Canada

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.