<html>
<head>
<meta name="Generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 8">
<meta name="DATE" content="6/10/2003">
<meta name="Author" content="Natalie">
<title>MR. GRAHAM - ADDRESS AT THE 16TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL ON THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM - NEW YORK, NEW YORK</title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0">
<p><font size="+1"></font><font size="+1"><strong><u>CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY</u></strong></font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font size="+1"><strong>NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY</strong></font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font size="+1"><strong>THE HONOURABLE BILL GRAHAM,</strong></font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font size="+1"><strong>MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,</strong></font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font size="+1"><strong>AT THE 16TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE </strong></font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font size="+1"><strong>ACADEMIC COUNCIL ON THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM</strong></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><strong>NEW YORK, New York</strong></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><strong>June 13, 2003</strong></font></p>
<p>I welcome this opportunity to speak to the Academic Council on the United Nations System [ACUNS]. This is the third
time I have met with your group. Last December, I was in Waterloo, Ontario, where I officially announced the impending
move of THE ACUNS headquarters to that city. I was deeply impressed there to learn about the interest in UN reform being
stimulated by your organization, both in academic circles and among the public at large. Subsequently, in February, amid
the Iraq crisis, I met in Ottawa with ACUNS members at a conference on the UN Security Council. </p>
<p>On this occasion, I am particularly pleased to be speaking on the theme of "A World Free from Fear" here in the host city of
the United Nations. Freedom from fear--specifically fear of conflict, violence and persecution--brings together two major
themes in Canadian foreign policy: a commitment to multilateral cooperation and a commitment to putting the security of
individuals at the forefront of the international agenda. </p>
<p>I am reminded of Canada's historical commitment to these ideals daily when I show up for work at the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which is housed in a building named after Lester Pearson. His Nobel Prize is on
display in the lobby of that building, and walking past it often evokes an appreciation of just how much he did to promote
the ideals and the institution being discussed at this conference.</p>
<p>This is an important time for us to take stock of that institution for, as you know, terrorism and the war in Iraq have created
major upheavals both in global approaches to security and in multilateral organizations. Following the terrible September
11 attacks in this city, we have seen a dramatic resurgence of the traditional model of security. This model, originating in
the Treaty of Westphalia and stretching through the Cold War period, focuses on protecting states against attack. And this
security imperative has created a tendency, perhaps justified in some cases, to dismiss multilateral channels of action when
they seem incapable of delivering rapid results. </p>
<p>Viewed from a broad perspective, these developments come at a time when two things are manifestly clear. First, security
has to be understood as more than just a matter of securing states against attack; and, second, both national and global
security can be truly realized only through effective forms of multilateral cooperation. </p>
<p>To start with the first point, any reasonably nuanced understanding of current realities shows that the security of every state
is deeply interwoven with the security of peoples all around the globe. Conditions of oppression, disenfranchisement and
deprivation among civilians within states have led to protracted conflicts and to the emergence of extremism and terror
affecting states and civilians half a world away. In an age of globalization, security is truly indivisible: it cannot be achieved
at the expense of others, and indeed we ignore the insecurity of others at our peril. Growing connections between regions of
the world make it clear that not just terrorism but also poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation are all
problems that are global in scope, posing threats to the security of states and individuals around the world. They can be
addressed only through cooperation of equally global dimensions. In my own city of Toronto, we have certainly been
witness to this reality, as our health-care system has had to confront and bring under control a disease brought to us by a
few passengers on a flight from China. </p>
<p>Such events underline that a more secure world can be built only by enhancing security for individuals and communities
and by strengthening the protective powers of states. In some ways, we must strive to build security from the bottom up as
well as from the top down. These are complementary processes, as human security and state security are mutually
reinforcing. Canada is acting on this insight through our continued support of a security agenda that includes measures to
prevent and resolve violent conflict within states, protect civilians in situations of violent conflict, and increase the capacity
of states to ensure security for their populations. Our current human security approach emphasizes five core priorities:
public safety, the protection of civilians, conflict prevention, governance and accountability, and peace support operations.</p>
<p>Of course, we in Canada are just as aware as all of you in this room that no country can have an impact on these broader
spheres of security acting on its own. More than ever before, comprehensive state and human security can be realized only
through effective forms of multilateral cooperation. In some places, such cooperation is showing encouraging results. In
Austria, I recently attended the fifth annual ministerial meeting of the Human Security Network, a group of 13 like-minded
countries from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas committed to addressing some of the very issues you are discussing
at this conference: conflict resolution, landmines, human rights and small arms. This group, which is emerging as a
promising bridge between North and South, works to bring the fruits of cross-regional cooperation to a wider audience by
holding activities around major international events and conferences. </p>
<p>There is also expanding support for a broader concept of security in other multilateral forums. At the Millennium Summit,
the UN Secretary-General called for the world community to advance the twin goals of "freedom from fear" and "freedom
from want." The UN Security Council now increasingly addresses the protection of civilians in war zones in its resolutions.
