“Canada
and the World”
an
exclusive conversation with the
Hon.
John Manley, MP
Minister
of Foreign Affairs
By
Thomas S. Saras
Editor-In-Chief
“I
believe that Canadian foreign policy is based on a solid foundation of
principles that have remained remarkably consistent over the years:
national unity; political liberty; the rule of law; human values; and
international responsibility… helping to build a better world – a
world that is just, democratic, safer and more economically
prosperous…”
John Manley
Minister
of Foreign Affairs
Portrait
of the Politician
The
Honourable John Manley was born in Ottawa, Ontario, on January 5, 1950. He
graduated from Carlton University with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in 1971.
He studied at L’ Universite de Lausanne-Ecole francaise moderne in 1972
and then studied law at the University of Ottawa, graduating in 1976. From
1976 to 1977 he served as Law Clerk for the Right Honourable Bora Laskin,
Chief Justice of Canada. He has also been awarded an honorary doctorate
from the University of Ottawa.
Before
entering politics, Mr. Manley practiced business and income tax law in
Ottawa as a partner with the law firm of Perley-Robertston, Panet, Hill
& McDougall. He also served as Chairman of the Ottawa-Carlton Board of
Trade from 1985 to 1986.
Mr.
Manley first ran for Parliament as a Liberal candidate in 1988 because of
his commitment to achieving positive changes for the people of his
constituency in Ottawa South and his desire to contribute to preparing
Canada and Canadians for the 21st century.
Successfully
elected to Parliament, he served as the Opposition Critic for Science and
Technology, the Co-Critic for Finance and Chair of the finance
Sub-Committee studying the Bank of Canada. In 1992 he was appointed
Official Opposition Critic for Transport.
Mr.
Manley was appointed Minister of Industry in 1993. As Minister of Industry
he worked to ensure that every Canadian public school and library was
connected to the Internet through a program called SchoolNet by March of
1999. He also worked to foster innovation among the 13 agencies that make
up the Industry portfolio, ranging from the Canadian Space Agency and the
National Research Council, to the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council,
to ensure Canada’s position as a global leader in high technology. His
leadership thus far-ranging Department helped to create an environment in
which Canadians were able to seize and build on new opportunities.
In
1996, Mr. Manley was, in addition, appointed Minister responsible for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, and Minister responsible for the Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec.
John
Manley married Judith Rae in 1973. They have three children.
The
interview
Thomas
Saras: Mr. Minister, how do you think
globalization affects the political and economic development of Canada?
Does the Canadian government, as an organized administration, have any
programs or strategies for the evolvement of the opportunities through
globalization?
John
Manley:
Globalization acts as a force for inclusiveness and
interdependency, not just for economies, but for cultures. Knowledge,
culture, and communications are the key, not only to technical progress
and economic prosperity, but also to social cohesion and sustainable
development. In its essence, the issue that globalization puts before us
is one of governance, both at the national and international level. The
information technology at our disposal to empower our citizenry, to foster
learning and innovation, and, on the most fundamental level, to improve
the quality of human lives.
Empowered
by information and new communications channels, people want a more direct
say in decision-making. Effective and meaningful citizen engagement has
quickly become a vital component of responsible governance. We, in turn,
are working to address this by providing more and better on-line services
and information to Canadians, and utilizing these tools to ensure more
effective citizen engagement.
To
address both the challenges and opportunities of globalization our
government has made connectivity a priority. Our Connecting Canadians
program has linked every school and public library in the country to the
internet. We will put all major government services on-line by 2004. Our
efforts are paying dividends, as Canada is a world leader in connectivity.
TS:
What are we aiming at with our present foreign policy in
correlation with the international community?
JM:
I believe that Canadian foreign policy is based on a solid
foundation of principles that have remained remarkably consistent over the
years: national unity; political liberty; the rule of law; human values;
and international responsibility. We are pursuing a foreign policy that is
both values-based and interests-based. In helping to build a better world
– a world that is just, democratic, safer and more economically
prosperous – we are, in fact, helping to build a better Canada and
improving the quality of life for Canadians.
We
have had some great foreign policy successes in the last few years: the
Team Canada approach to trade and investment, the North American Free
Trade Agreement, the Ottawa Convention banning landmines, our
participation in the NATO-led Kosovo campaign, and our support for the
International Criminal Court.
