I welcome Mr. John Deady, UN Director, Department of Foreign Affairs, who is here today to bring the committee up to date on Ireland's role in UN peacekeeping and UN reform. We are aware of your distinction in this area. Perhaps you would begin with a brief presentation and we will then take questions from the members.
UN Peacekeeping and UN Reform: Presentation.
Mr. John Deady
Thank you, Chairman. I have been asked to address the issue of United Nations peacekeeping and United Nations reform. I propose to offer the committee an overview of the current situation in the process of UN reform and, in particular, on the set of recommendations that Secretary General Annan has made for decision at next September's high level summit at the United Nations. Where these reforms would impact on UN peacekeeping I will indicate some of the implications. I will be happy to address matters raised by committee members in the course of the discussion.
The forthcoming summit was originally conceived as a meeting five years after the millennium summit to review implementation of the commitments contained in the millennium summit declaration and the achievement of the millennium development goals. One aspiration of the declaration was reform of the United Nations to make it a more effective instrument of the international community. There was general agreement that there was a need for change in the manner in which the United Nations addressed the purposes for which it had been established, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of human rights and economic and social progress. Also evident was a need for improvement in the management of the UN organisation.
It is fair to say that during the past five years the public perception of the capacity of the United Nations to act effectively has been affected by events and circumstances such as the well known failure of the Security Council in early 2003 to agree on its approach to Iraq. The various allegations surrounding the Iraq sanctions regime and the oil for food programme also proved damaging, although the United Nations bore only a limited share of the responsibility. The threatened relapse of a number of states into conflict, despite having been the subject of UN peacekeeping operations, indicated weaknesses in the approach of the Security Council and the international community in general to the problem posed by states with fragile institutions. Well publicised incidences of sexual exploitation by UN peacekeepers and allegations of misbehaviour by senior appointees have, sadly, tarnished the image of the United Nations.
The repeated election to the Commission of Human Rights of states whose authorities were responsible for gross violations and abuses of human rights made it difficult for the commission to censure such regimes and cast doubt on the capacity of the United Nations to effectively fulfil its overview role in terms of human rights. During that period there were also significant successes on the part of the United Nations. It has operated successful peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone and Liberia in which Irish troops are participating. There have been many technical successes such as the organisation of the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were massive humanitarian operations which ensured large numbers did not die of starvation and so on.
Some of the more negative circumstances were exploited by those not well disposed to the United Nations. This made all the more important the achievement of reform to ensure the tasks entrusted to the United Nations by the international community were efficiently and effectively carried out so as to reinforce its public and political credibility. This is of particular importance to Ireland because the United Nations and the multilateral system generally are of central importance to it in its foreign relations. Ireland's contribution to human security through peacekeeping and in the area of human rights has been made chiefly through the United Nations. In the area of development Ireland has contributed significantly to UN funds and programmes. A well functioning United Nations is in Ireland's interests.
Secretary General Annan established a high level panel in November 2003 and charged it with examining current and future threats to peace and security and how collective measures could best address them. The panel reported on 2 December 2004 and advocated a new security consensus involving the mutual recognition of threats, including those presented by poverty, under-development, disease, conflicts, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
The millennium development project established by Secretary General Annan under Professor Jeffrey Sachs reported in February 2005 on means to restore momentum to the achievement of the millennium development goals. While some developing countries have made good progress towards their achievement, others have not, especially African countries wherein institutional weaknesses and civil and international conflict with funding shortfalls have led to many falling behind. The Sachs report concluded that the goals could be achieved by 2015. It points out that this cannot be done on the basis of a business as usual approach. There must be a strengthening of the effort. The Department of Foreign Affairs agrees with Professor Sachs's assessment that the targets in his road map are ambitious but achievable.
Secretary General Annan drew on both of these reports in drawing up a detailed schedule of recommendations for decision at the September summit. He annexed these to his own report, In larger Freedom: Towards Development, Freedom and Security for All, which was published on 21 March 2005. As a central theme, the Secretary General identified the rule of law, human rights and democracy. The essential logic of the set of recommendations that he has put forward is best summed up in his proposition that without development there can be no security, without security there can be no development and without respect for human rights there can be neither. He does not present these recommendations on a take it or leave it basis. In other words, he does not think that the outcome of the summit should be held hostage by any one element. However, he feels that the outcome should follow the essential logic of what he has proposed, due to the interrelated nature of the recommendations.
