Canada, 1992

Once again the nations of the world meet

in full assembly in this Hall to discuss the state of our world, to report on

our actions of the past year, and to express the focus of our intentions in

the coming years. Many of us had hoped that this might be a time for

celebration, a time for rejoicing, as the deep freeze of a lengthy cold war

gave way to the soothing warmth of a new era of enlightenment, understanding,

caring and purpose.

But we have little joy, and our celebration was certainly short-lived.

Whatever insights we may have gained from the cruel and terrible events of the

past half century are sorely needed now, in a world that breeds new forms of

tyranny, hatred and brutality almost on a daily basis. Many people in this

Hall have seen the evidence up close: the bullets, the bodies, and the fear

in ordinary men and women, frequently in their own countries.

There is, however, no need to lose hope: we have the capacity, and we

must continue to build for the future. What we need is the collective will,

and I believe that it is in this United Nations, this global forum, that we

must dedicate ourselves to securing the peace and stability which have evaded

many generations before us, and must build a new world, individual by

individual, nation by nation.

But, we must remove the double standards that are everywhere. What good

are words spoken in this Hall if people at home are unable to speak freely?

Why exercise the art of diplomacy here, if it is not supported at home by the

science of justice and the skilful application of the rule of law? Can we

hope to manage, together, an ever more challenging world when many of our own

houses are in disorder?

We in Canada, at this very moment, are engaged in our own process of

rebuilding, rededication and renewal, a continuing process in real

democracies. In four weeks, millions of Canadians will exercise the ultimate

democratic right by deciding, through their votes, whether to accept or reject

a proposal for fundamental reform of our Canadian Constitution. If accepted,

and I have no doubt that it will be, this reform will build on the values and

rights which are already a proud part of the Canadian reality. It will

strengthen existing guarantees and protection for the rights of minorities,

improve the functioning of our already highly regarded democratic

institutions, bring greater social and economic justice to our native peoples,

and reallocate fundamental roles and responsibilities between levels of

government,

I am confident that the vast majority of Canadians will support this

reform because it is based on fundamental values to which every Canadian

subscribes: unswerving respect for the rights of the individual, supported by

the rule of law; a strong and deep attachment to democracy, its values and its

institutions; a passionate commitment to social justice and economic progress

for all; respect for national and international obligations; and a will to

resolve differences peacefully through conciliation, compromise and consensus.*

As Canadians, we have learned that democracy and freedom can be

maintained only by vision and constant vigilance. New ideas for the future

must be grounded in the fundamentals that were the original basis for our

unity. As Prime Minister Brian Mulroney told Canadians in introducing our

Constitution:

"What Canada's leaders have produced is a series of constitutional

reforms that strengthen the bonds that brought us together in 1867.

These reforms renew the concepts that are at the core of Confederation.

They provide a strong framework, a solid foundation, to let us move

confidently into the future together."

Obviously, a strong and united Canada is important for Canadians, but it is

also of fundamental importance to the nations of the world.

The values which Canadians hold, and which we have brought to the world

throughout our first 125 years as a nation, are also the values which are

fundamental to the Charter of this Organization.

It is our belief that here at the United Nations we are not in need of

better principles; the drafters of the original Charter have served us well.

What we need from this Organization and its Members is the will to act. And

we need deeper understanding of the root causes of conflict between nations,

so that together we can

"break the chain of violence,... defuse the lust for revenge,... voice

[the peoples"] needs,... affirm their dignity" (A/40/PV.47. p. 23)

as our Prime Minister said in this Assembly on the fortieth anniversary of the

United Nations seven years ago.

I believe that the United Nations has taken up that challenge, and I

salute the Secretary-General for his vision and leadership and for his courage

in making the Organization more relevant in and to our time. His report, "An

Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277), lights our path to the future.

The Secretary-General also made the important link between peace nations

and peace within nations when he pointed out:

"There is an obvious connection between democratic practices such as

the rule of law and transparency in decision-making and the

achievement of true peace and security in any new and stable political

order."(A/47/277, para. 59)

There are within nation-States three fundamental weaknesses which can

cause disputes that go beyond their borders. Primary among these is the

absence or abuse of fundamental human rights. If people have no rights, they

have no hope; if they have no hope, eventually they will have no fear; and if

they have no fear, they will seek any possible means to restore their rights,

even killing and dying in the trying. It is a pattern for instability, a

pattern for failure, one that has been repeated all too often in the past.

The United Nations must lead in the field of human rights. In El

Salvador, Cambodia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Somalia efforts to protect human

rights are of fundamental importance in attempts to bring peace to these

troubled lands. Canada, by the way, is currently serving in all of those

places.

The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights offers a unique opportunity

for all Members of the United Nations to work in a constructive and

cooperative spirit to strengthen the foundation of universal respect for human

rights.

Particularly insidious among the forms of human-rights abuse is

systematic discrimination, whether based on gender, race, or ethnic origin.

Violence against women remains one of the most serious forms of

human-rights abuse. Canada initiated and strongly supports the current work

in the United Nations for the adoption of a universal declaration on violence

against women,

In another context, to eliminate employment discrimination we must also

ensure the election and appointment of more women to senior positions in

national and international decision-making bodies, including the United

Nations. This has been a cornerstone of my Prime Minister's domestic and

international appointments policy.

But no group should be marginalized; all views, all experiences are

important. To this end, Canada is proud to be at the forefront of efforts to

prepare for the International Year for the World's Indigenous People, 1993,

when the international community will turn its attention as never before to

the rights of the world's indigenous peoples. Our recently concluded

constitutional negotiations in Canada include major advances for indigenous

peoples in our own country, which will end years of injustice and inequality

in some aspects.

As this special Year begins, we also mark the end of the Decade of

Disabled Persons. We must continue to remove barriers to the full

participation and integration of persons with disabilities. It is our

hope that a consensus for ongoing collaboration can be reached in Montreal,

where on 8 and 9 October my colleague, the Honourable Robert de Cotret,

Canada's Secretary of State, will host an international meeting of Ministers

responsible for persons with disabilities.

This past year has seen the resurgence of a particularly vile form of

abuse of human rights. Canada protests in the strongest possible terms the

abhorrent practice of "ethnic cleansing". Whatever reason for it, wherever it

exists, it represents the basest form of inhumanity and abuse of the

individual, and cannot be tolerated by the world community and this

Organization.

In this connection, Canada calls for the drafting of a statute by the

International Law Commission to establish an international criminal court.

For this purpose, Canada will shortly convene an international meeting of

experts to mobilize legal expertise on this important matter.

A second major weakness within many nation-States is the absence of a

developed system of democratic values and institutions, and this, too, may

ultimately lead to conflict,

One should not be fooled by the outward trappings of democracy. How can

peace flourish when a democratically elected leader is placed under house

arrest, as in Myanmar, or a democratically elected Government is violently

overthrown, as in Haiti?

A true and lasting democracy requires time and understanding, like a

true and lasting friendship. And it requires two-way trust between a nation's

peoples and its leaders.

We recognize the enormous challenges facing countries where democracy is

in its early stages. We must all promote a climate of trust within these

emerging democracies, so that new ideas have time to flourish and take root.

Canada is doing this through its aid programmes and by its participation in

the social and economic agencies of the Organization.

A third major weakness within nation-States is the inability to make

responsible choices in the management of public policy. Good governance is

important, because it ensures that in the provision of government programmes

and the distribution of government resources adequate attention is paid to

social justice, health and education. It also promotes equitable economic

opportunity through the development of a free market system. Ultimately,

these are the means to defeat poverty and to ensure that arms purchases and

spending on the military are not excessive.

Canada's own assistance to developing countries is increasingly focused

on and tied to their efforts to protect basic human rights, to develop

democratic values and institutions, and to undertake good governance in their

policies and programmes.

We urge other Member States and the General Assembly to adopt a similar

philosophy and similar practices if we are to eradicate the seeds of conflict

from within nation-States.

These are, of course, resolutions for long-term prevention of conflict.

In the meantime, however, we cannot ignore the current state of the world, and

that is why the Secretary-General's report, "An Agenda for Peace", is such an

important and pivotal document for this General Assembly.

Canada is no stranger to the process of bringing peace to, and keeping

peace, in all the regions of the world.

Of the 45,000 peace-keeping forces currently serving under the United

Nations flag, close to 4,300, or almost 10 per cent, are Canadian. No other

nation has made a greater commitment to United Nations peace-keeping than

Canada. Canada has served in virtually every United Nations peace-keeping

mission, and Canadians currently serve in such varied missions as those in

El Salvador, Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and the Middle East.

Our experience in these and other missions has taught us that no two

missions are the same, and our experience has also taught us that

peace-keeping, which is not even mentioned in the United Nations Charter, is a

dynamic concept that must be further refined to meet the challenges of the

1990s and beyond. Consequently, we are very pleased that the

Secretary-General consulted so broadly on this matter, and we are also pleased

that much of our own experience and many of our suggestions are reflected in

his final report.

We commend the Secretary-General's emphasis on preventive diplomacy and

peace-making as the preferred options. We encourage him to continue to use

all of the means at his disposal to defuse crises, from fact-finding missions

to mediation. We consider it the duty of all Member States to share with the

Secretary-General all information that can help him to fulfil his role.

We strongly support the concept of preventive peace-keeping, and we urge

the Security Council to adopt this option when lives can be saved,

confrontation averted or democracy stabilized. In Kosovo, for example,

preventive diplomacy by the Security Council and the Secretary-General may

well prevent bloodshed and anarchy such as is seen in much of the rest of the

region.

In the area of peace-making, we agree that the Secretary-General should

continue to use mediation and negotiation to facilitate the process of peace,

and that the Security Council should avail itself of the provisions of the

Charter that permit it to recommend appropriate measures for dispute

settlement.

We also agree that there is a broader role for the International Court of

Justice and that pursuant to Article 96 of the Charter, the Secretary-General

be authorized to take advantage of the advisory competence of the Court.

I have already alluded to the 4,300 Canadian men and women, 20 per cent

of our military forces, who are currently committed to United Nations

peace-keeping operations. Canada has for many years maintained a battalion on

stand-by for United Nations peace-keeping operations. We also have a

longstanding policy whereby members of other Canadian forces can be and have

been called upon for peace-keeping duties. We are prepared to confirm

Canadian arrangements through an exchange of letters with the Secretariat, as

suggested in the Secretary-General's report. We urge other countries to do

the same.

We agree with the need to make available human-rights monitors, electoral

officials, refugee and humanitarian specialists and police whatever the

situation calls for. We have committed, for example, 45 members of the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police to serve with United Nations civilian forces in the

former Yugoslavia. And let me add, we believe that countries that make

available such civilian experts to the United Nations should have their

supplemental costs reimbursed.

Whereas "peace-keeping" has become very much central to United Nations

action and philosophy, the concepts of "peace enforcement" and

"peace-building" are less familiar. We in Canada believe, however, that both

will have an increasing role in the future, if the international community is

truly dedicated to ending conflict and to enhancing democracy.

Of the two, the use of "enforcement" is the more controversial. Recent

events demonstrate that the use of force may be a necessary option, and we

urge full consideration of the Secretary-General's views in this regard. For

our part, we insist on the right of Member States to take part in any decision

involving their nationals. We also believe that further work is required on

an urgent basis to determine the circumstances under which enforcement

activities should be undertaken and the limits of potential enforcement action.

"Peace-building", on the other hand, has been undertaken, most notably in

the multidimensional United Nations activities in Cambodia and El Salvador.

These operations are long, difficult and costly.

Building lasting peace is critical despite those obstacles, not only

because of the stability, opportunity and safety it brings to the people most

directly affected, but because in the long run it is less difficult, less

disruptive, and probably less costly than continued hostilities.

Canada, while active in both El Salvador and Cambodia, is fully prepared

as well to assist the United Nations in expanding and shaping its approach to

peace-building in the future.

We support the Secretary-General's proposals for improving the

effectiveness and timeliness of peace-keeping operations, and, most notably,

for the establishment of a peace-keeping start-up fund of $50 million, and the

other proposals in his report.

All Member States must pay their dues fully and on time. In May of this

year, in the presence of the Secretary-General, Prime Minister Mulroney noted

publicly that money is the clearest measure of political will. He went on to

say:

"The Secretary-General of the United Nations, the holder of one of

the most important offices in the world, should not be treated as a

modern-day mendicant, forced to wander around wealthy capitals imploring

the decision-makers to pay their bills so that the United Nations can do

its job the next day. He must be free to devote his entire time and

energy to running the United Nations and solving global problems, rather

than passing the hat for peace and security."

Financing a la carte will, over time, erode the United Nations financial

base and also weaken the commitment of Member States to the broad range of its

activities.

Canada is opposed to the recent decision of the Security Council to

enlarge the mandate of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) at no

cost to the United Nations, with the cost to be borne by the participating

countries. This sets an unfortunate precedent, and it goes against the United

Nations principle of collective responsibility.

We also have serious concerns about certain long-standing missions, such

as the one in Cyprus, where Canadians and others have served for 28 years. In

Cyprus an entire generation has grown up regarding the presence of

peace-keepers as part of their everyday norm.

We cannot allow the parties in any dispute to institutionalize permanent

peace-keepers so that they are just another aspect of the status quo. This is

simply unacceptable. The parties involved must accept their responsibility

directly and work with the Secretary-General to find a resolution without

further delay.

We are interested in the Secretary-General's suggestion for increasing

cooperation with regional arrangements and organizations in functions such as

preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peace-making and peace-building. I

myself have encouraged the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe to

develop some of these mechanisms, and Canada, working within the Organization

of American States, remains dedicated to a return to democracy in Haiti.

There is no doubt in my mind that regional efforts in preventive

diplomacy and peace-making should be encouraged. I hope that future

developments in those institutions will enable them to carry out peace-keeping

operations under certain circumstances. But it is the United Nations which

will continue to have the ultimate authority.

Expanding the circle of peace-keeping and peace-making organizations may

serve to reduce some of the disproportionate burden that in the past certain

countries, such as Canada, have willingly assumed. Future needs, however,

will require a broadening of participation by Member States.

Member States also have a direct responsibility to reduce the numbers and

kinds of weapons that are available for conflict. Last year we in this

Assembly took a major step to increase transparency in arms sales and to

inhibit excessive build-ups of conventional weaponry, with the establishment

of the United Nations arms register. This year we can take two even more

important steps. The General Assembly, at this session, will launch the

preparations for the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty in

1995. An indefinite extension is the only option.

France and Russia have declared nuclear-testing moratoriums. Other

nuclear Powers the United States, the United Kingdom and China have no

reason not to join them. All nuclear-weapon States should observe an

immediate moratorium on nuclear testing and should summon up the political

will and energy to negotiate a comprehensive test-ban treaty.

We are seeing some progress. After many years of difficult negotiations,

our negotiators at the Conference on Disarmament have succeeded in producing

a chemical-weapons Convention that, when implemented, will ban all chemical

weapons for ever. I urge all Member States to join Canada as original

signatories when that Convention is opened for signature in Paris next year.

There are other substantive issues that I should have liked to discuss in

greater detail before the General Assembly today - notably, the follow-up to

the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in

Rio de Janeiro, where Canada's Prime Minister expressed his strong support for

conventions on climate change and on biological diversity, in a ringing call

to action:

"As political leaders",

he told his fellow nation-builders,

"our job is to force the pace and stretch out the limits of international

cooperation. Nations ... have the human genius to create a world free

from deprivation and secure from degradation. What remains is for

Governments to provide the leadership the world so desperately needs."

The job of the General Assembly is to continue to stretch those limits and to

demonstrate that leadership through the establishment of a commission on

sustainable development and a conference on the high seas.

There are as well, of course, many issues of process, such as reform of

the United Nations development system, that require our immediate time and

attention. Canada put forward detailed proposals in this regard in July in

the Economic and Social Council, and will continue to take an active role and

interest in this matter.

What a large task we have set for ourselves. But one of the lessons that

we have learned in the post-cold-war era is that there is no breathing space,

there is no long pause for contemplation and reflection. Decisions must be

made on a timely basis, and when those decisions are made, all Member States

must vigorously support and abide by them.

Last month, at the London Conference on the former Yugoslavia, I made it

clear that Canada is losing patience with much of the posturing that,

historically, has masqueraded as international diplomacy. I know that others

in the Assembly share this frustration. But, as we speak, the body count

rises in what is left of Bosnia and Herzegovina not to mention the thousands

of men, women and children who are facing starvation in Somalia. The United

Nations needs the commitment of its Member States, it needs well-thought-out

and timely decisions, and it needs follow-up action. Anything less is failure.

Let us not spend the next four or five years debating the niceties of

this principle or that concept; let us all get on with the everyday job of

building peace and security. No one should be here who is not prepared to

work towards those noble objectives, and no one should leave here without

confirming his or her commitment to working together for the benefit of all

the peoples of the world.