§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
2.35 pm§ Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important subject of Britain and the United Nations. This debate follows that which I was lucky enough to have the chance to initiate on 4 December 1992 on the UN, and several Adjournment debates on the then obscure subject of UN peacekeeping. I am chairman of the United Nations parliamentary group. 1 have always been proud of the United Kingdom's contribution to the work of the UN from its birth, and of our special place on the UN Security Council.
The United Kingdom is in a special and privileged position in the UN. It therefore behoves us from time to time to give a lead to that body. My theme this afternoon is that this is just such a time. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be replying to the debate, and the House will be looking for some pragmatic, well-considered Government proposals to tackle the many, various and well-known problems on which I shall briefly touch.
To be blunt, the United Nations is facing the greatest crisis in its 50-year history. I shall let Sir David Hannay, an outstanding former permanent ambassador to the UN, set the scene. He wrote recently:
The UN of 1997 will be in less good shape than it was at the beginning of the current five-year mandate in 1992. Gone the confidence and optimism exuded by the statement adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the members of the Security Council at their first ever summit-level meeting a month after Boutros-Ghali took office. Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda have taken the shine off the successes in Namibia, the Gulf, Cambodia and elsewhere. Tales of waste, duplication and incompetence in the Secretariat and UN agencies have undermined public support for the organisation.I agree with those pertinent remarks, and I draw attention to the fact that it was the Government that set up the special Security Council meeting to consider for the first time at summit level how the UN should best proceed. The truth is that, at the end of this troubled and turbulent century, we need the UN, based on its widely praised charter, more than ever before.At present, some 17 peacekeeping operations are under the auspices of the UN. National Governments blithely assume that the UN will be around to pick up the pieces after other attempts have failed. When NATO leaves Bosnia, or non-governmental organisations get kicked out of other countries, when chaos, anarchy, despair and degradation stalk the land, the cry will continue to go up for the UN to move in, take over and supply the instant solutions.
I should like the UN to be able to assume a greater importance in world affairs, to be given greater authority to prevent conflicts in places such as Burundi and Macedonia, to strengthen further human rights, in particular those of refugees, and to be better placed to struggle against suffocating poverty and the environmental destruction all around the globe.
I hope that the Minister will join me in celebrating the UN's many and often largely taken for granted successes. I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the success of the 50th anniversary celebrations—an event so well 614 organised by the United Nations Association in this country that I do not believe any other country did better—and recognise the Government's role in mobilising public support for an enhanced UN as we move into the 21st century.
Only through a thorough and sustained process of reform can the recent decline of UN standing be reversed. Following "An Agenda for Peace"—yes, I know it is the Minister's bedside reading—the Secretary-General has carried out a considerable measure of reform. There have been new appointments, and, as requested by the United States, there is now an office of internal oversight.
Every hon. Member will welcome the slimming down of the UN bureaucracy, while agreeing that there is more to be done. My hunch is that there are still too many committees and too much international bureaucracy and waste. When it comes to promotions, I should like greater emphasis to be placed on merit and less on nationality. The UN bureaucracy has improved, but it is still not up to the required standard. There may be scope for removing one UN agency altogether, but it would be foolish to talk of closing down several.
My attention has been drawn to a reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave in the house. He said:
By reform, I mean not just a reform of procedures but the abolition of many United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose."—[Official Report, 30 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 772.]His predecessor was got at by Ronald Reagan and the Heritage Foundation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be able to hold his own under any such pressures in the future.Before the Secretary-General was first elected, he said that would carry on for only one term. He would be wise to keep to that, and he would set a good precedent. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister care to comment on that? Has he any ideas as to future candidates whom the British Government might want to back? Have we started discussing the matter with the European Union and within the Commonwealth?
The idea of a deputy has also been suggested. While the Secretary-General would continue to handle international crises—the high-wire act—and run the peacekeeping operations throughout the world, his deputy would be shaking up and slimming down the bureaucracy and working out the new priorities. In naval parlance, it is called running a tight ship. Does that idea have my right hon. Friend's support? It appears to have the Prime Minister's, if he wants any guidance on the matter.
At the heart of my remarks must be the serious financial crisis facing the UN. There have been a number of such crises before—I feel that I have been around that course more than once—but this time the situation seems extremely serious. There have been loud and clear warnings for many months, yet no proper action commensurate with the great size of the problem has been taken by the United Nations' 185 member states.
