Human
Security and Canadian Foreign Policy
Notes for an address by Hon. David Kilgour,
Secretary of State (Latin America &
Africa)
to Globalization 2000: Convergence or Divergence
University of Calgary, Sept. 25, 1999
Note: This address was delivered by Senator
Nick Taylor on Mr. Kilgour’s behalf
In keeping
with the theme of your conference, my remarks
today will focus on the government’s
international human security agenda. Many
of you will be aware that Foreign Affairs
Minister Lloyd Axworthy has made human security
a primary thrust and focus of Canada’s
international agenda. The minister’s
personal drive and commitment on this front
has made the past several years particularly
interesting and, as I said, exciting ones
for Canada’s international role and activity.
Our experience
in advancing the human security agenda has
been marked, not surprisingly, by the challenges
and occasional frustrations that are an
inevitable part of taking on a substantial
new initiative on largely uncharted territory.
But I think Canadians have reason to be
very proud of the significant successes
we have been able to achieve. I admit in
fact to being surprised at the extent to
which the human security focus has begun
so quickly to permeate the way critical
international issues are assessed and dealt
with. I would not claim that this is solely
our doing. In many ways it is a question
of timing. But of course a large share of
greatness and genius comes down to good
timing.
Today I would
like to outline for you the underpinnings
of our human security initiative, and some
of the concrete manifestations and results
of our efforts.
The changing
nature of insecurity
The end of the cold war was hailed as the
beginning of an era of peace and prosperity.
There was a widespread optimism that with
the easing of the grip of the ideological
divide, the world community would be freer
than at any time in the past to turn its
attention to global problems such as under-development,
poverty and the environment. The reality
of the past decade has been more sobering:
we have seen a wide range of new security
threats emerge. These include problems such
as transnational crime, pollution, international
drug trafficking and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and small arms.
At the same
time, armed conflict has taken on a different
shape, often rooted in religious or ethnic
discord. While the number of armed conflicts
between states has declined over the last
25 years, the number of intra-state conflicts
has increased dramatically. Of the 103 wars
since the end of the cold war, 97 have been
fought within rather than between states.
The crises in the Great Lakes region of
Africa, in Bosnia and Kosovo and most recently
in East Timor are only some of the more
noted examples in a series of conflicts
with tragic implications for the affected
populations.
A hallmark
of the changing nature of violent conflict
and the "new generation" of transnational
threats is that they have increasingly put
people at the centre of world affairs. Human
security is more central than ever to national
security, regional stability and global
peace. Yet for so many, that security has
never been at greater risk.
Individuals
are increasingly the principal victims,
targets and instruments of modern war. The
forced exodus, the appalling brutality,
the state-sponsored murders and disappearances
perpetrated against thousands of innocent
people -- all of this underscores the fact
that in our world, civilians suffer the
most from violent conflict.
It is a situation
with which ordinary people from Sierra Leone
to Sudan to central Africa to Angola are
all too familiar. Casualties from armed
conflict have doubled in just the past 10
years. About one million people lose their
lives each year. And whereas during the
First World War only 5 percent of casualties
were civilians, today that figure is closer
to 80 percent.
Civilians
are paying the heaviest price, from the
rise in intrastate conflict and from failed
states. They bear the brunt of the new practices
of war -- for example, the deplorable use
of child soldiers or savage paramilitaries.
And they suffer most from the inexpensive
yet all-too-readily-available weapons of
modern war, such as landmines and military
small arms and light weapons. As minister
Axworthy said recently, civilian casualties
and mass displacement are no longer mere
by-products of today’s conflicts, but
often explicit in the strategy of combatants.
Threats to
individual security are not limited to situations
of violent conflict. For all its promise,
globalization has also shown a dark underside.
Transnational phenomena -- terrorism, illicit
drugs and crime, environmental degradation
and infectious disease, financial and economic
instability -- put all of us at risk. Indeed,
they have already caused tremendous suffering,
especially for the most vulnerable.
Instantaneous
communications, rapid transportation, increasingly
porous borders, and rising business, cultural
and academic ties have undeniably and unalterably
merged all our lives into a common destiny.
