
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 THE CANADA CLUB, LONDONCANADA AND BRITAIN IN AN ERA OF NEW DIPLOMACY - LONDON, ENGLAND</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 98/12 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TO THE CANADA CLUB, LONDON CANADA AND BRITAIN IN AN ERA OF NEW DIPLOMACY LONDON, England March 2, 1998 This document is also available on the Department's Internet site: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca Ten weeks from now, our Prime Minister, along with her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and many others, including many in this room, will gather in London for the reopening of Canada House -- the venerable symbol of Canadian presence in Great Britain for the last 70 years. The new Canada House will be a different kind of diplomatic post, open to the public, equipped with the latest multimedia outlets, a centre for culture and the arts. I mention this not as a promotional advertisement, but because it symbolizes what I believe could be seen as a form of rebirth of relations between our two countries, based on new areas of co-operation and collaboration. To use the wording of the joint declaration signed by our two Prime Ministers last June, it will mark the modernizing of relations between our two countries. Aside from the reopening of Canada House, further evidence for this modernization and revitalization abounds. In Ottawa last December, Britain and Canada, along with 120 other countries, put their signatures to an international treaty banning landmines. In January, Prime Minister Blair announced a tribunal of inquiry that includes a Canadian judge, Chief Justice William Hoyt, to review the events of "Bloody Sunday." In recent weeks, Canada and Britain have taken a common stance in sending troops to the Persian Gulf in support of the United Nations. Today, I participated in ongoing discussions on co-operation within the Commonwealth on human rights in Nigeria and elsewhere, along with Tony Lloyd [British Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs] and other Commonwealth colleagues. I should add that I am particularly impressed that the Minister of Foreign Trade and International Business and Deputy Prime Minister of Barbados, Billie Miller, despite having been in meetings with me all day, is still prepared to come and hear me speak tonight. The New Challenges to Human Security This new relationship between Canada and Britain is more than just a series of events: it is grounded in the seismic shifts that have shaken the tectonic plates of world affairs since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The most significant of these, in my view, has been the increasing prominence of human security issues on the world agenda. These are the issues that strike home directly to the individual: the threats posed by illicit drugs, terrorism, environmental problems, human rights abuses and weapons of mass destruction. These have become the daily concerns of foreign ministers and governments. It is from these developments that the notion of human security emerged: the premise that security goals should be primarily formulated, and achieved, in terms of human, rather than state, needs. The basic unit of analysis and concern has shrunk from the state to the community, and even to the individual. At the same time, to tackle problems that ignore state boundaries, the field of action has expanded from the state to the region, and even to the globe. Complicating matters even further is the increasing diffusion of international power that has led to the advent of new players on the international scene: corporations, non-governmental institutions and organizations, and regional organizations such as the European Union. These changes create an interesting test for governance, and perplexing questions for the conduct of nation states. We are all seized with the need to define and identify the role we intend to play in this new dispensation. This may be behind the proliferation of new national slogans, such as the "New Britain," or the United States characterizing itself as the "indispensable nation." The Concept of Soft Power Not to be left out, I have spoken of Canada as the "value-added nation." Canada adds value principally through the exercise of "soft power," a termed coined by Joseph Nye at Harvard a few years ago. By "soft power" he meant a non-coercive approach in international affairs, where power springs from attractive ideas, shared values and partnership, rather than from military and economic might. It may seem ironic that I am speaking of "soft power" so soon after Canada and Britain expressed their willingness to use force, if necessary, to ensure that Iraq respects UN resolutions. But neither Joseph Nye, nor I, would argue that there is no longer a role for the exercise of military force -- only that, in a complex, multipolar world, military might is no longer the pre-eminent measure of one's ability to influence world events. In an era of increasingly diffuse power and of problems that ignore state boundaries, we must recognize that military and economic strength count for less than they once did. Conversely, the power to set the international agenda, and to have others follow that agenda through co-option rather than coercion, counts for more and more. Soft Power and the Landmines Campaign The campaign that led to the signing in Ottawa last December of an international treaty banning anti-personnel landmines is, in my view, a clear example of "soft power" in action. An ad-hoc but effective coalition of states and non-governmental bodies brought governments and international public opinion onside with unprecedented speed, in the face of a deadlock within existing multilateral institutions and scepticism on the part of many of the major powers. It achieved this by working from a clear and widely attractive core principle: that landmines are the cause of a severe humanitarian crisis, and that they should therefore be banned. Dialogue, lobbying and outreach between governments and civil society on international issues is, of course, nothing new. In what has become known as the "Ottawa Process," however, government and civil society worked directly together as members of a team. That in itself is rare, and the success of this approach is unprecedented. Part of that success lay in galvanizing international public opinion. The late Princess Diana played an invaluable part in this. I am very glad to see that her role is