Canada, 1993

It has been an

extraordinary year since the General Assembly met last year.

We have seen breakthroughs in two areas - South Africa and

the Middle East - which have bedevilled the international

community for decades. Bringing both to a successful

conclusion will be hard, but we have good reasons for

optimism. Canada applauds the courage and foresight of the

parties involved, and pledges that it will continue to do its

part in promoting further advances.

But, at the same time, we have also seen tragedies - in

Somalia, Bosnia, Angola and elsewhere - which have, thus

far, defied our best efforts to bring peace.

It is against this background, of hope renewed and

hopes dashed, that I wish to speak about the United Nations

central vocation: the defence and promotion of peace and

security and the conditions in which they can thrive. It is a

Canadian vocation as well.

Since United Nations peace-keeping was invented in

1956 by Lester Pearson, we have been there; sweating it out

in the field, taking casualties, doing the tough work for

peace, in partnership with a growing number of other

Member States. Since 1956, Canada has fielded almost

100,000 men and women in United Nations operations in

every corner of the world. That contribution has been a

costly one for us, not least in lives lost. None the less, it is

a contribution which has been a symbol of pride to most

Canadians, a tangible expression of our national quest for a

better world.

Canadians speak from experience born of commitment.

We see the changes which must be made and the principles

which must remain immutable. The world is hungry for

multilateral solutions to conflict and war. This is our time,

the United Nations moment. We are living through decisive

political change. Cold war certainties have given way, but

in their place we have unpredictability and instability - a

political unease about our future, uncertainty about where

collective endeavours can take us. Most countries feel more

secure militarily, but our citizens, in their personal lives,

often feel less secure about their well-being, for themselves

and for generations to come.

But this broader perspective must not obscure the very

real military dangers which remain: excessive accumulations

of conventional arms; the proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction - chemical, biological and nuclear; and conflict

and human misery created by the breakdown of civil and

political society within States and across fragile and often

new borders.

The world has learned some hard lessons in recent

years. First, we have learned that our security is

interdependent. Within each specific area of concern -

whether military, economic, environment or health - no

nation can stand alone. We are all affected, positively and

negatively, by developments beyond our borders. And our

own actions, within our own countries, inevitably resonate

throughout the wider community of nations.

6 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

Secondly, we have learned that our security is

indivisible. We cannot escape the connections linking

issues; between, for example, economic growth,

environmental safety and population flows. Deterioration in

any one area can destabilize the whole. We must think

about security more broadly, in terms which address

fundamental sources of insecurity: questions of economic

development and prosperity; environmental integrity;

freedom from crime and physical threat; health; membership

in communities which reflect our values, traditions and

aspirations.

Thirdly, we have learned that genuine security is not

about control and repression. It is about striking the right

balance of interests, within countries and across borders.

Fourthly, we have learned that we have to find more

cooperative ways of addressing security issues, ways which

maximize the relative strengths of many existing institutions.

We foresee a network of collaborative arrangements - local,

regional and global - forming the building-blocks of a new

system of collective security, all hinged on the focal point of

the United Nations.

The Charter of the United Nations itself provides useful

guidance, describing possible relationships between the

United Nations and regional bodies in the pacific settlement

of local disputes. Cooperation between the United Nations,

the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European

Community in Europe; between the United Nations, the

Commonwealth and the Organization of African Unity in

Africa; and between the United Nations and the Organization

of American States in Central America and Haiti has moved

us considerably along the path anticipated by the drafters of

the Charter. Moreover, regional organizations are often the

best equipped to deal with local sources of instability and

potential conflict, such as water disputes, demographic shifts

or human rights concerns.

For decades, the cold war hemmed us in. That time is

over. We have it within our grasp to fulfil the promise of

our Charter, to build a global cooperative security system

centred on the United Nations. For it is the United Nations

alone which can provide a universal forum for elaborating

new principles and negotiating new rules and standards.

And it is the United Nations alone which, as a universal

body, can bring the full weight of the international

community to bear on specific critical issues.

In the last five years alone, the involvement of the

United Nations in various multilateral military efforts has

grown exponentially. Five years ago there were seven such

operations; today there are 16. Five years ago there were

9,000 military personnel deployed with the United Nations;

today there are nearly 80,000, more than Canada has in all

of its regular armed forces. And as we look around the

world today, the prospect of even more operations has to be

seen as inevitable.

