
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"> <meta name="DATE" content="0/0/0"> <meta name="Description" content="Notes pour une allocution de"> <title>MR. PETTIGREW - ADDRESS ONSEATTLE: A COLLISION BETWEEN TWO WORLDSTOTHE GLOBAL FORUM 2000 - WASHINGTON, D.C.</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE PIERRE S. PETTIGREW, MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE, ON SEATTLE: A COLLISION BETWEEN TWO WORLDS TO THE GLOBAL FORUM 2000 WASHINGTON, D.C. May 15, 2000 Thank you very much for inviting me here today. And thank you for your kind introduction. I can see that you have assembled quite an impressive group here today, and I want to congratulate the organizers for doing such a superb job. I have come here today to share with you my views on what I see as the challenges and opportunities before us all in this still relatively new era of globalization. I believe that there is an urgent need for thoughtful and open-minded discussion on the ways we, as governments, businesses and, perhaps most importantly, as individuals respond to the 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 ministerial meeting in Seattle last December. Having experienced first-hand the event the media have dubbed the "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, business leaders, decision makers, policy experts 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 recently as 10 years ago. We know that this new world is very exciting and rife with opportunities, but what many of us -- especially those of us in government -- still need to come to terms with is the fact that there are also looming challenges, some well-known, and others still emerging and unclear. It is up to 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 calls for creative new approaches. Today, 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. The Differences between Internationalization and Globalization I'll begin by providing my characterization of the 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 -- this has led to mistakes that are no less enormous. While markets are undoubtedly the best system we have for creating prosperity and generating economic growth, it would be foolish of us to expect markets to answer all of the social needs of our citizenry. So, with the growing emergence of the influence of the market, we need to think creatively about how to govern in this new world. In the past, in the era of internationalization, ties between states, each in control of its own territory, multiplied: this included such things as defence pacts, treaties and economic co-operation agreements. 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 aimed to envelop within increasingly large entities or "wholes." Internationalization increased the interdependence among societies designed as nation-states, and, in fact, the very word "internationalization" seemed to emphasize the 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 heavily 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 has emerged a new anonymous and stateless power. This is the horizontal power of the marketplace. It is at once intoxicating and fearsome to watch as it gradually replaces the vertical power of the state. And this trend toward horizontal power has gone well beyond just the marketplace -- we are also seeing increased flexibility and power of other horizontal organizations working throughout the world, such as NGOs [non-governmental organizations], and scientific and other bodies. This "side effect" has occurred quite by chance, but it is quite 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, the environment and human rights are two of 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 and coming up with a plan for how to deal with this phenomenon! No wonder so many people sought to make their voices heard last December in Seattle. They have a sense -- an accurate one -- that governments are somewhat at a loss. The Meaning of Seattle -- Collision Between Two Worlds What happened in Seattle? What I saw in Seattle is two worlds that met -- and to put it bluntly -- collided. The first, of course, was the traditional one, the international world of the states that were coming together to negotiate between themselves the launch of a new trade round. The second was the globalized world, represented by a broad range of groups, corporations and special interests. One might describe this as a meeting between international order and global disorder -- and I don't mean this in the pejorative sense. The international world was represented by democratically elected governments, on the whole, who were coming to negotiate deals representing the best interests of their population. That being the case, they understood that if the people didn't like the deals, they would, at least in most cases, have the opportunity to "fire" the government at the next election. This is the world, the order, that 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 interdependent. And then there is an emerging world, and that is the real world of globalization. This other world is a "multicentric" world, composed 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 technically 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. 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 this century. And, although governments will have to deal with it, this tension is not exclusively between governments. It also 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 speech ahead of time because it is has usually been repeated so often, and in any case, everyone checks it in advance with everyone else to make sure that no one will be offended. And then comes this new world, quite anonymous, quite bizarre, absolutely unpredictable because of the number of participants, and it is sometimes real, often virtual. So these two worlds met in Seattle and they both felt, quite rightly, that they represented something valid and credible. When I met the civil society people and the NGOs they said, "We hate globalization," I looked at them and said, "I am a member of a government. It is far more difficult for me to accept globalization because globalization is threatening us. You are globalization." And, to be honest, I think most of them did not understand what I meant because so many people do not fully understand what globalization is about. Too many people think globalization is a policy that governments have dreamed up rather than 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 Internet -- 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: <ul> <li>the strength of horizontal associations that have no use for the vertical power of states;</li> </ul> <ul> <li>the intuition -- often ominous -- of artistic circles that sense the advent of changes with weighty consequences for culture and for differentiated humankind;</li> </ul> <ul> <li>the eruption of an ethical concern that can no longer be satisfied by the standards of justice that are usually applied. </li> </ul> 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 -- we're slow, they're fast -- and spheres of influence of the official national and international public authorities, on the one hand, and of the informal international groups, on the other? Who can deny the claims and concerns of those preoccupied 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. One important result is that the political authority of countries has become undermined by the concurrent and related phenomenon whereby economic spaces are increasingly integrating while political spaces are tending to fragment. Thus, placed in a now fragile situation, the state can no longer assume the responsibilities to which its citizens have become accustomed. It has become even less capable of this because the reduction of its vertical authority has tended to render its efforts at interstate co-operation in many fields quite ineffective. This is what frustrates so many people so much -- they simply don't see any effective state power over issues that they regard as critical to the long-term benefit of citizens around the world; for example, issues such as the environment and human rights. This is where the "democratic deficit" seems all the more evident. Now, more than ever before, states must take the views of their citizens into account. They must conduct consultations even before they confer among themselves to co-ordinate their initiatives and policies. I can attest to this personally, as I engaged in extensive consultations with business, NGOs and provinces before, during and after the Seattle meetings. While we must maintain our commitment to engage citizens in this manner, one clear result is that political time -- that is, the state's time -- is 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 It is one thing to accept the fact that the age of internationalization has definitely given way to the age of globalization. As an elected member of a government, I believe that we also have a responsibility to 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 adverse effects. First of all, not only does globalization pose a formidable and radical challenge to the state; it understandably provokes 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 still had a place on the social ladder, as the expression goes. The exploited could organize themselves and make demands, because their labour was generally still required. But, globalization has given rise to a spin-off phenomenon -- exclusion. The situation of excluded persons is different, since wealth can be generated without them. 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, ostracized and ignored. We cannot -- we must not -- allow this to become the legacy of the era of globalization. Exclusion could be the most pressing public policy challenge that governments around the world are facing today. To make matters worse, there's another troubling aspect to this problem -- and that is that 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. A Redefinition of Political Activity is Required I believe we must redefine political activity that is relevant to today's world and that addresses the challenge of reconciling an economy that functions globally with a political and law-making system that remains nation-centric. The political realm -- political in the noblest sense of the term -- must find a way to restore to the economic realm its human purpose. For globalization can realize its full potential only if it acknowledges that "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, and thus the foundation of the battle against exclusion -- becomes of paramount importance. Fortunately, 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. This is a happy paradox, whose full potential must be tapped at the political level. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank Meetings in Washington: Seattle Revisited? The protests we witnesssed 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 quite a few legitimate concerns being raised by some credible and well-informed organizations and interests. But, the irony is that the meeting was intended to deal with some of these concerns. 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. I believe Seattle drove the message home even more clearly. In his Washington speech, my colleague Finance Minister Paul Martin asserted the Canadian position that it makes no sense to look at reform of the IMF and the World Bank without looking first at their relationship with the other institutions for global co-operation. The Challenges Faced by Developing Countries The concern over exclusion and the need for greater coherence brings me to the issue of developing countries. Let's make no mistake about it. There is a great and pressing need to integrate poor countries into the world economy. I believe developed countries have a responsibility to do something for less-developed countries, not with the sole objective of extracting concessions from them in the next round, but because it is the right thing to do. We cannot act as though we live in isolated communities -- we must acknowledge and embrace the fact that we live in a global village, where neighbours care about each other. Developing countries need first of all 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, 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 [World Trade Organization], the World Bank, UNCTAD [UN Conference on Trade and Development], individual donors; all are involved in 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. It calls for trade ministers from around the world to work together on ways to enhance the contribution that trade can make to economic growth and development. You might ask why a Minister for International Trade is devoting so much attention to the concerns of developing countries. I do so for four reasons: <ul> <li>First, because, as I said, we are all global citizens and as such we care about the social and economic conditions of our fellow human beings.</li> <li>Second, because the integration of more players into the global economy is, quite frankly, in our economic interest. More customers for our products will help fuel our economic growth as well as theirs. </li> <li>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. </li> <li>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 that the benefits of globalization are more broadly shared. </li> </ul> 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, UNEP -- the UN Environment Programme), 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 to 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 IMF 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 IMF. As Minister, I have also been advocating Canada's support for a proposal to establish an independent evaluation unit that would assess Fund programs and policies. At the spring meetings, Paul Martin urged that this unit be made operational by the time of the annual meeting in the fall. This initiative should help to build the external credibility and support that the Fund requires to ensure its effectiveness. The WTO, by comparison, has become much more transparent in the past few years. I feel very strongly that it must become even more transparent. I believe that nothing will help to dispel the myths of the WTO opponents more than our opening up of the process to the media and the 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 should show greater transparency by introducing some structural reform as well. In fact, Canada and the U.S. share a commitment to improved transparency at the WTO and to a system that involves connecting with citizens and Parliaments. 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 the 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 As mentioned earlier, this unprecedented global environment has inevitably generated new phenomena that require adaptation, and hence, the need for a new global civil society and a new ethic. The number and might of the 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 astounding. The attention that non-governmental associations 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. The international order is not well-equipped to deal with these new issues, nor is it organized well enough to deal with 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 the ethic that best supports economic development, this new ethic cannot be based solely on individual interest. The great 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. 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. In my book, I say that three distinct groups in society are best prepared to make a contribution to the reshaping and reinventing of our lives. The first group is women. In the last 30 to 40 years, women have made the transition from traditional roles to an integration within the labour market. While women have adapted to the new world, men tend to be 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 for the first time by women, whereas the union movement and national liberation movements were and still are mostly headed by men. I believe the leading role of women in the emerging society will inevitably strengthen the ethic of care, because over the last centuries, men have been more responsible for the emergence and endurance of 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 a different society. Having had to reinvent themselves, they are miles ahead of other people who haven't been forced to do it. One other group -- the young -- have an advantage, too, because they were born into the culture of computers and the Internet and all that comes along with globalization. And so, each of these groups will have a much, much bigger role to play in the 21st century than they did before, because they are a lot more ready for change. As a result, governing in the next century will also involve the challenge of making room for these groups who are more advanced in dealing with the issues of globalization. This is one of the most important lessons that I have taken 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 U.S. 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. I make my own sort of mixtures of these origins for today's common good. But, there is such a thing as the tragedy of the global common; 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. This is the radical difference with the ethos of economic development and free trade, wherein an actor benefited even when it engaged unilaterally. To ensure that this tragedy of the global common does not occur, we must help to 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, and 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 in 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, and 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 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 this century. So, we could say that the state won over individuals by providing, in order, physical security, economic security and social security. And that is the story of the last 400 years in about 30 seconds -- and my staff always say I am too verbose for TV clips! 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 toward 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 man what his nationality was, and I was flabbergasted at the very spontaneous answer from this 22-, 23-year-old -- "European." You would have never heard that 25 years ago when we were in Europe -- never! I mean, a Frenchman was a Frenchman, a German was a German. Now they, partly the younger generation, 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 identify, vertical in the sense that it is a state and a territory, whether it is Europe or France. I think identities are becoming less vertical and more horizontal. Everything was vertical in the 19th and 20th century. Your social level was vertical, you belonged to the low 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 less close to the centre of a number of different circles that we all belong in, and it changes very radically the way individuals think of themselves, and it is going to make governance very, very complicated. Culture: Merits Special Treatment Now, I know you wouldn't expect a Canadian Minister to spend time at a podium such as this without bringing up the subject of culture. Don't worry, I won't let you down! I think everyone benefits from the ability to experience different cultures. Living next door to one of the largest and most powerful cultures on earth has given Canadians a great deal of experience in this area! Over the years, we have had to work very hard to uphold our own cultural diversity, particularly when it comes to ensuring that Canadians have choices that reflect their own identity and diversity. We do not hold the view that we should exclude influences from outside our own borders and listen and talk only to ourselves! We cannot insulate our society and our culture from the rest of the world even if we wanted to -- which we don't. But we do believe that governments have a role to play in promoting people's freedom to choose what they want to read or hear. And, we do believe that culture is important enough that it should not be treated just like any other good or service. Cultural goods and services play a larger role in our societies than their simple economic value. That is why we have been advocating a new international instrument to set out clear ground rules that enable countries to maintain policies that promote their culture, while at the same time respecting the rules of the international trading system and ensuring markets for cultural exports. Such an instrument would also recognize the contribution of cultural diversity to social and economic development. We have developed this new approach based on the advice of Canadian cultural industries. The people involved in those industries understand that many things have been changed in the past few years by technology, by convergence and by economic integration. In this new world, they have concluded that rules are better than no rules. The Government of Canada agrees, and now we are working with Canadians, and with people in other countries, to explore what kind of international framework is needed to ensure that the respect for, and promotion of, cultural diversity is recognized as an important objective of all societies. In the past, Canada and many other governments have been reluctant to subject cultural industries to the same trade rules as other industries. Either by avoiding obligations or by including an exemption for culture, we have ended up in a situation in which there are, in effect, no rules. This is bad for culture and bad for trade. As countries made up of immigrants and people from many different ethnic and other backgrounds, North Americans more than anyone else should recognize the value of such diversity. I know that Americans understand well the concept of cultural diversity, and Canada would welcome U.S. support in having culture treated in a manner befitting its important and sensitive role in society. China: Canada Supports WTO Accession There is one final, but important, issue that I want to touch on, and that is the accession of China to the WTO. I know the debate over PNTR [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] for China is garnering quite a bit of attention in the United States, particularly here in Washington. And, I believe the vote is set to take place next week. I just want to tell you that Canada has offered our clear support for China's membership, and for the universalization of the WTO. I also want to say that I firmly believe that the lessons from recent history underline the need for continued U.S. engagement, and that Canada and the United States can build on our shared history in international relations to strengthen the governance structure to respond appropriately to the challenges of globalization. Conclusion: Canada and the U.S. are Ready to Meet the Challenges I want to conclude by saying that 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 the values of solidarity and diversity -- which I see as inherent in both our countries -- are worth protecting and fostering, especially in a world in which exclusion threatens to become widespread. A world stripped of the values of solidarity would soon become unliveable, in my view. Fortunately, however, I firmly believe that our two countries are well-positioned to handle the challenges that I have spoken of today. Not only that, I believe that we have a responsibility and the capacity to be shining examples of how to govern in this new era. 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