These recommendations are divided into four clusters. The first cluster is entitled "Freedom from Want" and it deals with development issues. UN members are asked to implement the existing commitments made at the millennium summit and at the Monterey conference. They are also asked to reaffirm the so called Monterey consensus of 2002, which embodies a partnership for development based on mutual commitments on behalf of developed and developing countries. Developing countries are asked to ensure good governance, respect for human rights, the rule of law and so on. They are also expected to draw up national development strategies. Developed countries are asked to commit themselves to timetables to reach the 0.7% target for official development assistance by 2015, as well as an interim target of 0.5% by 2009. A special focus on Africa and the fight against the HIV-AIDS pandemic is recommended. Early completion of the Doha round of trade negotiations, debt relief and a means of meeting a shortfall in development funding in the years immediately ahead will also be considered under this heading.
The second cluster of recommendations is entitled "Freedom from fear" and deals with security issues. These recommendations embody a new security consensus based on mutual obligations and encompass weapons of mass destruction and control thereof, small arms and light weapons, the effective implementation of sanctions, counter-terrorism measures — including a definition of terrorism, the absence of which has held up for many years the conclusion of an overall convention on terrorism — strategic reserves for peacekeeping and agreed principles for the use of force. The creation of a new body at the UN, a peacebuilding commission, is also recommended.
As the proposals under this heading would impact on peacekeeping, I will deal with them in a little more depth. There are two in particular, the first of which is the peacebuilding commission. The proposal for the creation of such an organ was a central feature of the EU contribution to the work of the high-level panel, which was drafted by and agreed under the Irish Presidency of the EU. There have been a number of instances where peacekeeping forces have been deployed to bring conflicts to a halt but where lasting peace has proved elusive. This is because the underlying roots of conflict overwhelm the fragile institutions of the states in question. Haiti is an obvious example, but there are others. There are UN peacekeeping operations in place at present which are ensuring the absence of death and destruction as well as creating space for a political process to develop. However, the economic resources are not available to underpin that process. Such countries, by definition, do not benefit from structured donor support, nor do they receive funding from the international financial institutions. They are not countries to which the IMF or the World Bank would normally be attracted. In Liberia, for example, where Irish troops are currently engaged, there have been severe difficulties in putting together programmes for the reintegration of combatants after their disarmament and demobilisation. Such countries need integrated programmes of economic and infrastructural rehabilitation, including institution-building and the development of police forces, courts, properly functioning parliamentary institutions and effective armies that respect human rights.
Ironically, while the UN Security Council, merely by establishing a peacekeeping mission, can impose mandatory contributions on UN members to pay for the mission, it has no funds for peacebuilding to complement peacekeeping. The peacekeeping commission would involve not just members of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council but also major donors, international financial institutions and the relevant regional banks. It would have the task of mobilising resources for the necessary peacebuilding measures and of ensuring their co-ordination on the ground in order to prevent fragile states from falling back into conflict. This proposal has received widespread approval and is almost certain to be adopted.
The second recommendation impacting on peacekeeping is for the creation of strategic reserves for peacekeeping. In this context, the UN Secretary General draws attention to the greatly increased demand for peacekeeping operations, which has been accompanied by an increasing reluctance on the part of developed countries to contribute troops, particularly in Africa where most of the new missions are deployed. The committee will be aware that Ireland, which has 430 troops in Liberia, is not an offender in that respect. However, it is one of the few developed countries which contribute large, formed units at battalion level to peacekeeping operations in Africa.
The UN Secretary General wants member states to do more to ensure the UN has effective capacities, including those relating to the creation of strategic reserves. In this regard, he is thinking of the so-called battlegroups of the European Union and the reserve capacities envisaged by the African Union. He would like to see the creation of an interlocking system of capacities, by which he means not just troops but those troops with the specialties and skills required to set up effective peacekeeping operations. Such a system would, in the words of the UN Secretary General, allow the UN to work with the relevant regional organisations in predictable and reliable partnerships.
The Secretary General is already instituting a policy of zero tolerance towards sexual exploitation by peacekeepers. He urges member states to support this and to institute a similar policy with respect to their national contingents.
