Canada, 1997

May I first take this

opportunity to congratulate my very good friend, the

Foreign Minister of Ukraine, on his election as President

of the General Assembly at its fifty-second session and to

convey to him the best wishes of Canada for a successful

and productive association in this session. I know from

our long personal contacts that the course of this

important debate is in the best possible hands.

Let me also take the opportunity to thank and

congratulate Ambassador Razali for his tireless and

effective leadership of the General Assembly at the fifty-

first session.

I come to the Assembly today with a sense of

urgency and an abiding faith and belief that we are now

emerging, not only from the shadows of the cold war, but

also from the uncertainties of its aftermath.

Around the world, we see countless examples of the

basic principles and overall vision of the United Nations

Charter being put into practice. The people of the world

are laying the foundations of a new international system

for the new millennium.

Of course, I recognize that no part of the world is

without its burdens of conflict, grief and personal

suffering. Nor are there any great signs of relief from the

growing burden of global economic inequities. What has

changed, however, is the new international willingness to

face the issues, to mobilize political will and to launch

reforms. There is a sense, not of helplessness, but of

hope. The old realities of power have not disappeared,

but alongside them have appeared new forces, new

coalitions and new ways of doing business — and these

forces are impatient. As we have seen, in fact, in recent

days, one person's vision and generosity can make a

difference and stand as an inspiration to us all.

This new spirit needs to be manifest and inspire

the work of the United Nations. The Secretary-General

has proposed a serious and far-sighted set of reforms.

Canada strongly supports these proposals and accepts

them as a package. They promise not simply greater

efficiency, but, we hope, greater effectiveness. Based

on our experiences in Canada, I can say with some

authority that budget-cutting by itself is not the answer.

There must be serious structural change to modernize

existing institutions, both national and international, that

were formed over 50 years ago.

To undertake these reforms, solutions must be

based on agreement and cooperation. Solutions cannot

be imposed by one country or one group, but rather

must be inspired by a sense of openness and

innovation. In other words, we must establish a new

compact amongst United Nations Members to set this

Organization on a sound financial footing. As

Mr. Udovenko has said, we are at a watershed, a

defining moment for the Organization that can either

provide new momentum or stall our advance. The

direction we take is ours collectively to decide and the

outcome in all our hands. We must not waste this

opportunity.

(spoke in French)

Another defining moment, I believe, took place

just over a week ago in Oslo. Ninety nations, spurred

on by the efforts of the non-governmental

organizations, agreed on the text of a treaty banning

anti-personnel landmines. The treaty will be signed this

coming December, just 14 months after it was first

conceived.

(spoke in English)

While visiting the treaty discussions in Oslo, I was

forcibly struck by how what has become known as the

Ottawa process demonstrates the changed character of

world affairs. Above all, it shows how the breakdown

of the old bipolar world affords new opportunities for

civil society, private individuals, to influence

multilateral diplomacy. The focus of the Ottawa process

19

is a weapon that slaughters countless civilians, a weapon

that has lost much of its military utility, whatever some

may say. This illustrates the growing feeling, coming

from the grass roots of the world community, that the

engines of war designed for the twentieth century have

no place in the twenty-first.

I should say that this is not the only example of the

new grass-roots activism which points to the emergence

of a global commons as a powerful positive force of

globalization. For example, Canadian women, appalled at

the treatment of their sisters in Afghanistan, have started

a letter-writing campaign. I will be delivering some 5,000

letters today to the Secretary-General, which call on him

to take the lead in exposing the gross human rights

violations of women in Afghanistan as unacceptable in

the eyes of the world's citizens.

The effectiveness of these new forces can be clearly

measured. Nations from every region of the world have

pledged to sign on to a complete ban on the stockpiling,

production, export and use of anti-personnel landmines.

We hope to see more join our ranks between now and

December. For those who are still on the sidelines, we

ask them to think hard and deep on this issue. Their

engagement is crucial. By joining us, already a majority

of United Nations Member States, they can help rid the

world of this most inhumane weapon.

(spoke in French)

Canada recently announced its intention to destroy

its remaining stocks of anti-personnel mines before

signature of the treaty. We will also shortly ratify the

amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain

Conventional Weapons.

(spoke in English)

This treaty constitutes a promise to future

generations. But it does not resolve the equally grave

problems posed by mines already in the ground, nor does

it address the plight of those who have experienced

directly their dreadful impact.

Following the signing of the treaty, the international

community will have an obligation to develop policies for

an enhanced and coordinated approach to humanitarian

demining, and to victim assistance and rehabilitation.

