
Français		Home		Contact Us		Help		Search		canada.gc.ca		Canada International

Home > Media Room

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

Canadian Offices Abroad

Services for Canadian Travellers

Services for Business

Canada in the World

About the Department

SPEECHES

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips

<html> <head> <meta name="Generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 8"> <title>MR. AXWORTHY - ADDRESS TO ACCEPT THE ENDICOTT PEABODY AWARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 99/54 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO ACCEPT THE ENDICOTT PEABODY AWARD BOSTON, Massachusetts October 22, 1999 (1:45 p.m. EDT) More years ago than I care to remember, I was a Canadian graduate student at a nearby university. At that time, Governor Peabody was in office. I recall being struck by his devotion to public service -- that is, service in the interest of people in Massachusetts and beyond. Endicott Peabody characterized the best in American values -- openness of spirit, the democratic tradition and, above all, a commitment to the welfare of others. When he applied these on the global stage, which he did often, Governor Peabody reflected the best in American internationalism -- an engagement to fashion a peaceful and prosperous world for all people. Whether at home or abroad, the well-being and advancement of his fellow human beings was at the heart of Governor Peabody's work. In that way, his life and work were emblematic of a generation -- "the best and the brightest" -- who established the United States not only as a world power but also as a global moral leader that others looked on with admiration and looked to for inspiration. He was part of the United States that motivated many in my generation, myself included, to devote energy and time to building just and peaceful societies. As a Canadian, I am therefore very honoured to be the first recipient of this award. It is a tribute to his memory, to the best in American tradition and to the common values that bind our two countries. It is entirely fitting that this award, named after a notable humanitarian, should highlight the global effort to ban anti-personnel mines. Mrs. Peabody, your husband -- typically -- made an invaluable contribution to raising awareness about this issue here in the United States and around the world. The campaign to ban this weapon is, fundamentally, a humanitarian cause. The impetus for action was the protection of ordinary people. The objective remains to rid the world of an instrument designed primarily to terrorize, maim or kill the innocent. The Ottawa Convention is a concrete, global expression of the concern for others that makes our own communities so successful. In a much-changed world, this "people first" approach to world problems is proving more and more relevant. The prospects for global security increasingly turn on issues of individual safety. The post Cold War threats -- armed civil conflict, international crime, illicit drugs, environmental degradation, infectious disease -- all exact a direct toll on the safety and well-being of people. Consequently, our shared humanity makes the protection of human security a priority in world affairs. In an interconnected world, our own welfare is increasingly indivisible from that of our neighbours. As traders, investors and donors involved in the world, and as open societies that welcome immigrants and refugees, instability and human suffering affect our lives. As a result, our common interest makes the promotion of human security imperative for global action. That is why Canada is taking an increasingly people-based approach to world affairs. The importance of human security in our foreign policy was affirmed by the Canadian government when it outlined its priorities for the future at the opening of Canada's Parliament last week. The Ottawa Convention is an example of this human security agenda at work -- and working. Almost a year after its entry into force, the Convention is having a real impact in saving civilian lives and limbs: • the number of mine victims is declining; • the once-flourishing trade in anti-personnel [AP] mines has all but vanished; • the number of mine-producing countries has decreased; • more than 14 million stockpiled mines have been destroyed; • resources for mine action -- more than $500 million -- are used for de-mining and rehabilitation; • even where mining still occurs -- in Kosovo or Angola -- condemnation is swift, and de-mining activities are a priority in the post-conflict period. This momentum needs to be maintained. We urge your Administration to ratify the Convention as soon as possible and join the moral force of the United States with that of those who have already done so. At the same time, we strongly welcome the United States' active role and funding for mine action -- and of course the unwavering commitment of many individuals and groups of ordinary Americans in supporting the goals of the Ottawa Process. This past May, governments, international agencies and representatives of civil society gathered in Mozambique to plan the next steps to reach our goal of a world without landmines. There has been important, concrete progress to this end, and I am as confident about achieving this goal as I am committed to it. Yet I believe the impact of the Ottawa Process goes well beyond the campaign to ban AP mines. The overwhelming and positive response to the Ottawa Process, with its focus on human security, underlined that a human-centred approach to global challenges has considerable resonance in the international community. It demonstrates that the concern for the welfare and safety of others is a common thread that binds all of us and can serve to animate the global conscience into action. It gave new élan and scope to the international legal framework that advances human rights and holds individuals accountable for their actions. It is no coincidence that shortly after achieving the landmine ban, the international community moved to create the International Criminal Court. It underscored that in a globalized world, governments are no longer the only actors in the world arena. Civil society and the private sector have a growing and positive role to play. The success of the Ottawa Process is due to creative coalitions with non-governmental organizations and concerned individuals. It also highlighted the darker role that non-state actors -- militias, warlords, unscrupulous commercial interests -- play in perpetuating human insecurity in conflict zones and beyond, and the need to find ways to address the challenges they raise. In these ways, the Ottawa Process has clearly contributed to the new dynamic emerging around the world that places the individual -- individual rights, dignity and well-being -- at the centre of global affairs. And Canada is determined to help establish this new human security agenda. We are making it a central element of our foreign policy. A strong United Nations is an essential component. The United Nations was created to advance global peace and to promote the security of all. It must be at the hub of global efforts to protect and enhance the safety of people. Indeed, it already has the mandate to do so. The UN charter -- with its exhortation for "we the peoples" to save succeeding generations from war, to maintain justice, to promote social progress in freedom -- makes this clear. What is needed today is renewed vigour to fashion a strong United Nations that lives up to its founding credo. This is behind Canada's focus on promoting the protection of civilians during our term on the Security Council. At our request, the Council held a debate on this issue earlier this year. It led to a report by the Secretary-General -- a blueprint -- capturing many of the challenges and setting out 40 recommendations for action. On the basis of this report, Canada is committed to making the protection of people central to the Council's work. Human security must be the subtext to the Council's action and the impetus behind efforts to prevent conflict, keep the peace, enforce sanctions and support the collective will of the United Nations. Over the past decade, the Council has demonstrated the will to use its authority -- including enforcement measures -- to act in defence of humanitarian goals. However, it has also, for the most part, been uneven, inconsistent and, worse, simply unresponsive when these situations arise. Today, the Security Council takes a step in the right direction. It will authorize a substantial United Nations peacekeeping operation for Sierra Leone to help implement peace where, for too long, ordinary people have been brutalized, terrorized, maimed and murdered. The Council's decision includes a robust mandate that explicitly includes the protection of civilians. It is a UN operation -- authorized, managed and funded by the UN. This means it is not subject to the vagaries of voluntary funding and will help restore primary responsibility for peacekeeping where it belongs -- with the UN. Finally, it is a UN mission in Africa. This will go a long way to addressing the perception that the Council is biased against action on that continent. It is, in short, an example of the human security agenda in action and a demonstration of how the Security Council can play a positive role. The UN operation is also entirely in keeping with Canada's own efforts to help the people of Sierra Leone. Over the past year, we have appointed a special envoy to help peace efforts and we are providing over $9 million in assistance for humanitarian purposes, to build peace through disarmament, demobilization and reintegration as well as support for war-affected children. Indeed, the plight of war-affected children, especially child soldiers as young as eight years old, is a human security matter of special interest to Canada, at the Security Council and beyond. Children are among those most harshly victimized and deeply traumatized by armed conflict. I know that the condition of children is a concern that Americans share with us. In fact, an American, Carol Bellamy, heads UNICEF. We work closely there and elsewhere. I am certain that even where there are differences, for example on support for a protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, raising to 18 the age of recruitment and deployment in armed conflict, these can be resolved in the best interest of the future of the world's children. By far the greatest threat to our children -- indeed, to all humanity -- remains the spectre of nuclear annihilation and the hazards posed by other weapons of mass destruction. There should be no mistake. The threats that motivated people like Governor Peabody to push for a global non-proliferation regime -- already four decades ago -- remain frighteningly real today. Nuclear weapons testing and capacity in South Asia -- a region where political instability and tension are dangerously evident -- is a recent and startling example of these threats. The need for a strong global non-proliferation regime and progress in nuclear disarmament and arms control is therefore vital. Yet the system that we have all painstakingly built over the past 50 years is fragile and under renewed threat. For the past half-century, the United States has provided global leadership and moral authority in moving us in the right direction. Yet precisely when we need this global engagement most, Canadians are greatly concerned about momentum in the opposite direction. The U.S. Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] last week is a significant step backwards -- a repudiation of 50 years of U.S. leadership on the nuclear non-proliferation front and a devastating blow to global nuclear arms control efforts. This is very worrisome -- not least for the security of Americans, which would be enhanced, not diminished, by the Treaty. The suggestion by its opponents that it would still allow proliferation by rogue states while hobbling the American nuclear deterrent -- leaving the United States vulnerable -- is misleading. It puts in place an unprecedented, comprehensive international monitoring system encompassing 321 facilities and additional verification procedures, including on-site inspection. The CTBT would have easily exposed the "entry level" proliferators it was designed to deter. At the same time, it would not jeopardize either the safety or reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. This is not just wishful thinking, but the sworn word of those who should know. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the directors of U.S. nuclear laboratories have all testified to this effect. This month, representatives of nearly 100 nations met in Vienna, at Canada's initiative, to review the status of the Treaty's entry into force. The result was an unambiguous reaffirmation of global support. Canadians therefore hope that the CTBT will be resubmitted to the Senate at an opportune moment and that -- at the earliest possible date -- it will be ratified by the United States. However, the Senate's decision not only jeopardizes the CTBT but risks derailing the larger nuclear non-proliferation agenda. This would be dangerous for all of us. It is therefore essential that the United States restore its traditional leadership role and recommit itself to real progress in nuclear disarmament efforts. We believe there is scope for action both bilaterally and multilaterally. The United States could begin with START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty]. As it has been more than six years since its signature, perhaps the time has come to subsume the START II treaty, which the Russian Duma has not ratified, into a new, broader and deeper process of strategic arms reduction that would have greater acceptance in both countries. The United States and Russia could also begin to address the arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons that both states have removed from operational status. Respect the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missiles] Treaty. Both Russia and the United States say this is the cornerstone of strategic stability. It should not be undermined with changes that are incompatible with its intent. In the effort to accommodate the possibility of an eventual National Missile Defence, great care should be taken not to damage a system that, for almost 30 years, has underpinned nuclear restraint and allowed for nuclear reductions. On the multilateral front, the United States could help break the gridlock at the Conference on Disarmament. It is the principal forum for negotiating multilateral arms control and disarmament measures. However, since negotiating the CTBT, it has been at an impasse about what it should do next. A package solution is at hand. It would comprise initiating negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty -- the materials used to make nuclear weapons, exploring measures to prevent an arms race in outer space, and providing for discussion of nuclear disarmament. The impasse is partly a result of U.S. opposition to discussion in the last two areas. Greater flexibility here would go a long way to re-energizing the multilateral nuclear arms control agenda. The United States should also support NATO's revision of its arms control and disarmament policy. In April, NATO leaders tasked foreign ministers with examining non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament options, given "the reduced salience of nuclear weapons." Canada has been a strong advocate of this review. We believe it is crucial for NATO to have an arms control and disarmament policy that reflects the next decade -- not the last. NATO should also review its policies relating to weapons of mass destruction to ensure they are consistent with the arms control and disarmament aims we wish to advance. One possible output would be a revised version of the Alliance's 1989 Concept of Arms Control and Disarmament. U.S. support for a substantive review is critical to the success of this Allied effort. It will enable NATO ministers, this December, to send a reassuring message to the world community that the Alliance is part of the solution to global non-proliferation and disarmament issues. Since the 1950s, Canada and the United States have worked closely on the challenge of nuclear arms control and non-proliferation. It should remain a focus for efforts between our two countries -- one where Governor Peabody's spirit of co-operation prevails. Indeed, Governor Peabody's commitment to the welfare of people was an inspiration for the human security agenda -- putting the safety of people at the top of the world agenda. His contribution to the campaign to ban landmines made him an important part of its global expression, and lives on in our efforts to make the protection of people a focus of what the United Nations does. I trust that his legacy of internationalism will continue to serve as the basis for what makes our two societies strong, what makes our two countries the best of allies, and what makes our people the best of friends. 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