The third cluster of recommendations, entitled "Freedom to Live in Dignity", deals with human rights. The central feature in this regard is a proposal to enshrine in the summit outcome the concept which has become known as "Responsibility to Protect". According to this concept, while sovereign states would remain primarily responsible for ensuring that the human rights of their citizens are respected and safeguarded — but where they prove unable or unwilling to do so — the international community has a responsibility to intervene. Many member states profess to seeing this as an interference in their sovereign prerogatives and express a degree of suspicion that there is an agenda for intervention. Under international humanitarian law, however, and in the view of many countries, the international community has an undeniable responsibility to intervene in cases of gross abuses of human rights, of which there have been many instances. It would represent an important advance if this concept was enshrined in the outcome of the summit. The Secretary General also proposed the creation of a UN democracy fund to provide financial and technical assistance to countries seeking to establish or strengthen their democratic institutions.
I apologise for interrupting but I must leave to go to the Seanad. I thank Mr. Deady for coming before the committee.
Mr. Deady
The fourth cluster of recommendations, entitled "Strengthening the United Nations", is mainly concerned with institutional issues. The Secretary General calls for revitalisation of the General Assembly, making its agenda more relevant to today's issues, the reform of the Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC, and improvements in the management structures of the UN Secretariat. He also proposes the replacement of the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller human rights council, the members of which would be directly elected, with a two thirds majority, by the General Assembly. This would, he believes, serve to reduce the number of states elected to the body that are serious human rights offenders.
Perhaps the most difficult issue, and the one that receives most public attention, is that of the reform of the Security Council. There is a general acceptance that the structure of the Security Council, which derived from the immediate post-war situation and comprises five permanent members and ten elected non-permanent members, does not reflect current realities. Debate surrounds two different concepts of reform. Model A, as proposed by the high-level panel, would extend the membership in both categories, permanent and non-permanent, while model B would retain the current five permanent members and create a third category of member elected for four-year renewable terms. The Secretary General has not come down in favour of either model. He has, however, urged UN members to reach a decision this year on either model or on a variation thereof regarding the expansion of the Security Council for the sake of its credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness. He has made no proposal with regard to the right of veto.
Ireland has not come down in favour of either model, although we are carefully watching the debate and could agree to anything that was acceptable to the general membership. However, we would insist that, regardless of whatever new arrangement is entered into, the opportunity for small and medium-sized states, such as ourselves, which contribute strongly in political, financial and military terms to the United Nations, to serve at reasonable intervals on the Security Council should be assured. This is a very important point for us.
That is a general overview of the recommendations of the Secretary General. The preparation of an outcome at the September summit has already commenced in New York under the aegis of the President of the General Assembly. However, as many of the Secretary General's recommendations are quite radical and would be opposed, to a greater or lesser extent, by some states and groups of states. The process of negotiation in the General Assembly is proving difficult. Hard decisions are likely to be required in capitals. The Secretary General has, therefore, decided to appoint five envoys — one from each of the traditional regional groups into which states are divided in the UN system — to work with him in the task of convincing governments to make the necessary decisions. As the committee will be aware, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has been appointed as one of these envoys and has already taken up his role.
I would be happy to address any points members may wish to raise.
I thank Mr. Deady for appearing before the committee. He stated that the structures of the General Assembly need to be revitalised. Senator Kitt and I were in New York last week at the review of the non-proliferation treaty and our limited experience demonstrates that there is need for a major review of the organisation's systems. We might just be rookies in terms of experience but the inability of the participants to even agree an agenda and the long series of speeches similar to those which occur on Second Stage in Dáil Éireann show that the system is highly ineffective and inefficient. I am not sure whether they have even reached agreement on an agenda yet but it shows that there is need for a major review and in-depth preparation before the plenary sessions. The event we attended was a shambles. Following the Minister's visits to the governments for which he, as UN envoy, has responsibility, I hope he will report back to the committee and discuss his ideas on reform of the United Nations.
I am concerned about the responsibility to protect people's freedom to live in dignity and how it might be misused. I could see it being used as a vehicle, for example, for interfering with the democratic rights of a country to define its own affairs. This freedom to live in dignity cluster could be used to interfere in the internal workings of a country and as a cover by some to go in and take out a lawfully elected government because, perhaps, a number of parties would not agree.