being commemorated, and her work continued, in the memorial fund set up in her name. The New Canadian Diplomacy If I could sum up this approach to foreign policy, it would be as one that strives to add value internationally. Canada brings special qualities, and hence, special value, to the international scene. Those qualities that characterize Canada -- a history of commitment to reconciliation and peace; respect for all cultures and ethnic groups; bilingualism; and flexible federalism -- are reflected in our foreign policy. And, of course, now that Canada has achieved a balanced budget -- the first G-7 country to do so -- we have not just value, but also money, to add. In the face of a changing international situation, we are broadening our horizons and developing new ways of doing business internationally through a range of approaches. These include: developing public diplomacy at home, through initiatives like our National Forum on Foreign Policy, and internationally; forming new alliances abroad, some with non-traditional partners, ranging from our bilateral dialogues on human rights with Cuba and China to Canadian membership in the Organization of American States (OAS); working to reform international institutions, not only through UN reform writ large, but also through the creation of new bodies such as UN war crimes tribunals; working to bring non-state actors into line with international norms, through such measures as codes of conduct for Canadian businesses abroad; and ensuring that marginalized sectors of society are on the international agenda, by focussing on issues like child labour and the gender aspects of efforts to build peace in societies riven by conflict. There is, in my view, considerable commonality of approach between Canada's "value-added" foreign policy, and the foreign policy of the "New Britain." Robin Cook [British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs] and I discussed these commonalities when we met recently. We agreed that Canada and Britain are well-placed to work together to exercise "soft power" in addressing the priorities and demands of a new era. Since then, our officials have pursued detailed discussions on our experiences and common interest in public participation in foreign policy, including NGO partnerships, public diplomacy and opening up foreign policy to democratic participation. I am pleased that these discussions are to continue in the coming months, and wish the British government well in its thinking and planning toward a National Forum of its own. More broadly, we have also spoken with Britain in its role as EU President, about our shared trans-Atlantic values, and how these should be reflected in implementing the Canada-EU Action Plan. Through this new arrangement, there is scope for partnership not only on trade and economic issues, but also in many other areas: from promotion of free media in Bosnia, to tackling employment issues, to youth internships and cultural exchanges. Working together toward common goals is, of course, nothing new for Britain and Canada; what are new are the tools we propose to use, and the problems we intend to tackle. Let me outline a few examples. Landmines: the Ottawa Process Continued I have already referred to the process leading to the signing of the treaty to ban landmines, a process in which Britain played an important role. But the treaty represents only the first stage on the road towards our ultimate goal: a world free of landmines. Over the coming months, it is imperative that we work toward: widespread ratification, so that the treaty enters into force at the earliest possible date; universalization of the treaty to draw in those states that have not signed; and destruction of stockpiles, demining and assistance to victims, particularly in severely mine-affected states such as Bosnia. To achieve these ends, we must retain the flexibility, openness and innovation that made the treaty campaign so successful. On universalization, for example, Robin Cook and I agreed that an all-or-nothing, "sign it or leave it" approach to non-signatories will get us nowhere. Instead, we should tailor our approach, be it bilateral or through bodies such as the Commission on Disarmament, to the country in question. The principles of the Ottawa Treaty cannot be watered down, but the ways in which we get more countries to adhere to those principles may vary widely. It is equally important that those who have already signed on to the treaty implement it, including provisions for demining and victim assistance. To do this, we must maintain and refocus the "coalition of the willing" that brought the treaty into being. As a step in that direction, Canada will host a workshop on international co-ordination on mine action later this month. This will be an opportunity for Britain, Canada and other members of the coalition to demonstrate that "soft power" has staying power. The campaign against landmines is one of a range of issues particularly suited to the exercise of soft power. These are issues that cut across boundaries -- both conceptual and national. They present problems that cannot be solved by gatherings of experts drawn from a single field, nor solely by the exercise of power by sovereign governments. Such problems will only be solved by co-operative efforts within international and domestic coalitions -- coalitions that are built around adherence to fundamental principles, rather than to procedures or structures. Among these issues, I would count the threats posed by small arms, the illicit drug trade, and human rights abuses -- all issues of serious concern to both Canada and Britain. Small Arms Small arms, like landmines, present a problem that defies traditional categorization, and hence the efforts of many of our existing institutions and structures. Neither purely a humanitarian issue nor purely a disarmament issue, the proliferation of light, cheap weapons is nonetheless having a devastating impact in conflict-ridden societies around the world. The AK-47 presents a real and immediate threat to the lives of millions of civilians -- many of them children -- in the same way that anti-personnel mines do. We are only in the early stages of addressing this problem. It is clear that we cannot simply replicate the process that led to the landmines treaty -- although many of the lessons learned in that process provide an important starting point. As with landmines, it is clear that the best approach to small arms does not lie in creating