
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"> <meta name="DATE" content="8/11/1998"> <title>MR. AXWORTHY - ADDRESS TO THE INTERNATIONAL NGO CONSULTATIONS ON SMALL ARMS ACTION - ORILLIA, ONTARIO</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 98/50 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE INTERNATIONAL NGO CONSULTATIONS ON SMALL ARMS ACTION ORILLIA, Ontario August 19, 1998 This document is also available on the Department's Internet site: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca New Forms of Conflict Anyone who has spent any time watching the television news in the last 5 to 10 years will have an uneasy sense that despite the end of the Cold War, war itself has not gone away. It has simply changed, and changed for the worse. Traditional wars between states have largely been replaced as the main source of global instability by long-term, low-intensity wars within states. These are often conflicts based on bitter ethnic and religious divisions that can end up destroying a state. Conflicts in which the main combatants are not national armies but terrorists, paramilitary militias or criminal gangs. Above all, conflicts that take place not on the battlefield but in the streets, with mainly civilian casualties. In the face of these brutal and seemingly insoluble conflicts, the initial post-Cold War euphoria has disappeared. It has become clear that the international community lacks the tools, institutions and even concepts to deal with new forms of conflict effectively. It is urgent that we develop new forms of diplomacy, law and practice that are up to the task. Canada is determined to be at the forefront of these efforts to build a new framework for the management of contemporary conflict. I am a realist -- I recognize that we are only at the beginning of an arduous journey in this respect. But there are positive signs and reasons for hope. Governments, civil society, academics and the private sector are debating new notions such as human security and peacebuilding, and revisiting traditional views of state sovereignty. The newly established International Criminal Court will be a powerful body to pursue those who until now were able to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with impunity. And we are developing important new tools, like the convention banning anti-personnel mines, to limit the human impact of conflict. We are on the track toward establishing a broader regime of rules and institutions that puts the individual, not just the state, under the focus of the international security lens. Anti-personnel mines are far from being the only weapons, however, that take countless civilian casualties. Clearly, we must tackle the accumulation and proliferation of military small arms and light weapons if we want to help provide true security to civilians caught up in internal conflicts. That is why I have made military small arms and light weapons a priority for Canadian efforts in international arms control and disarmament, along with landmines and long-standing areas of concern, such as nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The Role of Small Arms Why the focus on small arms and light weapons? Because they are the tools of the trade for non-state combatants. Cheap, easy to use and to transport, they are the weapons of choice in low-intensity conflict. They have become the tools of the trade of drug smugglers, terrorists and criminals, corroding the fabric of civil society. I should stress here that I am speaking of military weapons only, not of non-military firearms legitimately held by private citizens. The damage wrought by these military weapons is bound to increase. We are seeing a pattern emerge in the most intractable armed conflicts. Recurring cycles of violence, erosion of political legitimacy and loss of economic viability -- all these deprive the government of its authority and its ability to cope with the accumulation, proliferation and use of small arms. The resulting "weaponization" of society fuels further cycles of violence, despair and, ultimately, state collapse. The first step in breaking this vicious cycle is to recognize and understand a problem that until recently received little attention from diplomats and disarmament experts. One important development in this regard is the establishment in May 1998 of the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, made up of experts from 23 countries, including Canada. Over the next year, it will report to the Secretary-General on progress made on the recommendations of the landmark 1997 report issued by the Group's predecessor, the UN Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, the first-ever UN study on the issue. It will also outline further action that the UN and the international community might take. Ambassador Mitsuro Donowaki of Japan, who appeared before you earlier this week, has been elected to chair the Group. I extend my congratulations to him, and my best wishes in this important work. Another significant step in raising international awareness and understanding of the problem was taken by Norway, when it hosted a meeting last month in Oslo of officials of some 21 countries, including Canada, to review developments and progress. Those attending recognized the complexity of the problem and the need for more coherent long-term efforts to provide multifaceted solutions. Participants at the Oslo meeting agreed that governments have a primary responsibility for addressing the problem, but that civil society and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] also make significant and highly effective contributions toward overall solutions. The latter was also an important lesson learned from the landmines campaign. Personally, I believe that civil society activism is the major factor in ensuring that governments actually take up the responsibilities that they have now acknowledged are theirs. Canada has from the start recognized the key role of non-governmental experts and activists, including academics and members of NGOs. We have supported the creation of an international NGO Web site, Project PrepCom, for mobilization and exchange of information on small arms (www.prepcom.org). The Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development has sponsored a series of meetings involving officials, NGOs and other experts, including conferences this year in Quebec City and Toronto. Only last week the Centre hosted a meeting of non-governmental experts on small arms, as well as an NGO roundtable in Ottawa. The experts meeting stressed the importance of an approach that is integrated into broader foreign policy making and that combines regional and global perspectives. They also called for more research and