I cannot believe that the UN will be allowed to close its doors—if it did so, a new and similar international organisation would at once have to be constructed—yet it is now a fact that the UN could be completely out of cash by the end of this year.
The present financial crisis is crippling the United Nations and preventing it from carrying out essential tasks. Already, diplomatic initiatives for peace cannot 615 proceed, human rights monitors cannot be deployed, and vital emergency humanitarian efforts are being held up. This is tragic. What a way to run our world.
To keep the lights on, the UN's senior figures are putting aside important matters as they desperately try to raise funds. They are hindered by two basic problems: the UN has only puny financial reserves at the best of times, and it has not been permitted to borrow, even for a few weeks.
The Secretary-General has been forced to use money in the UN's peacekeeping budget to pay for its day-to-day running costs. What will happen if a large peacekeeping force is required urgently and totally unexpectedly? There must be the possibility of a small regional problem flaring up out of control because no peacekeeping force is dispatched at the crucial early stages.
Hon. Members know that the world's richest country—which, in my view, is wrongly and undeservedly the host to the UN headquarters—is pushing the UN to the brink of disaster. The United States of America gains massive benefits from the location of the UN in New York, but it owes the UN approximately $1.6 billion, and it is about to cut its contribution to peacekeeping from 31.5 per cent. to 25 per cent of the cost. That is disgraceful behaviour by a permanent member of the Security Council, which has more influence over the work of the UN than any other country.
According to the Global Policy Forum, an organisation located in New York, the current United States share of the regular UN budget—£321 million—is only one fiftieth of 1 per cent. of federal spending, and less than 1 per cent. of New York city's annual outlays. Important countries such as Russia and Ukraine have not paid their full dues because of their internal financial difficulties—but at least they are trying to catch up.
I turn to the European Union to take the initiative. The Minister is not as enthusiastic as I would like him to be for joint EU action in foreign policy. However, the EU countries—which contain two permanent members of the Security Council—should push forward their proposals for solving the crisis. Together, the EU countries pay more than half the funds received by the UN, and last year they strongly and correctly criticised America during the appropriate debate in the General Assembly. It is right that member countries that do not pay their contribution should not have a vote at the UN, as the Foreign Secretary has most effectively pointed out.
The European Union should appeal to all member states that have not yet fully paid their assessments to do so without delay. They should appeal to those countries that enjoy strong economies to make emergency payments to help existing UN debts. They should call for an emergency meeting of the General Assembly, and highlight the very real dangers to world peace and security if the UN is forced dramatically to curtail its activities.
I believe that 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the declaration of human rights. How will the Government celebrate the anniversary and help build on the declarations's achievements? Perhaps a committee along the lines of the 50th anniversary committee is called for, under a chairman with a legal background. What funding will be made available by the Foreign Office? Perhaps the Minister could write to me with his considered views on this topic in due course.
616 Conflict prevention is a key subject, and I have already made a passing reference to it. How can we give a higher priority to it in the future? There have been important advances that have saved lives, time and trouble later. I welcome the start that the international community has made in relation to war crimes. Over the long term, more alleged war criminals must be brought to justice, and clear standards of international behaviour must be established.
I have taken up much of the time of the House in Adjournment debates on the obvious need for Britain to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The Government have behaved badly, and there is widespread support in the House for our return to UNESCO. Our friends in the Commonwealth do not understand why we do not come back in and stand up for British interests and for their interests.
When we were a member, in any one year we earned more money for UNESCO than we put into it. We are letting down many British scientific, educational and cultural organisations. If we wish to remain on the Security Council, the universality rule is fundamental. Surely my right hon. Friend will accept that.
Qana is worthy of a special debate. I welcome the report on it, and congratulate the Secretary-General on its speedy production. In this country, we know that how long reports and inquiries can take. I find it appalling that the United States and Israel have been trying to keep that crucial report under wraps. UNIFIL is supported by the United Kingdom from our sovereign bases in Cyprus, and I hope that the Government will continue to take a robust line in support of that UN peacekeeping force.
On peacekeeping, we need better procedures to deal with the new world in which we will find ourselves in the next century, when I fear that there will be more civil wars. We will need to hold back before committing peacekeeping forces, and not spread the UN effort too thin.
Many years ago, I worked for Sir Hugh Foot, when he was the colonial governor of Cyprus. He wrote in his book "A Start in Freedom" some excellent words about the UN, with which I will finish:
I have always believed that the forces of conciliation are potentially stronger than those of conflict. The trouble is that the forces of hatred and conflict are so well organised and well led while the forces of conciliation are ill organised or ill led, or not organised or led at all. Now in the United Nations we have a permanent organisation for promoting international understanding and co-operation. It is this new initiative which gives us new hope in a divided world.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley)I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for this opportunity to debate Britain and the United Nations.