cumbersome new institutions. Rather, it lies in galvanizing existing organizations, and, where necessary, going outside institutions altogether to work through ad-hoc coalitions. It is equally clear that initiatives on small arms will only succeed with the active involvement of civil society. Britain, in its dual role as EU President and Chair of the P-8 Summit process, is well-placed to advance work on small arms. We welcome plans for an EU code of conduct on arms transfers, and hope to see this issue on the agenda of the Summit process. These efforts can complement other regional initiatives, notably the pioneering work of the OAS on illicit transfers of small arms. The Drug Trade Stemming the illicit drug trade continues to present a similarly severe challenge for existing national and international institutions. In an era of porous borders, global economic integration and instant communications, it is not only legitimate business that benefits. When combined with the weakness of state institutions, in some cases even state failure, a growing illegal trade in small arms, and the immense sums of money that it generates, produces an intractable and globalized problem. We share Britain's concern about the threat posed by the illicit drug trade in the Caribbean, to cite one example, and stand ready to co-operate with Britain on measures to attack the problem. There will be no quick or simple solutions. But we take a step in the right direction when we recognize the need for strengthening co-operative, multifaceted and open approaches that deal with both supply and demand. If we are to have any impact, we need: political will and direction; co-operation among all countries, including producer and consumer countries; and flexible approaches that unite law-enforcement, development and health concerns. Human Rights While small arms and drugs are relatively new areas for concerted international attention, the promotion of international human rights is well-established. In this, the 50th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we stand at a crossroads. Over the last five decades, the international community has developed an impressive array of human rights instruments. Yet, in an increasingly integrated world, we are more than ever aware of how frequently these rights are denied. Now that the standards have by and large been set, it is time to move to the next stage: that of implementing them. Implementation requires both a renewed commitment to existing institutions, and the development of effective new tools, or in some instances, whole new institutions. As I mentioned, I am in London for a meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group [CMAG]. Since its establishment in 1995, the Action Group has acted as the crucible for Commonwealth responses to human rights violations in certain member states. It has provided a venue to assess Nigeria's progress toward the restoration of democracy and civilian government, an area of particular concern for Canada. Canada also believes that there is an important role for the "unofficial Commonwealth" in feeding into the CMAG process, and more generally, in ensuring respect for human rights within the Commonwealth. We would like to see Commonwealth NGOs bring their skills and particular qualities to bear in addressing the situation in Nigeria. Britain, like Canada, is an active member of the CMAG, and shares our concern at the lack of progress on human rights in Nigeria. Our co-operation in CMAG mirrors the excellent working relationship that we share on other human rights issues at the United Nations. We also have similar views on the desirability of establishing an International Criminal Court. Such a body would give the international community a means to address the problem of impunity for human rights abusers, including war criminals. This is not just a matter of justice, but also one of peace and security. After genocidal conflicts such as those in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the prospects for lasting peace and reconciliation are severely undermined when war criminals remain at large. In addition to multilateral institutions, both Canada and Britain recognize the importance of domestic institutions in ensuring respect for human rights and democracy. We both focus on good governance -- on building an efficient public service and an equitable legal system -- as a priority in our international aid to developing countries. At the same time, Canada is working to develop flexible and effective new human rights tools suited to specific countries or issues. As I speak, a plurilateral symposium on human rights, co-hosted by Canada and China with 10 other countries in attendance, is getting under way in British Columbia. The symposium, which takes place in the context of our broader human rights dialogue with China, is to my knowledge, unprecedented. This is the first time that China is co-hosting a human rights event with a Western country, particularly one that includes other countries in the discussions. In this context, I am delighted to hear that my colleague Robin Cook has recently announced an ethical foreign policy initiative, which will channel substantial new funds into human rights projects around the world. I salute this initiative, and look forward to learning more about it. Conclusion I do not need to remind members of the Canada Club of the strong historical ties between Canada and Britain. Periods of major change are always anxious times -- and some may be concerned that the traditional strong relationship between our two countries will be lost in the reordering of the international landscape that I have described. It is my view, however, that the relationship will emerge strengthened from this period of change. I am not talking here of simply weathering a storm. Rather, I believe that an era of soft power provides Canada and Britain with significant opportunities -- opportunities to play even more effective roles on the world stage, and to act in concert to bring about a more stable, peaceful and prosperous world. Canadians have a reputation for being modest and self-deprecating. Sir Wilfrid Laurier broke from that mould when he spoke early this century of Canada having become "a star to which is directed the gaze of the whole civilized world." I hope you will not think me too immodest if I repeat his words, for I do believe that, in an era of soft power, Canada's star is rising. </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