The Human Security Agenda (HSA) has attempted to re-focus foreign policies on human safety rather than the safety of the state. A pioneer of the HSA was Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister between 1996 and 2001, Lloyd Axworthy. He did his best to make sure our foreign policies were centered on preventing the abuse of human rights, but unfortunately crises such as the East Timor conflict in 1999 showed everyone that while Canadians can sure talk the talk, we can't always walk the walk.
East Timor (ET) was in 1999 trying to declare Independence from Indonesia, and the UN held a vote throughout ET to choose between 'special autonomy' within Indonesia (which would give ET its own government and would allow it to preside over all matters save those reserved for the Government of Indonesia) and full Independence. 78.5% of voters chose Independence, and riots subsequently broke out, led by the Indonesian military and Timorese pro-Indonesia groups.
The international community began to organize itself to step in. Canada was very slow in making a decision regarding it's contribution, then in assembling it's forces, and finally in deploying those troops to ET. This was all despite Axworthy's lengthy campaign against the Indonesian regime and promotion of the HSA, both of which would logically lead to swift and effective action in preventing the abuse of human rights in ET.
This indicates that the HSA, while ethically sound, is in fact too broad an ideal upon which to base an effective Canadian Foreign Policy. Even though it should have incited action from Canada, the government showed itself too reluctant to risk Canadian lives and equipment for the benefit of the Timorese. In addition to this, Canada had relatively strong economic ties to Indonesia at the time which would have been risked by opposing the Indonesian regime in ET; this indicates that they were still thinking of state security over human security.
The HSA needs to be narrower and more specific in order to implement practical policies; to stay true to the HSA the state also needs to be prepared to give aid in situations without a delay such as the one seen in the ET conflict.
All in all, it seems the HSA will never be sufficient reasoning for the Canadian government to adhere to its promises of protection, or strong enough to provide a foundation for effective policies... because we will always want to protect our own before taking a risk for others.
East Timor (ET) was in 1999 trying to declare Independence from Indonesia, and the UN held a vote throughout ET to choose between 'special autonomy' within Indonesia (which would give ET its own government and would allow it to preside over all matters save those reserved for the Government of Indonesia) and full Independence. 78.5% of voters chose Independence, and riots subsequently broke out, led by the Indonesian military and Timorese pro-Indonesia groups.
The international community began to organize itself to step in. Canada was very slow in making a decision regarding it's contribution, then in assembling it's forces, and finally in deploying those troops to ET. This was all despite Axworthy's lengthy campaign against the Indonesian regime and promotion of the HSA, both of which would logically lead to swift and effective action in preventing the abuse of human rights in ET.
This indicates that the HSA, while ethically sound, is in fact too broad an ideal upon which to base an effective Canadian Foreign Policy. Even though it should have incited action from Canada, the government showed itself too reluctant to risk Canadian lives and equipment for the benefit of the Timorese. In addition to this, Canada had relatively strong economic ties to Indonesia at the time which would have been risked by opposing the Indonesian regime in ET; this indicates that they were still thinking of state security over human security.
The HSA needs to be narrower and more specific in order to implement practical policies; to stay true to the HSA the state also needs to be prepared to give aid in situations without a delay such as the one seen in the ET conflict.
All in all, it seems the HSA will never be sufficient reasoning for the Canadian government to adhere to its promises of protection, or strong enough to provide a foundation for effective policies... because we will always want to protect our own before taking a risk for others.
No comments:
Post a Comment