Mr. Deady stated that the economic resources are not available for peacekeeping. What can be done where countries default on their contribution to peacekeeping? What is the level of debt in the non-payment of obligations in that area? Has Ireland received up-to-date payment for its involvement in so many areas of the globe in recent years? Has it suffered financially because of the failure of some countries to live up to their responsibilities? While there is need for reform, great care, particularly in respect of the third cluster, namely, freedom to live in dignity, must be exercised.
I have already thanked the Chairman for his warm letter and I now thank the members for the message they sent to me during my recent illness.
This is a subject on which I must apologise for having a few substantial points to make to the committee and to Mr. Deady. It is one in which I have had an interest for some time, mainly through long conversations with one of the Irish representatives who worked in the United Nations, the late and distinguished Mr. Erskine Childers III. This has led me to be straightforward about Mr. Kofi Annan's recent document. I find that there are good things in it but my reaction to it in general is that it is deeply disappointing. It makes no reference whatever to substantial previous reviews of the United Nations and its workings.
Four studies, under the aegis of the Ford Foundation and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation and under the authorship of Mr. Erskine Childers III and Sir Brian Urquhart, were carried out over a period. One of the latest significant extensive sets of proposals for reform of the United Nations was made in 1994. It even had practical suggestions such as, for example, the appointment of an assistant secretary general in light of the fact that the Secretary General would inevitably be more busy due to the nature of global changes, conflicts and challenges. Such an appointment would enable a better and more efficient relationship with the different agencies of the United Nations.
This most recent report is entirely silent on every previous study on reform of the United Nations. It is evasive on reform of the Security Council, having avoided the issue of the use and abuse of the veto. I am sure Mr. Deady will not disagree when I suggest that it is wrong to say that the United Nations failed to reach a decision on the Iraq war in 2003. Those events have been misrepresented and, thankfully, the truth has emerged. The French Foreign Minister has repeatedly made the point clear. I listened to the statement; I read the statement. There was no absolute veto in advance. They were not in a position to agree to what was being proposed at the particular time. Those are the facts.
The United Nations was degraded by the presentation to it by the former US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, of a series of misrepresentations and false information. This, perhaps, was not the fault of Colin Powell but of those who fed him bogus information. I agree with Mr. Deady that the United Nations has been damaged.
Another general point which runs right through this report arises in respect of some of the proposals under the clusters. It is almost suggested that the southern member states of the UN — the total membership of the organisation is more than 190 — must somehow shape up. I recall arriving in Somalia just before the famine. The USSR supplied $270 million worth of arms to that country in the 1970s. Then the Administration of Somalia, which had a population of 8 million, switched sides and the United States took over. The US embarked on supplying $154 million worth of weapons between 1981 and 1991 and Italy provided $520 million worth. When I see pictures of what happened in Somalia, I often think of the thousands of people in Iraq who are being slaughtered and so forth.
I use the example of Somalia because it highlights the relationships between northern and southern countries. This report does not recognise the price paid by southern countries for northern arms or the consequences of and price paid for the Cold War. It does not comment on these matters.
There are good points in the report. It contains four excellent boxes which describe the extent of world poverty, the need which exists in respect of HIV-AIDs, the shortfall, etc. I commend Mr. Kofi Annan for including those, which are the best elements of the report. In fairness, the report is excellent on the necessity for achieving the eight millennium development goals. That is where the report is strong.
Everyone who has been interested in UN reform for some time will be struck by the omissions I have outlined. Let me clarify what I meant by the report's evasion on reform of the Security Council. This concerns the two models, A and B. Having thrown in the towel on the use and abuse of the veto, some kind of suggested associate membership of the Security Council and a different geographical representation has been put forward. If one looks at the final column of both models, one will note the significant difference between the population of the world and the representation.
In the silences I mentioned about institutional reform, I note the report contains a reference to the Trusteeship Council. The reports to which I referred earlier were published in papers on development dialogue in 1990, 1991 and 1994 regarding a world in need of leadership towards a more effective United Nations and the renewal of that organisation's system. These reports recognised a number of issues, such as the confusion within the organisation. During its founding years, it was suggested that all of the institutions be situated in one area closer to the main building. According to reports regarding executive heads of missions and functions within the UN, 23% of all unit heads come from the US and 8% from Switzerland. Some 30 countries have 0.73% of an executive head of a particular function within the United Nations. I am strongly in favour of the UN and believe in the Secretary General's suggestion that we must not only consider the state's response to his proposals but also that of civil society and the private sector.
