Lloyd Axworthy
As rescue workers continue their painful search through the debris, as families of victims move from shock to private grief, as the media resumes regular coverage and sporting events return, the shock waves from the surprise terrorist attacks against the United States continue to reverberate around the world.
The foundations that are being shaken are not those of cement and steel. They are the assumptions, practices and policies upon which our international security system has been based: inviolate borders, sovereignty, defence of the nation state. Now, it is human security that is at stake.
Risks today are borne by innocent civilians who catch an early morning commercial flight at a Boston airport only to become passengers on a deadly projectile, by young children who have the misfortune to be playing in the streets of Freetown, Sierra Leone, when a crazed rebel army wields its machetes, by families who face expulsion in Kosova for no other reason than they are Muslim; by aid workers in Afghanistan who face execution for the crime of helping those in need. Security, once measured by the size of a nation's army, is now a matter of protecting individuals against the risks of living in a global community where no one is immune, where targets are those most vulnerable and governments, even the most powerful, are rendered impotent.
Security threats today come less from military forces and increasingly from the international criminal, drug trafficker, political extremist, small arms vendor, warlord, or petty tyrant. These people are adept at using the modem tools of organization and intelligence gathering and know how to exploit global communications technology. They are well funded, often with superior resources to the enforcement agencies they confront. They are skilled at the techniques of infiltration and sabotage. And, they prey upon ordinary people. They are the underworld, the dark side of our global system.
This changing global character of the security threat is not a recent discovery. it has been on the agenda at international gatherings for several years. The G8 has had annual discussions on a global response to terrorism, and several major treaties have been negotiated and ratified under UN auspices. But the rhetoric has far outweighed the commitment to collaborative international action. The prevailing attitude has been that the human security challenge could and should be managed primarily by domestic measures such as tighter controls at borders, or through conventional military responses such as surgical bombing strikes. Multilateralism of an effective kind was simply not a priority.
The aftermath of Tuesday's attack may change this. There are three promising signs: First is the recognition that existing defences don't work and that even the United States, with all its military might and far reaching intelligence network, was penetrated by a disciplined ring of zealots. Second, is the rallying of support by friends and allies conveying the message that we are all in this together. Third, is the initiative put forward by the Bush Administration for an international coalition to fight terrorism, a clear departure from its previous postures eschewing collective responses to global issues. NATO's decision to invoke Article Five, the collective security clause that considers attack against one member as an attack against all, reinforces this approach.
One could see such "coalition building" as a ploy to gather support for a military strike. But, Prime Minister Chrétien got it right when he indicated that this solidarity was not a blank cheque for quick military intervention. His prudence should prevail. Only if there is a bona fide international mandate and a clear, culpable target, should Canada join in any military action.
What is also in the offing is the opportunity for a number of nations to work together to apprehend the guilty parties. While it may not serve the same visceral urges for revenge that a military action provides, the coalition would better serve the battle against terrorism by using due process under international law to bring the culprits to justice. We have the mechanisms, we need only the will to use them, as we have in Rwanda and the Balkans.
More than that, this international coalition is in a position to begin constructing a highly integrated world wide system of intelligence sharing, police coordination, passport control, travel surveillance and judicial enforcement against terrorists and their supporters.
This must be based on a new framework of international agreements setting out responsibilities of governments and individuals on such issues as harbouring suspected terrorists, financing their activities, and cooperating on arrest and trial. Those countries found to have aided and abetted terrorists will be named, shamed and sanctioned. And even our closest allies must understand the need to have no truck nor trade with those who feed terror.
Canada can play an active role in shaping this agenda. I suggest we promote the idea that the Statute of Rome establishing the International Criminal Court be amended to include terrorist attacks against civilians to be a crime against humanity. We have been a leading advocate of human security and can impart some valuable lessons. Most germane is the need to make this an inclusive process, to widen the participation beyond NATO and a few other big players.
The Human Security Centre in Amman, Jordan, funded by Canada, could be the place to start a major dialogue within the Middle East on how these countries might contribute to a new anti-terrorist frame work But to that end, a fair and equitable resolution of the 53-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict must be found, so that all parties in the region will feel encouraged to contribute to the greater good of us all. indeed, if an anti-terror initiative is to work, less-developed nations all over the world must be persuaded that we in the industrialized world view them as fellow victims of terror and not suspect them unreasonably as perpetrators.
Canada must also look seriously to security issues at home. We have been lax in getting anti-terrorist financing legislation passed; there are still unsettled issues in our negotiations with the United States over the regulation of international arms trade, and the reform of the procedures for passport application is still pending discussions with the provinces. As well, the U.S. ambassador has raised the matter of synchronizing immigration procedures.
These issues need tending if we are to be credible. However, there should not be a rush to judgement, with hasty decisions being propelled by the mood of the moment. There needs to be reasoned and open public debate.
The issue of Canada's human security policy, must be the subject of a major parliamentary study. These are issues crucial to Canadians and crucial to our position in the world. Canadians care. They should be given the chance to be heard. Since Tuesday's attack, commentators have agreed that the world will never be the same. The question is will it be a better world, or will this tragic event plunge us into a world of division and holy war? I expect that whoever was behind attacks would welcome the latter. We must do everything in our power to resist.
