, the multinational force deployed in East Timor. Whatever the reasons, this trend toward a voluntary approach to enforcement action must be reversed. It places undue burdens on those capable of paying. More importantly, it erodes the principle of universal participation in collective security enshrined in the Charter. We must also bear in mind that humanitarian intervention is aimed at providing immediate physical protection for people -- a fundamental step, but usually only the first in building long-term stability and security. Building the capacity to succeed means not only providing collective resources for humanitarian intervention, but providing collective -- and adequate -- resources, attention and priority for peacebuilding activities that follow. The massive and systematic abuse of human rights is, tragically, an enduring feature of this new world. It is no accident, then, that the subject of the international community's response, including humanitarian intervention, should take on a renewed profile. Discussion about humanitarian intervention is fraught with controversy. If there was some assurance that people would no longer be subject to the most extreme violations of humanitarian and human rights law, some guarantee the deliberate infliction of human suffering on a massive scale could be eliminated, and some prospect that past atrocities would not be repeated in the future -- perhaps we could do without it. However, that is unlikely. It would undoubtedly be far easier to duck the issue. It would silence the critics. It would assuage lawyers. It would satisfy finance ministries. However, there are those who most patently would not be better off, and who are ultimately the most concerned -- the people subject to massive and systematic abuse. That is why humanitarian intervention is something we must address -- the sooner the better. Humanitarian intervention is at the extreme end of the human security spectrum -- a subject that requires our attention. It is indicative of how, in the new global context, the protection of people has taken on increased importance -- in conflict situations and beyond. This is the impetus for Canada's human security agenda -- our way of making the protection of people a top international priority. It is the right approach for Canada and for Canadians because it reflects our history, our needs, our interests, and our capacities. As I stated at the outset, the human security agenda is not just a government policy. It is a policy that has involved and can and should involve Canadians from all walks of life. Indeed, to work, it takes focus, energy, attention, and the contribution of people such as yourselves. At the start of a new century, the protection of people -- Canadians and others -- is among the most important issues before us. I have outlined some of the challenges we face. I hope I have motivated some of you to turn your attention to resolving them. 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