Paragraph 39 of the report is confusing. It states that each national strategy needs to take into account seven broad clusters of public investments and policies that directly address the millennium development goals and set the foundation for growth led by the private sector.
I recall the irritation caused when I raised questions regarding the viability of the NEPAD programme of action, sponsored by South Africa and Nigeria, which raises serious issues about consultation with other African countries. However, in respect of countries where people live on $1 per day, and 77 cents for survival, it is unrealistic to suggest that 12% of development needs could be taken from national savings and economies. The report also attempts to reiterate its earlier, stronger view.
There are many matters one could raise in respect of this report. I would like to think of this as a beginning of a dialogue and debate regarding reform of the UN.
Kofi Annan is making an admission, although he is stating it less strongly than in the reports of the 1990s. From the founding of the UN, the IMF and the World Bank were responsible to ECOSOC and, upwards through the UN chain of command, to the Secretary General. However, they engage in spin and are in no way accountable back through the UN structure. In the days when people made a strong case for strengthening the UN, it was suggested that ECOSOC could become an economic security council. I agree with the Secretary General's suggestion that a triple lock mechanism of development, security and human rights working together would be possible. What he suggests with regard to ECOSOC in this report is very much less than that. He proposes that it would, for example, receive reports regarding those who fail in their commitments to achieve the development goal of €8 million.
The report is strong in seeking immediate action on the development goal of €8 million and admirable in respect of combining development, security and human rights. It is equally important that the report asks people to make their commitments. However, it is weak in terms of reorganisation and has nothing substantial to say with regard to reform of the Security Council. The suggested model of reform will not get very far. It also falls short in respect of suggestions regarding the General Assembly. I might welcome the decision to end the Human Rights Commission and to go to the General Assembly to seek a two thirds majority. Why, however, should it be confined to human rights? Why not strengthen the General Assembly to allow it deal with abuses by permanent members of the Security Council? As long as Russia uses the veto, we are unable to discuss Chechnya. As long as the United States is present, we will never have a resolution with regard to Chapter 7. Different abuses will continue. I say all this by way of an opening contribution to what I hope will be discussed in many meetings of this committee, namely, our response to Kofi Annan's position.
I strongly agree with Mr. Deady on the matter of a small technical point. There is a great deal of nonsense spoken about the United Nations' food programme. I visited New York when the sanctions were in place and I met the officials responsible for imposing them. People want to argue that the UN is failing to take certain action. Somebody pointed out to me that it has a smaller overall budget than the New York fire department. However, in terms of the UN's food programme, it has been factually demonstrated that abuses by those contracted to provide services and materials is far greater than has been suggested with regard to the intricacies of the UN.
That brings us back to the point that the structure is inefficient. The debate regarding support for the UN as a global institution must be brought to citizens in countries. That is why I raised the issue of the appointment of heads of different executive functions within the UN. I question the way in which these positions are filled. In some countries they are advertised publicly and people are invited to work for the UN. However, this does not happen in every country.
In order to be a global body, the UN must be global in every sense. The north represents 23% of the world's population and has the greater capacity for causing war and pollution. One cannot make sense of what is contained in the report regarding ecological responsibility. It seems to provide a carte blanche ability for richer countries to purchase their way out of ecological responsibility while poorer countries cannot.
We can conclude from his contribution that the Deputy is back to himself in many respects and we hope he continues to regain his health and strength.
I fully endorse the Chairman's comments about our friend and colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins. I am glad he is back with us and hope he will continue in full and robust health.
The UN is at a critical juncture in its development. It suffers from a credibility problem, on one hand, and an organisational problem, on the other. In the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001, the United States has increasingly become the single greatest difficulty for the UN. That country now regards the UN as irrelevant. In the greatest democracy in the world, ordinary Americans have their news filtered through controlled news organisations and regard the UN as a stumbling block to America's global crusade to bring democracy to all. There was a headline in the New York Post, a Murdoch-owned title at that time, regarding the ongoing debate about resolutions in respect of Iraq. It referred to a “weasels” debate at the UN. This gives some flavour of the depth of feeling that exists and was reflected by politicians in Congress who reduced funding to the UN. The world’s greatest superpower seems to take the view that it can make unilateral decisions with regard to world affairs and bypass the UN. It is important that this document should be the subject of a full debate.
