Quick Link

for your convenience!

The UN and the Challenge of Human Security

Notes for remarks by Hon. David Kilgour, Secretary of State (Latin America & Africa)
to United Nations Association in Canada (Calgary Branch)
McDougall Centre, Calgary, February 18, 2000

It is a pleasure to be able to speak with a group of people who appreciate the essential role the United Nations plays in Canada’s foreign policy – and also the role Canada plays at the UN. This year the UN is celebrating the International Year of a Culture of Peace. The Calgary Branch of the United Nations Association, I understand, has been active in raising awareness of this theme. You should be commended for your efforts.

Your vice president, Edmund Oliverio, is absolutely right that peace is not merely the absence of war, but is a way of life. War, it might be added, doesn’t occur spontaneously. Usually any number of threats to human security lead to a break-down in the social order, and war is only the unfortunate end result. The key then to building a "culture of peace" is enhancing our efforts to deal with a myriad of threats to human security before they have a chance to escalate into broader wars. We must also ensure the health of international organizations and regimes able to deal with these challenges.

Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen a wide range of new human security threats emerge. These are not limited to traditional wars. Today’s problems include terrorism, transnational organized crime, environmental degradation, famine, drug trafficking and money laundering, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and small arms. In light of recent events, we might also add computer hackers. The world has changed. Some of the greatest threats to civilians now come from non-state actors and go beyond traditional understandings of security.

To create a "culture of peace" then, we must all address a much wider range of challenges than we have traditionally. This will mean modernizing and reforming the UN if it is to continue its role as the primary international body for securing and maintaining peace.

We all know the UN is far from perfect and is in urgent need of reform. It is, however, central to Canada’s long-time foreign policy of acting multilaterally on the world stage.

Some would throw the baby out with the bath water. Edmund brought to my attention that the UN and Canada’s place within it are constantly under attack from some in politics and the media. I certainly share his concern. Last year one of the opposition parties issued a foreign policy paper that took an isolationist stance at odds with Canada’s long tradition of international involvement.

Canada has gained influence on the global stage through active participation – not by withdrawing. International institutions are not perfect, but Canada has been at the forefront in seeking reforms at the United Nations and other organizations. Such changes can only come about through active engagement – not by threatening to take our marbles and walk away when we don’t like the rules.

Canada’s outward-looking stance, until recently, enjoyed support from all Canada’s major political parties since the founding of the United Nations almost 55 years ago. Isolationism has long been an unfortunate undercurrent in American politics, but it has not taken root in Canada. That is why some of the recent dialogue on Canada’s foreign policy has been particularly disturbing.

If Canada is in fact "the world’s greatest joiner," as some critics suggest, this is not a bad thing, but rather a cause for pride. Our active participation in the UN, NATO, the OSCE, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Organization of American States, the World Trade Organization and others has brought us significant international influence. Testimony to that influence was our successful campaign for a two-year seat on the UN Security Council. During that campaign when I visited foreign capitals as Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I was struck by the genuinely strong praise for Canada’s international role.

Canada has used its seat on the Security Council to advance, among other goals, a broader interpretation of the Security Council’s mandate to include human security issues along with traditional security issues. A year ago, we served in the one-month rotating seat as Security Council President. We used that opportunity to draw attention to the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

Civilians in armed conflict

Recent conflicts from Kosovo to Sierra Leone to Sudan show that "civilianization" of armed conflict has become one of the most common and disturbing features of modern war. More than ever, non-combatants, especially the most vulnerable, are not merely caught in the crossfire, but are themselves principal targets. In the past decade, casualties from armed conflict have doubled to about one million a year. In the First World War, in contrast, civilian casualties accounted for only five per cent of all casualties. Today, in modern conflicts, closer to 80 per cent of the casualties are civilians.

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. 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 – tools of modern combat, such as landmines, small arms and other weapons.

The nature of war has changed in other ways. Most conflicts today occur inside rather than between states. Wars from within can be just as brutal and ugly as conflicts between states. While the number of armed conflicts between states has declined over the last 25 years, the number of intra-state conflicts has increased dramatically. Among the 103 wars fought since the end of the Cold War, fully 97 were fought within rather than between states. The crises in the Great Lakes region of Africa, in Bosnia and Kosovo, and East Timor are only some of the best-known examples in a series of conflicts with tragic implications for affected populations.

Brutalization and exploitation of civilians, involving gross violations of humanitarian law, have led to massive refugee flows. Such situations cannot simply be seen as internal matters. They affect us all.

Human security focus

"Human security" then – putting people and not only states as the focus of security analysis – is a cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy in the United Nations and elsewhere. Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy has brought this dialogue to the world stage on numerous occasions. A hallmark of the changing nature of violent conflict and the "new generation" of transnational human security threats is that they increasingly put people at the centre of world affairs.

Understanding this concept of human security involves seeing the world through a different lens from that used in the decades of the Cold War. 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 underdevelopment, 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, as I have alluded. Globalization clearly has a dangerous underside. Instantaneous communications, rapid transportation, increasingly porous borders, and rising business, cultural and academic ties have for better or worse 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 realities.

In a stirring speech to both houses of our Parliament in April last year, Czech President Vaclav Havel noted the declining role of the state and the notion that what takes place within a country’s borders is nobody else’s business.

"I believe," he said, "that in the coming century most states will begin to transform from cult-like objects, which are charged with emotional contents, into much simpler and more civil administrative units, which will be less powerful and, especially, more rational and will constitute merely one of the levels in a complex and stratified planetary societal self-organization. This change, among other things, should gradually antiquate the idea of non-intervention, that is, the concept of saying that what happens in another state, or the measure of respect for human rights there, is none of our business."

Havel observed that the responsibilities of the state can go in only two directions: down or up. Downwards to the organs and structures of civil society, or upwards to various regional, transnational or global communities or organizations. This transfer, he said, has already begun.

Reforming the UN

Havel went on to note the obvious implication of this phenomenon: the United Nations must undergo substantial reform if it is to perform the tasks it faces in the new century. It can no longer maintain conditions from the period when it was formed; it must become less bureaucratic and more effective, and must belong to all inhabitants of the globe. In other words, it must not simply be a club of governments in which one state, through its Security Council veto, can override the will of the rest of the world.

The Canadian government shares much of Havel’s vision, in particular on the need to reform the UN to bring it in line with a changing environment. We have taken a strong stand against the abuse of the veto or the threat of its use that the five permanent members hold. Our goals include making the Security Council’s work more transparent and reasserting the primacy of the Council in peace and security issues. Other reforms are needed simply to make the UN operate more efficiently. Canada has actively pursued these reforms both within the UN and in other international fora. Changes are being implemented to improve efficiency, and a Canadian, Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchete, is overseeing their implementation.

Canada’s stake in the UN

The United Nations was first conceived as an international body involving, as its name suggests, the nations of the world. Now, however, challenges to human security occur on many levels, local and global, and are multifaceted. Increasingly, they involve such non-state actors as transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations, civil society, and ultimately individuals. Without abandoning the role of the state in this organization, the UN must adapt to the new challenges. As Havel argues, it cannot simply be a club of governments.

As the world’s only multilateral organization whose membership is nearly universal and whose agenda covers a broad range of human activity, however, participation in the UN is vital. It is the cornerstone of a rule-based international system, and is where much of the world’s multilateral diplomacy is conducted. Canada, as a middle power, must function multilaterally. We simply cannot go it alone.

Canada has been actively committed to the UN since its founding in 1945 in San Francisco, where Canada played a key role in drafting its charter. We are the seventh largest contributor to the UN budget, after the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, the U.K. and Italy.

Any organization of its size and importance can be expected to have flaws and failures, including some serious ones. Changes are needed, and Canada is at the forefront of working to bring them about. As the UN redefines itself to deal with the new challenges to human security, Canada must continue to be a key player – not as one that sulks and withdraws, or walks away and refuses to pay our dues. Secretary General Annan has repeatedly stated that reform is an ongoing process, not a single event. Many of the reforms already accomplished were ideas originally advocated by Canada. This progress has been achieved through our active membership. The United Nations is and must remain central to Canadian foreign policy.