Default title

Geneva, March 19, 2002


STATEMENT BY THE HONOURABLE BILL GRAHAM,
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CANADA,
TO THE 58TH UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

I am very pleased to be here today because, in many ways, for many people, Geneva symbolizes the hope of the modern age. Since 1864, Geneva has been the depository of much of the humanitarian law that governs armed conflicts between states. This city is a financial and communications centre in a world that is increasingly interdependent. In addition, as seat of the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, it is a driving force behind the international law that has developed to give expression to the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And yet, more often than not, the world we live in fails to live up to those ideals to which this city has often been witness and birthplace.
Armed conflicts continue both within and between states, often with a savagery unmitigated by reference to any higher principle. The benefits of globalization remain beyond the reach of billions of human beings. Violations and abuses of all the rights described in the Universal Declaration remain a tragic fact of life for millions of people around the world.
In this disturbing context occurred the attacks of September 11, giving new meaning to the concept of a global threat.
We can all take heart from the fact that the primary response to these vicious attacks has been an unprecedented level of international cooperation in fighting terrorism. Clearly, the events of September 11 have given greater urgency to questions of national security, and to the formation of international as well as domestic responses to this threat.
At the same time, I share the concerns of the High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding excessive measures taken in several parts of the world. The war against terrorism must not be used as a pretext for repression.
For it is a common misconception that greater security can only be assured by compromising on our respect for human rights. In the wake of September 11, it is more important than ever that we challenge this point of view.
I would argue that the security of the state and the security of the person are mutually reinforcing. The one cannot be effectively assured in isolation from the other. A culture of respect for human rights cannot flourish in an environment of insecurity.
It is equally true that security, whether at the national or the individual level, is sustainable only in an environment where human rights are protected.
In societies that respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, dissent tends to take constructive, non-violent forms. Independent political parties, free media and a vibrant non-governmental sector provide constructive outlets for citizens to participate in the development of their society.
On the other hand, national authorities whose vision of social order relies on the suppression of the rights of individuals pursue dubious short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability.
Violations of human rights marginalize voices of moderation, tolerance and respect, and give unwarranted legitimacy to radical elements. In the long run, repressive measures merely serve to perpetuate conflict and instability.
There is no clearer example of the need to adopt a comprehensive approach to security than that of Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan are resolved to emerge from years of oppression and misrule under the Taliban in order to make the transition to a modern state, a state where respect for human rights is not only enshrined in law but exemplified in the lives of all citizens.
The international donor community is now working with the Afghan Interim Administration to realize this challenging goal in accordance with a blueprint for reconstruction in which good governance, guided by respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, will play a central role.
In particular, I applaud recent commitments by the Afghan authorities to make respect for women's human rights an integral component of the new model of Afghan governance. This will be crucial to its success. There can be no lasting peace, security or economic development where the rights of women and girls are denied.
In Canada, our Parliament--led by a committee of women members representing all parties in the House of Commons--has been pressing hard for support for Dr. Sima Samar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Women's Affairs, and the measures she is introducing into Afghan society.
I commend the High Commissioner's commitment to establish a field office in Kabul to support the Interim Administration in implementing this ambitious blueprint.
The development of programs on human rights education, women's human rights, and the establishment of a national human rights commission will help lay the foundation for a sustainable peace. I am pleased to announce that Canada will be able to provide funding of $1 million in support of the work of the Office of the High Commissioner in Afghanistan.
Given so much cause for hope, it would be all too easy to fall into the rhetoric of self-congratulation. This would be a grave mistake. The lessons of Afghanistan are still being absorbed.
Recently, Secretary-General Annan described the attacks of September 11 as "a failure of prevention." I believe that he was talking not only about airport security or military preparedness but also about the consequences of leaving failed states to fester.
He has called on the international community to "begin to take seriously the rhetoric of conflict prevention, and act where only action can make the difference between war and peace."
In this, the Secretary-General has broad support.
One of the points that emerged from the worldwide consultations undertaken by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was recognition that a state's sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect its citizens. The Commission's final report was recently presented to the Secretary-General; it comments on the nature and dimensions of this responsibility, and proposes concrete recommendations for action by the international community in extreme cases when states fail to assume their responsibility.
This is an important shift in our understanding of the nature of sovereignty, and it points to a broader trend toward more effective international cooperation. Clearly, while the role of individual states in the promotion and protection of human rights is fundamental, there is also an increasing recognition that problems previously addressed individually by states would benefit from a collective approach. Witness the momentum growing behind the establishment of the International Criminal Court. At the current pace, we may be only weeks away from the 60 ratifications needed for entry into force of the Rome Statute. The age of impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes is coming to an end.