And the G8 is making solid progress in promoting key aspects of civilian security through its Africa Action Plan. </p>
<p>But much remains to be done. Producing more effective multilateral cooperation has as much to do with keeping countries
engaged in the process as it does with solving the procedural challenges themselves. For many countries--including
Canada--support for multilateralism has become almost an article of faith, bound up with high-minded principles of
inclusiveness, fairness and global harmony. The intensity of Canadians' commitment to the UN system was recently
underlined when I conducted the Dialogue on Foreign Policy with citizens this spring and heard this theme echoed around
the country. This principled basis of commitment becomes sorely tested, however, when multilateral institutions manifestly
fail to function well or produce significant results; and thus states retreat from participation in these institutions out of
cynicism and disappointment. </p>
<p>Yet as we all know, in the long term states have no viable alternative to working cooperatively on modern challenges that
are too big and complex to be tackled through an effort anything less than global in scope. So our response must be
twofold. On the one hand, we must convince all states that it is in their long-term interest to work cooperatively with others;
and, on the other hand, we must reform existing institutions so that they are capable of delivering results that serve our
individual and collective long-term interests. </p>
<p>This is why the topic of UN reform is, inescapably, front and centre in any discussion of how to make progress on global
security. The founding objective of the United Nations--to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war--is a call
to build a world free from fear, in which all persons are free from violent threats to their rights, safety and lives. It is a
laudable ambition, born out of the determination of a generation deeply scarred by a terrible war. As we reflect on their
work today, we can see there is much truth in the recent words of legal scholar Thomas Franck: "If we had to reinvent the
United Nations Charter today, we would certainly come up with something worse." Yet for all of its lofty ambitions, the
UN has not succeeded in fostering comprehensive global initiatives to realize its aims. </p>
<p>This failure has something to do with the internal workings of the organization, but perhaps more to do with the objectives
of its member states. The UN is a forum where the states of the world gather to develop solutions to common global
problems; and it is in the deliberations and actions of states that the promises of multilateral cooperation are being sold
short. Fundamental reform requires something akin to a cultural change on the part of the UN's membership--above all, a
recognition that we are in this together, that national interests are served by delivering on the commitments in the Charter
and other UN instruments. Member states of major UN bodies such as the Commission on Human Rights (to name one
highly prominent example) must be seen to demonstrate their own commitment in practice to the standards they advocate.
And there must be a renewed commitment among all nations to view their UN participation not as a matter of constraining
one another or settling scores, but as a unique opportunity to work collectively to achieve goals that no single state, or even
regional bloc of states, can achieve alone.</p>
<p>Fostering such changes will require addressing regional gulfs dividing member states, particularly those between the
developed and developing worlds. If greater progress is to be made in joint efforts by countries from the North and South,
both sides must commit to understanding each other's respective priorities and to overcoming historical grievances. On this
issue, unfortunately, the words of Mark Twain come to mind: "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits." But
perhaps incremental steps embodied by cooperation in forums such as the Human Security Network are the best hope for a
better North-South rapprochement, which if fostered may well ripple outward throughout the UN system itself.</p>
<p>Indisputably, however, the primary focus of efforts to make progress on global security issues must be the Security Council.
