
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 A MEETING OF THE MID-AMERICA COMMITTEE'GLOBAL ACTION, CONTINENTAL COMMUNITY: HUMAN SECURITY IN CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY' - CHICAGO, ILLINOIS</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 98/51 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO A MEETING OF THE MID-AMERICA COMMITTEE "GLOBAL ACTION, CONTINENTAL COMMUNITY: HUMAN SECURITY IN CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY" CHICAGO, Illinois September 9, 1998 This document is also available on the Department's Internet site: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca It is a great pleasure to be here in Chicago once again. I would like to thank the Mid-America Committee for inviting me to address this distinguished and influential audience on Canadian foreign policy, and in particular on how Canada sees itself within the North American community. In a previous speech I quoted an article comparing the U.S.-Canada relationship to that of Ralph and Alice Kramden in The Honeymooners. Those of you old enough to remember that show will know what I mean. We may complain and squabble sometimes, we may take one another for granted, but beneath this lies the closest and deepest relationship possible between two sovereign nations. Even such a close partnership is not immune to change, however, particularly as the world changes dramatically around us. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the course of world affairs has been radically altered. And we have only to look at developments over the last few months to see that the shock waves of that watershed event are still being felt. Change of this magnitude affects us all. It brings once-distant foreign policy concerns to our doorsteps, and it challenges us to develop new tools, new ideas and new institutions. The Concept of Human Security It is in this context that we have been rethinking and retooling Canada's foreign policy. One of the most significant developments we have focussed on is the growing importance of human security issues on the world agenda. These are international issues that strike directly home to the individual: the threats posed by illicit drugs, terrorism, environmental problems, human rights abuses and weapons proliferation. Whether one sees these as the dark side of globalization or simply as pre-existing problems that have gained new prominence with the end of the Cold War, they have become the daily concern of foreign ministers and governments. Our basic unit of analysis in security matters has shrunk from the state to the community and even the individual. Thus, looking at foreign policy through a human security lens produces a new set of priorities -- everything from terrorist bombs to child labour and climate change -- that most affect the daily life of individuals. These problems largely ignore state boundaries. It takes action and co-operation at different levels -- global, regional and local -- if they are to be tackled effectively. This is no longer simply a matter for nation-states. New players on the international scene, including corporations, non-governmental bodies and regional organizations, have a growing role to play. All this severely tests our traditions of governance and raises 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. President Clinton has spoken of the United States as the "indispensable nation." I like to think that Canada is a nation that adds value internationally by exercising effective influence in areas of concern to us, as seen from the viewpoint of human security. In the remainder of my remarks today, I would like to outline for you how this new outlook works in two areas of our foreign policy: Canada's approach to key global human security priorities such as landmines, small arms and the International Criminal Court [ICC]; and more specifically, our approach to continental policy in terms of building a North American community. Global Action to Promote Human Security Alarm and uncertainty in the face of the "new world disorder" have led some to advocate raising barriers against the outside world as a solution. In my view, this is exactly the wrong approach. The only effective response lies in confronting these problems and co-operating to address them, not in isolationism. What has this meant in practical terms for Canadian foreign policy? We have brought a more concerted focus and greater activism to bear on some of the key human security problems. Perhaps the most high-profile example of this is the campaign to ban anti-personnel mines. Following an unprecedented partnership between governments and civil society, in December 1997 in Ottawa, 122 countries signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. Since then, eight more countries have signed. The Convention sets a new norm in international disarmament. We are currently at 37 ratifications, including the United Kingdom, and expect to reach the 40 ratifications needed for the Convention to enter into force this fall -- breaking all speed records for an international agreement. Signature of the Convention was a major, though by no means final, step toward ending the humanitarian crisis caused by these weapons of slow-motion mass destruction. The Convention is not just a piece of paper or a statement of high ideals. By signing, countries agree not only to ban use, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines, but also to destroy existing stockpiles, and to do all they can to get mines out of the ground and help survivors. The international community committed close to half a billion U.S. dollars toward these latter elements of mine action. I welcome the role that the United States has taken as a world leader in mine action, through work under Ambassador Inderfurth in areas such as mine clearance and a Slovenian mine action trust fund. It is true that some major states have not yet signed the convention, including the United States, China, Russia, India and Pakistan. The U.S. government's recent announcement that it will sign the Ottawa Convention by 2006 was welcome news, although we continue to hope that it will be able to do so sooner. After all, President Clinton himself called on the United Nations to pursue vigorously an international treaty banning anti-personnel mines "as soon as possible." The humanitarian imperative to rid the world of these weapons that indiscriminately target civilians is as strong as ever. At the same time, the military usefulness of anti-personnel mines is more and more open to question. There are effective existing technologies which, if used in new ways, could largely replace anti-personnel mines. In addition, senior military figures have cast doubt on their usefulness as weapons of war. Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf and 14 other retired senior U.S. military officers -- including two former commanders of U.S. forces in South Korea -- now publicly support a ban. The United States government has said that it cannot sign the Ottawa Convention at present because of its unique responsibilities. I would submit to you that part of America's global responsibility is to recognize that the world has changed and that the old ways of doing business no longer hold. There is still much to be done to reach our ultimate, shared goal of a world without landmines. At the same time, awareness is growing that military small arms and light weapons also take a terrible toll on civilian populations. Small arms -- which are cheap and easy to transport, smuggle or hide -- are currently responsible for far more actual casualties than nuclear bombs or other weapons of mass destruction. They have become the tools of 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. This is a complex issue, one which we are only beginning to understand. But work within the United Nations and discussions in the international community, including civil society, are starting to outline the way ahead. Just a few weeks ago, I attended an international NGO [non-governmental organization] meeting, sponsored by the Canadian government, which discussed practical measures to end small arms proliferation and begin the process of disarmament. The Canadian government is addressing the problem along three tracks: humanitarian action through peacebuilding, attacking illicit trafficking, and controlling legal trade. We are pursuing everything from grassroots arms buyback projects in places such as El Salvador and Mali, to international conventions and agreements. The Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Goods, which the United States and Canada signed last year along with 29 other countries of the Organization of American States, is particularly important. It not only provides a foundation for co-operation within our own hemisphere, but also acts as a useful precedent for negotiations in other international forums. Canada recently proposed consideration of a global convention prohibiting the international transfer of military small arms to non-state actors. This could be a useful tool for addressing the unfortunate side effects of legal trade in small arms. This is a highly complex problem, and there are no shortcuts to a solution. But I believe it is clearly in the interests of the United States and Canada to address it. Otherwise, we risk finding ourselves helplessly standing by -- or putting our own troops into danger -- as teenagers aim AK-47s at one another across village streets in countries caught up in a maelstrom of violence and despair. In these internal conflicts, civilians are prey not only to the devastating effects of landmines and small arms, but also to acts of genocide and war crimes. It is with this in mind that Canada joined other nations in pressing for an International Criminal Court. As you may be aware, the international community recently agreed to establish a permanent court to try those accused of the most serious crimes recognized in international law, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court will take jurisdiction only where national judicial systems fail to investigate these crimes. The Court would be able to bring to justice the Pol Pots of this world -- those who have committed the most horrendous atrocities but enjoy impunity because their government is unable, or unwilling, to bring them to justice. I know that the U.S. government has strong concerns about the ICC as currently constituted. It fears that the Court could bring U.S. soldiers before it on frivolous, politically motivated charges. But a close look at the agreement establishing the Court shows that there are very strong safeguards to address these concerns. The Court can only deal with the most serious crimes of international concern, and only where states have failed to investigate or deal with those crimes. Any state that diligently investigates and prosecutes those responsible -- which the United States surely would -- will thereby ensure that the ICC will not take up these cases. The Court's prime focus will be cases where the authority of the state in question has collapsed, or where states themselves have committed these extremely serious crimes. In addition, ICC prosecutors will be professionals whose work will be subject to the extensive checks and balances established in the Court's statute; these are specifically designed to screen out frivolous complaints. The United States had a very positive impact on the ICC