While I welcome the appointment of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, as one of the envoys, I am curious to know if Ireland has an official position on the Annan report? I have not yet had sight of any such position in the public arena. I appreciate that we are involved in a consultative process but Mr. Deady is the person who will soon be drafting Irish Government policy on the UN and on this report and it might be helpful if more information, in terms of Ireland's official position in respect of a number of areas, were brought into the public arena. I am particularly interested in two issues, one of which relates to the peacekeeping element.
Mr. Deady will be aware that Ireland is often involved in trenchant and divisive debate on its continuing role and responsibilities, as a full member of the European Union, in the context of the common foreign and security policy and the defence initiative. In light of the ongoing debate on the constitutional treaty and the elements thereof which, in an evolving sense, relate to increased commitment on the part of Ireland to defence and peacekeeping matters under the Petersberg Tasks, I am sure Mr. Deady will agree that the two cannot be taken in isolation. Ireland has a strong adherence to the United Nation.
When asked if Ireland should get involved in a peacekeeping operation in Liberia, for example, people's first response is often to require whether it is mandated by the United Nations. That seems to satisfy most people, irrespective of the rights or wrongs involved. The thinking is that if it is mandated, it must be good, and that if something is suggested by the European Union, it must be bad.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins referred to abuse by permanent members of the UN. I am sure it slipped his memory that China also prevented Ireland from being involved in a legitimate peacekeeping operation in Macedonia, a situation tailor-made for Irish expertise in this area. It did so because Macedonia recognises Taiwan and was going to invest a great deal of money there. It was for that reason China vetoed the UN resolution. That meant Ireland — given that it operates a triple lock mechanism in that everything must be UN mandated and approved by Government and the Oireachtas — could not participate. There are deep flaws in the manner in which the Security Council operates.
I would be interested to hear Mr. Deady's opinion on Secretary General Annan's proposals in respect of the mandate which he is seeking. Apart from the mobilisation of resources for necessary peacekeeping measures, he also refers to the mandate under which such forces will operate. In the annex, under the heading "Freedom from Fear", he states that Heads of State and Government should "Request the Security Council to adopt a resolution on the use of force that sets out principles for the use of force and expresses its intention to be guided by them when deciding whether to authorise or mandate the use of force" refers to a reaffirmation of the Security Council's right to "use military force, including preventively, to preserve international peace and security, including in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and other such crimes against humanity" and highlights "the need to consider ... the seriousness of the threat, the proper purpose of the proposed military action".
Each time I hear about Security Council mandates and resolutions on peacekeeping, the word "Srebrenica" comes to mind. Another word which comes to mind in that regard is "Rwanda". If the small but effective UN mandated force under French control had been given the proper mandate in Rwanda, it could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. If the Dutch peacekeeping force had been given the proper mandate, it could have prevented Mladic and his thugs from murdering thousands of young men and boys in an enclave that was, ironically, protected by the UN. On each occasion I hear about reform and peacekeeping mandates, such atrocities come to mind.
I do not expect that Mr. Deady will solve the problems of the world during this meeting. However, the atrocities to which I refer happened in the recent past and they did so despite the existence of United Nations and Security Council mandates, both of which, unfortunately, fell short. Does Mr. Deady believe there is a chance this type of limited mandate will be consigned to history and that, under the terms of the proposals as outlined by Secretary General Annan, the Security Council might move towards strengthening mandates? If not, I fear we will experience another Srebrenica or Rwanda.
I am also interested in the element of the proposals that relates to the General Assembly and its revitalisation. Whenever I discuss the United Nations and its mandates with my friends in America, the question inevitably arises as to why I believe it is right that Grenada or Azerbaijan should decide American foreign policy. That is how they see it. They see the General Assembly, in the context of the UN resolutions on Israel, as being pointedly political and being promoted by one side only. Consequently, when the resolutions — even those which are founded on sound judgment and which, if implemented, would assist in building the peace process in the Middle East — reach Security Council, they are inevitably, as Deputy Michael D. Higgins said, vetoed by the United States. That is a flaw in the General Assembly rather than in the Security Council. I am interested to hear what is Ireland's position in terms of revitalisation of the General Assembly to make it more relevant and, though this may be a vain hope, somewhat less political.
