NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE LLOYD

AXWORTHY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO A

CONFERENCE ON UN REFORM AT THE KENNEDY SCHOOL,

HARVARD UNIVERSITY "THE NEW DIPLOMACY: THE UN,

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND THE HUMAN

SECURITY AGENDA"

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts

April 25, 1998

I am glad to see that even though this is Harvard, you have come out to hear

a Princeton graduate speak. You could say it's a little like inviting Fidel

Castro to speak at a Jesse Helms supporters meeting! But if you are willing

to be broad-minded about it, then so am I.

It is particularly fitting that we have met to discuss the future of the

United Nations (UN), including proposals for a new International Criminal

Court (ICC). After all, Canada and the United States have both strongly

supported the UN from its inception. In fact, the United States bears much

of the credit for bringing the UN into being. Harry S. Truman, recalling the

1945 founding conference, said that those who were there "set down on paper

the only principles which will enable civilized human life to continue to

survive on this globe."

Through the darkest years of the Cold War, the United Nations did just that.

As Henry Cabot Lodge, the former Republican Senator and United States

Ambassador to the UN pointed out, however dull the debates, they were always

preferable to the alternative - war. Now, however, the world in which the UN

was founded is being transformed. The UN is being called upon to address

issues and challenges wholly, unlike those of the past.

At this critical juncture, Canadians are concerned at the apparent

reluctance of the United States to sustain its leadership role in the UN in

terms of rule of law and collective security. On a growing number of issues

- payment of dues, Security Council reform and limits on peacekeeping

operations - we find ourselves at odds with an influential body of American

opinion.

We are not, I should add, at odds with the vast majority of ordinary

Americans, who in polls have supported U.S. presence and participation in

the UN. Nonetheless, it is an uncomfortable and unusual situation for Canada

to disagree with a dominant strand of U.S. political opinion on a matter

related to the UN. But we feel strongly that we cannot shift on such basic

principles as all members paying their assessed dues in full and on time.

Any departure from this seriously endangers the UN.

The hostility towards the UN in some quarters in the United States is

particularly unfortunate when the world cries out as never before for

UN-sponsored negotiation, co-ordination and intervention. From the Persian

Gulf to Central Africa, from Afghanistan to Haiti, the need for the UN and

its dependent organizations is clear and pressing; yet at almost every turn

it finds itself hampered, whether by lack of money or by lack of a mandate

from the Security Council.

In the campaign to ban landmines, for example, we had to go outside the UN's

Conference on Disarmament to get an effective ban convention. This was not

because of any disdain for that venue - quite the contrary - but because we

saw that, if wewanted a complete and effective ban in our own lifetimes, we

would have to find another way. At a moment of opportunity, the UN found

itself structurally and politically hindered from taking action.

The very tectonic plates that underlie the international landscape are

shifting. If the UN is to remain relevant, it must have the funds, the

political support and the new structures that will allow it to respond to

these changes.

At the time that the UN was founded, Foreign Ministers concerned themselves

mainly with the security of national borders: the welfare of individual

citizens was the purview of Ministers of the Interior. But as borders become

increasingly porous, and Cold War threats fade, foreign policy practitioners

deal increasingly with issues directly affecting the daily lives of

individuals: crime, drugs, terrorism, pollution, human rights abuses,

epidemics and the like.

War itself has changed, with disastrous consequences for the security and

lives of many individuals. The Canadian scholar, Kalevi Holsti, has shown

that since 1945, traditional wars between states have become less and less

common, and internal conflicts more and more so. He cites figures that by

the 1970s, 90 percent of all deaths in armed combat were in civil wars, and

a further 90 percent of that 90 percent were civilian casualties. The human

impact of these low tech, long-lived wars, which often explicitly target

women and children, is huge.

This trend presents an acute dilemma for the United Nations, which finds

itself torn between intervening in severe humanitarian crises and respecting

national sovereignty. To date, it has responded largely on an ad hoc basis,

although always with the terrible lessons of Central Africa and the former

Yugoslavia in mind. Gradually, though, new ways of thinking are emerging

that address this dilemma. As part of its reform efforts, the UN is

developing formal mechanisms and structures that respond to new demands.

