Louise Fréchette, chair of the board of CARE Canada, was deputy secretary-general of the UN from 1998 to 2006.
Lloyd Axworthy is right to take pride in the role Canada played in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept. The proposition that international relations should be guided by concerns for the welfare of human beings rather than the interests of states reflects a bold and generous vision that has inspired many worthy international initiatives since the end of the Cold War.
The question is whether this "human" security concept has, in fact, become the norm in international relations and whether the experience so far, particularly with R2P, has proved its usefulness.
Lloyd Axworthy's assessment seems overly optimistic for two reasons.
First, R2P is viewed with considerable suspicion in the developing world. It is seen as a one-way street where rich and powerful countries have the right to come to the rescue of people in the south, but are free, themselves, from foreign intervention in their internal affairs. A similar whiff of double standards is now coloring their perception of the ICC to the point that African countries, for instance, are less and less inclined to co-operate with the Court.
Rightly or wrongly, most countries are loath to meddle in the internal affairs of their neighbours for fear of being subjected eventually to the same medicine. True, R2P has played a role in the response to various crisis in recent years, but we should not jump too quickly to the conclusion that the concept enjoys strong support. Most interventions have been motivated by traditional security concerns at least as much as by a desire to protect people from terrible exactions.
As emerging countries and the rest of the developing world seek to play a more prominent role in world affairs, it is far from certain that they will privilege a "human" security agenda over traditional security and sovereignty concerns. They will no doubt find comfort in the company of China and Russia on this.
Second, the practice of R2P has turned out to be extremely complex and difficult. Yes, the Kosovo intervention was successful but it required a heavy and sustained international presence for more than a decade, which would be hard to replicate in a larger and more populous territory. It also extracted its own human toll on the Serbian population of Kosovo who either had to leave the territory or remained confined to small enclaves.
The intervention in Libya may have saved the inhabitants of Benghazi from Ghadafi's bloody revenge but, as wisely argued by the very Commission that gave birth to R2P, an intervention should not do more harm than good. The situation in Libya today and the negative fall-out in neighbouring countries make it hard to argue that the intervention was, on balance, beneficial. The first lesson many people have drawn from the intervention in Libya is that it should not have happened at all.
R2P and the ICC are manifestations of a broader agenda, which emerged at the end of the Cold War and which aimed at protecting human rights, promoting democracy and supporting good governance worldwide. The West championed this agenda quite successfully at a time when Russia was weak, China was absorbed by its internal economic reform, and most developing countries were highly dependent on foreign aid (and the conditions attached to it).
Times have changed. Western influence is challenged by the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia and an increasingly diverse and capable developing world. In order to effectively promote and protect our most cherished values, we will have to find willing partners outside our traditional Western circles. We have been very good at preaching our own gospel but have too often failed to listen and to learn from people who do not share our past and look at the future through different lenses. This, I believe, is what Louise Arbour had in mind when she said we needed to show more empathy, this capacity to put oneself in another person's shoes. She is absolutely right. Without it, we are unlikely to forge solid alliances and build the strong common agenda we will need to defend our values in the future.
The end of the Cold War marked the beginning of a period of great innovation and experimentation in the conduct of international relations. R2P and the ICC are but two examples of a more pro-active, intrusive approach to dealing with conflict situations. Now would be a good time to pause and assess the results of nearly 25 years of interventionism, preferably with a strong in-put from those who have been at the receiving end of our good intentions.