April 29, 2004 Washington, D.C. Check against delivery Thank you Lee, for your kind introduction. I also want to thank you and the Woodrow Wilson Center, and Nancy Birdsall and the Center for Global Development, for co-sponsoring today’s luncheon. It is a privilege to discuss with you and this distinguished audience, Canadian perspectives on some of the most important issues facing the global community. Tomorrow, I will be meeting with President Bush. We will be talking about bilateral trade issues like, our softwood lumber exports, where our producers and your consumers continue to be hurt by the inability to solve the dispute once and for all. We will discuss the BSE – Mad Cow issue, where the highly integrated North American cattle industry requires open borders as soon as possible to enhance confidence at home and abroad, based on sound science. Frankly, we are continually astonished at how quickly the border can be closed when pressures erupt in the United States. Fifteen years after the Canada-US free trade agreement, ten years after we trilateralised it with Mexico under NAFTA, we should be able to do better. We have to recognise that ours is a North American economy; Canada is the largest export market for 37 of your states. You are our largest export market. Protectionism benefits no one. We will consider other areas as well where a North American perspective benefits both countries, for example energy, the electricity grid and the environment, where we are looking at ways to intensify bilateral co-operation to maintain clean air and water for both countries. We will also be talking about international issues, including our shared commitment to promoting: democracy and human dignity, our resolve to combat the scourge of human trafficking, and the steps both countries are taking to promote security at home, on our shared continent, and around the world. And it is this last subject that I want to talk to you about today – Canadian perspectives on how to build greater security for us all. The ultimate human right is the right to personal security, and so the first duty of government must be to protect its citizens. That responsibility is being tested by an array of threats that is unprecedented in our times: rogue states, failing and failed states, international criminal syndicates, weapons proliferation, and terrorists prepared to act with no concern for the cost in human lives, including their own. Once protected by oceans, today’s front line stretches from the streets of Kabul, to cities in the United States, from the rail lines in Madrid, to cities across Canada. Our adversary could be operating in the mountains of Afghanistan, in the cities of Europe, or within our own borders. There is no home front. The conflict is not ‘over there’. Our approach to security must reflect this reality. In Canada, we are working in three related but distinct areas – steps within our borders; measures we are implementing with the United States; and our global policies to build international security. Within Canada, we have just tabled in Parliament our first ever National Security Policy. It details the many measures we have adopted since September 11, and what we will do further to strengthen our security capabilities, including $8 billion we are spending to fix security gaps. Last December, on my first day as Prime Minister, we created a Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister to head the new ministry as a clear sign of our commitment to make it work across all government departments. We are improving and integrating our capabilities in policing, intelligence, transportation, public health, emergency planning and similar areas. We are improving co-ordination among different levels of government – a key challenge for a decentralised federal system like Canada – and engaging the private sector as well in our efforts. We are working closely with Tom Ridge to keep our border open to legitimate commerce and travel while, at the same time, remaining secure. The Smart Border program is working: businesses on both sides of the border are seeing the benefits of reduced waits and paperwork, while new technologies and greater co-operation have improved our capacity to detect high-risk flows. For the future, we, together with Mexico and the United States, hope to expand Smart Borders into areas such as biosecurity, enhanced food safety, and maritime security. For Canada and the United States, intensified co-operation comes naturally. Our security is indivisible. As the events of September 11 demonstrated so terribly, it is impossible to imagine a determined attack on either Canada or the United States that would not strike at the core of our shared values, profound feelings of friendship, and vital national interests. We have long recognized that the defence of North America is also the defence of Canada. For almost 50 years, we have shared responsibility with the United States for North American air defence through the NORAD treaty. In 2002, we established a bi-national defence planning group to consider the kinds of threats we could face, and the possible steps we could take to boost North American security, including joint command arrangements for maritime defence and military assistance to civil authorities in the event of an emergency. A good defence also means taking the fight to where its needed. Canadian soldiers are there, in some of the hottest of the hot spots. We have almost 2000 troops in Afghanistan, and the current commander of the International Security Assistance Force is a Canadian. We have just recommitted ourselves to extending our tour in Afghanistan beyond the August 2004 date originally set for withdrawal, and we still have major deployments in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf and Haiti. The fact is, Canada currently ranks second among NATO nations when it comes to the percentage of troops deployed abroad in multi-national operations. Ahead of the French, the British, the Italians, the Spanish and everyone else except the Americans. Nor do we foresee an early end to the kinds of security challenges we face. That is why, recently, we announced major new procurement decisions to ensure our military has the equipment it needs to get the job done. In describing our approach, it is immediately clear that there are many areas of common cause with American policies. There are also areas where we disagree. It has always been so, and it is a remarkable – perhaps the most remarkable – feature of Canada-US relations over the years, that our differences have served to distinguish us, but they have never divided us. In the specific case of Iraq, we did not join the coalition forces. I believe this was the right decision for Canada, and Canadians supported it. But there is no disagreement at all with what has to be done going forward. To this end, Canada has pledged $300 million dollars to assist the Iraqi people to rebuild their country and establish responsible and democratic governance. We are already providing training in Jordan for Iraqi police. And as circumstances permit, we are prepared to do significantly more in this and other areas of institution building. We are also ready, in concert with our Paris Club partners, to forgive Iraqi debts to Canada of around $750 million. We agree as well that the sooner the UN can move back into Iraq, the better. Now so far, the policies I have described, including the need to send troops abroad, are primarily defensive, designed to counter threats against us. There is however, another dimension to the debate as well, one that arises from the need to deal, at the same time and on many different fronts, with the challenges arising from globalization. Economically, the benefits have been enormous. But they have been far from even, and too many countries are being left behind. Even if more people are better off than ever before, the absolute gap between rich and poor is growing. We all agree that this cannot continue. Much ink has been spilled in trying to come to grips with this, the world’s greatest moral issue. Where much less analysis has been forthcoming however, is on another aspect of globalisation, one that touches directly upon our need for greater security. The information revolution has helped spread ideas about human rights and political freedom, that have transformed entire regions, but it has also created tensions – ethnic, religious, cultural – within many traditional societies. These tensions within failing or failed states or within those that cannot match the world’s pace of change, are the equivalent of a tinder box waiting for a match. True security is much more than simply defence against attack. It is a conviction that we will be most secure when citizens in all countries are able to participate fully in national life, when they can see clearly that their own well-being and freedom require a functioning state that listens to them and, ultimately, is accountable to them. The key ideas here are “functional” and “accountable”. If we have learned one thing over the decades of foreign assistance it is this: countries will not work – cannot work – unless they have public institutions that work; and the best way to make sure those institutions do work is to have them accountable to the publics they serve. Foreign aid is important but its benefits are clearly circumscribes when functional and accountable institutions are not in place. We saw this in Haiti. Almost 10 years ago, Canada, the United States and other countries intervened and helped to restore the democratically-elected President to power. We poured in lots of aid, and made solemn commitments to stay the course. The problem was that we did not succeed, in bulding the institutional structures that Haiti needed if it was to have any chance of standing on its own feet. Now, we are there again. In fact, Canada was the first to have troops on the ground. This time the international community must stay until the job is done properly. Certainly, Canada intends to. Indeed as a specific thrust of our role in the world, we intend to focus our international efforts much more, on helping countries to build the institutions of modern government they need to provide security and the means to a decent life for their citizens. In Canada, we refer to the three D’s – defence, diplomacy and development. This means we are integrating our traditional foreign policy instruments more tightly, especially when responding to the need of vulnerable states to build up their own capacity to govern themselves. As Afghanistan has demonstrated, even the presence of foreign troops cannot guarantee security unless there is also progress towards a political settlement. But, equally, there will be no political settlement unless security is established. And proper economic development needs both – security and political stability – if it is to work. The common thread in the three “Ds” is capacity building in all areas of governance. Too often, people focus only on one dimension, and neglect the rest. We see this approach occasionally in discussions of public security; experts tells us do some police training, build a prison or two, and then, once the situation settles down, pack up and leave. This isn’t good enough. The three D’s means building public institutions that work and are accountable to the public for their actions, “not just policing” but also government ministries, a system of laws, courts, Human Rights Commissions, schools, hospitals, energy and water and transportation systems. It means working on many levels at the same time, and doing so in ways that reinforce each other. It also means a vibrant private sector. Last year, Ernesto Zedillo and I co-chaired a United Nations Commission on the Private Sector and Development. Our report contains a number of recommendations, but running throughout our thinking, was one clear message. No country’s economy can succeed unless it creates the conditions where its own people have the confidence to invest in their own futures, and that won’t occur unless the institutions that ensure stability and freedom from corruption are in place. In terms of today's headlines, the need for institution-building is seen most graphically in Iraq. But it is also true in countries where, although there has been no recent conflict, there is still a need for us to help create the requisite institutions, or prevent the