Canada, 2004

I want to talk today about

United Nations reform, particularly about the way we

should serve and the way we should do business if the

United Nations is to play the role we want it to in the

twenty-first century.

The world is organized into independent States

and the primary obligation of Governments is to look

after their own people. This presents us with a

fundamental dilemma, for unless we also act

collectively on the basis of our common humanity, the

rich will become richer, the poor will become poorer,

and hundreds of millions of people will be at risk.

Thus, we need institutions whose primary obligation is

to our common humanity. Herein lies the importance of

the United Nations. It comprises Member States, but its

mission is, indeed, to serve the world's peoples. Its

Charter makes this very clear:

'We the peoples of the United Nations [are]

determined - to reaffirm faith in fundamental

human rights, in the dignity and worth of the

human person, in the equal rights of men and

women.'

Others, quite properly, will talk about structural

reform. But today I want to talk about reforms

designed to put our common humanity at the centre of

the agenda of the United Nations.

Canada sees five areas where bold steps are

required. The first area is the responsibility to

protect - the need to develop the rules and the

political will that would allow the international

community to intervene in countries to prevent a

humanitarian catastrophe.

Darfur is a human tragedy of immense

proportions.

(spoke in French)

We welcome the Security Council's support for

expanded engagement there, although we believe the

international response should be more robust. The

African Union, which has agreed to lead that effort,

must have the unswerving support of the international

community. Canada is offering $20 million to assist,

and we call on others to join in now.

(spoke in English)

It is good that the international community is

finally moving, but it has taken far too long. The

Security Council has been bogged down in debating

the issue. It has looked at whether Darfur is a threat to

international peace and security. It is considering

whether the tragedy qualifies as genocide, because

either could provide justification, under international

law, for intervention. The fact is, though, that, while

the international community struggles with definitions,

the people of Darfur struggle with disaster. They are

hungry, they are homeless, they are sick, and many

have been driven out of their own country. Tens of

thousands have been murdered, raped and assaulted.

War crimes and crimes against humanity are being

committed.

We must not let debates about definitions become

obstacles to action. We should not have to go through

such painful exercises to figure out how to respond to

humanitarian catastrophe. We need clear principles that

31

will allow the international community to intervene

much faster in situations like the one in Darfur.

Our common humanity should be a powerful

enough argument, and yet that is precisely what is

missing. Put simply, there is still no explicit provision

in international law for intervention on humanitarian

grounds. The 'responsibility to protect' is intended to

fill that gap. It says that we should have the legal right

to intervene in a country on the grounds of

humanitarian emergency alone. We should be able to

do so when the Government of a country is unwilling

or unable to protect its people from extreme harm as a

result of internal war, repression or, simply, State

failure.

The primary responsibility for the protection of a

State's own population lies with that State itself. We

are not arguing for a unilateral right to intervene in one

country whenever another country feels like it. It is

always preferable to have multilateral authority for

intervention in the affairs of a sovereign State. What

we seek is the evolution of international law and

practice so that multilateral action may be taken in

situations of extreme humanitarian emergency.

International law is moving in the right direction.

Existing instruments such as the Convention on

Genocide and human rights treaties acknowledge

Statesí obligations to their own people. The

establishment of the International Criminal Court and

criminal tribunals are further steps forward. Thus

customary international law is evolving to provide a

solid basis in the building of a normative framework

for collective humanitarian intervention. To speed it

along, however, Member States should now adopt a

General Assembly resolution recognizing the evolution

of sovereignty to encompass the international

responsibility to people. In turn, the Security Council

should establish new thresholds for when the

international community judges that civilian

populations face extreme threats; and for exploring

non-military and, if necessary, proportionate military

options to protect civilians. The responsibility to

protect is not a license for intervention; it is an

international guarantor of political accountability.

The second area I would speak to is the

'responsibility to deny', which encompasses the need

to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not

under any circumstances spread to States or terrorists

prepared to use them, especially against innocent

civilians. Non-proliferation and disarmament remain

fundamental pillars of the commitment of the United

Nations to international peace and security.

In both cases, multilateralism has been

challenged by dramatic changes in the security climate,

and there is a clear need to make our systems stronger

and more responsive. Strict verification is the key.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the

International Atomic Energy Agency, needs stronger

tools, and it needs political support. We need more

rigorous controls on sensitive nuclear technology, and

the Security Council must be prepared to deal with

non-compliance effectively. The fact is that, as we all

know, determined proliferators have been able to

circumvent their treaty obligations. The United Nations

should establish a permanent inspection and

verification mechanism that can reinforce and

supplement existing verification systems.

More generally, and to show how far we have to

go on the disarmament agenda, and on the

responsibility to deny, the Conference on

Disarmament, charged with the responsibility for

negotiating new multilateral instruments, has not even

been able to agree on a work plan since 1998. Surely

the Conference must get back to productive work.

(spoke in French)

The third area is the 'responsibility to respect'

human beings, their dignity, their freedom and their

culture. I would like to talk about a broader notion of

human rights - one that can encompass individual

rights, the protection of collective rights and pluralism,

as reflected in the concept of cultural diversity. In fact,

the United Nations Development Programmeís recent

Human Development Report stresses that cultural

diversity is also tied in with freedom. That is why we

support a United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization instrument on cultural

promotion.

Since the United Nations Charter and the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, humanity has

made remarkable strides in the area of human rights.

Conventions are now in place to protect a number of

rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural.

But we must remain vigilant in the face of new forms

of abuse, such as international trafficking of people and

the horrifying child sex trade.

32

In addition to the protections afforded individual

rights, various conventions have also been concluded

to better protect minorities, to denounce racial

discrimination and to combat marginalization.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that the most divisive

conflicts result, more often than not, from attempts by

one group to prevent other groups from realizing their

perfectly legitimate economic, religious, social or

political aspirations. Entire communities are

threatened. Violence, civil strife and even failed States

ensue. Kosovo, Bosnia, the Great Lakes region in

Africa, and today Darfur are the most chilling

examples. The international community must take

vigorous action to protect individuals as well as

minority communities. It is not enough to simply

possess various legal instruments; they must be put

into practice. Institutions responsible for human rights

must reveal to the entire world those guilty of abuse -

be they armed groups, communities or Governments -

and take the necessary measures. The United Nations is

our moral conscience and it is up to us to act.

The fourth area is the responsibility to build. The

objectives of the Millennium Summit on poverty,

disease and global insecurity will come to naught if we

do not follow up on the Monterrey Consensus,

according to which genuine development requires a

holistic approach to such issues as debt, market access

and social investment.

That being said, as we have seen in Haiti over the

past 10 years, all the aid in the world will have only a

fleeting effect if a country does not have functioning

public institutions. We must build countries'

governance capacities and take the time to do it right.

The same is true for economic institutions. Those that

work well marshal the creative energies of local

entrepreneurs. That is the message of the United

Nations Commission on the Private Sector and

Development: a thriving economy is the product of

citizens' trust in their countryís public institutions. In

brief, development depends on governance.

Lastly, there is responsibility for the future,

which is to say the obligation we have to leave a better

world for our children. That is no small challenge. It

involves all aspects of our common heritage: health,

the environment, oceans, space. The new pandemics

demand our most urgent attention. AIDS, SARS and

the Ebola virus are sounding a terrifying alarm, but

scientists are predicting even worse diseases. The

World Health Organization must bolster its

surveillance systems. It must do a better job

coordinating its actions with those of other United

Nations bodies.

Beyond health issues lies the whole question of

managing our environment. It is gravely threatened.

Only international cooperation and technical assistance

can bring lasting solutions to such problems as access

to clean air and water. Furthermore, we need an oceans

policy that allows us to rebuild our fish stocks. Access

to fisheries must be better regulated under international

law. Simply put, the pillage of those global resources

must stop.

Space is our final frontier. It has always captured

our imagination. What a tragedy it would be if space

became one big weapons arsenal and the scene of a

new arms race. In 1967, the United Nations agreed that

weapons of mass destruction must not be based in

space. The time has come to extend that ban to all

weapons.

(spoke in English)

I have talked today about responsibilities. In

conclusion, let me mention one more: the

responsibility to act. We await the report of the

Secretary-Generalís High-Level Panel and we

anticipate substantial recommendations for reform.

Many countries are focused on the Security Council

and we should support reforms that will make it more

effective and will permit those countries which actively

support United Nations peacekeeping, development

and other activities to continue to have a meaningful

opportunity to serve.

But we must also look forward to

recommendations that go well beyond the Security

Council. For example, there is a need to set out

measures to facilitate an integrated response to the

diverse range of security challenges that each of us

faces, from the proliferation of terrorism to improving

United Nations coordination on development, health

and the environment. As individual countries, as

individual members of regional organizations, and as

participants in various international groups that form

around specific interests, we all must act to bridge the

differences that divide us and to forge an international

consensus for reform of the United Nations.

In another context, for instance, Canada has

proposed a special meeting at which leaders from 20 or

so countries in the developed and developing worlds

33

would get together to discuss our collective challenges

and responsibilities. This could very well include

providing a major boost to United Nations reform

efforts.

In any event, no matter how one comes at it, the

time has come for real reform of the United Nations.

All of us in this Hall and in our respective

Governments must put aside narrow interests and work

to common purpose to strengthen this universal

institution, whose activities give force to our common

humanity.

Four years ago, at the Millennium Summit, the

leaders of the world agreed that 'we have a duty - to

all the world's people, especially the most vulnerable'

(resolution 55/2, para. 2). That duty will not be

discharged unless we as Governments speak to the

dignity and to the freedom of every human being on

Earth, here at the world's meeting place of nations.