Looking
ahead, I believe that we need to build on these successes while also
responding to new trends and challenges that will affect us in the coming
years. For example, our relationship with the United States is critical to
our prosperity and security. We need to refine our vision of our place in
North America across a wide range of economic and political issues. We
also need to come to terms with significant changes in both the security
and development fields. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
the fight against transnational organized crime, the trade in illicit
drugs and terrorism, and intrastate conflict, all pose very direct
challenges to our security. In addition, widespread poverty all-too-often
leads to weak and failing states, which in turn can represent a major
source of global and regional insecurity.
We
should continue to work to connect Canadians with the world, and help to
build transparent, connected, knowledge-based societies. In doing so, we
can help to strengthen democracy, increase social and economic empowerment
and create new opportunities. Finally, in 2002 we will be assuming the
Presidency of the G8. The annual Leaders’ Summit and Foreign
Ministers’ meeting represents an important opportunity to share ideas
and promote better management of the economic and social issues arising
from globalization.
TS:
Do you believe that the policy of this administration of Canada can
influence the international developments at the level of the United
Nations?
JM:
Canada has been an active and committed participant in
international affairs and developments at the level of the United Nations
since its founding in 1945, when Canada played a key role in the drafting
of the Charter at San Francisco. Individual Canadians have served vital
roles within the United Nations, and many of the Organization’s
significant achievements have had a Canadian dimension. For example, 50
years ago, John Humphrey was the principal author of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; Lester Pearson helped create the concept of
peacekeeping, winning the Nobel Prize for his efforts to resolve the Suez
Crisis in 1956; and Maurice Strong chaired both the 1972 UNI Conference on
the Human Environment in Stockholm and the 1992 UNI Conference on
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (and also served as founding
Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program). In 1998, a
Canadian, Louise Frechette, was appointed the first-ever UN Deputy
Secretary-General as part of Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s ongoing
efforts to reform the Organization.
The
current administration of the Canadian Government is no exception in
actively promoting the purposes and principles of the United Nations, as
Prime Minister Chretien reaffirmed at the Millennium Summit in September
2000. This was demonstrated most recently during Canada’s term as a
non-permanent Member of the UN Security Council (1999-2000), which
provided opportunities to address the changing international agenda and
the wave of new peace support demands, in the face of high expectations.
During Canada’s two-year term on the Security Council (1999-2000), all
three objectives set during our election campaign were achieved:
1.
To
promote human security as a compliment to the Council’s traditionally
state-centered approach to peace and security.
Canada used its two-year term and particularly its Presidency in
2000, to advance human security issues, notably the issue of the
protection of civilians in armed conflict. Canada convened open meetings
of the Council, resulting in preparation of a second Report by the
Secretary-General, and adoption of a resolution committing the Council to
stronger action for the protection of civilians. The Council consequently
has an agreed inventory of preventive and enforcement options for reducing
the civilian toll of modern conflict. The protection of civilians is now
an integral part of the Council’s discourse and action.
During
Canada’s term on the Council, two new peacekeeping operations were given
mandates to protect civilians with force if necessary (Sierra Leone,
Democratic Republic of Congo). The outcome of these efforts is that
protection of civilians has become an important and operational
consideration when peacekeeping mandates and sanctions regimes are
negotiated in the Council.
2.
To restore the Council’s credibility and effectiveness in maintaining
international peace and security. Canada
devoted special attention to strengthening the instruments at the disposal
of the Council. As Chair of the Angola Sanctions Committee, Canada took
the initiative to make sanctions work, which became a significant factor
in encouraging UNITA rebels to return to the negotiating table. This was
achieved by naming publicly the violators (among them, African and
European governments), establishing monitoring mechanisms, and tightening
the overall sanctions regime. Canadian innovations on sanctions in Angola
are now being applied elsewhere, e.g., Sierra Leone.
As
President of the Council, Canada chaired an open meeting of the Council on
the report of the Independent Inquiry on Rwanda, to examine lessons
learned for UN peacekeeping from the experiences in Rwanda and Srebrenica.
Canada argued successfully at the Council for adequate military, political
and humanitarian briefings as a sound basis for decisions on peacekeeping
mandates. Canada has also contributed to enhanced consultations between
the Council and troop contributing countries on a regular basis. Canada
has continued to push for overall sanctions reform to develop better
targeted, “smart sanctions”, with less collateral impact on civilian
populations.