The foundations that are being shaken are not those of cement and steel. They are the assumptions, practices and policies upon which our international security system has been based: inviolate borders, sovereignty, defence of the nation state. Now, it is human security that is at stake.
Risks today are borne by innocent civilians who catch an early morning commercial flight at a Boston airport only to become passengers on a deadly projectile, by young children who have the misfortune to be playing in the streets of Freetown, Sierra Leone, when a crazed rebel army wields its machetes, by families who face expulsion in Kosova for no other reason than they are Muslim; by aid workers in Afghanistan who face execution for the crime of helping those in need. Security, once measured by the size of a nation's army, is now a matter of protecting individuals against the risks of living in a global community where no one is immune, where targets are those most vulnerable and governments, even the most powerful, are rendered impotent.
Security threats today come less from military forces and increasingly from the international criminal, drug trafficker, political extremist, small arms vendor, warlord, or petty tyrant. These people are adept at using the modem tools of organization and intelligence gathering and know how to exploit global communications technology. They are well funded, often with superior resources to the enforcement agencies they confront. They are skilled at the techniques of infiltration and sabotage. And, they prey upon ordinary people. They are the underworld, the dark side of our global system.
This changing global character of the security threat is not a recent discovery. it has been on the agenda at international gatherings for several years. The G8 has had annual discussions on a global response to terrorism, and several major treaties have been negotiated and ratified under UN auspices. But the rhetoric has far outweighed the commitment to collaborative international action. The prevailing attitude has been that the human security challenge could and should be managed primarily by domestic measures such as tighter controls at borders, or through conventional military responses such as surgical bombing strikes. Multilateralism of an effective kind was simply not a priority.
The aftermath of Tuesday's attack may change this. There are three promising signs: First is the recognition that existing defences don't work and that even the United States, with all its military might and far reaching intelligence network, was penetrated by a disciplined ring of zealots. Second, is the rallying of support by friends and allies conveying the message that we are all in this together. Third, is the initiative put forward by the Bush Administration for an international coalition to fight terrorism, a clear departure from its previous postures eschewing collective responses to global issues. NATO's decision to invoke Article Five, the collective security clause that considers attack against one member as an attack against all, reinforces this approach.
One could see such "coalition building" as a ploy to gather support for a military strike. But, Prime Minister Chrétien got it right when he indicated that this solidarity was not a blank cheque for quick military intervention. His prudence should prevail. Only if there is a bona fide international mandate and a clear, culpable target, should Canada join in any military action.
What is also in the offing is the opportunity for a number of nations to work together to apprehend the guilty parties. While it may not serve the same visceral urges for revenge that a military action provides, the coalition would better serve the battle against terrorism by using due process under international law to bring the culprits to justice. We have the mechanisms, we need only the will to use them, as we have in Rwanda and the Balkans.
More than that, this international coalition is in a position to begin constructing a highly integrated world wide system of intelligence sharing, police coordination, passport control, travel surveillance and judicial enforcement against terrorists and their supporters.
This must be based on a new framework of international agreements setting out responsibilities of governments and individuals on such issues as harbouring suspected terrorists, financing their activities, and cooperating on arrest and trial. Those countries found to have aided and abetted terrorists will be named, shamed and sanctioned. And even our closest allies must understand the need to have no truck nor trade with those who feed terror.
Canada can play an active role in shaping this agenda. I suggest we promote the idea that the Statute of Rome establishing the International Criminal Court be amended to include terrorist attacks against civilians to be a crime against humanity. We have been a leading advocate of human security and can impart some valuable lessons. Most germane is the need to make this an inclusive process, to widen the participation beyond NATO and a few other big players.
The Human Security Centre in Amman, Jordan, funded by Canada, could be the place to start a major dialogue within the Middle East on how these countries might contribute to a new anti-terrorist frame work But to that end, a fair and equitable resolution of the 53-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict must be found, so that all parties in the region will feel encouraged to contribute to the greater good of us all. indeed, if an anti-terror initiative is to work, less-developed nations all over the world must be persuaded that we in the industrialized world view them as fellow victims of terror and not suspect them unreasonably as perpetrators.
Canada must also look seriously to security issues at home. We have been lax in getting anti-terrorist financing legislation passed; there are still unsettled issues in our negotiations with the United States over the regulation of international arms trade, and the reform of the procedures for passport application is still pending discussions with the provinces. As well, the U.S. ambassador has raised the matter of synchronizing immigration procedures.
These issues need tending if we are to be credible. However, there should not be a rush to judgement, with hasty decisions being propelled by the mood of the moment. There needs to be reasoned and open public debate.
The issue of Canada's human security policy, must be the subject of a major parliamentary study. These are issues crucial to Canadians and crucial to our position in the world. Canadians care. They should be given the chance to be heard. Since Tuesday's attack, commentators have agreed that the world will never be the same. The question is will it be a better world, or will this tragic event plunge us into a world of division and holy war? I expect that whoever was behind attacks would welcome the latter. We must do everything in our power to resist.
<< Home