erosion of existing institutions of government. Africa, Is an example, where Leaders are acting to build institutional capacity, both nationally and regionally. They are doing so through their New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) – an initiative Canada, the United States and other G8 partners are supporting through the Africa Action Plan. Institution-building sounds straightforward, but it is in reality a very difficult proposition. There is a fine line to be walked between assistance and interference. There is a need to promote modern methods without dismissing valued local traditions. There is no one blueprint but, as in so many other areas, there is the old advice: play to your strength, and it is because of this that we believe Canada can and will play an important role, as countries in stress come to grips with the need to build the institutions of modern governance. When I think of Canadian strengths, I think of the very beginnings of our country. The British North America Act of 1867, our first constitution, granted to Parliament the power to legislate for the “peace, order and good government” of Canada. This is not a phrase to set the pulse racing but that is not such a bad thing when you are building for the long haul. As the times have changed, Canadian expectations of government have changed as well but “peace, order and good government” have always served as clear standards by which to measure the performance of our institutions. We have I believe another strength in this endeavour that goes back to our founding. When we began as a country, we managed to bind together in one political community, two linguistic groups and two major religious denominations. Over the years, we have added a rich tapestry of other languages, ethnicities and religions, and have striven to address the concerns and claims of our aboriginal peoples. Some like to say that Canada was one of the first “post-modern” states, one of the first countries to explicitly reject the notion that a state consists of one people, one ethnic group with one language and one culture. Canada has never described itself as a “melting pot”; instead, we have always talked of ourselves as a “mosaic”. Perhaps, that is why Sri Lanka has turned to Canadian experts for help in developing a federal solution to its inter-communal strife. Thus, as a major industrialized nation, but never a colonial nor a super power, we have certain unique advantages, as we focus much more than we have in the past on institution building as the essential foundation of a secure, modern state. Advantages we intend to exercise as a major foreign policy thrust. So far, I have talked about institution-building and better governance within countries, but that is only part of the story. There is also an urgent need to make international systems and multilateral institutions work more effectively. The fact is we need better international governance to help spread the benefits of globalization more equitably while also helping countries offset some of it’s inevitable costs. We need multilateral institutions that work because, despite their many frustrations, they carry a legitimacy that no one country can muster on its own. They stand for the principles that every country deserves a seat at the table, has legitimate interests to be met and values to be respected. Now it is easy to complain that this or that institution isn’t working, but let’s stop the buck-passing. Multilateral institutions are us, the sovereign member states. We are accountable for whether they work or not. Most of us would agree that reform of many institutions within and without the UN family is necessary and I won’t take the time today to belabour the obvious. There is, however, one proposal I would like to raise. The responsibility for good international governance falls ultimately upon the shoulders of the political leaders of the world’s sovereign governments. But there is a real problem here; many of today’s international organizations are not designed to facilitate the kinds of informal political debates that must occur between politicians. In short, leaders cannot make the bold decisions required if international fora remain focused only on ratifying the product of bureaucratic negotiations The most fruitful exchanges between leaders often take place in the corridors of great meetings, one on one, far removed from the actual agenda. When leaders do meet in international fora, it is difficult to break free of the “Briefing Book” syndrome and get down to brass tacks, to thinking outside the box. Bureaucrats and diplomats can take an issue so far and no further: only political leaders can make the leap so often required to break an intellectual, emotional or historical impasse. Photo ops are no substitute for political will. We have to find ways for political leaders to work with each other internationally; the way they work with different political constituencies at home – debating, exploring, and searching for value-driven solutions that are inclusive rather than divisive, stabilizing rather than destructive, pragmatic rather than ideological. How do we get there? An approach I believe to be worthwhile would be to look at the lessons learned from the Group of 20 Finance Ministers that was formed in the wake of the Asian financial crisis that began in 1997. We foresaw an informal gathering of Finance Ministers, representing established and emerging centres of influence and coming from very different political, economic, cultural and religious traditions. We wanted to bridge the “us” versus “them” mentality that bedevils so many international meetings, and it has worked remarkably well – because peer pressure is often a very effective way to force decisions. We believe a similar approach among leaders could help crack some of the toughest issues facing the world. We need to get the right mix of countries in the same room, talking without a set script. We are not proposing a new bricks and mortar institution, but we do believe a new approach directly involving political leaders could help break a lot of logjams. I would suggest we should convene a select group of countries from North and South tackling just one issue, and see where that takes us – it could be global terrorism or global public health. For instance, the United States, Canada and other G8 countries, working with the UN, have done much to develop a humane response to the AIDS crisis in Africa. In Canada, our Parliament is legislating changes to allow Canadian companies to provide generic anti-HIV/AIDS drugs to African countries at low cost. We are the first industrialized country to bring forth groundbreaking legislation of this kind. I am very proud of this. But the need for cheap medicines goes beyond AIDS and beyond Africa. Can we not find a balance between the clear need for the intellectual property rights that underwrite much of our medical research and the equally clear need to help alleviate suffering among people who cannot afford the fruits of that research? There are other issues a Leaders’ G-20 could deal with as well, such as rescuing the current round of multilateral trade negotiations, where the biggest stumbling block is agriculture. Agriculture is not simply a trade issue that will be decided solely on its economic merit. In countries like France, Japan and the United States, it is first and foremost a political issue, one which only political leaders. At the highest level can deal with. Everyone agrees the failure of the Doha round is in no one’s interest, and yet failure looms. If the talks collapse, then many countries, rightly or wrongly, will feel that although the international systems we have built over the decades may work for some – they do not work for them. This is a bad message to be sending, especially when we are trying, as a matter of the utmost importance to our security, to reassure countries that we care about their futures, that we want to extend the benefits of globalization to them and see them prosper. Clearly our multilateral institutions need help. We must proceed with major institutional reforms and we must begin now. That being said, reform will take time and we must not let that be an excuse for inaction. The fact is we must pursue a two track approach. One approach is multilateral institutional reform. The other is dealing with urgent issues such as clean water, infectious diseases, market access for agriculture products and global terrorism. Indeed if we begin seriously to address these pressing dilemmas I believe it will facilitate overdue institutional reform. In short let form follow function. We face many tough issues, so let me mention just one more to illustrate that institutional reform and the need to resolve specific issues are mutually reinforcing objectives, all within the context of our greater security. In much of the discussion about good governance, both within countries and internationally, we assume that most governments would prefer to work well on behalf of their citizens rather than remain apart in wretched isolation. But as we know this is not always the case. What of those countries that are unwilling to take the first steps towards responsible National or Global Citizenship. What do we do when their populations face humanitarian catastrophe? What do we do when people are confronted by a culture of hate or violence spawned by their own government as occurred in Rwanda? If a nation violates all accepted standards of responsible behaviour, the question is: do we, the international community, have a responsibility to protect – in this case, to protect a country’s people from their own government? A recent International Commission reported to the United Nations that we do have that responsibility, and it set out various types of acceptable interventions, including measures such as sanctions and military action under certain conditions – including acting under “the right authority”. We in Canada find ourselves very much in agreement with Kofi Annan when he said: “Surely no legal principle, not even sovereignty, can ever shield crimes against humanity”. We believe that humanitarian intervention, under compelling circumstances such as a Rwanda or a Kosovo, is warranted. We reject the argument that state sovereignty confers absolute immunity. As Nobel Peace laureate, Elie Wiesel has said: “neutrality always means coming down on the side of the victimizer – never on the side of the victim” What is required is an open discussion about the need for intervention in situations that offend the most basic precepts of our common humanity. We need clear agreement on principles to help determine when it is appropriate to use force in support of humanitarian objectives. Now some may say that all of this takes us far from the security agenda that we in North America must have in place to protect our own citizens. I don’t believe this to be the case. I suspect neither do you. The points I would make are quite straight forward. First, in terms of North America, we must protect our borders. I can assure you Canada will do more than its share. Second, the best protection we can have at home is a world that works. Here the capacity and hence the responsibility of each of our countries varies. We are not a superpower. That is true. But as I mentioned, this can also be an advantage. Seen holistically rather than piecemeal, the decisions we make as a world will determine whether all the advances we have made in recent decades can work for everyone, or whether hundreds of millions – perhaps billions – of people will be left behind forever. We have to demonstrate to people around the planet that international systems can be made to work for everyone. We have to give every person a stake in good governance, at home and internationally. We have a duty to protect our citizens. Day by day, it becomes clearer that our long-term security requires the spread of freedom around the world, freedom from oppression, freedom from corruption, freedom from hunger and ignorance and hopelessness. Freedom for everyone to live a secure, prosperous, and productive life. We cannot ignore the very real threats to our security posed by terrorists and political thugs who find their genesis not in poverty but in “hate”. But equally, we cannot ignore the long-term security imperative to build a more equitable and safe world for everyone on this planet. Thank you.