3. To increase openness, transparency
and accountability. Canada was persistent in advocating the need
for a culture of transparency, and provided leadership by holding frequent
open meetings of the Council during our two Presidencies. Today there are
as many as two open meetings per week, in contrast to the former practice
of one or two per month. Canada promoted a more inclusive Council by
inviting the heads of UN Specialized Agencies (UNHCR, UNICEF, OHCHR) and
of non-governmental bodies (Red Cross, Oxfam) to address the Council at
key debates.
“In Canada, I believe, we are positioned to rise to this challenge as a society that is characterized by its diversity and inclusiveness, and as a strong economy that has been transformed by the technological revolution. We know that the realization of a just, prosperous society depends on our ability to combine these attributes at home and in our partnerships within the global community…” – John Manley
TS:
Traditionally, Canada boasts for the creation of an independent
foreign policy. Do you believe in the necessity of the continuation of
this tradition, and how do you think you will succeed in imposing it?
JM:
When I first came to this portfolio last October, it was with a
strong belief that Canada is one of those countries that really can and
does make a difference in the world. This is due in no small part to the
values that tie us together as Canadians, and that we project to the
world: our diversity, our inclusiveness, our record of humanitarianism,
social justice, human rights and innovation, and our reputation as a good
international citizen.
In
recent years we have been at the forefront in developing a more
people-centered approach to foreign policy.
We have focussed greater attention on the quality of human lives,
rather than traditional geopolitical interests. I have already mentioned
the Ottawa Convention banning Landmines and our support for the ICC. We
need to apply this type of approach to other pressing international
issues. For example, our connectivity achievements stand in stark contrast
to those of the many nations of the world that do not yet share ready
access to these tools. There are many statistics that portray the digital
divide problem; one that resonates with me in particular is the fact that
there are still more telephones in New York City than in all of Africa.
Less than 1 per cent of that continent’s population have access to
internet.
The
digital divide is more than a story of statistics-it is about the
realization of potential. Connectivity gives us the means for bringing
people together, for cultural and civic enrichment, for stimulating
innovation, and for expanding democratic participation, creating informed
societies and helping to ensure accountable governments. Bridging the
digital divide is a key challenge and an important foreign policy
priority, and it is an area where Canada is well placed to take on a
leadership role.
TS:
Is there a correlation between the traditional meaning of the
sovereignty of countries and the formation of the policy of preventive
intervention?
JM:
The growing focus on policies of preventive intervention reflects
an evolution in the traditional meaning of sovereignty. The centrepiece of
the sovereignty of nation-states has traditionally been the state’s role
as protector of its citizens against outside incursions, equating the
security of people with the security of the territory in which they live.
Two significant changes to the global context since the end of WWII,
though, have necessitated a re-thinking of this concept: 1) the postwar
decrease in the threat of external aggression and the more recent rise in intra-state
conflict has conceptually moved the principal threats to security to within
a state’s borders, and; 2) the growing and now almost universal
acceptance of human rights as the fundamental foundation of societies has
shifted the focus of security from states to people. The language of human
security, which holds a central place in Canada’s foreign policy agenda,
captures these changes; as a policy approach, human security puts people -
their rights, their lives and their safety – first.
The
implications for sovereign states of this new security focus are
straightforward. Sovereignty continues to be an important cornerstone of
the international system and one of the key principles by which states
interact, and the state continues to be the principle protector of its
citizens. The idea of preventive intervention arises only in those cases
where a state fails in its role as protector.
Preventive
interventions, which can range from benign diplomatic measures to
intrusive military action, remain highly contentious. While there is
general agreement internationally that we should not stand by in the face
of another Rwanda, there is little agreement on how to proceed in these
situations, particularly when dealing with conflicts taking place within
the borders of a single sovereign state.
However,
as Secretary General Annan has said, “…surely no legal principle –
not even sovereignty – can ever shield crimes against humanity.
Where such crimes occur, the Security Council has a
moral duty to act”. In response to this challenge, Prime Minister
Chretien established the International Commission on Intervention and
State Sovereignty during his address to the UN Millennial Assembly. Its
role is to examine when intervention in its various forms is justified,
taking into account all of the key political, legal and operational
issues. I look forward to hearing the results of their work later this
fall, which I hope will assist in reconciling the equally important
principles of sovereignty and protection in a way that is genuinely
helpful in advancing this critical issue on the international stage.
TS:
The last decade has proven the formation of a new philosophy in the
relations among countries as well as the creation of new international
establishments such as the International Court of The Hague. What is the
position of the Canadian external policy about these establishments?