This is, as much as anything else, a development

issue. Heavily mined areas of the world cannot pursue

economic development until they have been demined;

and demining is a hopeless task if there is no treaty to

prevent the laying of new mines.

At Ottawa in December, we will invite nations to

engage in a second phase of the campaign: a broad

mobilization of groups and countries to tackle the

aftermath of the landmines crisis. It is a monumental

task, to be met only through the combined action of all

States. We invite all present to join us. The generosity

of private citizens such as Ted Turner, or of the Auto

Workers' Union of Canada, and the commitment of

those like Princess Diana must be matched, indeed

surpassed, by the Governments of this world.

It is important to ask what is behind this

willingness to tackle these old problems in a new way?

What has brought us to the intersection of high hopes

and new strategies, and the real ability to effect change

in the world, as exemplified by the landmines

campaign? To my mind, these developments and, above

all the recognition of the need to adopt new approaches,

are in part a response to the changing face of war.

In the second half of the twentieth century, we

have seen one type of conflict become prevalent. These

are wars fought within, not between, States; wars that

tend to be long and bitter; and wars, above all, in which

civilians suffer the most and children and women are

often deliberately targeted. These are wars in which, in

the words of Saint-Exupéry “the firing line passes

through the hearts of people”.

As this type of war increasingly accounts for the

great majority of all conflicts, the distinctions that once

informed the work of international diplomacy —

between military security concerns and humanitarian or

civil concerns — break down. This blurring of the

lines, along with heightened media presence, has

strongly affected international opinion. Fewer and fewer

people are willing to view war as an acceptable

instrument of state policy.

In the light of these changes, the concept of

human security, which I highlighted when I addressed

the Assembly last year, takes on growing relevance. It

is based on the premise that it is not enough to spare

people from the “scourge of war” narrowly defined.

Ensuring true, sustainable human security means

tackling other severe threats: the unmet needs of more

than a billion people living in poverty; attacks on

human rights of individuals and groups within society;

20

transnational threats, such as crime and terrorism; and

threats to health and livelihood through depletion or

pollution of our resources.

The problems of these new global issues will not

wait for long-term solutions. It is urgent that we take

action to prevent or reduce the incidence of conflict, to

restore societies in the aftermath of conflict and to

increase human security around the world.

The priorities for action can, in my view, be

grouped under three main headings: addressing issues

which cut across traditional boundaries between areas of

concern, such as we have in the landmines campaign;

identifying and addressing the root causes of conflict; and

improving our ability to respond to crises when we

cannot prevent them.

Let me talk about that first priority. Landmines are

not the only complex, cross-cutting problem to be

addressed if we are to reduce the impact of conflict. All

too often it is small arms, rather than the major weapons

systems targeted by our disarmament efforts, that cause

the greatest bloodshed. In the hands of terrorists,

criminals, the irregular militia and armed bands typical of

internal conflict, these are the true weapons of mass

terror. As with landmines, their victims are all too often

civilians.

We welcome the recent report of the United Nations

Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms and

discussions within the United Nations Disarmament

Commission on disarming combatants as a step towards

more lasting peace. These should serve as the launching

pad from which to develop practical measures, in

consultation with regional bodies.

(spoke in French)

To tackle this problem, the first steps must be to

combat illicit trafficking in firearms and to bring greater

transparency to the legal exportation of small arms. The

Organization of American States (OAS) is currently

working towards an Inter-American convention on illicit

trafficking in firearms. Canada hopes that the OAS

negotiations will result in an effective convention and

will also inspire other regional bodies to take action.

(spoke in English)

Ridding the world of anti-personnel landmines and

banning or limiting other forms of weapons directly

reduce the human suffering caused by conflict. The

other side of the same coin is building and enhancing

human security. By building peace, reducing

unsustainable military expenditures, promoting equitable

and sustainable development and encouraging stable,

democratic societies which respect human rights, we

not only limit human suffering, but we also address the

root causes of conflict itself.

To do this requires solutions that are built from

the inside, not imposed from the outside. Sustainable

peace can be built only through the active cooperation

and participation of Governments, peoples, and groups

caught in the conflict itself.

At the same time, a parallel effort is required to

reform the United Nations development funds and

programmes. Canada strongly supports the Secretary-

General's reform proposals in this area. We place

priority on improving coordination within the United

Nations system at the country level, including among

the specialized agencies and the Bretton Woods

institutions, in order to maximize development impact.

Canada, through diplomacy and development

assistance, has supported peace-building activities in

certain regions for many years. To give further impetus

to this approach, last October I announced the Canadian

peace-building initiative. Its aim is to coordinate

Canadian programmes and policies in support of

conflict prevention and resolution, peace-building and

post-conflict reconstruction. A peace-building

mechanism or fund has provided a rapid response

mechanism in areas of conflict.

Over the last six months, we have used this peace-

building fund for the following purposes: to provide

critical start-up funding for the historical clarification

Commission in Guatemala; to assist the preparatory

commission for the establishment of an international

criminal court by underwriting the participation of

delegates from developing countries; and to provide

financial assistance for the work of the joint United

Nations/Organization of African Unity (OAU) Special

Representative for the Great Lakes region of Africa,

Mr. Mohamed Sahnoun.

In addition, Canada is prepared to contribute up to

$500,000 from this fund for the establishment in Bosnia

and Herzegovina of a non-governmental organization

foundation to develop civil society on the basis of

21

multi-ethnic cooperation. I urge other members to join us

in supporting this foundation.

Finally, I am pleased to announce a Canadian

contribution of $500,000 from the peace-building fund to

the new United Nations Trust Fund for Preventive

Action, created by the Secretary-General in response to a

proposal from the Norwegian Government.

A second promising area of work on the root causes

of conflict lies in exploring the links between security

and development, and particularly in reducing levels of

military expenditures relative to economic and social

spending. Last year Canada sponsored, together with the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD) a symposium on military expenditures in

developing countries which brought together a wide range

of experts who identified areas for further action: small-

arms proliferation, about which I have just spoken,

regional security, good governance and the rule of law.

The United Nations has established important tools

to build the confidence necessary for reductions in

military spending, in the form of the United Nations

Register of Conventional Arms and the United Nations

standardized reports on national military expenditures.

Much more work is needed, particularly at the regional

level, to identify ways to reduce military spending and to

redirect scarce national resources to the economic and

social development goals.

A third area of attention is work on conflict that

comes from threats to environmental sustainability.

Environmental problems have the capacity to imperil

living standards and to endanger the well-being of future

generations. For these reasons, Canada strongly supports

new agreements on hazardous chemicals, including

persistent organic pollutants, and will work to ensure the

success of the new intergovernmental forum on forests.

Combating desertification also remains a priority for us,

and we have offered to host the Desertification

Convention secretariat.

The fourth and final promising area in addressing

the root causes of conflict is human rights and good

governance. Next year we celebrate the fiftieth

anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights. This is an opportunity for all of us to reaffirm

strongly the fundamental importance of this document

and our commitment to the common standards it sets out.

In recognition of the importance of this

anniversary, Canada will be sponsoring a broad

programme of activities, including a major world

conference on human rights and the Internet, to draw

together work being done in many international forums,

with a focus on strategies for using the new

international telecommunications technology to increase

respect for human rights. We are working on the

development and publication of an annual report on the

state of human rights worldwide, based on the findings

of the United Nations independent human rights

mechanisms. And we will hold a conference reviewing

the impact of the 1993 Vienna Declaration, to be held

by Canadian non-governmental organizations.

Abuse of human rights is sometimes excused as

necessary in the interests of stability and national

security, but the facts show otherwise. Countries with

democratic governments which respect the fundamental

rights of their citizens are less likely to wage war on

one another. They are also more likely over time to

achieve high levels of economic development.

Recognizing this, Canada has recently undertaken

a series of new bilateral human rights initiatives. Our

aim is to work with our counterparts in other countries

to establish discussions between governments to foster

exchanges between institutions devoted to the protection

of human rights and civil-society initiatives and projects

for the development of free media.

We also fully support the Secretary-General’s

proposals for reform measures to enhance United

Nations work in human rights. And we welcome the

appointment of Mary Robinson as High Commissioner

for Human Rights, and offer her our support.

As we move towards the fiftieth anniversary of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the challenges

facing the international community, if anything, have

increased. The trend towards targeting civilians in

warfare has resulted in severe infringements of the

basic rights of women and children. Too often we have

seen children recruited as soldiers or women subjected

to sexual assault as a deliberate weapon of terror.

Canada continues to make the rights of the child

and of women, both in conflict and in peace, a top

22

human rights priority, which we pursue actively in the

United Nations and elsewhere. We welcome the

appointment of Mr. Olara Otunnu as Special

Representative to study the impact of armed conflict on

children. We will shortly host a preparatory meeting for

the main donor countries invited to the Oslo child labour

conference. And domestically we have launched a Child

Labour Challenge Fund to support the efforts of our

private sector to address the problem of exploitative child

labour.

