<html>
<head>
<meta name="Generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 8">
<title>MR. GRAHAM - ADDRESS TO A SYMPOSIUM AT OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL, YORK UNIVERSITY ON "THE INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS POST-SEPTEMBER 11" - TORONTO, ONTARIO</title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0">
<p><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>TO A SYMPOSIUM AT</strong></font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font size="+1"><strong>OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL,</strong></font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font size="+1"><strong>YORK UNIVERSITY</strong></font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font size="+1"><strong>"THE INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS POST-SEPTEMBER 11"</strong></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><strong></strong></font><font size="+1"><strong>TORONTO, Ontario</strong></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><strong>June 17, 2002</strong></font></p>
<p>I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies and the Centre for Public
Law and Public Policy of York University for organizing this conference and for including me as your guest today. It is an
honour to be here amid so many friends and such a host of distinguished guests. The lineup of speakers gathered to consider
the challenges our society faces in the wake of last year's terrorist attacks is truly impressive (and, I may say, intimidating)
when I look around the room and see my colleagues like Ed Morgan and Alan Borovoy.</p>
<p>This conference affords us an opportunity to discuss a dimension of the response to September 11 that is of prime
importance--that, when appropriately conducted, the protection of public security should not undermine respect for human
rights; rather it can and must enhance those rights. </p>
<p>In this context, we must all be mindful of the words of U.S. Justice Thurgood Marshall:"History teaches that grave threats
to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."</p>
<p>There is no doubt that the events of September 11, both in the context of previous acts and subsequent activities, have
created in us a sense of urgency. Future generations will consider how we dealt with this emergency, not only in the light of
our acts of defence, but also how we respected our fundamental freedoms and liberties. </p>
<p>It is with this in mind that I would like to take a few minutes to consider the Canadian approach of safeguarding human
rights as we take specific steps to combat terrorism internationally, bilaterally on our border and domestically. Finally, I
would like to discuss an example of one type of international instrument that we believe reflects Canadian foreign policy
values, the International Criminal Court [ICC].</p>
<p>After the tragic events of September 11, our natural human reaction was one of outrage and, in solidarity with our closest
ally, of determination to punish those responsible. The international coalition agreed that a robust response was legitimate
and necessary, but it was only undertaken after careful reflection and preparation. We have now moved from that initial
determined action to sober reflection on how best to respond to the myriad challenges that remain.</p>
<p>Having acted as necessary, then, there is now a need to reflect on the means by which the fight against terrorism is to be
continued, and on its implications for the protection of human rights. We must take stock of the various means at our
disposal and make sure our response to terrorism is built upon a coherent and integrated framework that aims to enhance
both national security and individual human security. </p>
<p>So though it is clear that while we will not, and indeed cannot, hesitate in our resolve to act whenever necessary and
appropriate, we must also recognize that our most compelling challenge in responding to terrorism, apart from containing it,
is to uphold the values and norms we cherish--democracy, respect for the rule of law and human rights.</p>
<p>We therefore share the concerns of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding excessive measures taken in
several parts of the world to combat terrorism, and have stated our position clearly in Geneva at the Human Rights
Commission and elsewhere: the fight against terrorism must not be used as a pretext for repression. For what are we
defending if not freedom? Freedom can only mean living in a society based on freedom of speech, freedom to organize,
freedom of dissent and, increasingly, the freedom from fear that Canada has sought to address in the past decade through
our human security agenda. </p>
<p>Properly conceived, the security of the state and the security of the person are mutually reinforcing. The one cannot be
effectively assured in isolation from the other. A culture of respect for human rights cannot flourish in an environment of
insecurity, and real security, whether at the national or the individual level, can be achieved only in an environment where
human rights are protected.</p>
<p>Because in the end, where societies respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, dissent tends to take constructive,
non-violent forms. On the other hand, national authorities whose vision of social order relies on the suppression of
individual rights pursue highly problematic short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability. Violations of human
rights marginalize voices of moderation, tolerance and respect, and give unwarranted legitimacy to radical elements. In the
long run, repressive measures merely serve to perpetuate conflict and instability.</p>
<p>Much has been said recently about addressing what are referred to as the "root causes" of terrorism. I do not believe that the
rhetoric of social and economic justice used by some can justify terror: the deliberate death and devastation visited upon
innocent civilians. Nothing can justify these acts that strike at the very foundations of our societies and compromise the
respect that we owe one another as human beings. That said, we will never eradicate terrorism if we do not recognize that it
thrives in certain political environments that are propitious for its origins and the support that it finds in the general
population. Alan Krueger of Princeton University and Jitka Maleckova of Charles University mention in a recent study that
terrorism may be viewed as "a response to political conditions and long-standing feelings (either perceived or real) of
indignity and frustration."</p>