negotiations, ensuring that we have a Court that will not only be independent and effective, but that will also be credible and responsible. With a Court of this nature, I cannot imagine any situation under which American soldiers would find themselves indicted on political charges of dubious value. What I can see is a Court that would allow the United States and Canada to fulfil key international aims in terms of the rule of law. For there to be true international rule of law, no country and no individual can be exempt. Once we start asking for exemptions, however well-intentioned, we fatally undermine the basic principle that all must be equal before the law. I very much hope that we will be able to work together in the coming months to address the concerns of the U.S. government without diluting the effectiveness of the ICC. Building a North American Community The emerging human security agenda -- be it landmines, small arms or war crimes -- requires not only increased global co-operation but also a rethinking of regional co-operation. At the moment, Canada, the United States and Mexico are all dealing separately with issues such as crime, drugs and terrorism -- sometimes in ways that have the unwanted side effect of raising new barriers along our borders. The question then becomes, can there be a common North American response to human security issues? How does North America fit together, and how does North America fit in globally in this era of change? If we can get North American co-operation right, not only will our own countries benefit but we would provide an important model of regional co-operation in a fluid and uncertain world. This would be an alternative model to that presented by the European Union, for example, in that it would be institutionally much lighter and would draw together economies at different stages of development. We have a long way to go, however, before we achieve that level of finely tuned co-operation. To date, much of our attention has been focussed on North American free trade. Trade and economics are, of course, a key element of the partnership between Canada, Mexico and the United States. Since the NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] came into effect in 1994, North American trade has increased by 65 percent. The resulting jobs and economic opportunities are vital to the well-being of all three countries. Our success in liberalizing trade through the earlier FTA [Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement] and the NAFTA has set an international standard. An unequivocal American commitment is essential to maintaining our leading role. The danger of losing direction at this critical juncture can hardly be overstated. It could mean losing a historic opportunity to build bridges to newly emerging regions such as Latin America. Canada is ready to move ahead with key trading partners in South America, the Caribbean and Central America in order to create a framework for a more open and predictable trading system in the hemisphere. We hope that the United States will be marching side by side with us in this endeavour. The international trade agenda is both full and potentially divisive. Over the next few years, the World Trade Organization will address issues such as agriculture and trade in services -- issues that will task our ingenuity and test our commitment. At the same time, we will need to continue building on the NAFTA to create and sustain the conditions for growth and competitiveness. We need to look more closely at border operations, trade and transportation corridors, and labour mobility to keep the NAFTA on the cutting edge. Important though this is, it is only one aspect of building a North American community. Globalization means more than simply freer trade. As ideas, people and money flow more and more easily across our borders, it is becoming clear that what happens in one country affects all aspects of daily life in the others. We have a host of common concerns which we need to address together, but many of the mechanisms we have developed piecemeal over the years are simply out of date or not up to the task. We need to update our shared instruments and institutions to deal with challenges across a broad spectrum: everything from our shared natural environment to movement of goods and people, and to education and human resources. The challenge is not simply to co-operate more effectively, although that is demanding enough in itself. We need to look ahead and develop a vision of what we want a North American community to be. And in doing so, we have to deal with the tensions inherent in globalization. This means developing a sense of "North Americanness," while at the same time preserving our separate national identities. For Canadians, culture gives a sense of our shared identity as citizens and represents a core component of our collective vision as a nation. Americans and Mexicans also have their own sense of what constitutes culture and cultural identity. The challenge, then, is to develop a North American "footprint" that treads lightly enough so that it does not crush the existing landscape formed by our distinctive histories and cultures. Greater co-operation and co-ordination in education, research and culture are crucial not only in strengthening a regional sense of identity but also in understanding the regional nature of the challenges we face. For example, the Aboriginal peoples of North America share strong common links which could be deepened through joint cultural projects. Linking up our universities and research institutes would allow for co-ordinated work on complex environmental issues that affect us all, such as climate change and the need for "green" transportation