
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>MINISTER AXWORTHY - ADDRESS TO THE G-8 FOREIGN MINISTERS' MEETING - COLOGNE, GERMANY</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 99/40 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TO THE G-8 FOREIGN MINISTERS' MEETING COLOGNE, Germany June 9, 1999 (4:30 P.M. EDT) Over the past few days, we have, together, brought about the beginning of the end of the Kosovo conflict. Kosovo is a good illustration of the human security crisis that the world is facing at the end of this century, and marks a turning point in global affairs, where the security of people figures prominently as an impetus for action. At its core, the human security agenda is an effort to construct a global society in which the safety of people is an international priority and a motivating force for international action; where international humanitarian standards and the rule of law are advanced and woven into a coherent web protecting the individual; where those who violate these standards are held fully accountable; and where our global, regional and bilateral institutions are designed and equipped to enhance and enforce these standards. Eighty-plus percent of the conflicts in recent years have been intra-state conflicts. Ninety percent of the casualties are civilians -- and more often than not, they are the deliberate targets of violence. Consider the impact on children alone of the past decade's violent conflicts: <ul> <li>two million children killed;</li> <li>four million children disabled;</li> <li>one million children orphaned;</li> <li>10 million children psychologically scarred by the trauma of abduction, expulsion, rape, detention, dismemberment and other violent horrors.</li> </ul> In our global age, the victims are no longer remote from us -- television brings them into our lives in the most direct and intimate way. What this means for us is that human security is not just a foreign policy idea, but a political imperative, placed on all our agendas by the weight of public opinion. Nothing has reinforced public support for Canada's policy on Kosovo more than the anguished faces of refugees flowing across Kosovo's borders. The citizens of the countries around this table are largely unaffected by these threats, but human security stands for the values they share. And while our own citizens are protected from the kind of physical abuse perpetrated in Kosovo, they are not entirely shielded from threats to their own security. They often find themselves unwilling victims of environmental degradation, transnational crime, the international drug trade, and even terrorism. Tomorrow, we will meet with the representatives of the Non-Aligned Movement and of the Group of 77. Human security -- the security of their people -- will be a major concern for them. We need to engage them because they are part of the solution. The human security concept raises a number of profound foreign policy issues, among them the reality that foreign policy is no longer the exclusive domain of governments. The reality is that new partnerships between certain states, non-governmental organizations and other non-state actors have brought about the emergence of new instruments such as the Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Children, the Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the Landmines Treaty. These new instruments demonstrate in concrete terms the fact that human security is no longer simply a theoretical construct -- it is becoming a new norm of international behaviour, where the security of the person is at the centre of our attention and care. As it gains a new weight in international affairs, human security raises contradictions with existing norms. Some are concerned that there is a tension between national security and human security. In fact, the two concepts are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Sovereignty and the security of the state are not ends in themselves, but rather are means of ensuring the security and well-being of the citizens of the state. In this sense, human security and national security are mutually supportive. In fact, improving the human security of its people strengthens a state's legitimacy, stability and security. Human security is also going to have to be reconciled with the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states. Kosovo illustrates this particular contradiction well. None of us around the NATO table saw, or sees, any strategic advantage to intervening in Kosovo. No oil or other vital minerals are at stake. No commanding height or ocean choke point is at issue. There is no scientific knowledge to control. All there is, is a relatively poor population in a relatively poor part of Europe being abused by its own government -- that, not some cold calculus of realpolitik, was the reason for action. NATO's decision to act was not taken lightly. But the evidence of atrocities was undeniable, as the reports of Mrs. Ogata and Mr. De Mello attest, and as the indictment of the Serb leadership for war crimes confirms. Still, the intervention raises questions, not least in the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council has not been as relevant as we need it to be in the very changed and very dangerous world in which we live. We will discuss its role in preventing conflicts in the next part of our agenda. However, we also need to consider how the UN Security Council must adapt to the new realities in order to protect people better. That is why Canada introduced the issue of Civilians in Armed Conflict in February of this year, and requested that Secretary General Annan study the issue and make recommendations regarding how the council can better promote the security of people. No one, least of all the country with the smallest population represented here, is promoting a world in which the strong intervene where they will and the weak suffer what they must. The norm of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states remains basic to international peace and security, and the intervention in Kosovo must not be held up as a precedent justifying intervention anywhere, anytime, or for any reason. However, in cases of extreme abuse, as we have seen in Kosovo and Rwanda, among others, the concept of national sovereignty cannot be absolute. Clearly, tests and standards need to be established by which the necessity, or not, of international enforcement of a human security standard can be judged. And these tests must be very demanding. One obvious standard is the perpetration of genocide or other crimes against humanity. The point is that times are changing, and the UN Security Council cannot stand aside in the face of the outrages we have seen in a variety of violent disputes -- for example, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Angola. In states that have failed due to the oppression of a dictator or the actions of a warlord, there must be a new test of accountability, and that new test is human security. The new norm exists -- now the United Nations and other international organizations must rise to the challenge of enhancing and enforcing that norm. This means following through on instruments that are already in place, such as the Genocide Convention and the International Criminal Court Statute. But it also means developing instruments, such as the ILO's Protocol to the Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, the EU's Joint Action Plan on Small Arms, and the Lyon Group's pioneering work on transnational organized crime. Adapting to these new realities, however, means that we must first understand fully the implications of our action in Kosovo. We welcome the German government's offer to host a meeting in December 1999 on conflict prevention, but should also take the opportunity to consider what we need to be doing when prevention fails. To this end, I would like to propose today that we establish a working group of the G-8 to examine the lessons learned from Kosovo, and report back to ministers in advance of the December meeting. I would further propose that once ministers have the opportunity to discuss these lessons learned, that we convey our findings to the United Nations Security Council. Vaclav Havel recently observed that, "...the sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state... makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty -- that is, from the sovereignty of the human being." In a similar vein, I believe that peace and security -- national, regional and global -- are only achievable if they are built upon human security. Many of the underlying issues of human security are not new, but their significance in a global era is new. The G-8 governments represent most of the largest economies on Earth -- countries with the ability and therefore the responsibility to lead. This group does not have a monopoly on ideas, and none of us would claim otherwise. But we can put issues on the international agenda. The prominent place that we are giving to human security in our own proceedings gives us a very important lead on what I am persuaded has become a very major issue for all of us. 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