<p>This is a highly complex challenge, then, for there is no set formula to address a real or perceived deficit of dignity, for
example, only long-term multifaceted approaches that begin with the establishment of good governance based on the rule of
law. We must then, if we are to be effective in our struggle against terrorism, be cognizant of conditions that lead to or
encourage terrorism and address them as well as adopting public security measures to deal with specific threats as they
arise. </p>
<p>That said, addressing the underlying political conditions that feed terrorist activities, whether one thinks of the cases of
Kashmir, the Middle East or Sri Lanka, to name but a few potential sources of terrorism, is not easy. While we often speak
of the internationalization of such conflicts, the international framework for dealing with them is in an embryonic state and
has difficulty addressing them without the full participation of the interested parties, a participation that often is either
reluctant, or completely lacking. </p>
<p>Recognizing the need for innovative and comprehensive approaches to security both of the state and of the person, Canada
was instrumental in the establishment of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty [ICISS] to
encourage new thinking in this regard. One of the points that emerged from the worldwide consultations undertaken by the
ICISS was the recognition that a state's sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect its citizens and that the "responsibility
to protect" implies an accompanying responsibility to prevent. As the report reminds us, "preventive strategies must work
to promote human rights, to protect minority rights and to institute political arrangements in which all groups are
represented. Ignoring these underlying factors amounts to addressing the symptoms rather than the causes of deadly
conflict."</p>
<p>The international campaign against terrorism is, and must remain, multidimensional. It involves complementary action on
the military, political, diplomatic and legislative fronts. </p>
<p>Canada is playing a role in all of these areas. On the military front, we have committed approximately 2,000 Canadian
forces personnel to support the anti-terrorism coalition on land, sea and in the air. Perhaps our most significant contribution
is the 900 Canadian ground troops who are serving in Afghanistan as part of the U.S.-led military operation. The tragic loss
of Canadian lives underlined the danger of this mission and reminded us of the dedication of our armed forces. When the
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry finishes its tour of duty later this summer, it will have completed an intense and
successful tour of duty of which we can all be proud. </p>
<p>On both the political and diplomatic fronts, we are committed to the stabilization of Afghanistan. We have considerable
experience in Afghanistan as we provided some $160 million for humanitarian assistance there between 1990 and the end
of 2001. We have committed $100 million more in humanitarian and reconstruction aid in 2002-2003. Included in this, I
would like to emphasize, is a contribution of $1 million to support the valuable work of the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights in developing programs on human rights education, women's human rights and in
establishing a national human rights commission in Afghanistan. In addition, we have made direct contributions to Dr.
Sima Samar so that she can carry out her work as Minister Responsible for Women's Affairs. Her role, and our support for
it, is closely followed by an all-party group of women parliamentarians in our own Parliament. </p>
<p>But, as those who have watched the early days of the Loya Jirga and who follow with concern the rise of traditional
regional barons, independent of Kabul and financed by the drug trade, can attest to, the people of Afghanistan have a
difficult road ahead. What they need from us is a long-term commitment to promoting good governance and institution
building, and our support for the security reform necessary for a stable foundation on which they can construct a strong and
democratic society.</p>
<p>Beyond Afghanistan, there are, of course, broader international counterterrorism initiatives. Since September 11, the issue
of terrorism has appeared on the agenda of almost every international and regional forum. The G8 has been and remains
pivotal in the fight against terrorism. In a statement issued on September 19, G8 leaders reaffirmed their determination to
work cooperatively to fight terrorism and asked all relevant ministers, including foreign ministers, justice ministers,
ministers of the interior and finance ministers, to take concrete action to enhance counterterrorism cooperation.</p>
<p>As Chairman of the G8 Foreign Ministers Meeting just last week, I had the opportunity to marshal the unique assets of this
group in support of capacity building on counterterrorism measures in other countries. We used the occasion of the G8
presidency to promote innovative ways to support the campaign against terrorism and wider global stability. The G8
partners recognized the need to deny support and sanctuary for terrorists, to strengthen the global legal framework through
universal adherence to the international counterterrorism instruments, and to cooperate at the policy and operational levels. </p>
<p>This is an immensely complex challenge requiring careful attention at the international level. For denying terrorist groups
the means to pursue these ends is not an easy task in the highly integrated world in which we live. Our prosperity and our
way of life depend upon ensuring ease of communication, and yet these very means of communication facilitate the access
that terrorists enjoy in choosing their targets. </p>
<p>To a large extent, the juridical basis for our international response has been guided by the milestone UN Security Council
Resolution 1373, which calls for the implementation of the 12 UN counterterrorism conventions and protocols. These
instruments are strong legal frameworks that provide a sound architecture for preventing terrorist acts such as hijacking,
hostage taking, bombings and crimes against internationally protected persons. Canada is proud to be the second G8
country so far to ratify and implement all 12 of the international counterterrorism instruments.</p>
<p>We also acted swiftly in support of Resolution 1373 by enacting the UN Suppression of Terrorism Regulations to freeze
terrorist assets where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual or entity is associated with terrorist activity.
