
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 AT MCGILL UNIVERSITY'HUMAN RIGHTS AND CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY:PRINCIPLED PRAGMATISM' - MONTREAL, QUEBEC</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 97/42 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AT MCGILL UNIVERSITY "HUMAN RIGHTS AND CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY: PRINCIPLED PRAGMATISM" MONTREAL, Quebec October 16, 1997 This document is also available on the Department's Internet site: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca Next year is the 50th anniversary of three events that have defined the past half-century: the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Berlin airlift and the establishment of the system of apartheid in South Africa. The Berlin wall has crumbled. Apartheid has been dismantled. But the Universal Declaration has grown in strength and stature over the past 50 years. The year 1998 marks a turning point for the international protection of human rights -- the end of the Cold War and the forces of globalization have both presented new opportunities and unleashed new risks to human rights. Forward progress depends on countries like Canada being able to adapt the tools they use to promote human rights in this changed international environment and to build on the legacy of the Universal Declaration. Today I want to talk to you about the reasons why human rights figure in Canada's foreign policy. How the changing international environment has complicated our task. The link between our human rights policies and issues of peace and security, trade and development. And what uniquely Canadian contributions we can bring to the international protection of human rights. Why Human Rights in Canadian Foreign Policy? Respect for human rights, both internationally and within Canada, is crucial to government policy. Canada's human rights policies are firmly anchored in values fundamental to Canadians. These values are reflected in our democratic institutions and practices, in federal and provincial human rights commissions, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in our traditions of peace, order and good government. And of course, they are integral to our foreign policy -- in fact, in our international relations, human rights could be considered a "threshold issue." Human rights will be a consideration in any relationship we have, whatever its other aspects, from the moment we enter into that relationship. This is not pure altruism or idealism. A principle-centred foreign policy reflects Canadian values but also serves Canadian interests. With trade, travel and telecommunications linking countries more closely together than ever, each individual country has a growing stake in how other nations govern, or misgovern, their citizens. Mature democracies are less likely to go to war with each other, unleash waves of refugees, create environmental catastrophes, or engage in terrorism. Jobs and growth at home are increasingly dependent on trade and investment abroad. States that respect human rights and the rule of law are more likely to honour their commercial commitments. The health of the international economy is linked to issues of stability and security. All of this means that respect for human rights is an imperative of living in a global society. A Canadian Approach to Human Rights Our approach to international human rights is rooted in and reflects our approach to human rights at home. Canadians are deeply attached to democratic government that is transparent, accountable and participatory. They believe in the rule of law and in legal institutions to remedy injustice. There is a deep commitment to voluntarism and self reliance, reflected in our vibrant civil society. Canadians respect diversity and difference, tolerance and equality. They demand respect for the rights of women, Indigenous peoples and marginalized groups. There is a consensus that all parts of our society -- public, private and non-profit -- have a legitimate role to play in the promotion of Canadian values at home and abroad. These qualities mean that we have something uniquely Canadian to bring to the international community. This is the "value-added" that we bring to the world. We have never claimed to be the world's conscience. But we have come to be regarded internationally, on the basis of our record, as a country motivated by conscience as well as by interest. Key is the fact that Canada does not expect other governments to respect standards to which it is not committed itself. As a signatory to all the principal UN [United Nations] treaties on human rights, Canada regularly submits its human rights record to review by UN monitoring bodies. Our expressed commitment to tackle child poverty at home helps make credible our actions on children's rights internationally. The same can be said for our international work on the rights of women, on freedom of expression and peacebuilding. We have also come to be regarded as a country others can trust. Our humanitarian assistance and development co-operation have helped us build partnerships with a great many countries. Our bilingual and multicultural heritage, geographic location on the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, and memberships in regional and international organizations -- la Francophonie, the Commonwealth, NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], the OAS [Organization of American States] and others -- standing with countries from every region of the world. Our record may give us international standing to speak and act on human rights issues, but we have to be realistic about the extent of our leverage. We are neither inclined nor able to dictate. Our policy has been guided above all by pragmatism: a principled pragmatism where we try to determine the concrete steps that will bring about positive and effective change in the country in question. The steps we take will necessarily vary from country to country -- depending on the degree of willingness to engage with Canada on human rights questions, our leverage with that country or in the region, the number and strength of indigenous human rights NGOs [non-governmental organizations], the capacity of the country to build judicial, legal and human rights infrastructure, and a range of other, complex factors. At times, the Government has been criticized for being inconsistent in its approach to different countries' human rights records. But a coherent human rights policy does not require or even imply uniformity of treatment. It would be easy to take very public stands on every human rights abuse in every country, and it might be very popular in Canada to do so, but this would not, on its own, change much in the country concerned. The potential for effective action varies with each situation and each country. The key is to find the right foreign policy tools to fulfil that potential. The Changing International Environment But the choice of which foreign policy tools we use to promote respect for human rights has been greatly complicated in recent years. The forces of globalization and the end of the Cold War have created new opportunities for international human rights work, but they have also unleashed new risks. With globalization, people, ideas, goods and culture began to move across international borders at unprecedented rates. The concept of state sovereignty became more porous. It could no longer serve as an absolute barrier to international scrutiny of human rights abuses. This allowed the development of a range of mechanisms -- treaty bodies and rapporteurs -- to try to narrow the gap between the international human rights obligations of states and their actual practice. The Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 and the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 clearly affirmed the universality and interdependence of international human rights norms. We are approaching universal ratification of some international human rights treaties, for instance only two countries have yet to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. All of this means that unlike the situation 50 years ago when the Universal Declaration was drafted, it is now clear that a state's treatment of its own citizens is a legitimate concern of the international community. International standards and mechanisms have been agreed to by a critical mass of states from all regions of the globe. Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the five-year review of the Vienna Conference. To help launch the 50th anniversary, Canada will be sponsoring a broad program of activities, including: a conference on human rights and the Internet, to draw together work being done in many international forums on this issue, with a focus on strategies for using the Internet to increase respect of human rights; development and publication of a prototype annual report on the state of human rights worldwide, based on the findings of the UN's independent human rights mechanisms; and a conference reviewing the impact of the 1993 Vienna Declaration, to be held by Canadian non-governmental organizations as one of the many activities they are organising in support of the anniversary. On the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration, it could well seem that the world is in an ideal position to make a quantum leap forward on respect for human rights. But globalization and the end of the Cold War have also brought about new threats to human security. In the new international environment of innovation and rapid change, some individuals, groups and nations have done well, but many others have not -- and the gap seems to be growing. The reaction of some of those who are not succeeding is to retreat to sometimes extreme values as a way of asserting their identity. Ironically, this risk is perhaps heightened by the trend in a number of countries away from authoritarian regimes towards democratic forms of government. Although the ultimate result should be a more peaceful international community made up of mature, stable democracies, the period of transition may be highly volatile. This has meant that, over the last decade, there has been a marked increase in the number of intra-state wars. Bloody confrontations in the Balkans, the Great Lakes region of Africa, Chechnya and elsewhere have dashed some of the hopes of the post-Cold War era. Genocide and ethnic cleansing have become an all too frequent occurrence in our age. This rise in intra-state conflicts, together with increasing economic disparities among regions and states, transboundary environmental pollutants, and transnational organized crime have profoundly changed the way we approach international diplomacy. First, we have come to realize that global problems require global solutions -- they cannot be addressed by states acting in isolation. Second, we have also come to realize that human rights cannot be separated from questions of international peace and security, the international trading environment and development. Canada's International Human Rights