networks. It was in this context that I recently announced that Canada would support the establishment of an Alliance for Higher Education and Enterprise in North America by the North American Institute. In parallel to this work of reflection, I believe there is great scope for practical work to expand bilateral and trilateral co-operation within North America across the range of trans-boundary issues that affect our daily lives. Environmental and natural resource issues, for example, are fundamental to the well-being of all North Americans. Too often we wait until problems arise and only then look for ad hoc solutions. Canada's experience has been that if you wait until the problems develop -- until all the fish are gone or the water tainted -- it is too late. Effective stewardship of our shared environment means that we have to look ahead and develop solutions before problems become acute. It also requires us to be aware of the impact of our actions on our neighbours, and to take responsibility for that impact. Nothing illustrates this point better than the example right on your doorstep: our shared responsibility for the Great Lakes. Millions of our citizens depend on this priceless resource for their economic, social and environmental well-being. Canada and the United States long ago recognized this through the establishment of institutions such as the International Joint Commission [IJC]. Since then, we have made tremendous progress. The Great Lakes are cleaner now than at any other time in the past 50 years. Yet the latest report from the IJC is critical of the slow rate at which improvements are being made. And that criticism is only in relation to the problems that already exist, never mind those that lie ahead. Integrated management of shared watersheds in North America will be an essential part of successfully facing the challenges of the 21st century. Climate change is another area of environmental concern where North American co-operation has, I believe, great potential. A North American emissions trading arrangement could give the world a model for co-operation between countries at different levels of development. Implementing the Kyoto Accord commitments within North America would be an important display of global environmental leadership. Another key area for North American co-operation lies in developing borders which are seamless and straightforward for legitimate trade and movement of people, but which present effective barriers to crime, terrorism and the drug trade. Bilaterally, the Shared Border Accord and the Open Skies Agreement have met this dual challenge with remarkable success. Travel between Canada and the United States has increased by over one third in less than three years under Open Skies. And we are working to make passage across the border even simpler through a nationwide in-transit preclearance program. It is clear, though, that we still need to work on getting the balance right between ease of access and control. The ongoing debate over Section 110 of the 1996 U.S. Immigration Act is a case in point. Concerns about control on the southern border of the United States risked sideswiping our traditional ease of access to the north. When Secretary Albright visited Canada, we agreed that there was a need to review our bilateral institutions and to ensure better co-ordination of the existing web of agency-to-agency contacts. The real challenge, in my view, lies in looking ahead and preparing for the future. It lies in developing a vision of what we want our shared borders to be. You may be aware of proposals that would radically alter movement within North America by establishing continental transport corridors. I think this concept warrants serious investigation. A "Murmansk to Monterey corridor" could significantly enhance North America's global competitiveness. Transportation corridors also offer major potential benefits for local communities, if they are developed with significant local input and in an environmentally sustainable way. Such "green corridors" would be the lifelines of an emerging North American community, and would serve as positive models of effective, sustainable regional co-operation. Getting there will be quite a challenge, given the many levels of government and interests involved. But if we get it right, we would be breaking new ground in effective governance and management of transboundary issues. Conclusion In an era when borders are dissolving, when the Internet makes global town hall meetings a real possibility and when companies join in complex international exercises in just-in-time delivery, governments often seem to be the ones left behind by change. Civil society and the private sector are in many ways far ahead of us in adapting to globalization. It is clear to me that the public sector has to catch up. Governments have an important role to play in adapting to these changes, in mitigating their negative effects and in taking advantage of the opportunities of a new era. To take up this role, we have to learn to work in new ways -- to address pressing problems of human security through new partnerships with other governments and institutions, and with other sectors of society. I have outlined for you today a broad range of issues, both global and continental, in which Canada and the United States have a shared interest in partnership. With a bilateral relationship that is unique in its scope and depth, it is important that we rise to the challenge of updating and retooling this partnership, both for ourselves and for the international community as a whole. This will be part of our contribution to building a North American community for the 21st century. 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