As of Friday, we have named 333 individuals and entities that are subject to the Regulations.</p>
<p>I want to emphasize, however, that this is a new process, and we are still refining the list. I want to emphasize as well that
once it is determined that there are no longer reasonable grounds to maintain a name on that list, that name must be
removed. As you may know, we have already taken steps to do so in a recent case, and we will follow developments closely
to ensure that the system continues to function successfully, compatible with both our security needs and the rights of
Canadians and others not to stand unjustly accused. </p>
<p>A further important dimension to our international counterterrorism efforts is the security of our border. Canada-U.S.
border cooperation has been vital in establishing the world's strongest trading relationship and in maintaining the economic
security of both our countries. Without question, September 11 has had profound effects on border security and on the ease
of border access which is fundamental to our prosperity.</p>
<p>Increased cooperation on issues of public security and border management following the September attacks culminated in
the signing last December of a 30-point bilateral action plan--The Smart Border Declaration. The plan aims to ensure the
efficient but secure flow of people and goods across our shared border.</p>
<p>I think our cooperation demonstrates the maturity of the Canada-U.S. relationship and proves that a prompt and considered
response is possible in the face of precipitous threats. By working together quickly across levels of government and with the
private sector, the Canadian government was able to produce a package of "Made in Canada" solutions to problems
identified by both countries. This has allowed us to cooperate urgently and effectively with the U.S. without compromising
our sovereignty or infringing on human rights. </p>
<p>When we turn to Canada's domestic response to terrorism, I would like to point out that my Cabinet colleagues and I, and
indeed members of Parliament from all parties, are fully aware that we need to ensure that security considerations do not
undermine respect for human rights. We have taken to heart the cautionary words that Lord Chief Justice Woolf said, as
Great Britain prepared its anti-terrorism legislation: "I hope, in taking action against those who are attacking our system, we
don't lose sight of the importance of maintaining the system."</p>
<p>In developing Canada's legislative response to terrorism, major concerns have been voiced, some of which will no doubt be
discussed here today. To name a few that we considered when adopting the legislation: that terrorist activity might be
defined too broadly; that this law might be used against lawful protests or religious organizations; and that the police might
be able to misuse their powers of preventive arrest and investigative hearings. We have been aware of the enormity of our
responsibility, and we sought to include safeguards in the legislation to ensure both effectiveness and respect for human
rights. Despite the grave threats addressed by this law, we recognized that the Act must affirm freedom and individual
rights as guaranteed in the Charter. </p>
<p>While some urged recourse to the Notwithstanding Clause, the government steadfastly insisted that Charter rights should
not be foregone, however concerned we might be about the need for our collective security.</p>
<p>I also want to assure you that none of these decisions was taken lightly. The measures we have adopted to ensure our
collective national security were accompanied by vigorous debate in Parliament and in the caucuses of all our parties, and
you will recall that extensive debate took place and modifications were made at the committee stage of the legislation as
well. I think it is fair to say that all involved in this work were dedicated to ensuring that the legislation reflects our
Canadian values: respect for individual rights in a state that provides security for its citizens. We must, of course, maintain
our vigilance in ensuring that the law is applied in the same scrupulous fashion in which it was drafted. In this regard, all
Canadians, but especially the legal community, will have a crucial role to play. </p>
<p>This is a rather general overview of the steps we have taken internationally, bilaterally and domestically since the events of
September 11. I hope that is clear from my remarks that ultimately security will only be fostered in a climate of just systems
of laws and governance. In that regard, I also believe that international security will be enhanced by the establishment of an
internationally accountable means to hold perpetrators of human rights violations accountable for their actions. I am
speaking, of course, of the International Criminal Court. </p>
<p>As you are no doubt aware, in a few days the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will enter into force and the
Court will become a reality. The fact that nearly 140 countries from all regions of the world have signed the Rome Statute,
and 67 are already party to it, demonstrates the overwhelming international public and political support for the Court. </p>
<p>It was one of the proudest moments in my parliamentary career when I reported to the House, the Standing Committee's
report proposing the legislation necessary to implement this historic development in international law. And I am equally
proud as Foreign Affairs Minister to speak of Canada's leading role in developing this crucial international instrument. I
should add that, throughout the process, the informed and highly skilled civil society advice and support for the Court were
absolutely critical to Canada's success in advancing the need for the Court and in developing an international consensus
around its substantive and procedural elements. </p>
<p>As you know, the United States has formally renounced its support for the ICC. I must say that I totally reject, and am
sometimes even mystified by the misinformed commentary here in Canada that has applauded the U.S. decision. To
suggest, for example, that the ICC is not accountable ignores the painstaking efforts of those who created the Court with
precisely that concern in mind. </p>
<p>To launch and continue an investigation, the Prosecutor needs the approval of a pre-trial chamber composed of three
judges. All decisions of this body are appealable to an appeals chamber composed of five judges. The Assembly of States
Parties will elect the judges and the Prosecutor. And the Court will not be able to take jurisdiction if a case is being
investigated or prosecuted by a state that has jurisdiction over it, unless that state is genuinely unwilling or unable to carry
out the investigation or prosecution. These and other safeguards ensure that the International Criminal Court is not a threat
to democratic and law-abiding states. It is a modern and necessary tool of international justice--justice that would be much
better served by the participation of the United States to ensure its concerns are addressed, rather than by sniping from
outside. </p>
<p>The creation of the ICC will ensure that those responsible for the most serious crimes known to humankind--genocide, war
crimes and crimes against humanity--will be held responsible for their actions and will be judged in accordance with
commonly accepted principles applied with full respect for the rights of the accused. This is precisely the approach that
Canadian values demand we take in facing the menace of terrorism.</p>
<p>I want to emphasize that Canada and the United States share similar values on such basic foreign policy principles as the
rule of law or democracy or even the merits of free trade. However, even as partners in security and partners in prosperity,
we often disagree. For example, wherever possible, Canada has looked to rules-based, institutional and multilateral
approaches to terrorism. In contrast, with the unique power it wields, the U.S. has a tendency toward ad hoc management of
security problems and unilateral approaches. As a neighbour, as a partner and as a friend of the United States, I must agree
with what former NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana recently said about unilateralism: "Acting alone has the
advantage of clarity of purpose, but at the cost of legitimacy and thus, of effectiveness in the longer term."</p>
<p>Let me conclude by reaffirming that Canada is playing its role in fighting international terrorism--militarily, politically and
in building an effective legal framework. In so doing, we recognize that we must take the requisite steps to protect
ourselves but that we must also take measures to reinforce our long-standing support for the establishment of a rules-based
system of enforceable international norms. This is reflected, for instance, in the ICC and by examining the nature of the
new international architecture that is mandated by today's global interdependence in such seminal studies as the ICISS
report.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this fight is going to be with us for a long time. For this reason, we must step back and look for the means to
address the surfeit of fear and the deficit of dignity in societies around the world, and recognize that the architects of terror
can often exploit these conditions to garner support from people who feel frustrated and powerless. Without democratic
political options that are open and effective channels for dissent, such support is likely to grow.</p>
<p>Our actions in the global fight against terrorism complement other aspects of our foreign policy--including the promotion
and protection of human rights, the development of a rules-based international system, and our efforts to combat poverty,
marginalization and alienation. The common goal of these policies is the development of a stable international order, where
all human beings are able to live in freedom and dignity. </p>
<p>Lawyers, public policy experts, and those of you who provide advice and even dissent to government are key players in this
undertaking. It is our citizens who rightly insist that we are held to high standards of transparency and accountability. I am
confident that those assembled here will see that we give careful consideration to the application of our laws, and that we
carry on the fight against terrorism in a manner fully consistent with Canadian values. I am also sure that this conference
will be the venue for a vigorous debate on these issues and will result in a better understanding of how we in government
can improve the security of Canadians and help build the international legal framework upon which the security of all
people depends. </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
</body>
</html>
