The international response to the devastation wrought by hurricane Katrina reminds us once again that there are connections between people that have nothing to do with a common language, race or creed, and everything to do with the most fundamental considerations: of what it means to be a human being, what it means to be a person with rights, needs and responsibilities toward others.

Indeed, this is one world.

"In Larger Freedom" makes the case eloquently: security, development, and human rights, the three pillars of human freedom, are not abstract concepts. They are responsibilities we, and every UN agency, every member country, must take seriously. If the United Nations is to work, we know what we have to do, and we also know we are not doing nearly well enough.

Canada cannot conceive of a world succeeding without the United Nations. But, make no mistake the UN needs reform. I want to talk today about security, development, and human rights within the context of that need for reform.

Security represents the protection of life and thus is the basis for everything else we do. That is why our discussions of Security Council reform are so important. And why there has long been an argument that the Security Council should be more representative.

We agree.

But we believe it is even more important that the Council be effective. Too often, Permanent Members have used the veto-real or threatened-to prevent effective action. Too often, we have debated the finer points of language while innocent people continue to die. Darfur is only the latest example.

Clearly, we need expanded guidelines for Security Council action to make clear our responsibility to act decisively to prevent humanity's attack on humanity. The "Responsibility to Protect" is one such guideline. It seeks rules to protect the innocent against appalling assaults on their life and dignity. It does not bless unilateral action.

To the contrary, it stands for clear, multilaterally-agreed criteria on what the international community should do when civilians are at risk.

It is a powerful norm of international behaviour. And this week, we have taken a very important step to that end. We are proud that R2P has Canadian lineage, that it is now a principle for all the world. That being said, our collective responsibility does not end there. I would have hoped that we could have agreed now to make the new peace building commission operational. Building the peace is a huge undertaking and, to do it well, we need to bring order out of chaos.

Which leads me to the second pillar, economic development. The record is far from brilliant. After decades of effort, money and development only go together if donor and recipient countries take their responsibilities to heart. This is a lesson that needs to be embraced. Donor nations must do more, and we have begun to do so, by increasing our development assistance budgets and accelerating the pace of disbursements, as well as forgiving old debts.

More consistent policies are needed, however. How can we talk about development as we chase poor farmers from their land because of their inability to compete on their own agricultural export markets, which are oversubsidized by rich countries!

What good comes from lamenting the lot of the poor while seeking to sell as many weapons as possible to as many developing nations as possible? How can we preach the virtues of free trade while preventing market access to least developed countries?

Developing countries must do more as well. True development will not take place until local populations have the confidence to invest their own energy and resources into making a better future for themselves. They will only get this confidence when they see their governments investing in areas that make a tangible difference to their lives - not disproportionate military expenditures but investments in health, in education, in good governance, and in creating an environment that frees up the entrepreneurial spirit that exists in all our countries.

We need to see the world through the eyes of the people we are trying to help. When we can meet benchmarks that matter to them, then and only then will we build the foundations to sustain development for the long haul.

How many more infants have been vaccinated this year compared to last?

How many more children can read and write?

How secure is a family's title to their land?

How many small businesses have survived for three years or more?

Let me turn now to the UN's third pillar: Respect for human rights. Our reform efforts on security and development will ultimately fail unless they are grounded in respect for individuals:

1) Respect for their rights,

2) Respect for their cultures, traditions and beliefs.

3) Respect for their opinions dissenting or not.

Respect for human rights is the living heart of democracy, the key to unlocking the potential of every person to contribute to their own welfare and to the prosperity and security of their communities. The UN's Commission on Human Rights has a serious credibility problem. Its membership, its increasing politicization and its overall lack of effectiveness at tackling human rights violations around the world have overwhelmed its achievements. We need a standing body at a higher level in the UN system, commensurate with the importance of human rights. That is why we support the proposal for an effective Human Rights Council.

I cannot disguise our profound disappointment that we were not able to agree at this Summit on all of the elements required to make it operational. Canada will not cease to promote actively, bringing a standing council into being, with credible membership criteria. In the meantime, we welcome the universal endorsement of the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour and our collective decision to double the resources available to her office.

I have talked about the three pillars - security, development and human rights. Each poses its own unique challenges, but there is also one common element that runs through all three if the UN is to work well, and it is this: we need new and innovative approaches to global challenges in which every country contributes and every country shares in the benefits.

One striking example is climate change. This November, Canada will host the UN Conference on Climate Change, and our goal for this conference is clear: climate change is real, and the world must recognize it; human activity is a defining cause, and the world must act on it.

Our mandate in Montreal will be two-fold: first the Kyoto parties have started their work and need to build on it by making continued progress on their existing commitments, second we will initiate discussions to achieve a truly global and inclusive regime to achieve deep and genuine reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. President,

As the Secretary-General has observed, the United Nations is at a crossroads. In order to achieve lasting and effective reform, it must thoroughly reform its administration, its management methods, and introduce verification mechanisms with more clout. Such reform is crucial. We want to work with other member nations and the Secretary-General to obtain this general assembly's endorsement of a set of reforms to meet the demands of the 21st century.

