An Address by David Kilgour
To a luncheon hosted by the
Christian Embassy of Canada
Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, March
1, 1999
Your Excellencies, Ladies
and Gentlemen,
It should be clear that my
Secretary of State hat is
in the corner this afternoon;
I’m speaking in a personal
capacity.
Attempting to link religion
and human security is difficult
in part because so many violent
conflicts today and in the
past are religion-based. My
unoriginal contention is that
a sound practice of any of
the world’s great religions
does not permit the use of
violence against an adherent
of another creed or non-believer.
Only a serious misinterpretation
of any of these religions
leads to such violence.
Human
Security
Human security means essentially
that the well-being of all
5.8 billion or so residents
of this planet deserve to
be considered in today’s
human condition issues, whether
human rights, a ban on landmines,
the exploitation of children
in any fashion, peacekeeping/peacemaking,
depletion of the ozone layer/global
warming, hunger or whatever.
I’d argue that the term
means prudent populism applied
to diplomacy. It implies no
more first, second, third
or fourth class people, with
many finding that their legitimate
concerns simply don’t
count. Those who embrace the
concept seek a more fulfilled
life for all.
Steven Pearlstein of the
Washington Post recently
gave his take on human security
in an article reprinted in
the Calgary Herald.
He cited my colleague, Foreign
Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy,
for the following:
- creating a new international
criminal court,
- seeking to end the economic
and diplomatic isolation
of Cuba,
- making a fuss at NATO
over the use of tactical
nuclear weapons,
- putting together a new
alliance of middle powers
– "The Humanitarian
8" as a counterpart
to the big-power Group of
Seven,
- rebuking the Russians
and Chinese for abusing
their veto power and preventing
quick action to "end
the slaughter of women and
children in Kosovo and Nigeria",
- crusading for "soft
power" "that emphasizes
negotiation over confrontation,
‘human security’
over national security and
the power of ideas over
the power of weapons",
and
- arguing that in the "post-Cold
War paradigm .. influence
is shifting from diplomatic
elites and nation states
that operate largely in
secret toward international
organizations and non-government
players – unions, businesses,
activists and interest groups
of all kinds – engaged
in an ongoing public dialogue",
Canadian
Public Opinion
It is of interest here that
some public opinion research
on foreign policy issues among
Canadians during the past
year indicates:
- Almost two in three Canadians
(63%) rate our country as
"among the best in
the world" with respect
to its international image (Goldfarb report 1998).
Focus groups in the summer
of ’98 indicated pride
in Canada’s peaceful
nature, our peacekeeping
role, our moderating influence
in the world, our independence
from U.S. foreign policy
(e.g. Cuba), and our role
in the landmines treaty
and concern about what many
described as our "too
passive role in the world".
- Almost half (45%) of Canadian
voters in an October ’98
survey approved of the performance
of Foreign Minister Axworthy,
with 36% don’t know/undecided
and only 19% disapproving (Environics).
- Other international issues
that generated the greatest
level of personal interest
among Canadians were the
international ban on landmines
(38% were "very interested"),
and the exploitation of
child labour (36%). Working
for international peace,
environmental problems,
violations of human rights
by governments, participating
in UN peacekeeping, easing
world poverty/hunger, maintaining
our ability to defend our
country, promoting trade
opportunities/removing trade
barriers abroad and promoting
Canadian culture all were
other issues of public concern.
Nine in ten Canadians evidently
believe Canada should put
a "very high" or
"fairly high" priority
on our role in the UN. When
asked what Canada should do
as a new member of the Security
Council, one focus group said:
- continue "what we’re
doing now";
- human rights;
- use our reputation to
promote peace;
- use Canadian expertise
to improve health systems
in the developing world;
- reduce the influence of
major powers (take away
veto).
According to the Goldfarb
report for 1998, Canadians
generally rate highly the
importance of the World Trade
Organization (76% very/fairly
high priority), NATO (72%
very/fairly high priority),
and the Commonwealth (71%
very/fairly high priority).