The transformation in United Nations operations has not

been simply quantitative of late. The fact is that the United

Nations is now engaged in a range of activities which goes

well beyond the traditional concepts of peace-keeping we

have been accustomed to in the past. Much of the

Secretary-General’s ground-breaking "An Agenda for Peace"

has moved from prescription to reality, and rightly so. It is

quite right to ask whether and under what conditions the

United Nations should commit its resources to the resolution

of international crises. It is equally right to ask whether the

United Nations has the right tools to do what is asked of it.

(spoke in French)

The rapid expansion of United Nations operations in the

past several years has been both unprecedented and

instructive. In the process we have all learned certain

lessons, some in a very wrenching fashion. We would all do

well to take stock of our recent experience and determine

how we can together improve our capacity to act more

effectively.

Having been an active participant in virtually every

United Nations military operation, Canada has made its own

diagnosis and come to its own conclusions as to some

remedies that should be pursued.

(spoke in English)

To begin with, we must improve our collective capacity

to judge, to determine accurately and dispassionately the

nature of impending threats and the facts of specific cases.

We must also improve our capacity to act, to respond firmly

and effectively to events before they deteriorate into crises.

There are steps we can take now to improve our

collective capacity in the field of preventive diplomacy.

Recent initiatives to strengthen our early-warning system

should be implemented. To do that, the Secretary-General

should be given the resources necessary for independent

political analysis, analysis that he could draw on before

armed conflict is unleashed and when non-military

intervention can still be effective. Not only must warnings

be timely; they must also have an impact on decisions. The

Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 7

Secretary-General must make full use of the provisions of

Article 99 of the Charter to bring to the attention of the

Security Council situations which may threaten peace. This

would itself provide a powerful stimulus to global attention

and necessary preventive action.

The United Nations ability to conduct preventive

diplomacy through the good offices of the Secretary-General

must be strengthened. The Secretary-General’s efforts to

address dozens of conflicts and potential conflicts require

tangible support. The preventive deployment of peace-

keepers to forestall conflict, as we have recently done in the

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, can prove very

useful and in the long run avoid a much larger commitment

of scarce resources.

Experience with the assignment of United Nations

military forces around the world has, in our view,

demonstrated a number of shortcomings. It is incumbent on

us all to move quickly to respond to them by changing the

way that business is conducted. First, major operations can

no longer be run on an ad hoc basis. The management,

planning and operational capacity of the United Nations has

to be reinforced. A permanent strategic headquarters staff

capable of controlling two or more large-scale,

multidimensional operations has to be put in place. To be

effective, this headquarters would need a comprehensive

information processing and planning capacity.

Secondly, the United Nations ability to bring matériel

and personnel speedily to a theatre of operations and to

ensure coordination between sources of equipment and

personnel has to be strengthened. Too often in the past, the

Secretary-General has had to delay United

Nations-sanctioned operations for want of adequate personnel

or matériel.

The ability to deploy United Nations troops rapidly to

emerging flashpoints has to be upgraded substantially. At a

minimum, Member States should enter into formal

commitments with the Secretary-General to provide troops

on a stand-by basis and tied to readiness standards, as

Canada has done in the past year.

Thirdly, United Nations Members have to build and

develop the large cadre of peace-keepers necessary for the

United Nations missions of the future. Peace-keeping

demands cultural sensitivity, the ability to mediate and a host

of other skills. Training will be required, particularly of a

corps of senior officers who will have to exercise leadership

in complex, difficult and dangerous situations. Training

holds the key to successfully integrating different national

contingents into one operation.

Fourthly, we need to ensure that field operations meet

high performance standards. Work on the development of

a common code of conduct and operating procedures for all

personnel serving under the United Nations flag should be

brought to an early conclusion.

Fifthly, we must also come to grips with the

increasingly serious dangers facing our peace-keepers. We

and others are working to clarify and codify principles and

measures for the protection of United Nations personnel,

particularly those involved in peace-keeping operations.

Canada will be proposing specific provisions for such a

convention to be discussed during the coming General

Assembly session.

In the last several years, a range of innovative proposals

has been put forward with a view to enhancing the capacity

of the United Nations to mount effective multilateral military

operations. Many of these suggestions have been the subject

of extensive debate in Canada, as they have in many other

countries. We have, in fact, been proponents of some of

these suggestions. We fully recognize, of course, that ours

is but one perspective. Actually realizing these necessitates

a much broader level of support by United Nations Member

States.

