| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Alan Howarth (Newport, East): The criteria that my hon. Friend has just sketched out reflect what has happened in the history of Iraq over the past 10 years. Do we not need reforms that would ensure that United Nations resolutions were not flouted, and that there would be no more failures to enforce them over such long periods and with such calamitous consequences?
Mr. Rammell: My right hon. Friend makes an exceedingly important point. One reason that we ended up in that situation over Iraq was that, over an extraordinarily long period, Iraq had flouted the will of the international community through the United Nations, and the international community—through the UN—had effectively sat back and allowed that situation to develop. I referred earlier to discussions with the Mexican Government about their ideas for reform, and one of the issues that they are considering—and which we should all consider—is how we can ensure that the international community enforces the relevant Security Council resolutions.
We also need to consider how the UN can better deal with post-conflict situations. Some two thirds of all conflicts reignite within five years and the international community needs to do more to break that cycle of violence. There is much expertise within the UN system and in national Governments, accumulated from a wide range of post-conflict situations. That needs to be drawn together in a more readily accessible form.
During our recent presidency of the Security Council, in September, we started work on one aspect of that, namely, the transition to justice and the rule of law. As part of that process, the UN Secretary-General has agreed to produce a report setting out the UN's experience in this area and making recommendations for future action, to help to ensure that the components of a justice system in a post-conflict society—police, prisons and an equitable legal system—are put in place. Justice and the rule of law are essential building blocks for stability and prosperity, without which a secure political and economic framework cannot be constructed. The UN has progressively become more involved in this area, but so far in a rather piecemeal fashion. We envisage that it will use the current exercise to develop a more coherent and targeted strategy for future action. It could also provide a more systematic way of co-ordinating individual contributions in this area by the international community.
It is right that the UK should seek to influence the debate on UN reform. Our own interests are global, and many of them are better advanced in partnership with others. An effective UN is the right body to achieve much of that. We are also well placed to exert that influence: first, as a permanent member of the Security Council; secondly, from next January, as the fourth largest contributor to the UN's regular budget; thirdly, as the provider of more than £600 million worth of support to the UN in 2002, nearly two thirds in the form of voluntary contributions; and fourthly, as a provider of key personnel across the UN's operations. The full breadth of our UN contribution is astonishing, as can be seen from the Command Paper produced by the Government, and we intend to participate fully in the debate on UN reform. The programme of reform is one to which Members from across the House can subscribe and I commend this agenda to the House.
2.37 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon): This is an important time in the life of the United Nations. That significant organisation must face many tough choices if it is to adapt to the new geopolitical realities of the modern world, so I welcome this timely debate. I am delighted that my first speech in my new role in our foreign affairs team should be on such a crucial issue, and I thank the Minister for his kind welcome to me, earlier in the proceedings.
May I take this opportunity to place on record my own and my party's appreciation and respect for the dangerous but vital work being undertaken by UN personnel in Iraq, and indeed across the world? May I also record our appreciation of all those who have suffered injury or given their lives while working in Iraq with the UN to build a better future for the Iraqi people?
Much that I say here today will have a familiar ring to it, because my party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) have made
considerable efforts to develop and state our policy in respect of reforming the United Nations over many months. None the less, much of it deserves restating in the context of this debate. That is not simply a way of saying that I have only just taken over and have not had the chance to create my own thoughts on the matter; much of our stated policy needs to be repeated and underlined today, and I know that the subject is held to be particularly important by many of our electorate, who care passionately about these global issues.I consider myself always to have been a strong supporter of the United Nations, and I agree with the Minister that the organisation's strongest supporters should also be its strongest advocates for change. In a speech in Oxford, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes addressed the need for dialogue to be at the centre of international relations today. He stated:
- "Dialogue is not only the first step but also the continuing staircase to the understanding and tolerance we must build."
- "that an understanding of the past provides the background that is necessary to inform dialogue. It discloses the sources of the fears that in turn have given rise to bitterness and hatred. It rapidly becomes the basic building block of discourse. Knowing how and why the knots of hatred and mistrust came to be tied is the only route to loosen, to unravel, and eventually to undo them."
In an increasingly interconnected and globalising world, dialogue as a means of preventing the spilling over of disputes into conflict is more important than ever. Dialogue builds the understanding that dispels the fear that can give rise to conflict, and the UN is undoubtedly the foremost forum for the promotion of dialogue, understanding and tolerance as well as the peaceful resolution of disputes.