A key element of this new thinking is what has been called "human security."

Essentially, this is the idea that security goals should be primarily

formulated and achieved in terms of human, rather than state, needs. Let me

give a brief example of what this means in practical terms.

The campaign that led to the signing last December of the convention banning

anti-personnel mines was based on a human security approach. We started from

the premise that the threat to life and limb of millions of individuals

should take precedence over military and national security interests.

Why was an unlikely coalition of NGOs, humanitarian organizations and

non-major powers able to advance the agenda so significantly in an area

seen, until recently, as a backwater of disarmament efforts? The answer, I

believe, lies in the growing importance of "soft power" internationally.

As you are probably aware, Joseph Nye used this term at the start of the

decade to define an increasingly important aspect of the conduct of

international relations in a globalized, integrated world - the power to

co-opt, rather than coerce, others to your agenda and goals. In Nye's view,

military and economic power, while still important, did not have the

overwhelming pre-eminence they once did. Instead, the ability to

communicate, negotiate, mobilize opinion, work within multilateral bodies

and promote international initiatives was increasingly effective in

achieving international outcomes.

Soft power is particularly useful in addressing the many pressing problems

that do not pit one state against another, but rather a group of states

against some transnational threat to human security. When there is mutual

benefit to finding a solution, skills in coalition-building become

increasingly important. This was the case in the landmines campaign, where

major exporters and major users worked together to establish a new

international norm that stigmatized these weapons.

The application of soft power to human security problems, like the landmines

crisis, has turned the spotlight on a venerable area of international

affairs - humanitarian law, sometimes known as the "law of war." This mix of

old and new may seem surprising at first. On reflection, though, it is

hardly surprising that as the nature of conflict changes, the old rules on

arms control and the treatment of individuals in times of war must change

too.

As we begin to understand these changes better, we are increasingly able to

draw on soft power to reinvigorate humanitarian law and develop new norms

within it. My hope is that the international community will be able to use

the same approach to resolve other pressing human security issues such as

the proliferation of small arms and the use of child soldiers in armed

conflicts.

The international community is currently engaged in negotiations towards an

agreement that would revolutionize our approach to human security and

humanitarian law - negotiations on an International Criminal Court. This is,

I believe, a major element of a reinvigorated UN, ready to face a new era.

For this reason, I have chosen to focus on it in my remarks today,

recognizing that there are many other areas of UN reform that should also be

pursued.

The reverse side of human security is human responsibility. Those who commit

the most heinous crimes in times of conflict must be held accountable for

their actions. This is crucial to rebuilding peace in societies shattered by

war. Without justice there is no reconciliation, and without reconciliation

there is no lasting peace.

You may already be aware of the work of the International Tribunals for the

Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, situated in the Hague and in Arusha. Although

hampered by a lack of resources and resistance from some quarters, the

Tribunals are building great momentum in bringing war criminals to justice.

The International Criminal Court would permanently establish an impartial

international venue to try those who flout the norms of humanitarian law,

who might otherwise escape justice. This is not a new idea; it has been

proposed in the past on both sides of the political spectrum. The Republican

Senator Robert Taft argued that "Peace in the world can only come...if there

is a tribunal which can interpret that law and decide disputes between

nations, and if nations are willing to submit their disputes to impartial

decision regardless of the outcome."

However, this is not simply a question of establishing a structure. The

International Criminal Court must be a court worth having - one that is

effective and independent. As with the landmines convention, a lowest common

denominator agreement on a court is likely to be worse than no agreement at

all.