exchange of ideas in this very new area of concern. The roundtable was an opportunity for Canadian NGOs to review these conclusions and provide further input in advance of today's meeting. They discussed how best to attack the root causes of the small arms problem, and provided valuable feedback on the small arms strategy and action plan prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. And, of course, the Centre, along with the Department of Foreign Affairs Peacebuilding Program, has provided funding for your meeting here in Orillia -- at which I hope to receive more useful feedback. Controlling Small Arms: A Three-Pronged Approach As our understanding of this complex problem increases, the international community is moving to the next stage: developing practical measures to end small arms proliferation and begin the process of disarmament. Canadian policy addresses the problem along three tracks, humanitarian action through peacebuilding, illicit trafficking and licit trade. Our initial consultations on small arms led us to the conclusion that only by pursuing balanced and comprehensive action along all three tracks can we hope to tackle the problem effectively. And that it is essential to combine local, regional and international action on each of these tracks. We need a full tool-kit -- from grassroots arms buy-back projects to international conventions -- to tackle this complex, multifaceted problem. This requires us to forge strong partnerships between governments and civil society, and between North and South. Humanitarian Action and Peacebuilding Perhaps the most pressing need is humanitarian action to help societies emerging from conflict that are awash with small arms. Unless former combatants are disarmed, demobilized and reintegrated into society, the risk of relapse into violence, or of the export of violence to other countries, will remain high. Disarmament and reintegration, including of child soldiers, are key priorities of the Canadian Peacebuilding Initiative, established two years ago by my colleague the Honourable Diane Marleau and me. Using funds set up under this initiative, Canada is supporting a wide range of regional and local projects. These include projects in Mali, Mozambique, the Horn of Africa, El Salvador and Nicaragua to buy back arms or to assist ex-combatants in reintegrating into society. We have also supported research, review and regional initiatives: everything from studies in Cambodia, Somalia, Mali, El Salvador and South Africa; to support for a UN Lessons Learned Unit; to a contribution to the proposed West African moratorium. This latter is an excellent example of innovative ways to link grassroots initiatives, regional solutions and international support. In what started as an arms buy-back program, Mali is leading work on a regional small arms moratorium in West Africa, with support from the UNDP [United Nations Development Program] and the OAU [Organization of African Unity], and funding from Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. Today, I am pleased to announce the latest of Canada's projects to curb small arms proliferation, a $130 000 contribution from our Peacebuilding Fund, for a "Goods for Guns" buy-back program in El Salvador. This project, organized originally by several Salvadorian business people with the assistance of the Rotary Club, will support an exchange of weapons by former combatants for coupons redeemable against consumer goods. A first contribution by Canada to this program in 1996-97 proved highly successful. Canada is pleased to assist in its further funding, as a contribution to building an enduring peace in El Salvador. Another priority area for peacebuilding closely linked to small arms is that of children in armed conflict. All too often, the guerillas attacking their fellow citizens with AK-47s or rocket launchers are children, recruited or pressed into the service of violence. Disarming them and reintegrating them into their societies requires special attention. Thus, CIDA [Canadian International Development Agency] has supported UNICEF programs to demobilize and reintegrate child soldiers in Liberia and Uganda. Under the Peacebuilding Initiative, we are supporting further research and advocacy in this and other aspects of the problems of children in conflict. We are also working to ensure that the lessons learned from these projects are cycled back into the policy-making process. It is essential that the expertise that many NGOs have developed in the field be reflected in the planning not only of future peacebuilding projects, but also of regional and global initiatives. This meeting, and others planned for this fall's UN General Assembly and beyond, will keep the dialogue between and among governments and civil society going. As we learned in the landmines campaign, the new human security agenda can only be tackled effectively if we work together. Of course, small arms are not landmines, and our approach must be tailored to the nature of the problem. I want to emphasize the particular importance of working closely with those countries most affected by small arms proliferation. We should accept and encourage leadership from affected communities and governments, and provide the necessary resources to support home-grown local and regional efforts. Illicit Trafficking in Small Arms De-weaponizing societies will never represent a complete solution if the small arms taken out of circulation are simply replaced by new ones. Stopping deliveries of these weapons is no easy task. Grassroots efforts to improve governance and reduce corruption can help. At the same time, there is a clear need for broad-based regional and multilateral co-operation to establish international regimes for both legal and illicit flows of small arms. A number of international initiatives are already under way to tackle illicit flows. The UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice has called for negotiation of an international instrument to combat illicit trafficking of firearms, as a protocol to a Global Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. G-8 leaders this year approved a set of principles that could be incorporated into such a protocol. The OAS [Organization of American States] Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Materials, which Canada helped draft, and which we and 30 other countries of the OAS signed last year, is a particularly important initiative. The Convention provides a foundation for co-operation between OAS countries and acts as a useful precedent for negotiations in other international forums. In fact, it was explicitly referred to by the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in its recent work to address the issue of small arms. Within