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.