The impetus behind these momentous developments has its origin in the aspirations of people around the world for recognition of their rights as human beings:
from the cry for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East--a cry that must be answered now before more lives are needlessly lost--to the right to have a free and fair election and respect for the rule of law in Zimbabwe;
from demands for religious freedom in China to the pressing need to protect the rights of minorities, refugees and displaced persons around the world; and
from the necessity to put an end to egregious violations of human rights in the Sudan and Iraq, to the urgency of establishing peace and security in Colombia.
No country is above criticism for its human rights record, including my own. Clearly, challenges remain in a number of areas, including achieving the goal of gender equality and effectively responding to "multiple discrimination." In its statement of reconciliation in January 1998, Canada acknowledged the detrimental effects of the historical treatment of Aboriginal people in Canada. We are starting to renew our partnerships so that the mistakes that marked our past relationship are not repeated.
It is in giving voice to the aspirations of people everywhere for recognition of their human rights, and in articulating measures needed to implement them, that the Commission is most valuable. It is responsible for significant advances on such issues as impunity and freedom of expression, as well as substantial improvements in a number of specific countries. Its work has advanced the integration of women's human rights throughout the UN system. It is responsible for the successful establishment of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and the creation of the position of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. Canadians celebrate the progress made in these areas, as they reflect values that are fundamental to our society. And we also recognize that, in the interdependent world in which we live, we must contribute to the development of a vibrant framework of international norms if we are to guarantee the success of human rights at home.
The Commission also plays a valuable role as a forum for dialogue, particularly on challenging issues such as those related to economic, social and cultural rights, and the right to development.
Although it is not possible to agree on every issue, most negotiations end in some form of compromise and constructive action.
Unfortunately, such consensus seems to be growing increasingly difficult. Last year's session saw more votes, more amendments, more procedural manoeuvres and more rights of reply than any in recent memory. Increasingly, resolutions are being proposed that call for duplication of existing efforts, or task the Commission with work more appropriate to other forums. These trends undermine the credibility of the Commission while doing nothing to advance the protection of human rights.
When we contrast this with the increasing--and welcome--activism of a number of regional organizations, it becomes clear that the relevance of the Commission itself risks being at stake.
How we, as member states, choose to respond will, to a large extent, determine the future effectiveness of the Commission. We must not allow ourselves to lose sight of the reasons for which this organization was created. The Commission exists to clarify the human rights obligations of states toward their citizens and each other, and to strengthen UN mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The need for an effective, respected multilateral forum promoting human rights has never been more clear. Consider the recent surge in ethnic and religious violence in a number of countries around the globe. How are we to respond effectively to such horrors that we now are all witness to?
I have always believed that strict respect for human rights is one of the best ways in which a society can protect itself against hatred and intolerance. As a country rooted in multiculturalism and diversity, Canada is firmly opposed to any form of discrimination, whether on the basis of gender, race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, language, religion, disability, sexual orientation or socio-economic circumstances.
We went to the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to address these important issues with the international community. We had hoped to focus on the development of forward-looking strategies to combat racism.
Unfortunately, the conference was inexcusably marred by unacceptable references to the Middle East, as well as by divisions on several other issues. In spite of this, we chose to stay to articulate our position in regard to this important initiative. Canada's strong reservations about the conclusions are a matter of public record, and we recently maintained them in New York. Nonetheless, we will follow up on the positive elements of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, in particular those relating to youth, indigenous peoples, education and the Internet.
In our view, Durban is an example of what can happen when multilateral forums lose their focus on their raison d'être.
In spite of such setbacks, Canada remains committed to enhancing the effectiveness of the multilateral human rights system. One of our key partners in this regard is the High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office. We strongly support the efforts of the Office to enhance its presence in the field.
Field operations--for example, in Colombia--provide tangible assistance to governments and civil societies seeking to establish and strengthen the national mechanisms so critical to the promotion and protection of human rights, often in extremely difficult situations.
In conclusion, I ask you in the weeks ahead to recall the words of John Peters Humphrey, a fellow Canadian and one of the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Commenting on the Universal Declaration, he said, "It turns out the achievement of 1948 was much greater than anybody would have dared to imagine at the time."
He also observed, "The real test of the United Nations as an international organization dedicated to the promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms would be its ability to agree on effective measures of implementation."
These words are as true today as when they were written. Effective implementation of international norms has always been one of the greatest challenges of our embryonic system of global governance. The Commission is an important element in this evolving process, and its effectiveness is of great significance to our generation and future ones. I wish the Commission every success as it faces this challenge.
Thank you.


* *** *