home

•

about mark

•

parliament

•

news from mark

•

community news

•

contact me

	Debate on the United Nations
	Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): I, too, welcome the fact that the Government arranged this debate, and welcome the publication of the second report on "The United Kingdom in the United Nations". At a time when many decry the work of the UN, the document is a testament to its valuable work, both directly and through its agencies, in helping to tackle some of the problems of the poorest in the world and of victims of war and terror; indeed, they are often the same people. The document also reminds us of the important work done by many UN agencies in other fields of activity that do not always attract so much media coverage—everything from bodies essential to the world economy and communications, such as the International Maritime Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation and others, such as UNESCO. I make special mention of UNESCO, not least because about 10 per cent. of my constituency is situated in one of its world heritage sites; and the city of Edinburgh has just been nominated as UNESCO's first international city of literature. That is an indication of the breadth of interest of the United Nations and its agencies. I have no difficulty with the proposition that, with so many interests and concerns bringing so many countries together, a range of international agencies should be working in such ways. It is useful to have positive examples of successful international co-operation on record. I welcome the Government's robust recommitment to the UN, and the general all-party support for the UN that has been expressed this afternoon. The key issue in our debate and in the more general debate outside is the recognition that, for all the UN's achievements, the international community has failed to tackle some of the most important issues of our day. Those hon. Gentlemen who have spoken referred to some of those failures. That is why it is right to consider how and to what extent the UN can be changed so as to allow it to become a more effective mechanism, whereby the international community can respond to the pressing challenges of the day. I mentioned the failures of the international community; I say the international community rather than the UN, because the UN is the voice of the international community. However, those failures are an argument for strengthening the UN's ability to tackle such problems; they are not an argument for weakening the UN. It is essential that, in their international actions, Governments ensure that what they do strengthens the UN rather than contributes to its weakening. I welcome the setting up of the High Level Panel by the Secretary-General, and the contribution that the Government made to that panel, which is set out in the annexe to the paper. Getting a consensus—a consensus not only on the lowest common denominator but a consensus for real change—is probably one of the most important objectives in international diplomacy today. I, too, hope that at an appropriate time, we have the opportunity to discuss those recommendations in a major debate on the Floor of the House. I welcome the emphasis in the Government's contribution to the High Level Panel, but if we are to move to a UN that "deals with threats to international peace and security", a move to what effectively is a more interventionist UN, the emphasis has to be on developing a proactive and preventive response to stop threats turning into actual attacks or conflicts. I, too, strongly endorse the proposals in the Government's paper for the UN to have a strengthened analytical capacity to identify threats and to make possible responses to threats at an early stage. I welcome also the proposals to improve UN peacekeeping operations. I would be particularly interested, either today or later, in hearing from the Minister how we could strengthen the civilian peacekeeping capacity of the UN and, indeed, of the UK, as well as the military peacekeeping capacity. It is essential also to strengthen the multilateral proliferation regimes. Again, the Government refer to the verification regime for the biological and toxin weapons convention and the strengthening of the safeguards division of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I would welcome an update. I accept that a more proactive response to some of the challenges that face the world community may require military intervention, and that in some cases, if military action had been taken at an earlier stage, some of the problems that face us now might not have arisen. Equally, there are many examples where crises in the international community could have been prevented or conflicts or wars averted, if a more proactive peacekeeping, developmental or diplomatic approach had been adopted earlier. It is therefore right for the Government to emphasise in their paper that military action should be the last rather than the first resort. I would go further than that and strongly argue that any military action should be undertaken only with the clear endorsement of the international community, which is expressed normally through the UN or a regional arrangement, such as the African Union, which is referred to in the paper. The events in Iraq in recent years are obviously the backdrop to this debate. Without going into that debate now, I do not think that anyone would dispute that our position in Iraq could well have been different and better if a degree of consensus on the right course of action could have been achieved in the UN at an earlier stage. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the argument that is put forward in some quarters that we should legitimise a more general right for states to take action to intervene militarily in other countries, unless that action either has the clear endorsement of, preferably, the UN or enjoys a clear international or regional consensus. Without such endorsement, I am worried that we will legitimise the right of, bluntly, big powers to interfere in the internal affairs of other powers, not for genuine human rights reasons, but because that suits their national interests. When I refer to big powers, I do not use that as a code for any particular big powers, such as the USA, or smaller, more medium-sized powers, such as the UK. By big powers I mean any state that is in a position of military superiority to its neighbours. There are many small powers in the world that are nevertheless substantial military players in their own areas. We must be very careful indeed about endorsing the development of legitimising a general right of states to intervene in other countries in that way. The example of Iraq has surely shown that easy assumptions about remodelling the world with quick, surgical military action can be proved wrong in reality. In saying that, I certainly do not argue that the world should stand idly by in the face of humanitarian crises or the flouting of the international community's will by repressive regimes or failed states. However, any action must surely have clear foundations in internationally accepted legal principles, in a clear and internationally endorsed legal order that reflects the clear consensus of the international community. Above all, the emphasis must be on conflict prevention, tackling the underlying factors that lead to international tension and on ensuring that the UN and Governments consistently support human rights and democracy throughout the world. What that means in practical terms is that the Government should continue their efforts to strengthen the UN and allow it and its agencies to work more effectively. The programme for change that the Government set out in their annexe to the paper has my general support. We also need to press for reforms within the UN institutions, to ensure that the promotion of human rights is taken more seriously in those agencies. We certainly cannot accept, for example, the scandal of countries with abysmal human rights records taking a leading role in the UN Commission on Human Rights. Reforming the UN also means that the UK should ensure that, as part of our efforts to combat terrorism, we do not find ourselves getting too close to regimes with questionable human rights records. We all know that a questionable human rights record almost guarantees that at some stage the country in question will become the focus of either internal or external conflict and, in some cases, a recruiting ground for further terrorism. In general terms, the agenda that the Government out in their document deserves to be supported and to be debated both in the Chamber and more generally in the country. The changes will require considerable effort at international level. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is actively involved in such efforts in many forums. I am glad that he spoke of the importance of pursuing the agenda through the European Union, because we have significant influence as a state there, and it is perhaps appropriate in a week when the Heads of Government are signing the constitutional treaty to mention the importance of the EU developing a stronger and more coherent policy on human rights. It is to be hoped that then the EU common position on human rights in international forums, such as the United Nations, would be stronger. Some might regard it as strange to refer to a n EU role in this context on the day after the EU failed to agree on the membership of the European Commission for the next five years. However, in my view the events in Brussels of the past few days have emphasised how an increasing common concern is felt throughout Europe on issues, such as equality and human rights. There is an opportunity for the UK, in the second half of next year, to build on that common concern to ensure that Europe uses its considerable collective influence to work for the reforms that we all agree are necessary in the UN and the international system. The Government have presented a generally excellent report today and it deserves much wider publicity throughout the country. I shall try to ensure that it receives that in my area and that it contributes to the debate about the future of the UN. That debate is not only for parliamentarians but is one in which the entire country should be involved.
	Back >>>
	28th October 2004, Column 521-4 Westminster Hall