Canada

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.