
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>WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSPRINCETON UNIVERSITY - 'KOSOVO AND THE HUMAN SECURITY AGENDA'</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 99/28 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TO THE WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PRINCETON UNIVERSITY "KOSOVO AND THE HUMAN SECURITY AGENDA" PRINCETON, New Jersey April 7, 1999 (6:15 p.m. EDT) The plight of Kosovo's people is the human face of the challenges that we, as a global community, confront at the close of the century. The end of the Cold War and the acceleration of globalization have dramatically transformed the world in which we live. In this changing environment, traditional conceptions of global peace and security, based primarily on national security, are no longer sufficient. From the uncertainty of our times, a new reality is emerging. The well-being of individuals -- human security -- is increasingly front and centre in how we define peace and security, where the threats originate, and what our responses are. The crisis in Kosovo is a concrete expression of this human security dynamic at work. First and foremost, it makes painfully clear how individuals are increasingly the principal victims, targets and instruments of modern war. The forced exodus, the appalling brutality, the state-sponsored murders and disappearances perpetrated against thousands of innocent people -- all of this underscores the fact that in our world, civilians suffer the most from violent conflict. It is a situation with which ordinary people from Sierra Leone to Sudan to Central Africa to Angola are all too familiar. Casualties from armed conflict have doubled in just the past 10 years. About one million people lose their lives each year. And whereas during the First World War only 5 percent of casualties were civilians, today that figure is closer to 80 percent. Civilians are paying the heaviest price, from the rise in intrastate conflict and from failed states. They bear the brunt of the new practices of war -- for example, the deplorable use of child soldiers or savage paramilitaries. And they suffer most from the inexpensive yet all-too-readily-available weapons of modern war, such as landmines and military small arms and light weapons. The abuse of information and the misuse of the means of communication also take their toll. In the Balkans, state-controlled media have been misused as an instrument to prey on traditional fears, to foment prejudice, to reinforce stereotypes and to promote extreme and exclusionary nationalism. We need look no further than today's reporting from Belgrade's controlled media to see how mass communication can and is used to distort the truth and manipulate the public. The crisis in Kosovo demonstrates how the "civilianization" of conflict has led to human misery on a devastating scale: the exploitation of civilians, massive refugee flows (about one third of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian population), and the grossest violations of human rights and humanitarian law -- summary executions, rape and ethnic cleansing. If Kosovo symbolizes how human security has become a focus of attention and concern for the international community, NATO's response demonstrates how the defence of human security has become a force for global action. NATO is engaged in Kosovo to restore human security to the Kosovars. It was and is the humanitarian imperative that has galvanized the Alliance to act. To be sure, strategic considerations played a role. The risk of the conflict's spilling over into the Balkans, in particular into Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, was and is a concern. However, NATO's actions are guided primarily by concern for the human rights and welfare of Kosovo's people. NATO's recourse to air strikes was precipitated by evidence that the regime of repression by the Serb government was on the rise and accelerating. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [FRY] was in breach of all of its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions and under the Belgrade agreements of October 1998. FRY security forces harassed OSCE [Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe] verifiers in an effort to dispense with an international presence that was becoming increasingly embarrassing to Belgrade. They built up their military presence far beyond agreed limits, and beyond what a defensive posture could have justified. There was clear evidence that the Yugoslavs were preparing a massive spring offensive -- with the momentum accelerating after the departure of the OSCE monitors. And it was evident that prior to the beginning of the NATO operation, hundred of thousands of Kosovars had been displaced from their homes. All efforts to reach a negotiated agreement had been exhausted -- in the face of the FRY's intransigence. As a result, we should be very clear on where the responsibility lies for the current situation. The misery to which we are all witness is the direct consequence of a decade of bullying, criminality and an increasingly vicious spiral of violence against Kosovo's population by the government in Belgrade. NATO did not provoke this tragedy -- it responded to it. And the decision to act was not motivated by a military threat to Alliance territory, but by an affront to Alliance values and a belief -- perhaps more explicit in some capitals than in others -- that human security matters. Alliance members could not turn away from the humanitarian crisis taking place on NATO's European doorstep. That is why Canadian pilots are part of the effort, why we are providing humanitarian relief and why we are offering sanctuary to 5 000 refugees. This month, the Alliance marks its 50th anniversary. NATO's actions in Kosovo are a recognition of the need to adapt the Alliance to a global reality and to the demands that have changed considerably since it was created at the end of the Second World War. They also underscore the enduring relevance of NATO's founding principles, which align closely with the concept of human security. Half a century ago, NATO members agreed to be guided by the four freedoms of the wartime alliance: the freedom from want, the freedom from fear, the freedom of worship and the freedom of assembly. These are individual freedoms, not collective freedoms: their focus is on the rights of people, not states. As we chart the future of the Alliance, once again, the security of people needs to be -- and is -- very much in the forefront of the collective mind. That future is being written in Kosovo. Clearly, human security, more than ever, is directly relevant to NATO -- and vice versa, NATO is directly relevant to human security. The Alliance's actions demonstrate how regional and global institutions can respond to threats to human security. It also highlights how much remains to be done. Canada would have strongly preferred that the United Nations Security Council explicitly authorize NATO's mission. We worked hard to engage the Council, to ensure that it fully assumed its responsibility for advancing peace and security. Unfortunately, certain members of the Council could not reconcile yesterday's assumptions about sovereignty with today's imperatives of human emergency. This is both lamentable and curious. It is lamentable because in failing to take decisive action in response to new security threats, the Council risks diminishing its rightful leadership role in pursuing global peace. And where there is now simply resistance by some to intervention on the basis of humanitarian considerations, the Council could instead work toward a universally agreed set of conditions -- and limits -- for action in favour of human security. It is curious in that far from weakening state sovereignty, action to support human security -- to the extent that it supports democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human rights -- can serve to reinforce stability. Similarly, the very same countries that argue against humanitarian intervention on the basis of sovereignty are the most anxious to join trade and commercial organizations, which, by their nature, involve ceding a certain amount of national control. It is hard to understand why it is acceptable to sacrifice sovereignty for economic interests, but not in the human interest. During our tenure on the Security Council, Canada will continue to make efforts to integrate the human dimension into the Council's approaches and operations. To this end, Canada initiated a meeting of the Council two months ago, which was devoted specifically to the theme of the protection of civilians in armed conflict. As a result, the Secretary-General will prepare a report, including concrete recommendations regarding the steps the Council might take. To that end, it is noteworthy that, in remarks to the Security Council this week on the situation in Kosovo, the UN Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Sergio de Mello, admonished the Council to act on the rhetoric of recent debates on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, and called the widespread, systematic campaign of forced displacement -- if independently confirmed -- a crime against humanity. NATO's response to the situation in Kosovo highlights the fact that, while it is not without tensions, human security provides a rationale for concerted action. It also shows that the instruments for pursuing human security are diverse. In recent years, Canada has worked to move human security forward through different means based on negotiation and co-operation, building coalitions with other like-minded governments and civil society. Sometimes, however, hard power -- in this case military force -- is needed to achieve human security goals. NATO's air campaign should serve to dispel the misconception that military force and the human security agenda are mutually exclusive. Clearly, they are not. Pursuing human security involves using a variety of tools. Some rely more on persuasion -- as with the campaign to ban anti-personnel mines, or with peacebuilding initiatives -- while others are more robust, such as sanctions or military intervention. Similarly, support for military force does not mean abandoning human security. In Kosovo, clearly the opposite is true. The decision to pursue the military option was made precisely to ensure the security of Kosovo's population. The promotion of human security also requires the means to hold accountable those responsible for violating human rights and humanitarian law. There can be no lasting peace without justice. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, as well as a similar tribunal for Rwanda, were established to prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Investigators from the Yugoslavia Tribunal are now gathering evidence on the atrocities committed in Kosovo, so that the perpetrators do not go unpunished. Canada and other NATO allies are assisting the Tribunal in this task. These tribunals provided an inspiration for the creation of the International Criminal Court [ICC]. This past summer, the international community adopted the Statute of the International Criminal Court. This achievement will help deter some of the most egregious breaches of international humanitarian law -- not only in the Balkans or Rwanda, but everywhere. Negotiations on the details of the Court's operations are moving forward. In that regard, I am encouraged by the participation of the United States. I hope that country will eventually be able to give the ICC the same strong support it has given to the existing tribunals Once in place, the Court will ensure that justice is done by prosecuting offenders wherever national systems are unable or unwilling to do so. It reflects an emerging network of international conventions and humanitarian law, ranging from the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines, to protocols on child labour and child soldiers now under negotiation, which are aimed specifically at promoting and protecting human security in both theory and practice. Finally, human security is a reflection of the values and a projection of the interests of both our countries. Canada and the United States share many values -- tolerance, democracy, the rule of law, personal freedom and the protection of human rights. These have made our own countries strong. They are also the essence of human security. But others' insecurity can make us vulnerable too, and sooner or later can become our own insecurity. President Clinton recognized this recently when he identified human security threats, such as illicit drugs, terrorism and political instability abroad, as closely affecting the interests of the United States. In an increasingly interconnected world, where we are travellers, exporters and importers, investors and donors, we cannot afford to ignore the problems of others -- even if we wanted to. Promoting human security not only reflects our values, it promotes our interests. And in Kosovo, both our values and our interests are at stake. The massacre of civilians, the forced exodus of residents, the repression of human rights -- in short, the absence of human security -- are a profound assault on our fundamental values, indeed, on the standards to which most members of the international community are bound through international human rights conventions and humanitarian law. By working to ensure the long-term security of Kosovo's people, we are acting in defence of our own values. At the same time, the suffering inflicted on Kosovo's population creates the potential for instability in neighbouring countries. This can eventually spread and affect our political and economic partners. It creates an enormous burden on the resources of international humanitarian agencies for which we are the main underwriters. It sets another precedent for -- and, if left unpunished, may encourage -- repressive behaviour elsewhere. The link between Kosovo's misery and our own interests is both direct and compelling. At its core, the human security agenda is an effort to construct a global society in which the safety and well-being of the individual is an international priority and a motivating force for international action; a society in which international humanitarian standards and the rule of law are advanced, woven into a coherent web protecting the individual, where those who violate these standards are held fully accountable; and finally, a society in which our global, regional and bilateral institutions -- present and future -- are built and equipped to promote and enforce these standards. This is what is at work and what is at stake in Kosovo. The conflict symbolizes how human security has become a powerful factor in global relations. The response demonstrates that human security is an impetus for international action. The use of military means shows that the tools to pursue human security are diverse. Finally, the pursuit of human security is a natural and logical projection of both our values and our interests. Consequently, from a human security perspective, the crisis in Kosovo -- and its resolution -- mark a defining moment. That is why, with the United States and our other Alliance partners, Canadians are committed to achieving long-term security and stability for the people of Kosovo. I am confident that we will prevail. 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