| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.24 pm
Mr. Rammell: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate.
At the start of the debate, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) commented on attendance. We have had an exceedingly good debate, which has been genuinely—I am not saying this merely to curry favour—well informed by a significant number of hon. Members. In the short time that is available—I have an hour and a half, but I assure the House that I do not intend to use it—I wish to respond to some of the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who speaks today from the Conservative Front Bench, underlined his strong support for the United Nations and agreed with the Government that strong supporters of the UN should be strong advocates of change and reform. Interestingly, he pointed out that we have moved from a cold war situation in which there was, to some extent, an equal balance of forces in the world to a situation in which, to use his words, we live with one hyperpower. His point was that, whatever view
we take of that situation, it is a reality that we must face up to. He rightly argued that the UN must recognise the position of the United States, which should be similarly encouraged to act through the UN. I strongly agree with him on that point.The hon. Gentleman also endorsed the arguments for expansion of the Security Council, and pressed me with regard to the veto. A number of hon. Members referred to the same issue, so it is important for me to make it clear that the Government support an increase in permanent membership of the Security Council and the inclusion of a further five permanent members. Clearly, the question of the veto will have to be considered in respect of those new permanent members. There would be a risk of increasing gridlock in decision making if all 10 permanent members had a veto. In those circumstances, there are key questions that all of us will have to face. Would 10 vetoes help the UN to grasp and tackle the key issues that it and the international community face or would they risk marginalising the UN? Would the wider membership want an increase in the number of vetoes? Is it realistic to expect the five current permanent members to give up their vetoes? I shall return to that issue later, but either way, any change will require the support of two thirds of the whole membership, including the five current permanent members.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a question that has been a constant refrain from the Opposition Front Bench in recent months—why the UK Government have not tabled at the Security Council a resolution on the current appalling circumstances in Zimbabwe. I refer him to what took place in March at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. A resolution rightly condemning human rights abuses in Zimbabwe was tabled, but even on such a tightly defined issue a blocking majority, including a significant number of members of the existing Security Council, opposed the resolution. The idea that we would table a resolution in the full knowledge that it would probably be defeated would serve merely to reinforce Robert Mugabe's position and entrench him in it.
Mr. Blunt: On human rights and resolutions in Geneva, does the Minister accept that it is not only in respect of Zimbabwe that there is cause for concern? In 1997, the Government inherited a position in which resolutions about China's abuse of human rights were regularly carried in Geneva with British support while we were negotiating the handover of Hong Kong. After 1997, under the Labour Government, such resolutions did not attract British support. The Government's rhetoric about human rights is very strong, but it is entirely legitimate for the Opposition to seek action rather than merely rhetoric.
Mr. Rammell: I agree, but although I want action, I do not want to see a resolution that makes us feel awfully good about ourselves, but whose rejection in the Security Council simply serves to reinforce and entrench Robert Mugabe in the position that he and his regime currently hold. The situation is very serious and all of us should focus on how we can tackle it. Some of the efforts that we are currently making, especially to urge others in the region to take a lead on the issue, are as important as anything that we can do in terms of passing resolutions or making proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), in a powerful contribution, expressed her shock about the events of 19 August and the fact that the United Nations had actually been attacked and vilified in that way. Whatever view people have of the conflict in Iraq, the experience of people and organisations seeking out the United Nations and its representatives to attack and kill them is extraordinarily difficult to comprehend. It shocks and concerns all of us.
As many hon. Members did, my hon. Friend also rightly sought to underline the need to seek agreement on the criteria for international intervention in a sovereign state's affairs. She also paid moving tribute to the late Sergio Vieira de Mello. She then argued for the need to engage younger people in our debates on international affairs and the United Nations. As I attend meetings around the country on UN issues, it strikes me that they are full of people from an older generation—I am choosing my words carefully—who have the post-war experience of the importance of the UN, but too often there are too few younger people with a similar understanding and commitment. We all have a responsibility to do everything in our power to raise awareness and improve education on those issues.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) rightly paid tribute to UN staff who place themselves in danger in performing their everyday activities. He also rightly drew attention to the fact that as the UN has expanded the structures have failed to keep up with the increase in size; that is an important point. He underlined the need for a clear framework for intervention.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the International Criminal Court. He said that the UK Government were assisting bilateral immunity agreements in contravention of the ICC statute and that that was splitting from the EU position. That accusation is completely without foundation. We have made it clear that we believe that bilateral non-surrender agreements are allowed under the existing ICC statutes, provided that they follow the framework set out in the EU guiding principles and are consistent with the language of article 16 of the Rome statute. We have done nothing to contradict that position and we have made it clear that we will not sign a bilateral non-surrender agreement that does not conform with those principles. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that shows that we are acting otherwise, I would welcome it if he put it forward.