In this world. The security or insecurity
of others has become very much our own security
or insecurity. As a result, we have both
a responsibility and an interest to act
when the safety of others is imperilled.
Canada’s human security agenda is an
effort to respond to these new global realities.
Human
security and national security
Questions have been raised about the relationship
between human security and state security.
Contrary to some claims, the two are not
mutually exclusive. The security of the
state is not an end in itself -- it is a
means of ensuring security for people. In
this context, state security and human security
are in fact mutually supportive. Building
an effective, democratic state that values
its own people and protects minorities is
central to promoting human security. At
the same time, improving the human security
of its people strengthens the legitimacy,
stability and security of a state.
Where human
security exists as a fact rather than an
aspiration, that situation can be attributed,
in large measure, to the effective governance
of states. For this reason, peacekeeping
and peacebuilding efforts that focus on
building open and stable societies are an
important element in enhancing human security.
Sometimes,
however, when states are externally aggressive,
internally repressive or too weak to govern
effectively, they threaten the security
of people. In the face of massive state-sponsored
murders, appalling violations of human rights
and the calculated brutalization of people,
the humanitarian imperative to act cannot
be ignored and can outweigh concerns about
state sovereignty.
Canada has
worked to move human security forward through
different means based on negotiation and
co-operation, building coalitions with other
like-minded governments and civil society.
These techniques have come to be called
"soft power". Canada is well-placed
to be a leader in a world where soft power
is increasingly important. Our "middle-power"
diplomacy has always emphasized the importance
of coalition-building and consensus. Canada’s
image abroad as an open, tolerant and strongly
democratic society is a huge asset for us
as we wield these new tools.
This is not
to argue that hard power -- even military
force -- is sometimes needed to achieve
human security goals. Pursuing human security
involves using a variety of tools. Some
rely more on persuasion -- as with the campaign
to ban anti-personnel mines, or with peacebuilding
initiatives -- while others are more robust,
such as sanctions or military intervention.
Similarly, support for military force does
not mean abandoning human security. In Kosovo,
clearly the opposite is true. The decision
to pursue the military option was made precisely
to ensure the security of Kosovo's population.
Our support for the UN mission currently
being deployed to East Timor is based on
the same logic.
Canada’s
human security agenda
Human security has been the impetus behind
efforts to create the international criminal
court, thereby strengthening the arm of
international justice; it is behind the
Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel
landmines [APMs] -- a novel, people-based
approach to disarmament; and it is behind
the movement to expand international legal
norms -- for example, to protect children
in armed conflict. It has also helped shape
the concept of peace-building, as a natural
outgrowth and extension of peacekeeping.
The criminal
court
The promotion of human security also requires
the means to hold accountable those responsible
for violating human rights and humanitarian
law. There can be no lasting peace without
justice. The international criminal tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia, as well as a
similar tribunal for Rwanda, were established
to prosecute individuals responsible for
genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity. Investigators from the Yugoslavia
tribunal are now gathering evidence on the
atrocities committed in Kosovo, so that
the perpetrators do not go unpunished. Canada
and other NATO allies are assisting the
tribunal in this task.
These tribunals
provided an inspiration for the creation
of the International Criminal Court [ICC].
In June of 1998, the international community
adopted the statute of the international
criminal court. This achievement will help
deter some of the most egregious breaches
of international humanitarian law -- not
only in the Balkans or Rwanda, but everywhere.
Negotiations on the details of the court's
operations are moving forward. In that regard,
I am encouraged by the participation of
the United States. I hope that country will
eventually be able to give the ICC the same
strong support it has given to the existing
tribunals once in place, the court will
ensure that justice is done by prosecuting
offenders wherever national systems are
unable or unwilling to do so.
Landmines
The wide-spread use of anti-personnel mines
has a direct impact on the security of individuals.
These weapons last for decades after conflicts
end do not distinguish between soldiers
and civilians. The use of these weapons
has created a humanitarian crisis in dozens
of countries -- impeding the return of refugees
after conflicts end, preventing the use
of productive land in some of the poorest
countries on the planet and killing or injuring
as many as 24,000 innocent civilians each
year.
In December
of 1997, the majority of the world’s
countries joined Canada in our determination
to do something about this human security
crisis by signing the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production
and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and
on their Destruction -- the Ottawa Convention.
On March 1, 1999, the Ottawa Convention
entered into force and by September 1, 1999,
84 states had agreed to be legally bound
by the convention.
The Ottawa
Convention serves as a major step forward
in addressing the humanitarian crisis caused
by anti-personnel mines. However, now that
the convention has entered into force, the
real work begins. The convention must be
implemented in an effective manner to ensure
that mined land is cleared and returned
to communities, that mine victims receive
assistance and rehabilitation services and
that the global ban on anti-personnel mines
is universalized. Canada is doing its part
through the Canadian Landmine Fund, by supporting
mine action activities in places like Bosnia,
Kosovo, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique,
Central America, Peru and Ecuador. In addition,
we’re supporting the on-going advocacy
efforts of the International Campaign to
Ban Landmines and Mines Action Canada.
As graduate
students interested in the policy implications
of a human security agenda, you too can
help in the effort to ensure the full and
effective implementation of the Ottawa Convention
by participating in our mine action research
program. As part of this program, in exchange
for $500 and a chance to be published, up
to 20 students will be selected to write
policy-oriented research papers on one of
three themes related to the implementation
of the Ottawa convention. I encourage you
to visit the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade web site or to contact
conference organizers for more information.
Protecting
war-affected children
The welfare of the world's children merits
special priority in Canada’s human
security agenda. In the new global environment,
it is the most vulnerable -- but especially
children -- whose security is most at risk,
who pay the highest price and who consequently
demand close attention. Nowhere is this
more true than in situations of armed conflict.
The record of the past decade is grim: close
to 2 million children killed; more than
4 million children disabled; over 1 million
children orphaned; over 300,000 girls and
boys serving in armies and rebel groups
as fighters, cooks, porters, messengers,
spies, labourers and sex slaves; and over
10 million children psychologically scarred
by the trauma of abduction, detention, sexual
assault and witnessing the brutal murder
of family members.
Canada is
working both to improve international legal
instruments and to ensure compliance with
existing humanitarian standards and norms
that protect the rights of children. One
of the most notorious practices in conflicts
is the recruitment of child soldiers. It
is a barbarism that defies all standards
of moral behaviour. We have been vividly
reminded of this during the fighting in
Sierra Leone. Outlawing this appalling activity
has been a long-standing objective for many
of us. To that end, Canada strongly supports
the work under way in Geneva to develop
an optional protocol to the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, which would raise
the age of recruitment and participation
in hostilities.
Raising the
international bar against the exploitation
of children in conflict is important. We
also need to redouble efforts to ensure
the respect of existing humanitarian norms
in conflict situations. Internationally
accepted standards already exist for a number
of practices, including the targeting of
children, child abduction, sexual exploitation,
access to humanitarian assistance, respect
for sanctuaries, and ending impunity. Countries
need to be actively encouraged to ratify
and then adhere to relevant international
agreements.
Promoting
children's security is indispensable to
promoting human security. Protecting children
from the traumas of armed conflict is inescapably
linked to our broader objective of building
peaceful and stable societies. We cannot
possibly hope to build a secure world without
due regard to those who will inherit it.
Peacekeeping
to peacebuilding
When Lester Pearson was awarded the Nobel
peace prize for his leadership in developing
the concept of peacekeeping, Canadians felt
pride, self-confidence, and a sense of ownership
of the peacekeeping process. This has been
reflected over the years in broad support
in Canada for continued positive responses
to calls for us to provide peacekeepers
around the world. Peacekeeping has become
an indelible part of our international image
and, I believe, of Canadians sense of who
we are. This by the way is an example of
how our international involvement contributes
to an ongoing process of nation-building
at home.
Given this
history, it was natural that Canada should
take a leadership role in the evolution
of thinking about how the international
community could and should expand its role
in protecting civilians in intrastate conflict,
and how we can act in the critical period
after fighting has stopped to help steer
countries toward long-term peace and stability.
Peace-building
consists of an ensemble of initiatives to
develop social and human infrastructure
to help break the cycle of violence. It
includes such things as civilian policing,
free and vibrant media, and an impartial
judiciary.
In 1996 the
government created a Canadian Peacebuilding
Fund to support these activities. The fund
has grown to 30 million dollars over three
years in CIDA programming, and three million
dollars in funding annually for DFAIT programming.
With the
support of the government, the Canadian
Resource Bank for Democracy and Human Rights
(Canadem), an NGO, has put together a roster
of Canadian human rights experts available
for rapid deployment. The roster currently
comprises 815 Canadians with a wide variety
of critical skills in the areas of human
rights and peacebuilding. This will ensure
the United Nations and other international
organizations can quickly access expertise
in times of crisis. This initiative helps
to foster activities where Canadians --
in NGOs and government -- are already taking
action in support of human security.
There are
a number of concrete instances where peacebuilding
has been used on the ground to support longer-term
solutions. Following the restoration of
democracy in Haiti, Canadian support for
police training has been a key part of efforts
to build an infrastructure for peace. The
situation remains delicate, but our ongoing
efforts give hope that a sustainable democracy
can be realized. In Bosnia, we are supporting
the development of free media and the institutional
infrastructure for free elections.
The focus
on peacebuilding does not signify a diminishment
of our traditional emphasis on peacekeeping.
Monitoring truce agreements provides the
interim stability that makes the realisation
of long-term peace possible. We continue
to take a leadership role in peacekeeping
through contributions to international missions
and by strengthening the capacity of the
UN to undertake peacekeeping missions.
In 1995 Canada
prepared a study on the United Nations rapid
response capacity. The study urged the UN
and its members to develop a rapid deployment
capability which could be swiftly mobilized
to respond to crises and humanitarian disasters.
A number of the study’s recommendations
have been adopted and are being implemented.
The events in East Timor underline the need
for the international community to have
the capacity to respond rapidly.
Towards
a new diplomacy
An emphasis on human security determines
not only the objectives of our foreign policy,
but also the manner in which we pursue those
objectives. While this so-called "new
diplomacy" is not exclusively linked
to our human security agenda, the mixture
of powerful ideas, persistent persuasion,
public advocacy and partnership with civil
society has proven remarkably effective.
Developing innovative global partnerships
linking countries, institutions and non-governmental
organizations with like-minded objectives.
Such coalitions between governments and
civil society helped make the campaign to
ban APMs a success and were instrumental
to progress in adopting the statute of the
international criminal court. They are harbingers
of the future, demonstrating the power of
good ideas and pooled resources.
This is not
to suggest that traditional foreign policy
priorities such as strong effective multilateral
institutions are any less important. Fostering
human security has likewise been the motive
behind efforts to adapt existing global
and regional institutions in order to integrate
human concerns into their activities. This
is particularly important at the United
Nations Security Council. Rather than avoiding
engagement, the council, as the legitimate
decision-making body for peace and security,
should be actively involved in setting the
rules -- and limits -- for international
involvement in the new, admittedly more
complex, situations of modern armed conflict.
As a Security Council member, Canada has
been trying to integrate the human dimension
into council activities. For example, last
February we proposed, and other members
accepted, examining concrete steps the council
could take to focus attention and action
on protecting civilians in armed conflict.
Conclusion
At its core, the human security agenda is
an effort to construct a global society
in which the safety and well-being of the
individual is an international priority
and a motivating force for international
action; a society in which international
humanitarian standards and the rule of law
are advanced, woven into a coherent web
protecting the individual, where those who
violate these standards are held fully accountable;
and finally, a society in which our global,
regional and bilateral institutions -- present
and future -- are built and equipped to
promote and enforce these standards.
These are
indeed grand objectives, and while the international
community has made impressive progress in
recent years, daily reports from East Timor,
Angola, Colombia or Afghanistan indicate
that we are far from achieving these objectives.
Much remains to be done, and Minister Axworthy
and I welcome the interest of Canada’s
next generation of intellectual and political
leaders in the notion of human security.
We wish you every success over the course
of the next two days.
|
