
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>M. AXWORTHY - NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL 'THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANSIN ARMED CONFLICT' - OTTAWA, ONTARIO</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 99/8 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL "THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS IN ARMED CONFLICT" UNITED NATIONS, New York February 12, 1999 I would like to add my words of appreciation to you, Mr. Sommaruga, Ms. Bellamy and Mr. Otunnu for your presentations to the Council today. Your presence is an important milestone in the Council's deliberations. You have conveyed with honesty and clarity the precarious plight and the enormity of the problems faced by ordinary civilians trapped in the grip of armed conflict. The victimization of civilians in war is as old as time, but never more so than in our century. This has never been acceptable. What is more recent and disturbing, what provides the global community with a compelling reason for engagement today, is the increasing "civilianization" of conflict. More than ever, non-combatants -- especially the most vulnerable -- are the principal targets, the instruments and overwhelmingly, the victims of modern armed conflict. The number of casualties from armed conflict has almost doubled since the 1980s to about one million a year; and of those, 80 percent are civilians. Our discussion leaves no doubt about the considerable threats faced by civilians, nor their global dimension. We have all too many examples. The horrific brutality in Sierra Leone. Ethnic cleansing and slaughter of non-combatants in the Balkans. Genocide and the mass movements of refugees and displaced persons in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The emergence of modern-day warlords in failed states, who take advantage of, brutalize and terrorize local residents -- aided and abetted by outside arms dealers and private groups who benefit from the marketplace of conflict. It is a fact of our time that the threats to human security -- the risks that individuals, communities, people face in their daily lives -- outweigh the risks to security occasioned by conflicts across borders, which have been the more traditional concern of the Council. The promotion of human security is the bedrock upon which all other objectives of the UN Charter must rest -- from economic and social development, to human rights and freedom, to the free flow of commerce. The dark side of globalization is the attack upon the basic integrity of people: they fear becoming innocent victims of marauding child soldiers set loose by political leaders, or of the drug warlords who exploit human misery, or of combatants who sow landmines without discrimination. The Security Council has a vital role to play in confronting these threats. There should be no mistake. Promoting the protection of civilians in armed conflict is no sideshow to the Council's mandate for ensuring international peace and security. On the contrary, it is central to it. The ultimate aim of the Council's work is to safeguard the security of the world's people, not just the states in which they live. Clearly, faced with the disproportionate toll that modern conflict takes on civilians, the protection of individuals should be a primary consideration in the Council's activities. The Council does not have to do it all; other parts of the UN and the wider international community also have their responsibilities. However, in the absence of resolute and effective Council leadership, civilians in situations of armed conflict are left in a security void. This vacuum will be and in some cases already is being filled by others -- combatants, including mercenaries, who act with little restraint and scant regard for even the most basic humanitarian standards. Active Council engagement would serve to reverse this situation. It would also reinforce the legitimacy of states. It is a state's prerogative and obligation to ensure the protection of all of its citizens, especially in times of armed conflict. This is a public good, but one that governments do not or cannot always provide. Sometimes this is a consequence of weakened state structures or of failed states. In these cases, Council action to defend civilians in armed conflict will also diminish the threats to states. The reluctance to involve the Council -- justified by some by the need to uphold state sovereignty -- only serves, ironically, to undermine this very principle. The Council's responsibility to protect civilians in armed conflict is therefore compelling, from a human security perspective, in terms of fulfilling the Council's own mandate and in the interest of enhancing state sovereignty. Our discussion today is a welcome acknowledgment of the Council's role. Indeed, this meeting builds on recent initiatives by current and previous Council members, as well as on existing Council declarations and action. In its deliberations, the Council has condemned the targeting of children in armed conflict. It has indicated a willingness to consider how to assist with the provision and protection of humanitarian assistance and humanitarian workers, including the security problems in refugee camps. It has recognized the need for peacekeeping operations to take better account of the needs of civilians. It has considered the devastating impact of arms transfers in areas of armed conflict. Last month, the Council considered the humanitarian impact of conflict. Awareness precedes action; the Council is certainly more sensitive than ever to the many dimensions of the problem. In its practice, the Security Council decisions have begun to reflect this reality. The Council exhorts both state