I was honoured and pleased to be one of the United Nations Association's UN ambassadors in the United Nations 50th anniversary year. I am not so pleased to admit that that was because I was born in the same year as the United Nations. It was an extremely good year. In that connection, I was also pleased to represent the Government at the religious service organised by the UNA on 24 October to mark the 50th anniversary.
617 I was lucky to visit the UN headquarters at New York during the General Assembly in 1990. I should also like to pay tribute to my local UN association in Richmond and Twickenham, which does excellent work by informing local people of the hopes and values of the UN.
When King George V1 addressed the first UN General Assembly held in London in January 1946, he said that building the United Nations was "noble work". That sentiment remains as valid today as it was then. The international community needs the UN. It is the only international organisation with the legitimacy, mechanisms and resources capable of promoting a stable, secure and prosperous world. It represents the voice of the international community. The challenges it faces are many. But those voices that criticise the UN for the weaknesses common to all international bureaucracies would soon find out that, if we had no UN, we would need to invent it.
Without the UN, the burden on the world's super-powers would be immense. There is wide recognition that the UN needs to put its own house in order. That message came through loud and clear during last year's 50th anniversary year. There was much introspection and analysis of the UN's performance. But high-profile media attention focused too much on UN setbacks—from corruption in the World Health Organisation to failure in Somalia. The pendulum swung too far in the direction of pessimism.
The UN was not given credit for some real successes: for example, bringing peace to previously war-stricken countries, such as Mozambique, where UN peacekeepers helped demobilise 100,000 combatants; El Salvador; Cambodia, and now Angola, where the UN is overseeing the peace accords. The UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti has been an especially successful and unsung mission, with a major United States component under UN command.
Who knows of the small successful missions in Macedonia, or the force in 1994 in Chad overseeing the withdrawal of Libyan forces from the Aouzou strip? Who refers very often to the humanitarian efforts of the special representative of the Secretary-General in Burundi? They are helping to prevent instability from becoming genocide. I am pleased that that was mentioned at Question Time earlier this week, but I have not read much about it in the press.
The UN has done excellent, unsung humanitarian work through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It has been a motor for democracy, sustainable development and the rule of law. Its record on human rights has been outstanding in setting universal standards and in progressively canalising pressure from democracies and non-governmental organisations to address the problems of human rights violations where and when they occur.
Britain, for its part, remains wholeheartedly committed to the purposes and principles of the UN charter. We have been at the heart of the UN for the past 50 years. Britain helped to draft the UN charter, which has stood the test of time and remains a testament to the vision of the founding fathers. Britain hosted the first meetings of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council in London in 1946.
618 British forces have a long record of service with the UN, from Cyprus 30 years ago—where my hon. Friend served so well and gallantly—to Kuwait, Rwanda, Angola and Bosnia more recently. Britain can be proud of its contribution. From 1993 to 1995, we were one of the major UN troop contributors, and the UK has made strenuous efforts to find a long-term solutions to many of those problems.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, Britain is at the centre of decision making. Our permanent seat on the council gives us an important point of leverage in international affairs, and we bring a wealth of experience to the council.
We have contributed strongly in ideas and constructive proposals to the continuing process of United Nations reform, to which my hon. Friend referred. I agree with him that the United Nations' financial crisis is its greatest challenge. Its perennial cash flow problems result principally from the continued failure of some member states to fulfil their international treaty obligation to pay their assessed contributions to the UN promptly and in full.
My hon. Friend was robust in his criticism. We have consistently encouraged others to follow our example of full and prompt payment, and will continue to repeat those sentiments in all relevant forums and to all donors; but the long-term solution lies in reform of UN finances.
At the end of 1995, arrears to the UN had reached an unprecedented $2.3 billion. That was $500 million higher than a year earlier, and $800 million higher than two years earlier. Percentage payment by all member states had dropped to less than 93 per cent. of the amount assessed. The US rate of payment had dropped to 47 per cent.
In 1995, the UN cross-borrowed continually and extensively from peacekeeping operations to fund the regular budget. The level of borrowing and length of time that amounts were borrowed were unprecedented. Never before has the UN reached year end without repaying the amounts borrowed from peacekeeping operations. The consequent shortfall on peacekeeping budgets delayed reimbursement to those member states providing troops and equipment for peacekeeping operations. We are working with other member states to put a stop to that practice.