JM:
Canada strongly supports the creation of international mechanisms
of accountability as important instruments in the worldwide effort to
eliminate impunity for extremely serious crimes. The last decade has seen
the creation of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and discussions on creating joint
international-domestic tribunals in Sierra Leone and Cambodia are underway. The establishment of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) will represent the culmination of those efforts,
since the ICC will prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes committed in all parts of the world.
History has shown that there can be no lasting peace without justice –
the ICC will play a key role in this equation.
TS:
In the case of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, there was an
intervention of the international community against Yugoslavia.
Nevertheless, in other similar cases, such as the struggles of Kurds and
the Cyprus problem, there seems to be no interest to take the same
measures. Is there a special reason for this?
JM:
The 1999 NATO air strikes were launched to end further Yugoslav
President Milosevic’s campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing against
Kosovar Albanians, that resulted in the displacement of an estimated
800,000 Kosovars and the death of thousands. This followed a decade when
the regime of Milosevic had been responsible for three wars in the heart
of Europe and had demonstrated repeatedly its willingness to resort to war
and atrocities to resolve its disagreements with its neighbours or with
its own people. The problems of Kosovo have lasted years, with the
international community sparing no effort to reach a peaceful solution
(diplomatic contacts with the Yugoslav
regime, observers’ missions,
and peace conferences such as Rambouillet). Unfortunately, it was
clear that we had exhausted all diplomatic possibilities.
Meanwhile,
we were witnessing human rights violations and
a humanitarian crisis at a level unseen in Europe since WWII. The
NATO air campaign was therefore a final resort after Milosevic had refused
all diplomatic solutions. Recent
revelations by the new Yugoslav government are exposing new evidence of
war crimes against Kosovars.
It
is true that in the case of Kosovo, the international action was
facilitated by the existence of a solid
Euro-Atlantic institutional framework (which includes NATO, the
OSCE and a close partnership of North American and European countries in
European security matters). It is also true that in some cases, the
international community does not have such an institutional framework to
support its action. But not being able to solve every problem does not
mean that we should not solve those that we are equipped to deal with.
The
27 year old Cyprus question remains a major issue on the agenda of the UN
Security Council with the continuing deployment of the UN Force in Cyprus
(UNFICYP). Canada strongly supports the on-going efforts of the UN
Secretary General to negotiate a mutually acceptable comprehensive
settlement to the dispute between the two Cypriot parties that has divided
Cyprus. Canada urges all the parties to co-operate fully with the UN
Secretary General in efforts to achieve a balanced long- term agreement
and to negotiate in good faith. With its history of UNFICYP peacekeeping,
its Commonwealth and European ties, its bilingual and multicultural
federal form of government, and its efforts to promote demining and
inter-communal contacts, Canada is prepared to work with others in
fostering a settlement.
Cyprus
is one of those situations in the world that cries out for a negotiated
settlement and the UN through its auspices has been governing to bring
about that kind of negotiated settlement. Canada of course has a long
history of being in Cyprus. Certainly would participate in that, but I
think it’s important to always bare in mind that whatever the frustration,
whatever the situation, it does not justice acts of random violence and
terrorism.
Canada
works hard to promote the protection of minority groups in the Middle East
and we regularly raise the plight of these groups through bilateral and
multilateral forums. The situation of the Kurdish populations in a number
of Middle Eastern countries is a complex one. We deplore the violence to
which they have been subjected. We have urged all countries concerned, and
continue to do so, to respect the human rights of their citizens of
Kurdish origin who reside within their territories. (While the situation
of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin has been difficult, in recent years
it has improved and there appears to be a more open dialogue on the
issues, which Canada encourages.)
TS:
Slobodan Milosevic and other Serbian leaders are now facing an
indictment by the International Court regarding crimes against humanity.
Saddam Hussein and Turkish leaders not only remain unpunished but, on the
contrary, they continue the policy of violence and death against their
citizens. Is there some reason for this?
JM:
Canada has been a strong supporter of the International Criminal
Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established by the United Nations
Security Council in 1993. The Court has indicted not only Serb leaders,
but also Croatians and Bosniacs who have perpetrated crimes against Serbs
as well. In the Balkans, the international community had a framework,
which allowed it to act against the actions of Milosevic and other
suspected war criminals. Canada is working too hard to extend that
framework to the whole world by creating an International Criminal Court.
There
is little doubt that the actions of Saddam Hussein over
the years would clearly justify an indictment for war crimes and we
understand that the possibility of war crimes indictments being brought
against senior members of the regime is indeed being examined by some
countries and international non-governmental organizations. Canada is
following these efforts closely, but the legal issues involved are very
complex with the questions of the appropriate legal framework again being
one of the most challenging obstacles.
The
situation in Turkey is completely different. Canada closely follows human
rights questions in Turkey and through the Canadian Embassy in Ankara,
regularly discusses these matters with the Turkish authorities. During
these meetings the necessity to curb human rights abuses is stressed as
well as the need to strengthen democratic practices including the freedom
of speech at all levels of Turkish society. Since coming to office in June
1999, the Government of Prime Minister Ecevit has been making concerted
efforts to improve human rights and good governance across the board. With
the support of Greece in seeking membership in the European Union, Turkey
has pledged itself to make substantial change in these areas. In seeking
to further this change Canada is working with a number of Turkish groups
to promote human rights practices.
TS:
We, as Canadians are quite concerned about the terrorist attacks in
the United States. Where do we stand with this crisis going on around us?
JM:
I think the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 have changed a lot
of things. They have forced us to look at not only our own security
procedures in Canada, for purposes of protecting Canadians and for
purposes of ensuring that we are not a source of terrorism going on in the
United States. But it has also forced us to engage in this war against
terrorism that will take a lot of time and a lot of effort and not
necessarily in a military attack but an attack that is very determined to
lead out the sources of terrorist activities.
TS:
Does this mean that we need to change our lifestyle? Or does this
mean that, as a society, we need to take special measures?
JM:
Certainly I do not think we have reached any of those conclusions
at the present time. There is always, I believe, a tension between the
freedom, the liberty of the individual in an open and democratic society
and the limitations on that freedom that are imposed by the state in order
to maintain safety and security. Now that is a balance.
We never want the state providing safety to so stifle individual
liberty that we may want to go live in a free country. But I think we do
have to look at what we do to protect people.
I think that people expect to be free to sit in an office tower,
for example, and not be blown up by an airplane. They expect to be able to
conduct their lives without fear for their personal safety. And so given
the fact that the risk factor is much higher as we have seen the
demonstration, as how much more vicious the terrorist can be, we obviously
have to examine what the options are and take the appropriate steps.
Because Canada is not going to sacrifice our core values of freedom in
order to create a police state.
TS:
With every respect toward the victims and their families, there are
those who explained this act as an act of desperation due to policies of
the international community and preventive interventions in many countries
around the world as well as the fact that the international community did
not act appropriately when genocides happened in Africa. What are your
views with respect to this?
JM:
I think there is absolutely more equivalency whatsoever between
policies on the one hand and random acts of local terrorism on the other.
I think any attempt to make innocent civilians pay with their lives
for somebody’s real or supposed grievance against government policies is
fundamental a wrong-headed notion. We have a duty to stand up and be
counted and say that morally this is wrong and those responsible must be
found and they must be punished and those who continue to sow seeds of
terror and confusion and chaos in a democratic society must be held
accountable.
TS:
As Canadians, we certainly have our own independent policies since
the years of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Today, it seems like that has slipped
away and we are becoming more similar to the international community with
the development of new policies. Do you think we are losing our
independence by following or are we creating policies as in the past?
JM:
First, I think that we need to understand globalization as a
phenomenon and that is not a policy choice, it is a reality, and it is
driven very much by technology. The communication and transportation
technology and the fact that global markets are increasingly integrated
and investment flows and trade flows follow paths that reward governments
that are open and punish governments that are closed. So the world context
has changed since the days of Pierre Elliot Trudeau
when the only functioning trade arrangement was the GSP; and
it went through many rounds including several rounds in Trudeau’s time
as Prime Minister. NAFTA did not exist, the European Union was a much
different creature than it is today. The world environment has changed and
the tension that exists for every country, maybe more for Canada than any
other country is because of the degree with which we are anchored
economically in the North American market, and that while being part of a
shrinking globe, everyone is struggling to maintain their own identity and
their own independence in some key areas. What is important for Canada
going forward is this: given our economic integration with the United
States, which we knew was inevitable when we entered into the Canada-US
Free Trade Agreement, and given the fact that Canadians, by a larger
degree, have benefited from this, in terms of jobs, income and prosperity.
We now need to look at ourselves and determine what are the values, what
are the practices, what are the characteristics of Canadian life that we
really want to preserve, that we do not want to see sucked away into the
undertow that we feel from the United States. That is the question for
Canadian policy for the coming years.
