Global engagement through the UN

International goals such as peace, prosperity, justice and sustainability can only be effectively pursued through a co-operative, rule-based global order, applied and enforced through multilateral institutions. Yet the Howard Government has co-operated with the Bush Administration’s relentless campaign to weaken the UN. As well as being ideologically opposed to multilateralism, the Bush administration has been attacking a constraint on the United States’ pre-eminence and retaliating for the refusal of most countries to support the invasion of Iraq.

Some criticism of the UN is justified: a proportion of UN peacekeeping troops in the Congo were seriously undisciplined, and some staff of the Oil-for-Food program were corrupt. Though the scale of these latter transactions was small when compared with the bribery paid by over 2,000 corporations to Saddam Hussein’s Government - including the $290 million paid illegally by Australia’s AWB - this was irrelevant and the offences were rigorously investigated. These faults caused the constant struggle to improve the UN’s efficiency and effectiveness to be intensified.

A more general criticism of the UN is that it is ineffective in resolving conflicts. But that is mostly an attempt to use the organisation as a scapegoat for the unwillingness of governments to negotiate seriously and compromise.

The UN Secretariat was not responsible for delaying peace-enforcement in Darfur, the region of western Sudan that has been wracked by conflict and displacement of population. In fact Kofi Annan campaigned for years for effective action against genocide in Darfur. The causes of the delay lay instead in the reluctance of African states to intervene in opposition to the Sudanese Government, the possibility of a Chinese veto and insufficient political investment by the other permanent members of the Security Council.

One of the primary functions of the UN is to provide forums at which issues can be discussed and conflicts negotiated. Failure to reach agreement is due principally to differences in national interests.

Many constructive ways in which Australia could express renewed multilateral commitment are possible and feasible.

First, Australia could adopt a more mature strategy for contributing to global security, of which reaffirmation of a rules-based international order is a vital component. Among the principal requirements for ending the scourge of war is for international society to: reaffirm preferences for peaceful conflict resolution rather than violence; negotiation rather than confrontation; and the rule of law rather than domination by the US. Australia could become a sophisticated advocate of that approach.

Second, Australia could undertake active study, research and consultation to find feasible means to improve the UN’s effectiveness. During the last two or three years the British, Canadian, French, German, Norwegian, Swedish and other governments have all sponsored public discourse on multilateral issues through commissions of inquiry, research projects, international consultation and public information campaigns (including support for national UN Associations) leading to articulation of reform proposals and innovative policies for the multilateral system. They have then led international discussion about their proposals. If Australia were serious it would undertake such substantial preparatory work also.

Third, terrorism needs to be put in perspective, if only because it can generate exaggerated fears. For example, there have been no deaths from terrorism within Australia. This is despite the fact we all know Australians have become more vulnerable when overseas. A sophisticated, multifaceted strategy is required for tackling terrorism including, simultaneously: homeland defence; pursuit and punishment of terrorists; action within countries of origin, supported, whenever sought, from outside; addressing the political repression and exclusion that causes grievances; and tackling injustice, poverty and despair through major upgrading of programs for social, political and economic development. The best way to protect ourselves against terrorism is simply to act justly.

Fourth, increases in military spending contributes little to such a campaign. In fact, they add to the dangers. The military dominance of the US only adds to the risk that it will take improper military action. US military expenditure has grown massively under Bush so that now more than half the world’s military spending is by the US: $620 billion a year in the current budget. Reconsideration of recent and planned increases in Australian military expenditure would be warranted. There are many far more cost-effective ways of reducing risks and assisting development. Restraint of military expenditure could release funds for desperately needed Australian economic and social programs as well as for assistance to other countries.

Fifth, the existence of nuclear weapons, not terrorism, continues to be the major threat to global survival. The revival of American nuclear weapons research and the refusal of France, Russia, the UK and the US to undertake not to use nuclear weapons first threatens the survival of the Treaty. At the 2000 NPT review conference the five nuclear states party to the Treaty gave an “unequivocal undertaking … to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament”.

The Bush Administration’s backing away from this commitment was a major cause of the deadlock at the 2005 NPT review conference.

The authoritative Blix Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction, which reported in June 2006, argues correctly that “so long as any state has such weapons - especially nuclear arms - others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain in any arsenal, there is a high risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. Any such use would be catastrophic.”

The Commission proposes incremental steps towards outlawing nuclear weapons, beginning with taking all nuclear weapons off high-alert status, making deep reductions in numbers of nuclear weapons, prohibiting the production of fissile material, urging all nuclear states to make no-first-use pledges, bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force, and reviving the commitments of all parties to the NPT - especially the steps towards nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapons states.

Australia’s role in this global survival strategy must include joining with the strongest advocates of the Blix Commission’s strategies, continuing to sustain obligations of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and rigorous scrutiny of the uses of uranium exports.

Sixth, most countries have adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for universal primary education, gender equality, reduction in child and maternal mortality, combating disease, ensuring environmental sustainability and support from developed countries. But the Howard Government is not making a fair contribution to meeting these.

Many impoverished developing countries are caught in a poverty trap for they do not have the capacity to generate sufficient savings and investments domestically or to attract much foreign direct investment,. Nor do they have the resources or industry to trade their way out of poverty. So they require increased aid to fund infrastructure and services essential to their economic and social development.

Australia could readily increase aid to them because our national income has been growing rapidly, there is no Commonwealth government debt, and the budget is in surplus. Australia occupies a distinctive global position because of its unique intersection of history, geography, economy, society and culture with developing countries, yet we are not being responsive to their needs. The swift public contributions to disaster relief after the 2004 tsunami demonstrated clearly that voters would support increased government aid for poverty reduction.

Seventh, Australian governments could demonstrate renewal of Australia’s traditional commitment to multilateralism through improved accountability.

Australia has always paid its dues to the UN on time and this is at least something for which we can be grateful. But in addition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs could make regular statements to parliament on Australian action at the UN, and other ministers could report on action at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization, UNESCO and so on. Such statements should include a record of how Australia voted. They could provide much of the material for campaigns to inform the public about the purposes, work, achievements and difficulties of the UN system.

International discussion of issues such as these seven items was relegated to the margin or paralysed by American unilateralism. However the election of a Democratic majority to Congress has created many new possibilities.

For example, if Bush proposed that the US pay its dues to the UN on time, Congress would now be likely to agree and the US would be up to date with a central part of its legal obligations to the rest of the world for the first substantive time for a decade and a half.

When Ban Ki-Moon took office as Secretary-General on January 1, 2007 he offered a fresh symbol of leadership, adding to the possibility of improved collaboration between the US and the rest of the world through the UN.

Innumerable issues are waiting to be addressed. Australia’s circumstances lead naturally to rethinking our foreign policy and to advocating strengthening of the international rule of law, upgrading our contribution to nuclear disarmament, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and fostering equitable development - in all these ways contributing to international peace and justice.