
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></title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 2004/18 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE BILL GRAHAM, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AT THE JOINT CANADA-RWANDA MEMORIAL CONFERENCE ON THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE NEW YORK, New York March 26, 2004 This conference today has come to pass through the efforts of many parties. I would like to thank the Rwandan government for its partnership, and in particular Foreign Affairs Minister Charles Murigande and Ambassador to the UN Stanislas Kamanzi, whose moral and intellectual support has made this event possible. Also crucial has been the advice and help given by David Malone and the International Peace Academy. We know that because Mr. Malone is rapporteur, our discussions here will reach a much broader audience. And I certainly want to recognize the presence on our panel of General Roméo Dallaire, a distinguished Canadian who is singularly qualified to help us consider many of the issues before us today. I am particularly honoured to share the podium with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, whose dedication to the cause of peace stands as an example to us all. Two weeks ago Mr. Annan stood in the Canadian Parliament and at that time reminded us of the need to build a system of collective security that inspires enough confidence to ensure that no country feels obliged to resort to unilateralism. That is, in fact, one of the broader aims of our meeting here today. This Memorial Conference is an occasion for us to reflect on the Rwandan genocide of 10 years ago, and on the world's collective failure to respond, as the Secretary-General and Minister Murigande pointed out. This reflection, if it is to be effective, must look not only backward but also forward if we are to ensure that the world's failure in Rwanda is not repeated. So many words have been written and spoken about that tragedy; but surely we must ask ourselves: "Are we better prepared with actions to prevent such a thing from happening again?" In fact, I fear we have not yet learned the practical lessons we should have. As the American author Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "We learn geology the morning after the earthquake." The horror of Rwanda taught us a stark fact about the geology of our new global environment, namely, that conflicts within states now have a uniquely devastating potential to kill and disrupt the lives of civilians. That much we have learned from the earthquake that was Rwanda. But we have not yet learned how to build global structures capable of withstanding such forces next time. Or, to put it more starkly, we have learned what we need to do, but we lack the political will to achieve the necessary agreement on how to put in place the type of measures that will prevent a future Rwanda from happening. The sad reality is that the international community is still struggling with what to do when the principle of sovereignty collides with fundamental humanitarian norms. Notwithstanding the importance of sovereignty as an international legal principle, there is no more urgent need than to protect civilians in the face of impending or unfolding genocide, war crimes or gross and systematic violations of humanitarian law. The Secretary-General framed the problem before us most eloquently during his address to the Millennium Summit, where he said: [F]ew would disagree that both the defence of humanity and the defence of sovereignty are principles which must be supported. Alas, that does not tell us which should prevail when they are in conflict. Humanitarian intervention is a sensitive issue...fraught with political difficulty...but surely no legal principle--not even sovereignty--can ever shield crimes against humanity. That call to action inspired Canada and others to establish the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, whose final report, The Responsibility to Protect, was presented here in February 2002. One of its authors, Ramesh Thakur, is here with us today and will join us on the second panel. Central to the Commission's report is a new norm of "sovereignty as responsibility." This norm posits that when states are unable or unwilling to protect their populations from mass atrocities, or when a state is itself the perpetrator, the international community has a responsibility to act. The Commission rightly emphasizes the international community's duty to prevent humanitarian crises from occurring in the first place; but it also recognizes that outside intervention may be warranted, in extreme cases, when diplomacy fails. Canada agrees with this reasoning, since it is consistent with our concept that the well-being of the individual must come to be at the centre of our international affairs. We believe that the security of people is as important as the security of states, and therefore we reject the notion that state sovereignty confers absolute immunity. Indeed, we believe that the protections inherent in the concept of state sovereignty are seriously eroded when it becomes a shield for protecting the prerogative of governors rather than an instrument to protect the rights of the governed. In our view, the principle of sovereignty as responsibility needs to become broadly accepted as a basic norm governing the actions of governments if the UN is to acquit itself fully of its responsibility for peace and security. We are aware that some states have legitimate concerns about the potential for intervention to be misused for political or economic ends. It is for this reason that prevention and diplomacy are intended to be the main ways in which the international community would fulfill the responsibility to protect; intervention can be justified only as a last resort. But it is indisputable, we believe, that this body does have a responsibility to react in the face of unfolding atrocities. In order to carry out this responsibility effectively, of course, the UN has to live up to its potential as the vehicle of credible and effective multilateralism--not just to deal with intra-state conflicts, but also to deal with the many other new security threats facing individuals around the world, from the global spread of terror and the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction to pandemics such as HIV/AIDS. The UN remains the world's most important institution, and the vessel of humanity's shared hopes. But as the world around us evolves, the international community must ask itself whether the UN today is equipped to live up to its mandate to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." And I think we have to admit that it is not. Our ability to deal collectively with contemporary security threats is often fatally constrained by rigid notions of sovereignty, and by the narrow interpretations of national interest that too often shape international debate. The question remains whether individual member states, as custodians of the organization and guardians of the Charter, have the political will to initiate renewal and modernization where it is required--to fulfill our responsibility for ensuring that the norms governing this institution are responsive to contemporary challenges. It is incumbent upon each state to consider whether it is willing to do the hard work, domestically and internationally, to build a multilateralism that delivers real solutions. Let me assure you that within Canada, as we currently undertake an international policy review, we are putting at the very heart of our efforts the challenge of multilateral renewal, including the establishment of new rules and structures where they are needed, and the reorientation or elimination of those that may have outlived their usefulness. We applaud the Secretary-General's commitment to reform, as most recently manifested in the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. We know that this panel will not have an easy time drawing out the practical implications of security threats for the structure and functioning of the UN. But like you, Canadians are determined to see this organization make itself better able to address the urgent needs of people around the world. We are also determined to see this organization become capable of drawing genuinely practical lessons from the Rwandan genocide. It is a sad certainty that we will be confronted with impending humanitarian tragedies in the years ahead. But let us not be resigned to that threat. For the sake of future generations, and as a duty to those who died in Rwanda, we must engage in full discussion of the circumstances that warrant military intervention on humanitarian grounds, and put in place the measures that will enable us, the community of nations, to live up to our responsibilities. Some say this is a debate that the international community is not ready to have, that disagreements over Iraq have damaged the diplomatic environment so as to make it impossible to discuss intervention of any sort or for any reason. But I believe that this is a debate we cannot afford to postpone. In the absence of clarity and consensus on this issue, we risk the same paralysis as in the case of Rwanda, with the same unthinkable results. At stake is nothing less than the future credibility, relevance and effectiveness of the UN as an institution and agent of peace. There can be no more fitting moment than now, a year after Iraq and 10 years after Rwanda, to open an honest global debate about humanitarian intervention. I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that the UN has the legal, material and political tools it needs to protect the world's peoples when states fail in their responsibility to do so. Ten years ago a terrible earthquake, one devised by human hatred, shook the global community. We cannot bring back the victims it claimed in Rwanda. We can, however, learn that tragedy's practical lessons on how to rebuild the structures of multilateralism in order to prevent such devastation in the future. Today I urge us all to dedicate ourselves anew to that task. In Ottawa, the Secretary-General said, "It is hard to imagine the UN without Canada. It is hard to imagine Canada without the UN." The Canadian government and the Canadian people agree with these words. We will translate these sentiments into action, and work with you to make this place, so essential for world order and the security of the human being, a better, more efficient instrument for us all. 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