TS:
How far do you think we can support this policy that sees us stand
by the US? Are we prepared to go to war, to send ground troops, to be
active in hostile acts?
JM:
Well, let’s keep in mind that what we are talking about here is a
war against terrorism, which is a different kind of battle. It will take
time, it will take patience and it will take a lot of steps that are
non-military. You heard US spokesmen talking about that including my
counterpart, Colin Powell, who said a number of times that it is not just
military action that is required here. It is investigating the sources of
financing for terrorism, it is legal steps that are required, and it is
diplomatic arrangements that are necessary.
Canada
needs to be fully engaged in all of those fronts. Will they require our
military assistance? We do not know. They have not asked us yet. Are we
prepared to provide a military assistance in the context of our NATO
commitments? We are, that is why we voted with our NATO colleagues,
referring to article 5 of the NATO charter. But that does not necessarily
mean that we will be sending ground troops into some distant battlefield.
If the article is actually invoked, which would be a further step by NATO,
every country will be in a position to provide the support that it deems
appropriate. Certainly, in consultation with our allies, we have to
determine what useful contribution we can make if a military contribution
is sought. But certainly our diplomatic efforts, our intelligence and
security networks, our ability in trying to detect the transfer of funds
for these organizations, all of that will be fully committed to this war
against terrorism as it should be.
TS:
How do you see the international community developing in the next
twenty years?
JM:
International power relationships are in flux. The United States is
the world’s only superpower although there are other countries, such as
China, India and Mexico, which are emerging as major players on the world
stage.
With
the pace of globalization and growing information flows brought about by
new technologies such as the internet, some of the prerogatives and
functions of the state, still the main actor in the international system,
are passing to sub-national and supra-national actors; others to NGO’s
and multinational corporations.
Success
increasingly derives from economic wealth rather than military might. We
have entered an era of globalized human culture. It is spawning networks
of renewal – in education, health, environmental protection and human
rights – but also those of degradation. From Internet pornography to
drug trafficking to climate change and the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, we
face a new generation of threats that show no respect for political
borders.
Although
the end of the cold war has reduced the likelihood of global nuclear
conflict, the wider diffusion of weapons technology raises the spectre of
destabilizing threats from new forces let loose by local conflicts and
international criminality.
The
international issues of the future will be complex and have far-reaching
implications. They will range in scope from genetically modified organisms
to corporate social responsibility. This points to the fading boundary
between domestic and international policy making and also increases the
need for cooperation with the sub-federal levels of government.
TS:
How do you envision Canada and what would its place be in these
developments?
JM:
Expanding prosperity and employment is central to the
government’s agenda. To this end, we will ensure that Canadians receive
the maximum benefits from growing levels of international trade and
investment.
The
promotion of global peace and stability, as a means of protecting
Canada’s security and a prerequisite for economic growth, will continue
to be the core element of our foreign policy. Given the more complex and
diverse threats from transborder issues such as illegal migration, crime,
terrorism, disease and illegal drugs, Canada is at the forefront in
developing new international regimes to reduce these threats to
international peace and security.
In
an international environment characterized by ubiquitous information, the
projection of Canadian values and culture abroad is a central objective in
achieving prosperity within Canada and protecting global security. Gaining
wider respect for Canadian values, including human rights, democracy, the
rule of law and the environment, is important for addressing new threats
to global security.
Our
relation with the United States is paramount – and political, economic
and security realities dictate that it will always be so. Increasingly,
our outlook on the United States is shifting beyond the bilateral: it is
North American and it is inter-American. This fact of geography
does not, however, lessen the importance of our relations with Europe,
Asia and Africa.
TS:
What would your message be to Canadians regarding the upcoming
changes?
JM:
The challenge that globalization puts before us is one of goverance,
both at a national level and in the challenge
we face as international partners and competitors. The key is that we must
use the tools of this era offers us to democratize, to empower our
citizenry, to foster learning and innovation, and, on the most fundamental
level, to improve the quality of human lives.
Canadians
need to be firm in their resolve, to defend the liberties, which we
believe in and firm in their
resolve to face terror in the eye and not allow it to dampen our
commitment to freedom.
In
Canada, I believe we are positioned to rise to this challenge, both as a
society that is characterized by its diversity and inclusiveness, and as a
strong economy that has been transformed by the technological revolution.
We know that the realization of a just, prosperous society depends on our
ability to combine these attributes, at home and in our partnerships with
the global community.
TS:
Mr. Manley, thank you for taking the time for the interview.