As a small aside, I recently returned from North Korea. If ever there was an example of a country becoming isolated, North Korea is it: 23 million people live in a closed society and, unfortunately, it has or is on the brink of having nuclear capability, so dialogue, contact and engagement are critical in ensuring that things do not go wrong. We can bring that unique country into the family of nations, and I am sure that the UK and the UN have an important role to play in that.
Recent events surrounding the conflict in Iraq have served to underline weaknesses in the UN that have been in play for some time. The Foreign Secretary—in this very Chamber, on this very day—admitted that today's machinery has been shown to be inadequate to cope with such a fast-changing world. The lead-up to conflict with Iraq and its aftermath led to gridlock in the Security Council after France, back in February, made it explicitly clear that it would veto any second resolution, thereby preventing any progress from being made.
The UN, the European Union and NATO all suffered damage in the Iraq crisis as their multilateral machinery showed itself to be unable to cope with the stresses and strains of national interest and disparate viewpoints. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall spectacularly. The question, posed back in September, remains valid today:
have recent events truly undermined the effectiveness of the Security Council or only its reputation in Washington? How can we repair the damage? Can Humpty Dumpty be put back together again?First, we must understand how we have come to a position where the UN appears to be out of touch with some realities of the geopolitical landscape. As the Minister said, the UN was in many ways a product of the post-second world war climate. It developed during the cold war in the context of two superpowers and their attendant blocs balancing one another in an uneasy equilibrium in which neither had a free hand to act internationally due to the nuclear balance. Balance and compromise were, in many ways, the watchwords.
With the fall of the Berlin wall and subsequent events, that international power structure was swept away, but many international institutions and much international thinking failed to recognise that and to adapt quickly enough. Just as there is often a tendency to fight the last war, both in reality and perhaps in general elections, so there can be a desire to stick with institutions that were designed to keep the last peace.
After the collapse of the USSR, the reality was that only one power remained—a hyperpower, to use the current term. That hyperpower—the United States of America—possesses military, economic and technological power that gives it a dominance unknown in history. I recall one fact to which the Prime Minister himself referred in this Chamber some months ago, and it must be true because he said it: the military might of the United States of America is equivalent to that of the next 27 strongest countries put together. If that is absolutely true, what a terrifying and sobering thought it is—unparalleled dominance indeed.
No longer does the balance that dominated the UN's coming of age exist. The United States can, if it wishes, do anything it desires. It has the means to do so and, as its recent national security strategy shows, it has the will to do so if it perceives a threat to its national interests. That reality has driven US policy in areas such as Iraq where it perceives a threat to exist.
America was often accused of unilateralism in its actions before the recent conflict in Iraq. It was accused of using its power, irrespective of the UN, to carry out its policy objectives whether the world liked it or not. The Administration felt that the UN's view was already clear, as expressed through many resolutions, the latest being resolution 1441. The US believed that the UN had a duty to enforce its resolutions or be seen as powerless, and thus redundant. The French Government, however, viewed matters differently. They felt that the UN would make itself redundant if it simply agreed with the US, rather than retaining its right to say yea or nay.
To many in Europe, and indeed around the world, America seemed to be saying that it hoped the world backed it, but, if not, that did not matter, because America would go ahead anyway. Multilateralism and consensus appeared to be holed below the waterline in this new world of conviction diplomacy. In reality, of course, matters were more complex. Recent events in Iraq have shown that the world is not unilateral and, as
Joseph Nye recently argued, America cannot "go it alone". Acceptance is vital for power to be effective.It is time for a reality check. The UN must recognise the dominant position of the US. In turn, the US must be encouraged to act through the UN. The UK has a unique and historic role to play as a friend of America and a believer in the UN to help to square that circle. I urge the Government to continue their efforts to make that work.
President Bush is well aware of the need for international co-operation in international affairs. He knows that America cannot really go it alone, hence his going to the UN to secure resolution 1441 and his attempts to secure a second resolution. He has further shown that he recognises the UN's value by channelling much of the reconstruction work in Iraq through the UN by way of the recent resolution, and we remain hopeful that all members of the international community will strive to work together to put that country back together again.
The UN has never been free from the constraints imposed by great power politics and there was never a golden age when pure multilateralism and consensus politics functioned irrespective of national interest. Throughout the cold war, America and the USSR exercised the veto in defence of their allies or their political stance, one versus the other. So let us, appreciating that backdrop, briefly examine how the UN might be made more effective, bearing in mind the stark reality of current geopolitics.
The UN charter—the document from which all else in the UN flows—aspires to save people from war, practise tolerance, promote human rights, justice and respect for international obligations, and
- "promote social progress and better standards of life".