Canada has been working with a group of like-minded states - once again, an

exercise in soft power diplomacy - to draw up the outline of what an

effective, independent court would look like. Several cornerstone principles

have emerged from this work, which outline a court with four basic

attributes:

* first, inherent jurisdiction over the core crimes of genocide, crimes

against humanity and war crimes, including those committed during wars

within, as well as between, states;

* second, a constructive relationship with the Security Council in which

the independence and impartiality of the Court are preserved;

* third, an independent Prosecutor who is able to initiate proceedings,

rather than ICC jurisdiction being "triggered" only by a state

complaint or a Security Council referral; and

* fourth, a special focus on the experiences of women and of children in

armed conflict - for example, recognizing rapeand the recruiting of

children in times of conflict as war crimes.

Some, concerned about state sovereignty and about politicization of the ICC,

argue for a weaker Court, or even none at all. I understand that the

Pentagon recently called in military representatives of other nations to

paint for them an alarming picture of young GIs being brought before a

politically motivated kangaroo court. I believe that an International

Criminal Court in the form we propose provides no basis for any such fears.

In the first place, the Prosecutor will be a professional whose work will be

subject to the checks and balances provided by the ICC statute, which will

screen out frivolous complaints. The work of Justice Louise Arbour, the

Chief Prosecutor for the Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, is

a sterling example of the quality and independence we can expect in a

permanent court. If anything, I believe that complaints initiated by an

independent Prosecutor are much less likely to be politically motivated than

those that might be raised by states.

In the second place, it is important to remember that the ICC would be an

instance of last resort. It will only investigate complaints that a state

either cannot, or will not, prosecute. Any state that diligently

investigates and prosecutes those responsible for serious crimes will

thereby ensure that the ICC will not take up those cases. The ICC's prime

focus is likely to be cases where state authority has collapsed, so there is

no other authority that can bring a case to justice, or instances where

states themselves have committed these extremely serious crimes.

With a court of this sort - effective, independent and professional - I

cannot imagine any situation under which American soldiers would find

themselves dragged before the ICC on political charges of dubious value.

What I can see is a court that would allow the United States to fulfil key

aims, such as bringing Khmer Rouge leaders to trial for genocide. Until Pol

Pot's recent death, the U.S. government had been in discussion with the

Tribunals on Rwanda and Yugoslavia for lack of a better venue - a venue that

a permanent ICC would provide.

I see a court that would allow us to address some of the most troubling

human security issues the international community faces today, when those

who torture, rape or murder civilians in times of conflict all too often go

free. I see a court that would embody the high ideals of the Nuremburg

trials - to ensure that genocide did not go unpunished - but would improve

on their methods by providing a truly impartial international justice.

It is always tempting, when one is powerful, to resort to rule by power. It

is greatly to the credit of the United States thatdespite its immense power,

it has chosen over the years to promote and to submit itself to the

international rule of law. So it is with all the more distress that as close

friends and allies, we see the United States diverging from this path to

cede to domestic concerns that should not, and need not, pose insurmountable

obstacles.

After all, U.S. citizens have a direct stake in ensuring that international

law is respected. As your former Undersecretary of State David Newsom wrote

recently in the Christian Science Monitor, "If the U.S. will not accept its

obligations to the citizens of other lands, its own citizens will be less

safe abroad."

Some will tell you that hard-nosed realism requires the United States to

take a hard line stance on the ICC, on landmines, on UN reform and a host of

other issues. Supporters of this "real politik" view pride themselves on

their hard-headed approach. But, in fact, it is they who are refusing to

recognize that international realities have changed. The true realists

recognize that addressing non-traditional problems requires new approaches

and new tools. They recognize that in UN reform and the broader human

security agenda, zero-sum equations of hard power apply less and less. They

recognize that it is time to work together to face the challenges and

opportunities of a new era.

Soon after the UN was established, Lester Pearson [Canadian Prime Minister

1963-1968] noted that "there are no fireproof houses in the atomic age, or

little countries far away, like Czechoslovakia in 1938, whose fate means

nothing to us. No longer do we insist that we are the producers of security

to be consumed by others, a feeling which is a basic source of

isolationism."

The world has changed profoundly since he spoke those words, but the

sentiment is one that we would do well to remember today.

Thank you.