My final point relates to the proposed human rights council. Having had the privilege of attending the Commission of Human Rights in Geneva for many years, Mr. Deady may recall the enormous controversy approximately two years ago when the United States — as a result of the voting mechanisms which operate on a regional basis — was voted off that body and the diplomatic representative of Libya was elected as its chairperson. This happened before Libya was embraced by the world community. I am sure Mr. Deady is aware of events to which I refer.
Libya was elected chair of the Commission of Human Rights because, under the regional structures which operate within that commission, it was the turn of the African nations to elect a chairperson and they opted to elect the Libyan representative whom, I understand from our representative in Geneva, is an extraordinarily efficient diplomat, although she represents a country which the international community at the time viewed as a pariah. Given that the election took place at the same time the US was voted out, the Commission on Human Rights' international credibility suffered a severe blow. I am anxious to hear if Ireland supports the proposal for a smaller standing human rights council.
I hope Ireland will, as stated previously and again today, punch above its weight. Ireland punches above its weight internationally because it plays to its strengths and tailors its smallness to its ability to influence change. The one area where we constantly influence change is that of human rights. I hope Ireland will take a leading role in ensuring that this particular proposal, if it is believed to be the right way forward — and I think that is the case — is adopted.
The Commission on Human Rights is in drastic need of change. Time and again resolutions are proposed but the amount of horse-trading that takes place dilutes them to such an extent that they are no longer credible. To put this in context, when Darfur hit the headlines last year and there was a real need for the Commission on Human Rights to take the lead, the resolution was filtered and diluted by the African nations — behind closed doors and on the margins — to such an extent that when it eventually came to the floor, it was non-effective.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins referred to the north-south divide. As I understand it, the African nations watered down and diluted the motion on Darfur because of the colonial legacy. They did not wish the north to be seen to be lecturing to the south and decided to express a solidarity that in normal logical circumstances would not have been expressed. Resolutions on Zimbabwe are blocked for the same reason, namely, that post-colonial countries of Africa do not wish to line up with their former colonial masters. That must change. I do not expect Mr. Deady will take on the full weight of members' contributions and solve all the problems. However, Ireland, as a small country, strongly supports the concept of a United Nations and is taking a strong lead on these issues. I hope an opportunity to discuss them further will arise.
We must recognise that in the 60 years since the end of the Second World War, the United Nations has played a major part in the creation and maintenance of world peace and security. I accept, however, that weaknesses and problems remain to be tackled. I echo the words of Deputy Michael D. Higgins who called for a fairly in-depth review of aspects of the United Nations. However, we would be in a position to deal only with some of the key elements before the summit in September.
Mr. Deady has presented a stimulating report. This is a crucial time, with events worldwide moving rapidly. While many countries are developing at great pace, abuses of human rights are widespread. In some countries, particularly in Africa, people are falling behind. I agree strongly that the millennium development goals must be supported and that the necessary funding to do this work must be provided. We have seen examples of the excellent work carried out in Africa. What is required is that all countries live up to the commitment of 0.7% of GNP in the short term.
A review of the existing organisation, management and general direction of the UN is necessary. The UN has done tremendous work in many areas but it is time for a comprehensive look at its future direction. Imagine the state in which the world would be if the United Nations was not there to do all of the work it undertakes. There would be vacuum and there would be a need to create an organisation similar to the UN. It would then be necessary to encourage countries to join it and participate in its work.
Let us build on what we have and reform those aspects of the United Nations that need it. The reform of the Security Council is covered to some extent in the proposals relating to models A and B. It will also be dealt with in the context of other models which may come up for discussion. It is important that all nations realise that they have a real part to play in the Security Council. Those in Africa, for example, must be made aware that they are deeply involved and respected at the Security Council.
I wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, well in his task. The joint committee will be preparing a report on its views in respect of these matters which will be submitted to him in due course.
The Secretary General's proposals in the annex to his report are wide-ranging and could be described as a blueprint for change. If these proposals were implemented, the word would be a fairer more peaceful, more stable, wealthier and happier place. Does Mr. Deady believe that, at the September summit, the member states of the UN will be able to forge an agreement that delivers on these proposals or is it more likely that the final outcome will be substantially watered down because of the need to make compromises to fit the needs of the more than 180 member states?