The UK has made strenuous efforts to help. It has also made strenuous efforts to find a long-term solution to financial problems. In January 1996, the UK made proposals—which are now a European Union initiative—to put the organisation back on a secure financial footing. They comprise measures to tighten penalties on non-payers; to accelerate repayment of arrears; to reform the scales of assessment to bring them more into line with the principle of capacity to pay; and to tighten controls on UN expenditure. We firmly believe that the EU proposals are the best solution offered, and we are lobbying member states for support.
A related challenge is the reform of the UN's institutions where there is a real need to revitalise the UN's system and make it more relevant for the future. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took a lead role at the G7 summit at Halifax last June in pressing for reform. The Halifax communiqué contained clear language on the need for more effective policy co-ordination within the economic and social areas of the UN's activities, the elimination of overlaps and streamlining of UN bodies, including a more transparent and accountable secretariat.
619 We have been working hard with our G8 and EU partners to achieve those goals. It is no mean feat to change an organisation as large as the UN, but progress is being made, I can assure my hon. Friend. There is an increasing acceptance by member states, including some key developing countries, and by the UN itself that reform is necessary and desirable so that the UN can more effectively meet the needs of its members.
However, a great deal more work is required. Mandates must be refocused, processes streamlined and modern management techniques introduced if the UN is to emerge as a credible international institution in the 21st century. Britain is pressing consistently across the spectrum of UN activities for the necessary reforms, and is constantly urging all others concerned about the UN to do the same.
I will refer briefly at this point to the subject of Britain rejoining UNESCO, which my hon. Friend has discussed with me; I know that he feels strongly about it. The Government keep that under constant review. No decision to rejoin has yet been taken, but, as my hon. Friend will know, we have recognised the reforms undertaken since we left in 1985. However, we believe that more still needs to be done—for example, a more focused approach, greater decentralisation and reduction of administrative costs. There is also an opportunity cost to the aid programme, which would have to be taken into account.
Britain has made proposals to strengthen UN peacekeeping to enable the UN to respond more rapidly to crises. We have seconded military officers to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Under a British initiative, we are now working with African states and the Organisation of African Unity to develop a framework within which African peacekeeping capabilities can be built up. Our efforts have been recognised and welcomed in Africa, and, together with the French, we have sought to overcome traditional Anglophone/Francophone barriers.
Improving the UN's preventive diplomacy capabilities is another area where we have been active. The UN needs to take effective action to prevent crises before they erupt. The preventive deployment in Macedonia shows what can be achieved. We have been active nationally. Under an initiative with the French, we provided the UN with a senior political adviser to assist the UN team mediating in the recent inter-Tajik peace talks. We have given the UN a representative list of those whom we would make available for preventive diplomacy initiatives. We look to the UN to make use of that list.
620 In his address to the UN General Assembly last autumn, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested that the UN adopt a new approach to peace-building called "UN programmes for transition and stabilisation ". The aim is to harness UN and international effort against clear aims.
We want to see a coherent approach to post-conflict peace-building which draws together political, peacekeeping, democratisation, humanitarian and development efforts within an overall framework. The UN mission in Haiti has been a particularly interesting model of an integrated approach. That will require UN departments and programmes to abandon their traditional barriers and work to a common aim—the United Nations Development Programme and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, together with Political Affairs.
Britain is also active in the debate on enlargement of the Security Council. That debate has been under way now for more than two years. There is a consensus in favour of enlargement. Germany and Japan have more support than others for permanent membership, but beyond that, no consensus yet exists on specifics. We believe that the time has come for real decisions. It is in the best interests of the council that the debate does not drag on.
My hon. Friend referred to human rights. I shall write to him on the question he posed. The UK is an active member of the Commission, and is involved in the negotiations on most resolutions. My fellow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), visited the Commission on 26 March, where he delivered a national statement and announced a further £1 million contribution to UN human rights field operations in Rwanda.
At the time of my visit to New York in 1990, there were 159 member states in the United Nations. In only five and a half years, that number has increased to 185. Such rapid change is not easy to manage, and it requires flexibility and determination. As the UN approaches the millennium, it must meet that challenge. To do so, it needs to put its house in order; it needs to adopt modern practices of administration and management; and it needs to adapt its public image to modern times, so that the media get the good news and the successes, not just the bad news. We will continue to play our part in helping the UN to adapt to the needs of the member states.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o ' clock.