Canada, our efforts are now focussed on making the legislative changes necessary to ratify the OAS Convention as soon as possible. In parallel with these efforts to tackle illicit trade, it is equally important to address problems surrounding licit trade. These include "leakage" from the extensive legal trade in these weapons between governments, and deliberate sales by governments to non-state actors. Canada has been looking at ways to address the latter problem by enshrining in international law the principle that states should not engage in acts that inappropriately arm non-state actors, either directly or indirectly. This principle would hold that small arms and light weapons designed and manufactured to military specifications for use as lethal instruments of war are reserved for the possession and use of the armed forces. Non-state actors should not be armed and equipped as though they were armies themselves. A Convention on Transfers to Non-State Actors In advance of the Oslo meeting, I wrote to the foreign ministers of participating countries, proposing that they consider a global convention based on this principle, that is, prohibiting the international transfer of military small arms and light weapons to non-state actors. By acceding to a convention of this type, states would recognize their responsibility to make sure that such lethal weaponry does not wind up in the wrong hands. This proposal was one of several put forward in Oslo, but was noted as a significant possible step forward in dealing with the undesirable side-effects of licit trade. I am very glad to have this opportunity to put this same proposal before you today, and I look forward to your views on whether such a convention would be worth pursuing as one element of our efforts. This is a sensitive and complex issue, which has raised concerns, principally in two areas, that I would like to address. The first relates to the definition of "military small arms and light weapons." Why are we restricting the ambit of the convention to weapons designed and manufactured according to military specifications, and excluding whole categories of "non-military" weapons, such as hand guns, hunting rifles, shotguns and even machetes? The answer is simple. A growing body of data shows that military small arms and light weapons are overwhelmingly responsible for destabilization and casualties in internal conflicts -- in particular, fully automatic machine guns and assault rifles, and hand-held grenade or rocket launchers. Non-military firearms are indeed used in violent crime all over the world, including in countries emerging from conflict. At the same time, they have many legitimate civilian uses. Curbing illicit uses of non-military firearms while permitting legitimate ones is best done through national legislation dealing with civilian gun ownership and police enforcement. The focus of a convention of the sort we discussed in Oslo would be explicitly on military small arms, as a major source of conflict, instability and human suffering around the world. In a Canadian context, I would point out that the fully automatic assault weapons at issue in discussions of a possible convention have already been classified for many years as prohibited weapons under Canadian law. Thus a convention of this sort would not affect Bill C-68. This Act will not be changed or affected in any way further to the Oslo meeting or to our ongoing discussions on military small arms. The other concern is that a convention of this type would deny arms to non-state actors opposing repressive regimes, while those regimes could legally arm themselves against their people. I would make two points in response to this. First, Canada does not, as a matter of policy, advocate the arming of opposition groups in order to overthrow unpopular regimes. We believe that non-violent means are the best way to effect political change. Governments who signed the convention would effectively be recognizing that principle by doing so. Second, many countries already closely control sales of arms to other governments. Canada has one of the strictest sets of controls in the world, one that we call on other countries to emulate. Before permitting any export, we consider whether the country is involved in military hostilities, is under UN Security Council embargo, or is implicated in human rights abuses against its own citizens. In fact, in the last two years, over 90 percent of Canada's military exports of automatic assault weapons went to the armies of only two European countries, Denmark and the Netherlands. You may not be aware that every single export of offensive military equipment to countries other than NATO members and a handful of other close allies -- everything from bullets to flight simulators -- requires a permit that I sign off on personally. Yes, it is a lot of paper -- about half of all the memos I receive. But I look at each one carefully, particularly the assessments of the human rights and overall political situation in the country in question, and of how the equipment will be used by the buyer. To ensure maximum transparency, we provide detailed public reports of all exports. Their format has recently been improved to make these annual reports even more detailed and clearer. Conclusion Putting small arms and light weapons on the international disarmament agenda, studying the problem on the ground, negotiating international agreements, disarming and reintegrating former combatants -- all of these are steps in the right direction. It is encouraging to see how rapidly international awareness of the problem of military small arms has grown in just a few years. It is also encouraging to see that, as with anti-personnel mines, the NGO community is engaged and involved. I hope to keep on working closely with you in tackling this issue, and I hope that we can create the same sort of synergy between government and civil society that we did in the landmines campaign -- even if the nature of the problem is rather different. In particular, I am very interested in hearing your views on the Canadian idea of a convention banning international transfers to non-state actors. Next month, as the international community gathers at the UN General Assembly, we will have further opportunities for consultations amongst governments and civil society. Let us not fool ourselves as to the complexity of the problem, however, and the long road we have to travel. The defining image of the Cold War was of nuclear warheads aimed at one another across the Iron Curtain. We must do our utmost to ensure that the defining image of the 21st century is not that of ragged children aiming AK-47s at one another across a village street. 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