The Council has demonstrated its value as an instrument of global security when there has been unity of purpose, as it did
with its resolution on terrorism and its resolutions authorizing peace operations for East Timor and Afghanistan. But in the
face of urgent need, member states do not always arrive at timely and effective responses, as has all too recently been
demonstrated. Again, in seeking ways to avoid future similar situations, hope may lie in the creative use of groupings of
like-minded states, which have recently fostered agreement on such issues as the landmines ban and the International
Criminal Court.</p>
<p>Chapter Two of the Charter makes clear that UN membership is not a right, but a commitment to uphold the principles and
purposes of the organization. Yet in the working of the UN, no such standard is applied: Libya chairs the Commission on
Human Rights, Iraq sits at the Conference on Disarmament and Rwanda sat on the Security Council in the midst of the
genocide. The time has come to revisit the basis upon which membership in these bodies is determined. And as Article Six
envisions, the UN must consider suspending or expelling member states that have failed in their obligation to the
organization and violated the basic principles of the Charter. </p>
<p>Other promising avenues of reform that have been suggested include putting the big issues of the day on the agenda of the
annual general debate, and reviewing the General Assembly's agenda each year to ensure a focus on issues where realistic
progress can be made. There also needs to be a much more robust engagement with constructive elements of civil society,
whose participation would make the workings of the UN more innovative and effective.</p>
<p>The most thorny issue of all is the composition and functioning of the Security Council. This was a point made to me as
recently as Monday of this week, when I was at the OAS [Organization of American States] meeting in Santiago, Chile,
seated beside my friend Celso Amorim, the Foreign Minister of Brazil. We know all too well the frustrations felt by states
such as Brazil and India over being governed by a system designed to respond to the power imperatives of an earlier time.
Resistance to changing the Security Council is entrenched; but, as Jorge Castaneda, the former Foreign Minister of Mexico,
has suggested, progress might be started by getting permanent members to "agree to a more constructive interpretation of
the veto's nature and the uses to which it can legitimately be put." The same point was recommended by the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in its seminal report <em>The Responsibility to Protect</em>.</p>
<p>Let me conclude by moving from the consideration of structural issues to some substantive ones. You in this room are well
aware that the UN must find ways of tackling two major issues at the heart of contemporary security threats to individuals:
the nature of state sovereignty and the engagement of non-state actors. <em>The Responsibility to Protect</em> has made the case that
the most solemn responsibility of governments to protect their citizens flows up to the international community when
governments cannot or will not acquit their responsibility. </p>
<p>Many states refuse to recognize that sovereignty entails such a responsibility or that failure to protect has consequences. If
the responsibility to protect is ever to be put into practice, the UN must persuade countries fearful of the very idea of
justified intervention across state borders.</p>
<p>Multilateral cooperation must also deal with the current realities of violent conflict, which occurs within states, involves
non-state actors such as militias, opposition parties and private companies, and all too often forgets the innocent. We must
find ways--the International Criminal Court is one way--of ensuring that such groups find it in their own interests to
comply with international norms on human rights, land mines, child soldiers, internally displaced persons and the
protection of civilians. For conflicts involving struggles to control primary export commodities, we need to establish norms
of corporate social responsibility for private business involved with these commodities. Engagement with non-state actors
is crucial to the UN's effort both to resolve and prevent conflicts.</p>
<p>Let me state that Canadians are firmly committed to these reforms and others. As I mentioned earlier, I have been holding
nationwide discussions since January with citizens on priorities and directions for our foreign policy. This public dialogue
clearly shows that while Canadians are concerned about terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, they are equally
concerned about the broader causes of conflict and insecurity around the world. Canadians overwhelmingly believe that
multilateral cooperation is the best means by which our country, and indeed all countries, can address the security issues of
concern to us all. What we want is what the world wants: multilateral institutions that are effective and capable of
advancing our common cause of peace and security, social justice and a better world. </p>
<p>Recently, I have been at many meetings with European foreign ministers, at the G8, the Canada-EU [European Union]
Summit, NATO and elsewhere; and all of my European counterparts indicated their governments' and citizens'
commitment to multilateral cooperation on overarching global issues, especially through the UN. Many of them equally
affirmed the need to reform the UN to make it more effective. Your organization can surely be effective in advancing this
cause, which is so close to the hearts of Canadians as well. ACUNS can make a difference.</p>
<p>It will be with great pride and the robust support of our citizens that Canada will soon be hosting the ACUNS headquarters
at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo. At this time, I would particularly like to pay tribute to the support that the United
Nations University has given to ACUNS. On behalf of all Canadians, I commend you in this audience for the work you are
doing to advance matters of pressing global importance. We look forward to our continuing partnership with ACUNS in
fostering effective multilateral cooperation in the pursuit of a world free from fear.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
</body>
</html>