Nowhere is the link between human rights and

human security clearer than in the issue of children’s

rights. By protecting the basic rights of the world’s

children, we are nurturing a future generation of citizens

with both the means and the desire to live in peace.

The final overall priority for action is crisis

response. And despite our best efforts, there will be times

when conflict looms, or when it cannot be prevented.

These situations call for rapid, decisive action, whether to

forestall conflict or contain it when it breaks out. These

actions include not only peacekeeping and other military

measures, but also humanitarian and judicial responses.

To date, the international community appears to

have identified the lessons that the missions to Somalia,

Bosnia, Rwanda and Zaire have taught us, but not to

have learned from them. In crisis situations, speed is the

key to effective response. This is why Canada has been

so active in efforts to develop a United Nations rapid-

response and deployment capability, in particular a

rapidly deployable mission headquarters here in New

York. This would not only permit the timely insertion of

military forces, but also integrate civilian and

humanitarian organizations into mission planning and

deployment.

Canada hopes to see measurable progress on the

rapidly deployable headquarters and on the Danish-led

Standby Forces High-Readiness Brigade initiative. These

improvements to the United Nations rapid-response

capability are complementary, feasible and should be

implemented without delay. Let us learn our lesson, and

not ignore it once again.

In addition to rapid military and humanitarian

reaction, a key element of the United Nations response to

conflict is the application of justice and the international

rule of law. Canada strongly supports the timely

establishment of an independent, effective international

criminal court. In order to be effective, the court must

have inherent jurisdiction over the core crimes of

genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In

order to be independent, the court must not be

precluded from dealing with matters on the Security

Council agenda.

In conclusion, let me say that, as we all recognize,

the United Nations was originally established as an

instrument of international peace. Since that time, war

has put on a new face. More and more, it has targeted

primarily civilian populations. If the United Nations is

to be effective — and I believe that the need for

effective multilateralism has never been greater — the

United Nations must adapt to this changing face of war.

At the same time, the United Nations must also

recognize that it, too, has changed at its very

foundation. Both its membership and its mandate have

expanded, and the growing importance of United

Nations development and humanitarian activities have

made their mark. Clearly, it is time for concerted

reflection on the purpose and functioning of this body

that we have built together — including on the difficult

issues of financing and reform of the Security Council.

The reform and expansion of the Security Council

is a major undertaking of direct concern to all Member

States. The long-term implications must be fully

debated and carefully weighed, and the process must be

fair and open. It must attract a broad consensus and

cannot be rushed to accommodate other goals —

including a short-term solution to the United Nations

financial crisis. Canada wants to see a Security Council

that is effective, transparent, broadly representative and,

above all, less elitist and more democratic. The primary

criteria for membership should be commitment to the

ideals and undertakings of the United Nations and a

willingness to remain always accountable to the full

membership of this Assembly.

Broader United Nations reform must necessarily

fail so long as Member States continue to demand more

of a system to which they contribute less. Effective

leadership and moral authority are rooted in respect for

undertakings and obligations freely entered into by

Member States. It is the responsibility of each and

every Member to pay its dues. These obligations apply

in full, on time and without conditions.

Looking ahead, there may be a time when we will

choose to reconsider aspects of the current financial

underpinnings of the United Nations. Indeed, we may

23

collectively decide that in order to broaden

responsibilities and share power in ways that better

reflect current international realities, some adjustments to

the scale of assessments are warranted. Such decisions,

however, can be neither prejudged nor presumed, and

would no doubt be influenced by the commitment of

those advocating such changes to the broader purposes of

this Organization.

The international context in which the United

Nations functions has changed profoundly. Around the

world, people are reshaping the way they live — be it by

seeking more food, better air or greater democracy.

Crucial to this massive transformation is the search for

security, through both the reduction of conflict and the

building of a better life in times of peace. The United

Nations has long symbolized these dual hopes, for escape

from “the scourge of war” and for “better standards of

life in larger freedom”.

I close my remarks today on a note of hope, quoting

President Václav Havel of the Czech Republic, who said,

“Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism.

It is not a conviction that something will turn out

well, but the certainty that something makes sense,

regardless of how it turns out.”

Our hope lies in the certainty that the United Nations, as

the standard-bearer of international values, of a sense of

multilateralism and of a sense of cooperation and

partnership, makes sense for all of us. This must spur us

on in this Assembly for the challenges that lie ahead.