In conclusion, the status Quo and too often empty rhetoric must make way here for a new and pragmatic multilateralism measured by concrete results, not simply by promises. Our citizens want security, based on international law. They want opportunity, based on more effective aid. They want empowerment, based on respect for human rights. And they want a clean environment. These are not utopian dreams. They are among the most urgent challenges we face. We are national leaders.

In today's world, however, we cannot serve our own countries well unless we rise above narrow national interests. If we fail to act responsibly on the world stage, we will fail our own people at home.

It is one world.

That simple statement finds its most profound expression here, in our hopes for the United Nations. We face difficult decisions but, with courage and vision, we can build a United Nations for the future, a United Nations that serves all the world's people because that is the best way to serve every single one of us.

Thank you.

Indeed, the Live 8 concert brought awareness to the issue of African poverty. The media attention that this event received was truly global; however, as the leaders arrived at the summit, they were greeted by angry protestors who were clashing with police. Similar to Scotland, violent protests were also seen at the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) conference in Seattle and the 2001 Summit of the Americas (SOA) in Quebec City. The protestors were seen throwing rocks at police and vandalizing public property.

There is no doubt that protestors deserve credit for showing support for a cause that they believe in, and exercising their democratic right to speak out. The problem is that when violence is used, it tends to distort and hide the real issues. The media will always sensationalize images, which means violence will become the main focal point of protests, when violent situations occur. That exact situation occurred in the days following the Gleneagles summit, where the violence of the protests became the main story for the nightly television newscasts. The means used by the protestors in Scotland were counter-productive to the ends that they were seeking. An effective and more positive protest would have been one without violence.

To comment briefly on development aid, real solutions to combat African poverty will be hard since the government's in these countries are ruled by corruption and crony capitalism. Throwing millions of dollars at poor countries is all well and good, however, it becomes completely ineffective when the leaders of these countries take this aid money and throw it into their Swiss bank accounts. Thus, an important step towards combating poverty in these countries would be to build national legal infrastructures that are transparent to the people that they are supposed to serve. An effective policy to combat poverty would see the rule of law and an impartial judicial system as the cornerstones of society. Moreover, African countries need to encourage democractic process, where the government is held accountable to the people. In Understanding Globalization, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman makes an important argument when he says, "creating a stable political, legal, and economic environment friendly to entrepreneurship, in which people can start businesses and raise their productivity, is the precursor to effectively fighting poverty anywhere." Therefore, when thinking about making poverty history, we must think about development as more than simply giving money to these countries. Making poverty history will have to entail helping these poor countries develop good government.

For a rather interesting read, see: Thomas Friedman, Understanding Globalization: The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

The current issue on the to-do list is that of providing aid to Africa. 2005 marks the year that the G8 Summit has chosen to focus on Sub-Saharan Africa, the only region in the world that has gotten poorer in the last generation. This region makes up 13% of the world's population and 28% of the world's poverty. Africa is in need of aid for their economic standing as well as their health and standard of living. Sub-Saharan Africa is a breeding ground for the AIDS epidemic. According to information released by the G8 Summit, to date 13 million men, women and children have died of AIDS and 26 million are now living with the virus. Nigeria alone is home to 10% of the world's total number of people living with HIV and AIDS.

Maternal and child mortality rates have increased, African women have a 1 in 13 chance of dying during pregnancy or childbirth. These challenges represent a compelling call for international cooperation to support the continent's efforts to achieve lasting progress. The world's fortunate answered the call. Live Aid's Bob Geldof generated the most noteable response with the help and determination of previous Live Aid participants, musicians, organizers and promoters, which generated an audience of 3 billion people worldwide.

The most prominent speakers were celebrities/musicians such as Geldof, U2's Bono and Madonna (among others), who have once again galvanized public interest for their cause. Live 8 was promoted with relentless campaigning, reminding/forcing the public to think about how the richest nations in the world can tackle poverty in Africa. Concerts of this nature, according to Geldof, "are the start point for The Long Walk To Justice, the one way we can all make our voices heard in unison." The united voices for the most part mirrored Geldof's stance that the resolution of the G8 Summit should, "stand to double aid, fully cancel debt, and deliver trade justice for Africa... the G8 could change the future for millions of men, women and children." While the message was noble and appeared agreeable to attendees of Live 8, how many were there for the cause and how many were there for the music? Does it matter? At the end of the day there was money raised and messages heard, right?