Virtually no Canadians understand
the term "constructive
engagement" in a human
rights context. Asked what
our country should do, most
surveyed by Angus Reid a year
ago said "cooperate with
the United Nations" (88%),
followed by "have a direct
dialogue" (82%), restricting
trade (63%) and increasing
trade (50%). These are four
elements of constructive engagement
policy, so it would appear
that the concept enjoys widespread
support even if the term is
virtually unknown. That said,
I understand focus groups
convened in all regions of
our country in the summer
of 1998 indicated that one
of the things they’d
like Canada to do in the world
is to "put more emphasis
on human rights".
Believers
At Home/Abroad
How does all this relate
to believers in Canada and
elsewhere? My answer would
be that six years ago a national
opinion survey found that
about eight of ten Canadians
believe in God, which probably
hasn’t changed very much
since. This large majority
of us are presumably applying
the basic tenets of a host
of the religions practised
across Canada when we tell
pollsters, for example, that
Canada should do more to promote
human rights in the world.
Rights everywhere count to
believers.
Glue
Sniffing Children
Last week, a group of us
watched some street children
in the inner part of a capital
in Central America sniffing
glue. We were deeply troubled.
The Casa Alianza Centre, which
attempts to help them, is
funded I understand in large
part by believers in North
America. In two capitals in
the region, we were told that
the shoe glue they use has
two chemicals added, which
cause brain damage. Why can’t
we stop these chemicals from
bring added? Why can’t
we find a way to keep shoe
glue of any composition away
from children in all countries
of the world? Would this not
be something "beautiful
for God" (Mother Teresa)
by whatever name we address
him? Would a Hindu, Muslim,
Buddhist, Jew or Christian
disagree in the slightest?
Is someone who in their heart
judges that the little boy
of 14 we saw lying in the
Casa Alianza Centre has little
more intrinsic value than
a lump of coal be likely to
be as concerned as believers
of our faith?
I realize, of course, that
non-believers will argue that
a glue-sniffing or hungry
or exploited child makes for
a less secure city, region
or planet, etc., so that such
things must be stopped for
self-preservation or other
pragmatic or realpolitik reasons.
My reply is that believers
of most of the world’s
great religions are more likely
to do something for such children
than non-believers.
Do not soundly-educated believers
in most lands seek to exalt
individuals regardless of
circumstances? Should we not
all hold that our Creator
cares about each of the residents
of our planet? If so, we must
together treat all with care,
whether they need shelter,
food or simply to be listened
to.
Democracy
and Belief
Indeed, can any population
become or remain democratic
without a religious basis
of one kind or another? Doesn’t
the health of most democratic
institutions depend at least
to a degree on values that
come from religions? For example,
Glen Tinder in his book, The
Political Meaning of
Christianity, argues that
only in modern times has it
been assumed that politics
is entirely secular. Democratic
governments today in consequence,
he concludes, tend to become
arenas for personal ambitions,
special interests, power and
privileges. Does this trend
not in practice tend to deny
two of the presumed virtues
of pluralism: respect for
all individuals and a belief
in the essential equality
of all human beings?
In
Conclusion
In conclusion there is probably
a greater need for committed
believers of many faiths in
every walk of life today across
the world than at any point
in our history.
In closing, let me quote
the respected Czech president,
Vaclav Havel; he said a year
ago:
A modern philosopher once
said: ‘Only a God can
save us now.’ Yes,
the only real hope of people
today is probably a renewal
of our certainty that we
are rooted in the earth
and, at the same time, the
cosmos. ... Politicians
at international forums
may reiterate a thousand
times that the basis of
the new world order must
be universal respect for
human rights, but it will
mean nothing as long as
this imperative does not
derive from the respect
of the miracle of being,
the miracle of the universe,
the miracle of nature, the
miracle of our own existence.
Only someone who submits
to the authority of the
universal order and of creation,
who values the right to
be part of it and a participant
in it, can genuinely value
himself and his neighbours,
and thus honour their rights
as well.
How right Mr. Havel is!