Accordingly, in the best interests of future United

Nations efforts, it is time that a panel of civilian and military

experts with experience in United Nations operations be

charged with assessing these and other proposals which

could further enhance the operational capacity of the United

Nations. Such a report should be finalized and submitted to

the Secretary-General next summer. It should include clear

recommendations on both the merits of the proposals and, as

importantly, how they could be implemented and financed.

The report would in turn would provide us with the basis for

coming to collective decisions on whether or not to proceed

with any of these. Only in this way can we more

definitively determine not only the potential need but the

requisite support for these proposals.

The agenda for such a review would include: the

establishment of a permanent United Nations staff college

for the training of military officers; the creation of more

training facilities for United Nations troops; the development

of a network of United Nations material supply depots

stockpiled with equipment for rapid dispatch to new United

Nations operations; the question whether United Nations

Member States would provide at nominal, if any, cost

8 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

equipment and matériel which would be made available to

United Nations contingents not having such resources in

their own military establishments; and the creation of a

permanent rapid deployment force under United Nations

command, based possibly on a new United Nations volunteer

force.

There may well be other issues that should be on that

agenda. The key, however, is to have that assessment made.

My own Government is committed to reviewing these and

other related questions in the context of a reappraisal of our

own military capacity, including our participation in United

Nations operations.

Security is more than simply a matter of being able to

deploy adequate numbers of troops on a timely basis.

Modern United Nations missions are drawing on expertise

far beyond that of traditional military peace-keepers. There

is a demand for civilian police, for election workers, for

human rights monitors, for engineers, administrators and

other specialists to rebuild infrastructure. It is not enough to

stop hostilities; the United Nations is now expected to build

the peace as well.

We are moving from a tradition of interposing peace-

keepers between hostile forces to new forms of engagement.

Rebuilding societies to stand on their own will be a complex

and lengthy process. Diplomatic peacemaking, military and

civilian peace-keeping and peace-building pose new sorts of

challenges. It has become obvious, in our view, that a more

integrated and coordinated approach by the United Nations

is now mandatory if we are to cope successfully with many

of the crises which draw United Nations military forces. We

have had a measure of success in this regard in Cambodia,

but far less in other situations, such as Somalia. United

Nations military operations cannot in and of themselves

address or resolve the root causes of conflict. That is

something that can be achieved only through a much more

broadly based effort, be it political, economic or social. In

effect, we need a capacity to rebuild, over time, countries or

societies which have suffered structural collapse.

An effective system of cooperative security, led by a

reinvigorated United Nations, will cost money; but then,

genuine security always carries a price which is worth

paying. Resources are limited, and we must all share the

burden. This means paying United Nations bills in full and

on time. That is what Canada does, and we expect others to

do the same. It is difficult to overstate the damage that

non-payment and the build-up of arrears does to the United

Nations system, and to our collective capacity for effective

action.

Burden-sharing means taking part in the activities of the

United Nations, from contributing troops for peace-keeping

missions to providing observers for election monitoring.

Today, Canada is providing just under 4 per cent of all

United Nations forces. Little less than one year ago,

Canadian troops accounted for 10 per cent of all United

Nations forces. Those are rather remarkable figures when

we consider that Canada accounts for less than one half of

1 per cent of the world’s population, and that our military

establishment represents less than 1 per cent of global

military expenditures. This is not to suggest that we are

seeking a diminished role, one more commensurate with our

relative status in the world. It is, instead, to question

whether others are doing their fair share.

Burden-sharing also means sharing political

responsibility for shaping and taking decisions, and for

ensuring that decisions and commitments are fulfilled. That

is why we welcome the Security Council’s increasing

attention to drafting clear mandates, sharply defining

objectives and setting deadlines. Clear and realistic

mandates are necessary if the United Nations is to remain

both credible and effective.

In Canada as in a number of other countries,

governments are facing difficult fiscal circumstances and

publics that are demanding more effective, efficient and

economical service from government. The need for

rationalization of government, for streamlining, and for an

end to overlap, duplication and waste is one that my own

Government has addressed in the last several months. Our

efforts in that respect will continue. We have a

responsibility to our own taxpayers to ensure that the same

standards and objectives are applied to the international

institutions of which we are members.

Institutions of the United Nations cannot remain

immune to the challenges, financial as well as political, of

the late twentieth century. They too must help shoulder the

burden by becoming leaner, more efficient, better focused,

more responsible and more responsive. They must adapt,

just as Member States are doing, to new technologies, to

continuing fiscal restraint, to the challenge to do better with

less. The structures here are not sacrosanct. No position,

expenditure or institution should be free of the scrutiny

under which we in Canada, and others elsewhere, have

placed our own State structures.

We applaud the reforms initiated by the Secretary-

General and we pledge our support for further action. We

urge him to press on, and we urge all Member States to

Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 9

support his efforts. Our security, the security of generations

to come, is in the balance.

We have a great deal to do. All of our efforts to

reform the peacemaking and peace-keeping function of the

United Nations will be in vain if we are not able to come to

terms collectively with what must be regarded as the most

dangerous current threat to international security: the

ubiquitous spread of weapons of mass destruction. In too

many areas of the world, the prospect of conflict involving

nuclear weapons risks destabilizing already tense situations,

and could lead to human disasters of unimaginable

proportions. We must muster the collective resolve to put

teeth into the Non-Proliferation Treaty, disciplining harshly

those who violate its provisions and giving confidence to

those who abide by its undertakings. We wholeheartedly

welcome the priority attached to this issue by President

Clinton, and the practical measures he proposed.

Our own priorities are clear: further progress in nuclear

arms reduction; indefinite extension and universal adherence

to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; negotiation of a

comprehensive test-ban treaty; early progress to bring the

chemical weapons Convention into force; and strengthening

of the United Nations Conventional Arms Register. These

direct investments in peace and security must be

accompanied by collective action on the root causes of

insecurity.

We must develop and consolidate democratic

institutions and the rule of law. Modern history teaches us

that democracies are the least likely States to wage war, the

best guarantors of peace. The impartial rule of law

domestically is the surest way of keeping democracies

democratic; internationally, it is the best way to resolve

disputes before they become crises.

We must protect and promote human rights. Security

begins at the level of the individual, and there can be neither

peace nor security while people, singly or collectively,

minorities or majorities, are unable to uphold their dignity

and exercise their inherent rights. The General Assembly

must build on the progress achieved at the Vienna

Conference earlier this year and agree to establish by the end

of this year the post of United Nations high commissioner

for Human Rights.

We must attack the poverty, deprivation and economic

underdevelopment which so often lie at the heart of

instability and insecurity. The Secretary-General should

draw up an agenda for development. It should incorporate

a bold rethinking of how the United Nations can best play its

important role in the economic and social spheres, while

avoiding the duplication of activities best carried forward

elsewhere. The Agenda could help redefine the role of the

United Nations in promoting sustainable development in

close cooperation with other international economic and

financial institutions. We owe no less to the children of the

world as we celebrate the third anniversary of the Summit

for Children.

(spoke in French)

To be lasting, economic growth has to respect the

environment. Hence, we have to follow through on our

collective commitments at last year’s Rio Summit to protect

the environment. The social and economic costs of not

doing so are simply unacceptable, a fact that is all too real

for the thousands of Canadians dependent on the Atlantic

fishery.

(spoke in English)

The brutal collapse of the fishery in the North-West Atlantic

and elsewhere is compelling evidence of the need to address

that crisis urgently. The United Nations must urgently adopt

a legally binding international regime to conserve and

manage high-seas fish stocks.

It is clear, however, that no amount of development

assistance can match the economic growth that could be

achieved through a freer flow of goods, services, capital and

ideas among our Member States. Indeed, the single most

important step we can take collectively towards improving

the prosperity of developing and developed economies alike

would be to reach, without any further delay, a substantial

outcome to the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade

negotiations. These discussions have reached a pivotal

stage; we must not lose this precious opportunity. My

Government remains committed to doing its part to reach

that goal and to pursuing other opportunities for trade

liberalization, such as through the North American Free

Trade Agreement. We are convinced that the Agreement

will make the North American economies both more

competitive and more open and will provide a much needed

stimulus to global trade and investment.

Our peace and security are not there for the taking. We

must work for them, and work hard - in our own countries,

in our regions, and globally. We must renew and revitalize

existing structures and, where necessary, build anew. We

have a historic opportunity to make good on the language of

the United Nations Charter, on the thwarted promise of those

early days, to build in our own time a cooperative system of

10 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

peace and security which respects difference but holds fast

to universal principles of human dignity and freedom. Let

us move forward, together, now.