bout de papier, Vol. 18, No. 2 (2001) — Summer 2001 // Été 2001, pp. 6–7
Canada’s human security agenda is responding to new global realities. Its goal is to ensure that people can live in freedom from fear. This means building a world where universal humanitarian standards and the rule of law will effectively protect all people, where those who violate those standards and laws will be held accountable, and where global, regional and bilateral institutions will be equipped to defend and enforce those standards. The government is committed to working with like-minded partners, at home and abroad, to build this world.
Human security constitutes a major and necessary shift in international relations and world affairs, which have long emphasized the security of the state. Human security encompasses a spectrum of approaches to the problem of violent conflict, from preventative initiatives and people-centered conflict resolution and peacebuilding activities to — in extreme cases where other efforts have failed — intervention to protect populations at great risk and peace enforcement. It’s also defined as the summation of seven distinct dimensions of security: economic; food; health; environmental; personal; community; and political.
Canada has identified five foreign policy priorities for advancing human security: protection of civilians, including building international will and strengthening norms, as well as developing the capacity to reduce the human costs of armed conflict; peace support operations, to build UN capacities and address the increasingly complex requirements for deployment of skilled personnel; conflict prevention, to strengthen the international community’s capacity to prevent or resolve conflict, and to build local indigenous capacity for conflict resolution; governance and accountability, which aims to foster improved accountability of public and private sector institutions in terms of established norms of democracy and human rights; and public safety, to build international expertise, capacities and instruments to counter the growing threats posed by the rise of transnational organized crime.
Since John Manley took over from Lloyd Axworthy last year as Minister of Foreign Affairs, there has been some speculation as to whether or not human security would be as important a part of Canadian foreign policy as it had previously been. These concerns may be misplaced. The January 30 throne speech dealt with Canada’s renewed commitment to human security and the financial commitments to this agenda necessary to ensure its continuance. “Human security is an agenda that now transcends Lloyd Axworthy because it is international in scope,” says Deirdre Kent, Deputy Director in DFAIT’s Peacebuilding and Human Security Division. Canada’s human security agenda booklet, Freedom from Fear, was launched at the UN General Assembly in September 2000, just in time for the millennium assembly.
The year 2001 is the year of human security, Kent says. A conference on small arms and light weapons was held in New York in July. This included human security dimensions of small arms, as well as conflict and post-conflict prevention. Other new initiatives on the horizon include corporate social responsibility — what Kent calls an emerging area of human security — and the issue of international humanitarian intervention. Kent also points to the Human Security Network, a group of 13 countries that meet at the ministerial level to bring concrete action to the human security agenda and to promote elements of the agenda internationally. Started by Canada and Norway, it has grown to include 13 countries from around the world.
As well, Canada started The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which will report to the UN General Assembly. The question of intervention is the area of least consensus internationally. Intervention doesn’t just involve the military, but also expert deployment and the use of training exercises, among other things, Kent says. The Commission will study this issue and give feedback as to what the international community’s options are and where it’s morally obliged to intervene. Axworthy will chair the Commission’s advisory board next fall, Kent adds.
She also points to the issue of the so-called conflict diamonds. It was given prominence at the UN when, on January 19, 1999, Canada began chairing the Angola Sanctions Committee — responsible for implementing Security Council-imposed sanctions against Angola’s UNITA rebels. Canada is currently working closely with industry, non-governmental organizations, foreign governments and multilateral organizations on this issue. Non-traditional partnerships continue to be important in addressing new issues.
It was this commitment to non-traditional partnerships that helped to bring about the movement to set up the International Criminal Court. Canada has a systematic program of helping those countries that have already signed the Statute of Rome Treaty move through to ratification. This will have a tremendous impact on their local administrations, says Jill Sinclair, former Director General of DFAIT’s Global Issues Bureau. “This is the biggest and most important thing that has happened on the international scene. ….You’re creating a new type of moral or political deterrent which means that despots within their own countries will know that they cannot go out and slaughter their own people and get away with it because finally, there is going to be accountability; finally, there is nowhere to hide.
“Partnership is no longer an option in foreign policy. It is a prerequisite to having an effective foreign policy in two senses: making sure that it is relevant and resonates with the Canadian public; and, if you actually want to have an impact, you have to have civil society there with you. Otherwise it is ineffective. … The goal here is finding that respectful space within which governments and civil society can operate,” Sinclair says.
“I think Canadians understand human security instinctively but they should also understand that it is about bringing security from the esoteric nuclear deterrent level, defending borders, right down to the neighbourhood level. It’s what security means for you. Drug problems in Laos are relevant to drug problems in Vancouver, for example,” Sinclair argues. Pursuing a human security agenda does not mean Canada has abandoned a so-called serious security agenda because human security is an equally serious issue, she adds.
“I think that our reputation and our influence has been enhanced because of this agenda,” Sinclair says. It’s a theme that has been picked up by the Organization of American States, the Organization of African Unity and the UN. “This is seen as Canada’s agenda,” she adds.
But is the soft power approach effective? Yes, says Sinclair. “If so-called soft power means that you can mobilize the world to go from nothing to a signed treaty that bans a weapons system [landmines] that has been around for a century, then that is pretty high power in my view. And because Canada has been focusing on human security issues such as conflict prevention, these are now on the G-8 agenda.” The protection of civilians in armed conflict has dominated the Security Council’s agenda, while non-traditional threats to security like AIDS were added to the Security Council’s agenda by the United States. “I do not think that there is any difference between a so-called serious security agenda and the one that Canada has been playing. We have just been more effective than most in getting our agenda to adhere,” she adds.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 18, No. 2 (2001) — Summer 2001 // Été 2001, pp. 6–7. Read the rest of this issue →