The debate on the future and reform of the UN is highly important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said in a lecture earlier this year, which I encourage hon. Members to read if they have not already done so. He argued for the need to expand the Security Council, as well as exploring areas such as the growing debate on peacekeeping versus peacemaking.
I very much welcome the Minister's speech and the one that he made last June. We know that his commitment to reforming the UN and to modernising it so that it can adapt to the modern world are genuine and beyond doubt, but I pause to reflect for a moment on whether he has thought through all the points that he has put forward over recent weeks.
One thing that the Minister talked about today is expanding the Security Council by bringing in Germany and Japan, and perhaps India, Brazil and another country from Asia. However, he also talked about those countries perhaps coming in without the power of a veto. When pressed, I am afraid that his answers were not as satisfactory on that point as they might otherwise have been. This important area requires further consideration.
I am also concerned that one of the things that this organisation suffers from more than perhaps any other is the paralysis of an overweening bureaucracy. I do not see too much in the Minister's proposals that will strip away some of that paralysing bureaucracy, make decision making more streamlined and make the implementation of decisions more effective. That being said, we recognise his commitment to the debate and wish him well in taking forward the Government's arguments.
I welcome the UN's willingness to address the question of reform, which the Annan proposals strive to do. I welcome them also, and the discussions that have been held at the UN, as I do the Secretary-General's assurance that the process of considering reform will be deep and ongoing. It is important that the reform process keeps up with events, which, of course, are developing all the time.
We were pleased to note the attendance of so many world leaders at the discussions earlier. Our Foreign Secretary attended, but it is surely a matter of regret that our Prime Minister was not able to do so. Few things are more important than the existence of modern and effective global architecture to head off conflict and build a peaceful, prosperous world, and the UN is the pre-eminent organisation when it comes to trying to do that. It really does deserve some quality time from the Prime Minister.
The UN is, of course, as much about humanitarian and social work as it is about global politics. Peacekeeping and, increasingly, peacemaking play a vital role in preventing the spread of conflict and concomitant problems; but the UN's humanitarian and economic aid work is central to the tackling of the root causes of many of our current problems. We all know that global instability results from global poverty. We want to place on record again our support for the millennium targets requiring us to bear down on global poverty and some of the worst abuses and excesses that we see on so much of the planet.
I urge the Government to make more use of the UN in respect of difficult problems such as that in Zimbabwe, perhaps by tabling a resolution to internationalise the situation using both the UN's political clout and its humanitarian resources to help that deeply troubled country. I do not understand why the Government still refuse to table such a resolution; perhaps the Minister will explain.
Many Members have travelled the world and seen some of the excellent work done by many UN organisations, subsidiary bodies and agencies over many years. The World Health Organisation successfully co-ordinated the international response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome crisis, and has been combating various lethal diseases in developing and developed countries for decades. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been doing vital work, not least in Iran recently—although I note that, in a recent article in The Economist, Mohamad el-Baradei of the IAEA set out in persuasive terms his analysis of his organisation's shortcomings and of possible reforms. Perhaps we could hear the Government's response to some of those thoughts as well. The World Food
Programme is relieving starvation in areas afflicted by famine, not least in North Korea, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees continues to relieve the suffering of people made homeless and stateless by conflict and natural disasters.Everywhere we turn, the UN is active. I sometimes pause to wonder whether it is too active, whether it spreads its resources too thinly, and whether it tries to do too much. There is, perhaps, a case for doing less and doing it better. The Minister mentioned recent decisions to prioritise and focus on core business. I should like to see a greater focus on particularly important aspects of security and humanitarian work.
Perhaps I may be permitted the observation that some UN agencies suffer from an excess of bureaucracy and poor planning. In considering how we can best reform the UN, we must strive to take every opportunity to minimise such constraints on effective action. Might there be in some areas—particularly on the humanitarian side—a more enabling role for the UN? Could much more of the implementation of its policies be subcontracted to non-governmental organisations and other agencies, rather than its doing so much of the work itself with, sometimes, less than effective outcomes?
Like my predecessor in our last debate on this subject, I have tried to offer a broad-brush view from the Opposition Front Bench, safe in the knowledge that Members in all parts of the House will have important and well-informed contributions to make on more specific matters. The key underlying concept for the modern United Nations must be a blend of idealism and realism that recognises both the noble aspirations of the organisation and the practicalities of the modern world. It is a difficult balance to strike, but an important one to seek.
The United Nations may have been conceived in a different era, but if it can adapt to the changing needs of the international scene it will be able to make a crucial contribution for many decades to come—a vital contribution to global stability and prosperity, which are issues of concern to us all.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |