What I would like to do this morning is to talk about the need to make the practice of politics more effective at the international level so that the benefits of global interdependence can be spread more fairly.

January 23, 2004
Davos, Switzerland

SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER

Check against delivery

What I would like to do this morning is to talk about the need to make the practice of politics more effective at the international level so that the benefits of global interdependence can be spread more fairly.

At its best, which is not always the case, the domestic political process is open and full of energy. It is about making the right choices among competing interests and priorities, choices which reflect the way ahead. Debates and trade-offs occur – in our Cabinets, in our legislatures, in town halls with our citizens. Eventually decisions are reached.

This is the moment when the values we hold become most explicit, that is to say, in the choices we make as political communities. I say all this because, when we look at the international scene, it is strangely un-political. To a remarkable extent, the dialogue among nations is technocratic and indirect rather than open and free-ranging. It is often concerned more with preserving a process, than with breaking new ground. It is a dialogue that, in the great international meetings, too often proceeds from set pieces read aloud – meetings that are closed to consultation from the outside – far too frequently closed to new ideas.

As many of you know, the most fruitful exchanges between leaders often take place in the corridors of these meetings one on one, and 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 out of the box. Thus, it becomes very difficult at such gatherings to make the leap of faith so often required to break an intellectual or historical logjam.

This is not to say progress doesn’t occur. It’s just that it is so painfully slow. Thus I believe the time has come for us to examine not just the decisions we make, but the ones we don’t make, and then ask ourselves – why not? Let me give you three examples where I believe the debate between political leaders must be lifted from the page – must go from pro forma to real commitment.

First, consider the dilemmas created by the collision between the legal principle of state sovereignty and the growing recognition that outside intervention may, at times, be necessary to protect people from humanitarian disaster when their own governments are unable or unwilling to do so, or in fact may be the cause. When a government 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 its own government?

A recent International Commission of experts reported to the United Nations that we do have that responsibility, and it set out various types of acceptable intervention, including measures such as sanctions and military intervention 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. But we are also sensitive to the fears of some that the concept of intervention could be misused.

What is required is an open discussion about the need for intervention in situations that offend the most basic precepts of our common humanity. Even more to the point, we need clear agreement on principles to help determine when it is appropriate to use force in support of humanitarian objectives.

I know there has been disagreement about Iraq, but that should not shut our minds to the wider debate that is necessary. The simple point I would make about this wider debate, which raises the most profound political and moral questions about the nature of states and our responsibilities to each other, is that it cannot be left to experts and diplomats. They must prepare the way, but the debate simply will not proceed at the pace it should – nor will it reach a conclusion – unless political leaders at the highest level take it in hand.

A second example where an intellectual leap is required – and where only political leadership can provide it – arises out of the collision between intellectual property rights and the need to provide low cost medicines to the poorest nations in the world.

The need for intellectual property rights is undeniable. They promote research and innovation, encourage and protect investment, and ensure that our scientists, artists and inventors receive a just reward for their dedication and creativity. But there is also a moral obligation to help relieve someone’s suffering if we are able. It is wrong, simply wrong, to let people die because they don’t have the money. It is also very shortsighted.

Where do we strike the balance? Work is underway.

There is the global campaign to provide cheap medicines against HIV/AIDS. In Canada, we will soon be passing legislation that will allow Canadian companies to provide generic anti-HIV/AIDS drugs to African countries at low costs.

These are important initiatives, but they only set us partway. In Canada and other developed countries, we have systems to ensure medicines for everyone who needs them. We both sustain intellectual property rights and provide medicines for our poor. Developing countries cannot afford such systems, and there is no global system in place that can protect intellectual property rights, while also ensuring that medications reach the poorest among us.

The question is: must every case of need, every new disease, spark a new debate? Or can we have an open, political discussion that maps out general principles so that the world can react compassionately and comprehensively to new health crises?

The question is, does humanity stop at a nation’s borders? The answer must be no.

Thus, we have to broaden our traditional ideas about the responsibilities of sovereign states, not only the responsibilities of rich nations towards poor ones,
but of all countries to each other.

Which leads me to my third example of the kinds of dilemmas posed by modern
interdependence – our stewardship of the global commons, of the resources that are the common heritage of all humankind. Civilized countries no longer allow the unregulated pillage of their own natural resources. Why then, do we allow the pillage of international resources?

One appalling example is over-fishing on the high seas. We were once guilty of it in Canada, but we have taken very tough measures to stop it. We are pleased that the European Union recently ratified the UN’s Convention on straddling stocks. But there are still countries – some poor, but especially some very rich ones – that are not doing nearly enough. In those cases, the politics of responsibility again seems to stop at national borders, and that is no longer acceptable in an interdependent world.

The first obligation of sovereign states is to their own citizens. That is clear. But even just to do that properly in an interdependent world, states have to be engaged beyond their borders. Further, all states today have as well a real and legitimate stake in the welfare of other countries, and that confers a special obligation on political leaders to make our international systems work for the welfare of all.

And this brings me back to the question I put to you at the beginning of these remarks. What are the institutions and structures that will allow leaders to engage as a political community?

The problem with many of today’s international organizations is that they are not designed to facilitate the kinds of informal political debates that must occur. More to the point, if the international FORA, at which bold decisions are required, remain focused on the ratification of bureaucratic negotiation with little political push, the tendency will be to use them as an excuse for inaction.

In short, photo ops are no substitute for political will. Political leaders must work with each other internationally the way they work at home, when they work well –
debating, exploring, searching for value-driven solutions that are inclusive rather than divisive, stabilizing rather than destructive, pragmatic rather than ideological.

This was the thinking that motivated us when Canada worked with other nations to establish the Group of 20 in the wake of the Asian financial crisis. We foresaw an informal gathering of Finance Ministers coming from all regions of the world, representing very different political, economic, cultural and religious traditions. It has worked well, because the Finance Ministers are able, at the table, to bring peer pressure on one another to force decisions on items that would otherwise be stalled forever.

For instance, it was at a G-20 Finance Ministers Meeting that the Washington Consensus on financial liberalization was modified to include the need for stronger social programmes on a parallel basis. This became known as the Montreal Consensus.

The main objective for the G-20 was to bridge the divides – the “us” versus “them” – that have harmed so many international FORA. We saw this problem most recently at the World Trade Organization meeting last September in Cancun, where the G-22 caucus of developing countries took on the major developed nations on the issue of agriculture. Each represented only one side of the issue – and the talks failed.

Think of how much better it would have been if the major players on both sides of the agricultural divide had been at the same table – with a track record of discussing complex issues, forcing debate to needed conclusion. Now some may say that that is what happened, simply that the conclusion was negative. Let me say, very occasional meetings across a divide are not what I’m suggesting.

If you believe, as we do in Canada, that progress on these tough issues is in everybody’s interest, then we have to get the right mix of countries into the same room at the same time, and most importantly on a regular yet informal basis. We need some soul-searching, some head-knocking, and, above all else, some honest talk about what kind of world we want 5 or 10 or 20 years down the road.
We are not going to do that with 100 countries around the table, nor in small groups, if leaders are absent.

I don’t think we can simply ignore or sideline the G-20 experience which demonstrates that, in an informal setting, countries with very different perspectives can find common ground and work to common purpose.

Which takes me to my second line of attack: a G-20 can help drive the agenda,
but it cannot replace our international institutions. We need multilateral institutions that work. Not as ideological ends in themselves, but as indispensable instruments of national well-being. No one nation can manage the consequences of interdependence on its own. We can work with our neighbours, with our friends and allies, with our regional and global partners. But work together we must.

At the centre of this international network sits the United Nations. If it doesn’t work, then let’s not kid ourselves, the work of every national capital will be severely hobbled.

The United Nations has to work because it reminds us, like no other institution –
that all nations have interests that demand recognition, and all nations have responsibilities towards each other that they cannot shirk. The UN stands at the centre of the global vision – battered but crucial to defend – that says: it either works for all, or it doesn’t work at all.

The mandates, structures and voting procedures of the UN system largely reflect
the geopolitical landscape that emerged from World War II. If they are not reformed to reflect today’s realities and tomorrow’s challenges, they will be increasingly bypassed.

Understandably, the Security Council dominates the reform debate, but there are many other areas we should be looking at as well. Can we weed out some of the overlap, and make sure that agencies co-operate with each other for the benefit of their member states – and not fight with each other to protect their own institutional interests.

Unequivocally we should be engaging other Ministers – not just foreign Ministers– more directly in the work of UN bodies such as its Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), to breathe a little more realism and urgency into their deliberations. And if they cannot attract participation by more Ministers, that should tell us something about whether we need a more radical rethink about how we want those institutions to work.

In summary, the issue is, how does the world resolve the policy dilemmas that pit worthwhile objectives against each other. Issue by issue, the stakes are high. The more important the subject, the more important the values that it engages. Seen holistically rather than piecemeal, the decisions we make will determine whether all the advances we have made in recent decades can work for everyone, or whether hundreds of millions of people – perhaps billions – will be left behind forever.

If I have spoken today of the role that leaders must play, it is because domestically, political leadership is an important catalyst for change. For instance it is a subject, one way or another, in every election campaign. No candidate for public office would dare to say to his or her voters: “I’m going to ignore your problem or my officials will study it to death”– which is the same thing. Yet that is precisely what too many of us are saying about the issues beyond our borders.

The question is – what is the future of global interdependence? The answer will be found in the response provided by the political leadership in the Nation’s Capitals. One last point – it will also be found in the leadership of the people in this room. This room has great capacity to influence the course of events. Not only here in Davos, but when you go back home.

Most of the people in this room have benefited from the economic opportunities
created by modern interdependence. We all have a stake in seeing international systems work well, and I firmly believe they cannot work unless they work for all the people of the world. If we fail to make interdependence work, the consequence will be dire and our children and grandchildren will rightly lay the blame at our feet.

This is the greatest challenge of our era. For me, I remain, now and forever, an optimist.


Thank you.