Tony Worthington: Does that mean that discussions with the United States about a bilateral treaty are not ongoing?
Mr. Rammell: We have had one discussion with the US on that issue, in which we made it clear that any agreement would have to be consistent with the EU guiding principles. No further discussions have taken place and we await a response from the United States. It is important to debate such issues on the facts, not what some people believe the facts to be.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale made a point about UN resources needing to be commensurate with UN tasks. I have some words of caution on that point. The UK is the fourth largest contributor to the UN—£600 million—but the hon.
Gentleman advocated, by implication, a significant increase in resources for the UN budget. I could not advocate that until the UN has reformed the way that it works. Simply demanding more resources for the UN is not the best way to achieve the efficiencies and prioritisation that we need.My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), in a telling contribution, rightly highlighted some of the arguable failings of the UN in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere, and the failure of the UN to enforce certain resolutions. He was right to highlight the key role of the Secretary-General and underlined the fact that he is in many senses one of the most astute and well-informed critics of the way that the UN currently works.
The hon. and gallant Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) made a well-informed contribution to the debate based on his previous activities and work in UN operations. He underlined the importance of debt relief and the arguments for reform of the World Trade Organisation. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to give developing countries access to world markets: the Government have strongly advocated that, and we will continue to do so.
On the financing of the United Nations, it is important to be clear that the amount that a member state pays is based on its national income or capacity to pay. Bluntly, that means that richer states pay more and poorer states pay less. We pay about 5.5 per cent. of the UN budget. That methodology is fixed until 2006, so there is no prospect of changing it before then. It is worth stating for the record, however, that we believe that the current arrangements are broadly equitable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) spoke knowledgeably about the way in which the UN works in the light of his experience of working with, visiting and observing it in New York. He pointed out that if it is to remain relevant and to survive, it needs to change, reform and adapt; and he highlighted the importance of its focusing on key issues such as civil wars and threats from international terrorism.
My hon. Friend referred to expanding not only the permanent membership, but the non-permanent membership, of the Security Council. Perhaps I did not articulate the Government's position clearly enough. We advocate not only five new permanent members, but five new non-permanent members. With regard to the non-permanent members, however, we need to debate within the UN and the international community the need for a firmer set of criteria to determine which nations take on non-permanent membership. Too often, such decisions are based on a regional Buggins's turn. As for my hon. Friend's comments about representation on behalf of Africa, we agree with him that that is important.
The hon. and gallant Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred to the importance of the Ottawa convention, of which the Government have been an exceedingly strong supporter. As regards mine action, I will give him a response now, but I am happy to talk to him about those issues at a later stage. The Government are generally satisfied with the work of the United Nations Mine Action Service—UNMAS—and it is our chosen partner for global mine action co-ordination. We believe that it does a good job in assessing projects
and deciding where funding should go—particularly in the case of Sudan. DFID's voluntary contribution is £4.7 million; obviously, we work with UNMAS to seek value for money. I shall happily take that discussion further with the hon. Gentleman.My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made an important contribution as chair of the all-party group on the United Nations. I pay tribute to the work that he and his colleagues undertake on this issue: such work has never been more timely and important. He rightly drew attention to the thoughts that we should all have about Sergio Vieira de Mello and about Fiona Watson, who worked in this House.
On my hon. Friend's suggestion that new specialist agencies are needed, I offer a word of caution. I am not convinced, for example, that the plan to manage and regulate the internet through the United Nations is achievable, or even desirable. If we cannot achieve consensus on many of the key international issues that we face, the idea that we would be able to do so in relation to regulating the internet is challenging, to say the least.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |