Looking
Outward: Canada's Foreign Policy
Address to students at University of Alberta
Edmonton, October 17, 1997
David Kilgour, Secretary of State (Latin
America & Africa)
It is a pleasure
to address a group of students and know
that I don’t need to convince them
of the need to look beyond Canada’s
borders. As students of Foreign Policy and
Latin American Studies, you already realize
that we live in a shrinking world. It is
becoming harder to differentiate between
"domestic" and "international"
issues. More and more, the boundaries are
blurred.
Mexican writer
Carlos Fuentes has said: "Every North
American, before this century is over, will
find that he or she has a personal frontier
with Latin America. This is a living frontier,
which can be nourished by information but,
above all, by knowledge, by understanding,
by the pursuit of enlightened interest on
both parts."
Fuentes meant
"North American" in the sense
that most Latin Americans use the term --
to refer to citizens of the United States.
But today it is equally true that no Canadian
is unaffected by our relationship with Latin
America.
As Secretary
of State for Latin America and Africa, I
am excited that my portfolio deals with
some of the most dynamic areas in Canada’s
foreign relations. In 1995, the Canadian
government in its foreign policy statement
identified Latin America as one region where
Canada’s geographic location gives
it an important advantage.
For many
years, when Canadians looked southward,
we tended not to see beyond the United States.
Our entry into the Organization of American
States in 1990, was a clear political signal
of our desire to play a more active role
in hemispheric issues. We hoped that our
involvement in the OAS would lead to a revitalization
of regional intergovernmental institutions.
In the early
1990s, Canada negotiated the North American
Free Trade Agreement -- NAFTA -- with the
United States and Mexico. This was the first
regional trade agreement in the world involving
developing and developed countries. During
the same period, we extended our resident
diplomatic representation to practically
all countries of the region.
In 1994,
Prime Minister Chretien participated in
the Miami Summit of the Americas, where
leaders of 34 democratically elected countries
agreed on a partnership for development
and prosperity. This partnership would be
based on a commitment to democratic practices,
economic integration, and social justice.
In March
next year, that process will continue with
the Summit of the Americas in Santiago,
Chile. These talks aim to lay the groundwork
for a future Free Trade Area of the Americas
by 2005. They will also address other important
social development issues, including education.
Meanwhile,
Canada has been pursuing closer trading
relations throughout the region. This year,
Canada and Chile concluded a bilateral free
trade agreement. This was an expression
of Canada’s desire to continue with
a trading agenda at a time when some in
the U.S. Congress are reluctant to give
fast-track approval for negotiations to
include Chile in NAFTA.
Canada is
also talking trade with other regional groupings,
such as MERCOSUR, the Andean Pact, CARICOM,
and the Central American Common Market.
We look forward to trade partnerships with
members of these groups as we move toward
hemispheric free trade.
Let me draw
your attention to Canada’s efforts
to develop enhanced trading relations with
MERCOSUR. This regional trade pact includes
Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay.
Canada exported nearly $1.7 billion Canadian
to these four countries in 1996, and absorbed
imports of $1.4 billion. The Canadian government
is trying to lay the groundwork which will
allow more and smoother trading between
MERCOSUR and Canada..
Last month
Prime Minister Chrétien announced
that in January next year a Team Canada
trade mission will visit Mexico, Argentina,
Brazil, and Chile. The mission will be patterned
on our previous successful Team Canada missions
to Asia, that brought together our provincial
leaders with our federal leaders in promoting
economic growth for all of us.
I should
note that although my formal title is Secretary
of State (Latin America and Africa), I am
also responsible for the Caribbean, including
the Commonwealth Caribbean.
Although
the Caribbean is geographically close to
Latin America, our trading relationships
with the two regions have been quite different.
Canada has enjoyed a long historic relationship
with the Commonwealth Caribbean. We share
a common language, and common political
and legal traditions, based on our ties
with Britain. The Bank of Nova Scotia had
a branch in the Caribbean before it was
in Toronto, if you can believe that! We
don’t need to talk about the rum trade
that has been going on between Canada and
the Caribbean for years. We have sometimes
been inclined to take the Caribbean for
granted. This is a serious mistake. The
countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean
are among our closest friends on the international
stage. In our recent bid for Calgary 2005,
eleven of the 25 votes we got were from
CARICOM states.
