Robin Cook and Menzies Campbell
September 3, 2000
The UN Security Council should be expanded to improve its effectiveness, argue Robin Cook and Menzies Campbell
As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council Britain has always played a crucial role in contributing to international peace and security. Under this government, and with the support of the Liberal Democrats, the UK has played a pivotal part in support of UN operations in Kosovo, East Timor and Sierra Leone.
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, has been frank in noting the weaknesses in peacekeeping operations. Last month, Mr Annan published a critical report on peacekeeping produced by a panel chaired by Lakhdar Brahimi, Algeria's former foreign minister.
We agree with most of that report's recommendations and are eager to see its implementation. But there is room for further initiatives particularly in the light of the experience of the UN in Sierra Leone.
Wars in the past decade have claimed an estimated 5m lives. More than at any time, these wars have violated civilians, not borders. Dealing with these conflicts has presented the UN, and the international community with enormous difficulties.
To cope with that problem there should be a clear Framework for Intervention, defined and qualified by formal criteria and principles. Humanitarian intervention could in itself serve as a deterrent to future conflicts.
Any discussion of humanitarian intervention must be preceded by addressing the balance of the Security Council. Its members are charged under the UN Charter with the maintenance of international peace and security. But this body remains essentially as it was in 1945. It is time it was enlarged to deal with the complexities of international life today. We take the view that five others - Germany, Japan and one each from Africa, Asia and Latin America - should join the present five permanent members. In addition, there should be four new, non-permanent members to make it more representative of the international community.
Expanding the Security Council would bestow upon it greater legitimacy and equip it better to address the problems of the early 21st century. To ensure that its resolutions are not ignored, as has happened in the past, the secretary-general should undertake an Annual Resolutions Review to determine which obligations are outstanding.
Britain has already submitted to the secretary-general a framework for intervention based on six principles:
• More concentration on conflict prevention.
• The use of armed force should only be a last resort.
• Responsibility in the first place lies with the state where severe violations are taking place.
• When a government has shown that it is unwilling or unable to cope with a humanitarian catastrophe, we believe that the international community has a duty to intervene.
• Any use of force should be proportionate to achieving the humanitarian purposes of the mission and carried out in accordance with international law.
• The use of force must be collective and only in exceptional circumstances should it be undertaken without the express authority of the Security Council of the UN.
As developments in Kosovo and East Timor have shown, a full economic, social and political programme to secure peace and stability must also accompany intervention. For entrenching the peace, policemen and judges, economic planners and administrators are becoming as important as soldiers are for restoring the peace.
There are still problems with the coherence, command, control and calibre of UN peacekeeping troops.
There are two ways to address this. First, the UK will seek agreement with other countries on the establishment by the UN of a Military Staff College, which would train forces for the UN in peacekeeping. We would be happy for the UN to establish such a college in the UK.
Second, a UN Military Inspectorate General needs to be created so that the secretary-general and the Security Council have the highest quality military advice. A baseline of military competence needs to be established which all contributing countries should measure up to.
Once deployed, UN peacekeepers must be able to carry out their mandate. More robust rules of engagement are needed so that UN contingents are not forced to lose the initiative to hostile elements as they have in the past. Above all, no longer must UN "blue helmets" stand aside while serious crimes against humanity are committed.
It is no longer acceptable to allow massive human rights violations and genocide to go unchallenged. It was precisely for that reason that Tony Blair, the prime minister, said last year that "the most pressing foreign policy problem we face is to identify the circumstances in which we should get involved in other people's conflicts".
We hope the proposals we are putting forward today will go some way to
addressing that problem.
Robin Cook is British foreign secretary. Menzies Campbell is Liberal Democrat
foreign affairs spokesman.