Framework How have we adapted Canada's international human rights policy to respond to this sea change in the international environment? While in the past international diplomacy might have focussed primarily on the security of state borders, increasingly in recent years it has focussed on the security of the individual. And where in the past we may have turned to clear-cut military or diplomatic approaches to security threats, now we have to engage a whole range of foreign policy levers: From "soft power" measures such as: democratic development or peacebuilding, improving trading relationships, facilitating the work of NGOs and the private sector, and engaging in bilateral human rights dialogues, to "hard diplomacy" coercive measures such as: marshalling international condemnation in resolutions at the UN Human Rights Commission imposing sanctions, and sending peacekeepers. Labour standards and children's rights, impunity and peacebuilding, military expenditures, the export of small arms and landmines -- all have a human rights dimension. In essence, we now approach human rights through the more comprehensive lens of "human security," involving not only remedial action, but also a range of other measures to prevent human rights abuses and to address their root causes. We are slowly finding our way. Building respect for human rights takes time -- it is slow to achieve, prone to reversals and requires sustained action on the bilateral and multilateral fronts. It demands a comprehensive and flexible approach that takes into account the link between respect for human rights and our foreign policy tools in the areas of peace and security, development and trade. A Comprehensive and Flexible Approach: the Example of Children's Rights Children's rights provide a clear example of how we are involving a range of actors -- governments, civil society and the private sector -- and all of our foreign policy tools to try to tackle a pressing problem. Within Canada, the Throne Speech of 1996 launched international children's rights as a priority. This year's Speech from the Throne made a renewed commitment to tackling children's poverty. Domestic legislation has been amended to allow prosecution of Canadians who engage in commercial sexual activities with children while abroad. We are working on a number of multilateral fronts to draft new international standards to protect children: an Optional Protocol to the Child Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography, an Optional Protocol; on children in armed conflicts, and a new ILO [International Labour Organization] convention on the elimination of the most intolerable forms of child labour. At the end of September we hosted a preparatory meeting for the main donor countries invited to the Oslo Child Labour Conference. At the same time, we are working with the non-governmental and private sectors to support their work on children's rights. Senator Landon Pearson, my Special Advisor on children's rights, has conducted extensive consultations with Canadian non-governmental organizations to help develop Canada's international policy on children's rights. We have launched the Child Labour Challenge Fund, aimed at supporting the efforts of the Canadian private sector to develop codes of conduct and programs to combat exploitative child labour. Children's rights have figured prominently on the agenda of the Canada-Cuba Joint Committee on Human Rights as an area for co-operation. We have introduced the issue of child labour into our bilateral relations with a number of countries, India and Thailand for example, establishing specific funds and development assistance projects targeted at child labour, and sexual exploitation. The point is that governments acting alone are not capable of addressing human rights problems that are global by nature. To address violations of children's rights, we have had to: change our own domestic legislation, draft new international standards, work in partnership with the non-governmental organizations and with in the labour, development and business sectors. Nowhere is the link between human rights and human security clearer than in issues of children's rights. By protecting the rights of the world's children, we are nurturing a future generation of citizens with both the means and desire to live in peace. The Links Between Respect for Human Rights and Peace and Security: The Canadian Peacebuilding Initiative The link between human rights and building sustainable peace in countries prone to recurring cycles of violence is clear. Human rights abuses are a key diagnostic tool for early warning of emerging conflicts, identifying vulnerable populations for humanitarian assistance during conflict, and assessing progress in fragile periods of post-conflict reconstruction. In countries torn by inter-ethnic conflict, ensuring respect for the human rights of every sector of the population is key to building sustainable peace. The wealth of skills and institutions that Canadians have developed in nurturing our own democracy can be put to good use in countries emerging from conflict. We have developed these skills in our legislatures and our electoral authorities, in our local governments and our media newsrooms, in our police forces, our courts and our university classrooms. Canadians young and old, in business, labour, non-governmental bodies and the professions have expertise that could be deployed abroad in building sustainable peace. The establishment last year of the Canadian Peacebuilding Initiative, including the Canadian Peacebuilding Fund and a roster of Canadian human rights experts, aims at increasing Canada's capacity for rapid, co-ordinated and flexible responses to intra-state conflicts. It also demonstrates our commitment to ensure that Canadian capacities are identified and deployed quickly and effectively in response to human rights emergencies. As an example of concrete ways in which the Peacebuilding Initiative can be used to address human rights emergencies and to build respect for human rights in countries emerging from conflict, over the last six months we have used the Fund to: provide critical start-up funding for the Guatemala Historical Clarification Commission; assist the Preparatory Commission for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court by underwriting the participation of delegates from developing countries; provide financial assistance for the work of the joint UN/OAU [Organization of African Unity] Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa; and to establish a project to enhance free media in the Balkans. The Links Between Human Rights and Sustainable Development The Peacebuilding initiative is one of many examples of how we inject human rights concerns into our development assistance. In November 1995, the Government introduced its policy for CIDA [Canadian International Development Agency] on Human Rights, Democratization and Good Governance to enhance the will and capacity of developing countries to respect human rights and govern effectively in a democratic manner. For some of the principal recipients of Human Rights and Democratic Development Assistance, for instance Haiti, Rwanda, Guatemala, and El Salvador, what began as short-term responses to crises have become long-term development strategies aimed at institutional development, rebuilding justice systems and strengthening civil society. In every region of the world, human rights development assistance has been channelled to countries in the midst of transition from conflict to peace or from authoritarian to more democratic forms of government. We have also been encouraging the international financial institutions to look at issues of "good governance" in their policies and programs. Experience shows that the success of development programs and macro-economic reforms hinges on the establishment of stable, predictable and transparent systems of government. Stable governments are those which respect human rights and the rule of law. That is why we have been pushing issues of good governance in the World Bank, the regional banks and the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development], and discouraging excessive military expenditures in recipient countries. The Links Between Human Rights and Trade But perhaps the most sensitive issue is the relationship between trade and human rights. Critics of engagement see a dichotomy between trade and human rights. I would argue that it is a false one. Trade on its own does not promote democratization or greater respect for human rights. But it does open doors. It creates a relationship, within which we can begin to speak about human rights. In addition, as countries open up to foreign trade and investment, they come under increasing pressure to respect the rule of law -- and they see more and more reasons why it is in their own interests to do so. The key issue here is not a crude choice between trade or human rights, but rather a need for responsible trade. This requires a look at the specific type of economic activity involved, in terms of its social impacts. In this context we have focussed on issues such as core labour standards, codes of business conduct and excessive military expenditures. We are working diligently in the ILO to promote broad international commitment to core labour standards with strengthened promotion and monitoring mechanisms and to examine the social aspects of liberalized trade. We took a leadership role at last year's WTO [World Trade Organization] Ministerial meetings in producing commitments to observe internationally recognized core labour standards and to support the mandate and work of the ILO. On voluntary codes of business conduct, we supported the initiative taken this September by the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada and a group of Canadian businesses to develop an International Code of Ethics, aimed at issues of corruption, fair labour practices, human rights and health and safety. The Growing Importance of Civil Society A common thread running through all of these examples is the key role played by civil society. Globalization has radically transformed the role and power of the non-governmental sector to effect change internationally. The bi-polar world of the Cold War has been replaced by a world with multiple centres of power, where states have to share the international arena with a growing number of non-governmental organizations, the private sector and individuals. I need only look around the Faculty of Law at McGill University to find a great many examples of the vital work individual Canadians, academic institutions and organizations do every day to promote human rights. Professor John Humphrey, who taught international human rights law here for many years, was one of the original drafters of the Universal Declaration and the first Director of the UN Centre for Human Rights. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade turns to Dean Stephen Toope to train our diplomats in international human rights law and to provide expert advice, particularly on rule of law issues where he has been working in the field in Sri Lanka, South Africa and elsewhere. Professor Irwin Cotler, through Inter-Amicus and the "Human Rights in Canadian Foreign Policy" project has provided an invaluable perspective on how human rights fit into our foreign policy agenda. The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, housed in Montreal, has also been a key player on the international scene, for instance with their work on issues such as violence against women and impunity. Given the growing importance of civil society, it is both necessary and fitting that we have adapted the way in which Canada develops and implements its international human rights policies. We were the first and, to my knowledge, are still the only country to hold extensive consultations with our NGOs prior to each session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The Centre for Foreign Policy Development has been holding round tables of human rights experts on Asia, gender and peacebuilding and a range of other issues. But of even greater importance, on human rights issues, it is Canadian non-governmental organizations, academics and aid workers who are on the front lines, reporting on violations, monitoring compliance and working to implement many of the human rights, good governance and democratic development programs that Canada funds. And it is NGO workers who face great risks in supporting the cause of human rights around the world. Making Human Rights an Integral Part of Foreign Policy: Principled Pragmatism I said at the outset that respect for human rights is integral to all of our international relations. The way we conduct our foreign policy -- be it in the peace and security, trade or development fields -- is intimately linked to our overall goal of protecting human rights and achieving human security. The Government cannot achieve progress on its own -- we need the partnership and active engagement of individual Canadians, non-governmental organizations, the business sector and academic institutions. Pragmatism is key to our approach. We have to balance two realities -- first, the need to respond rapidly to human rights emergencies and second, the fact that development of a global human rights culture takes time and sustained effort on several fronts. Where Canada has made a niche for itself, and perhaps the most distinctive feature of our human rights policy, is in supporting change from within. The Canadian approach involves what a participant in one of our round tables called "supporting local champions" to effect direct change. We believe that the impulse towards respect for human rights is inevitable, but at the same time we are realistic about some of the governments we are dealing with. We do not expect these governments to become sudden converts to the cause of human rights. But they will yield gradually -- because they have no choice -- to pressure for change from within their own societies. This approach is evolutionary, not coercive. Even if we wanted to force change, we have to face the fact that Canada simply does not have the economic leverage or international clout to do so. We can, however, work from within to support NGOs and develop a space within which civil society can grow. In recognition of this, Canada has recently undertaken a series of new bilateral human rights initiatives with Cuba, China and Indonesia. Our aim is to work with a range of counterparts in other countries to establish government-to-government discussions, exchanges between human rights institutions, civil society initiatives, and projects on the development of free media. This approach will not always succeed. Even where bilateral dialogues are possible, other channels need to be kept open to ensure concrete results. And where dialogue or engagement is impossible, one needs to resort to mobilizing international condemnation. Canada has, for more than 50 years, made multilateralism a centrepiece of our foreign policy. Multilateralism serves us well when we need to deliver difficult messages by providing not only balance but weight to our messages. Regimes such as Nigeria and Burma have increasingly isolated themselves by refusing to co-operate with United Nations human rights mechanisms, refusing to engage with Canada, the European Union or others on human rights questions, and refusing to honour their international commitments. It is in cases such as these that the more coercive measures may be the last and only resort. I said at my first annual consultations with NGOs, in early 1996 shortly after becoming foreign minister, that neither megaphones nor silence would help us meet our objectives. If the world were black and white, with "cartoon character bad guys" then it would be easy to take very public stands on every human rights abuse in every country. But this is a complex world. It is characterized, on the one hand, by new threats to human security, and on the other by a shift to democratic regimes and new opportunities to engage civil society. We have to rely on a wide range of foreign policy tools to achieve our goals. We are learning to adapt to the post-Cold War world. We are trying new approaches, and constantly reviewing, adapting and refining these tools as we learn from our mistakes and successes. I don't imagine that by supporting human rights, Canada can make a perfect world. But I do believe we can make a difference and that we have a uniquely Canadian contribution to make, one which adds value to international work to protect human rights. 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