Africa’s
emergence as a stable, prosperous continent
is important to every other continent in
the world. The Canadian bond with Africa
has continued to build since the days of
John Diefenbaker and Mike Pearson. Both
leaders saw what Africa means to the world
and is capable of contributing. I am an
Africa optimist.
The end of
apartheid in South Africa and the spread
of democracy in other African countries
gives the world increasing hope that Africa’s
potential will be realized. We Canadians
must continue to lend assistance.
Recently
I visited Uganda, Rwanda, and Kenya, and
saw for myself that Africa is changing and
our stereotypes are obsolete. In Kampala,
I learned that fully 2,000 companies have
located operations in Uganda in recent years.
Similarly, in Rwanda, close observers say
that there has been real economic progress
for some -- certainly not all -- since the
catastrophe of 1994, and the government
in office is genuinely seeking reconciliation
among its constituent communities.
In Kenya,
despite large problems, there appears to
be a national stepping back from the abyss
recently. Our delegation arrived shortly
after a multi-party committee of Members
of Parliament had agreed on a comprehensive
package of reforms, which now appears to
be on its way to enactment in full before
the election, which must be held in this
calendar year. In short, there is a basis
for optimism in all three nations.
I would argue
that Canada’s foreign policy in the
1990s has not only been for the most part
intelligent. It has often been exciting,
particularly in recent years.
Let’s
look at Canada’s campaign to ban anti-personnel
landmines. It is perhaps the most obvious
example of this country taking a lead on
an issue that could have been ignored because:
(a) It wasn’t
popular in military circles; and
(b) It does
not personally concern many important people
around the world.
Important
people don’t spend a lot of time walking
through fields and down paths that are likely
to explode under them at any given moment.
Millions of poor civilians do.
It is an
important issue. It tells ordinary people
that they matter. There are an estimated
one hundred million land mines lurking around
the world, waiting to blow children to bits
-- for no other reason than that these kids
took one false step on land that should
sustain them.
As you know,
Canada has played a significant role in
the grass-roots activism that should lead
us -- must lead us -- to a meaningful international
accord on the banning of anti-personnel
mines.
In early
December, more than 90 countries are expected
to sign a treaty toward this end in Ottawa,
as one more step in what has become known
as the "Ottawa Process." Canadians
should be proud.
The fight
to obliterate anti-personnel landmines is
just one component of Foreign Affairs Minister
Lloyd Axworthy’s commitment to the
concept of sustainable human security, which
he has twice advanced in formal presentations
to the United Nations General Assembly.
A next important project will be efforts
to limit the global trade in small arms.
Canada has
found a niche for itself in the area of
human rights. Our approach is evolutionary,
not coercive. Even if we wanted to force
change, we have to face the fact that Canada
simply does not have the economic leverage
or the international clout to do so. We
can, however, work from within to support
non-governmental organizations -- NGOs --
and develop a space in which civil society
can grow.
Support for
human rights improvements can take different
avenues. In countries that are prepared
to engage with us on even a limited scale,
such as Cuba, we will work for evolutionary
change. For regimes that are unwilling to
enter into any sort of dialogue or exchange
whatsoever, such as Burma or Nigeria, we
work for broader international action to
press those regimes to change their ways.
Next year
we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Canada will do its utmost during the year
to convince governments everywhere that
the suppression of human rights can only
lead to the kind of bitterness that creates
political uprisings.
We aren’t
perfect. We have work to do in our own backyard
on issues of the environment and human rights
-- issues that are so important internationally.
But while we are working on our own problems,
we have to be working on the world’s
problems too. Because, when the circle is
closed, they are our problems too.
Let me give
the final word to Octavio Paz, the Mexican
diplomat and poet. In his reflections on
contemporary history, One Earth, Four or
Five Worlds, Paz notes that all great nations
have prudence, which he defines as wisdom
and integrity, boldness and moderation,
discernment and persistence in undertakings.
The aim of our country, both domestically
and internationally, should be this notion
of prudence.
|