While there is no doubt in my mind that voices were heard, one cannot help wonder if we are doomed to repeated history, condemning people to silent death, while believing there has been change. What many are unaware of is the aftermath of 1985's Live Aid. This concert raised millions of dollars to aid the starving and impoverished in Ethiopia. The Western world believed that the concert had succeeded and realized the goal to feed, nourish and aid Ethiopia. The truth is considerably darker. Many Ethiopians were fed and watered then forced by the Ethiopian government from the refugee camps to resettle in some of the most inhospitable areas of the country to die. Where were the voices of outrage then? Where were the united voices of concert go-ers?

The media blitz was over, people had gone back to daily routines, participating in the global market, working to widen the gap between the have's and have-nots. While Live 8 worked to inform many who may have been otherwise oblivious to the issues of the G8 Summit and severity of the African situation, they forgot one thing. That was to accept part of the blame, to inform the audience that individuals can make changes daily, especially since we contribute to the problem daily. Live 8 was a success, it worked to raise awareness and funds. However, it also served as a diversion from the underlying causes of poverty. People did not walk away educated or empowered with knowledge that could make a difference. They walked away with a false sense of accomplishment.

Today, Friday July 8, 2005 we also feel a false sense of accomplishment. While Tony Blair and the seven other world leaders adopted measures to combat African poverty and global warming at the end of a summit, it is our responsibility to ensure they stick to it! While music can be utilized to ban us together, we still need to identify the force that will keep us together, the power cord that will constantly vibrate through us if we truly want change.

For ways to get involved check out OXFAM, UNICEF, FreeTrade.org, makepovertyhistory.org.

While this is true for many neoconservatives it is also somewhat of a caricature. In the case of Iran, many of those seen as neoconservative are split over the course of action the United States should take. While there are those who advocate a hawkish line on Iran there are just as many who resign themselves to the fact that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon in the not too distant future, leaving diplomacy as the likely alternative. While some neoconservatives advocate the position of forceful democratisation, there are others who desire to set limits on such ambitious undertakings. And then there are those among the neoconservatives, primarily of the older generation, who see the forceful imposition of democracy as utopian.

In the midst of this debate I would like to provide the reader with an example of why I feel many of these claims to be misguided. While some commentators have been focusing on the aforementioned debates, an equally important and engaging debate has been taking place in the pages of the realist/neoconservative foreign policy journal The National Interest. The debate is between two of the most recognisable neoconservative intellects; Francis Fukuyama author of the renowned 'End of History' thesis and Charles Krauthammer a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. At the core of the debate lies Fukuyama's discontent with Krauthammer's vision for the future of American foreign policy post 9/11 and Iraq. Here is a prime example of the differences between some neoconservatives.
Krauthammer articulated his theory in an address he delivered at the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004. He argued that America's traditional foreign policy approach in a post-9/11 world was no longer adequate for the sole superpower. Krauthammer's solution was to elaborate on an argument he forwarded at the end of the Cold War. What he called the 'Unipolar Moment', where America no longer constrained by the threat of the Soviet Union, could set about reshaping the world in a democratic image.

America, having failed to do this, had unwittingly contributed to the environment that had led to the attacks of 9/11. For Krauthammer America had taken a holiday from history when it failed to capitalise on this moment. In the post 9/11 world a foreign policy of Democratic Globalism would be required. Democratic Globalism was an amalgam of the foreign policy schools of Wilsonian Idealism and Realism. However, as Krauthammer points out the danger in this line of thinking is the lack of restraint, inherent in the policy. To overcome this difficulty Krauthammer suggested an increase in the realist component of Democratic Globalism, that "[to] support democracy everywhere, but... commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity - meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom." (original emphasis) This Krauthammer dubs Democratic Realism. Krauthammer's Democratic Realism aims at restraining the headstrong desire to impose democracy the world over, which would severely overburden the resources of the United States and likeminded nations. By attacking the heart of the problem, such as those regimes sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism, one can plant the seeds for a democratic future.

For Fukuyama the archetypal example of Krauthammer's unipolarity argument was the invasion of Iraq. Fukuyama's disgruntlement is borne out of what he perceives to be a theory "strangely disconnected from reality." The prolonged and unexpected savageness of the resistance is ample proof of the problems a Democratic Globalist and/or Democratic Realist alike will face in trying to forcefully implant democracy upon a nation bearing no semblance of the institutions necessary to make the democratic experiment work.
Fukuyama argues that the spread of democracy must be encouraged as far as possible but cannot be forcefully imposed. Democracy's legitimacy must be derived from the people who live under it; in that sense it has to be a natural progression.

The list of argument and counter argument to this debate is endless. However from this we can see that neoconservatism is not always the concerted, unwavering intellectual movement it is often made out to be. In addition I would suggest that it is the problem of Iraq that is creating many more headaches for the intellectuals and their ideology than the problem of Iran.

See Franklin Foer's article 'Neocon v. Neocon on Iran' in The New Republic, 20/12/04