and non-state actors involved in armed conflict to comply with the relevant provisions of international human rights and humanitarian law relating to the protection of civilians. Peace support operations, as appropriate, include provisions relating to the security of UN and humanitarian personnel; they also include human rights monitors, and take special consideration of the situation of civilians. The Council's establishment of ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were concrete measures against those who violate international humanitarian law. The Council's words and deeds to date are a promising start. However, the march of time is relentless. Civilians continue to be brutalized. Nothing suggests that we, the international community, can somehow wait this out, as our briefing today has made urgently clear. This makes the decline in the Council's active presence in the world's conflict areas all the more disturbing. The world needs more, not less, vigorous, comprehensive and sustained action by the Council. In Canada's view, the challenges facing the Council are fourfold: First is preventing conflict. Averting the outbreak of armed hostilities is the optimal means to avoid needless destruction and suffering -- in particular, the victimization of civilians. There is nothing new in this observation. Yet the United Nations record is not all it might be, in taking pre-emptive steps, or building strong human rights institutions, or ensuring early warning of impending crisis, or offering concerted support for peace processes, or having the capacity to act quickly -- for example, in the absence of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters. The Council needs to reassert its leadership in this area. The second challenge is insuring respect for international humanitarian and human rights law. We have developed a considerable body of international law and standards regulating the conduct of belligerents and the protection of civilians -- both local residents and international personnel -- in conflict situations. In this regard, the situation of children and refugees merits special attention. And we are developing new standards for adapting to the changing nature of conflict, for example, with regard to the treatment of internally displaced persons. Too frequently, however, these standards are flagrantly violated or ignored by the belligerents -- and are too often left unanswered. The third challenge facing the Council is supporting the pursuit of those who violate humanitarian norms and standards. The impunity of individuals who commit gross violations of humanitarian law during armed conflict is a widely acknowledged problem. The tribunals established for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were a significant step forward. Backing is needed for more systematic prosecution of alleged war criminals -- for example, through support to make the International Criminal Court operational sooner rather than later. The fourth challenge is taking aim at the purveyors and instruments of war. Those who are accessories to these crimes and violations -- the merchants of conflict -- who illicitly traffic in the means of war, must likewise not be left unaccountable. Conflict areas are often awash with arms, especially military small arms and light weapons. When these fall into the wrong hands, their misuse compounds the misery of civilians, who are overwhelmingly their victims. Urgent attention must be given to the flow and misuse of weapons that terrorize, maim and kill. These are complicated challenges with no easy solutions. Nevertheless, we believe that the Council has the capacity to respond -- provided its members have the political will to act. The Council could ensure that the Secretary-General highlights the situation of civilians, especially children, in relevant reports to the Council. The when, why and how of Council-mandated peace missions and good-offices efforts might be re-examined thoroughly. This would enable the Council to act rapidly when civilians are threatened, and to propose ways of giving peacekeepers the authority, guidance and resources they need to defend civilians. Other innovative practices merit further exploration, such as how Council missions could assist in minimizing the misuse of mass media to target civilians, as suggested by Under-Secretary de Mello last month. The Council might also consider how to better target, design and enforce sanctions regimes to maximize their impact on belligerents, to dry up the resources for waging war and to constrain those who profit from it -- while minimizing their effect on non-combatants. These are only a few suggestions. Other ideas have been presented and discussed today, and in recent briefings and debates by the Council. To help in moving forward, the Council needs a comprehensive assessment that brings together the numerous challenges we face with an inventory of possible responses. For this reason, Canada strongly welcomes the statement that the Council will adopt today, asking the Secretary-General to submit a report later this year containing practical recommendations for further action to protect civilians in armed conflict. The plight of civilians in armed conflict is urgent, growing and global in the threat it poses to human security. It goes to the core of the Council's mandate, and deserves continued attention. The Council has a responsibility to act vigorously and resolutely. To do otherwise risks diminishing the Council's standing, and opens the way to a more disorderly and far less secure world. We look forward to the Secretary-General's report, and to working with other Council members to address this issue, starting now. 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