It would be interesting to know what the Minister for Foreign Affairs is being asked to do in the run-up to the September summit because I think all the special envoys have a major task to carry out. The Secretary General's proposals include a commitment to reform the membership and decision-making procedures of the Security Council by the end of the September summit. He further states that failure to reach consensus on reform should not be allowed to be an excuse for postponing action. If the reform requires the agreement of the five permanent members, can they be expected to agree to dilute their power by giving away more seats on the Security Council? There is also the issue of the type of consensus that can be had on the Security Council. There seems to be a general consensus that Africa, as one of the developing regions, should be involved.
Will the expansion of the Security Council affect its ability to act quickly in a crisis? Small armaments are one of the most significant killers in the Third World and, in practice, pose, to many populations, an immediate threat of far greater magnitude than weapons of mass destruction. Many UN member states have large industries that supply these weapons to conflict zones. Other member states regard the right to carry arms as a core value. Does the political will exist to really tackle the flow of these weapons to conflict zones?
I wish to comment now on the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The Secretary General proposes that the UN should work to ensure the entry into force of the treaty. The reality is, however, that some nuclear capacity states operate outside this treaty or those wishing to test withdraw from it beforehand. What can be done to ensure that all the states adhere to and comply with the test ban treaty?
The non-proliferation treaty has lost some of its credibility as more states develop clandestine or undeclared nuclear capacities. The nuclear weapon states have not moved towards meeting their commitments under the treaty to eliminate their own stocks of nuclear weapons. In Mr. Deady's opinion, what is the likely outcome of the UN session in New York this month on the NPT review?
As members have stated, many other issues are raised in the report. However, it is important to recognise that Ireland strongly supports the work of the United Nations. We want it to be reformed, on the basis of current knowledge, in such a way that will allow it to deal with the challenges of the next 25 to 50 years.
Mr. Deady has a good grasp of all aspects of the UN and we may request him to the committee to discuss these matters further. I invite him to comment on what has been said.
Mr. Deady
As the Chairman said, this is an extensive blueprint for change. While I would expect that some elements will be agreed in September, there will be others which might be agreed but only on the basis of being on an agenda for implementation over a number of years. Clearly, it is a long agenda. Secretary General Annan's fairly trenchantly expressed view is that these proposals are balanced and interlinked. He feels that while not everything needs to be agreed, and probably not everything can be agreed, nevertheless whatever is agreed must follow the intrinsic logic of what he proposes. We would agree with that.
Senator Mooney was keen to know how Ireland views these proposals. Ireland can accept pretty well all of the recommendations which were made by the Secretary General. He has not made a specific recommendation regarding Security Council reform. However, we would have no problem with what is recommended on everything else. One of the reasons the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is in a position to act credibly as an envoy is that we have no difficulty with any of the recommendations.
Deputy Allen and others referred to the need for revitalisation of the General Assembly. There has been some progress in this area, including during the Irish Presidency when the European Union pushed for a degree of reform and revitalisation, for instance, in stripping down the agenda, taking out repetitive issues that come up year after year and on which there is no agreement and no advance, putting them onto a biennial or triennial cycle so that we do not have to deal with everything every year, and generally making the procedures more relevant and streamlined. There has been some progress, but it needs a good strong impetus at summit level to achieve further progress and I hope this can be achieved at the summit.
Deputy Allen mentioned our responsibility to protect and the concern that it might be a cover for interference inside a sovereign state. The Deputy has put his finger on the tension which surrounds this issue. Clearly there must be some way of agreeing on the need to intervene where there are gross abuses of human rights. Ireland would very much agree with that. However, many states have expressed concern that this could be used as a cover for interference. Some means must be found to provide assurance that this will not happen. I hope progress can be made on this.
I do not have precise figures relating to peacekeeping and peacekeeping funding and the returns to Ireland regarding our contribution to peacekeeping efforts. That is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Defence. However, much progress has been made recently in getting funding. While it is not up to date, it is fairly close to being up to date.
Regarding the previous efforts at reform and documents and so on that have been produced, I agree with Deputy Michael D. Higgins that there has been a series of proposals over many years. They all need agreement on the part of member states. It is the member states who dispose. The Secretary General can propose, commissions, expert groups and working groups can propose, but it is the member states who implement when it comes to matters outside the immediate control of the Secretary General. Therein lies the rub. It has been part of the agenda of Secretary General Annan since his appointment to effect reform in the United Nations. He has worked hard on this. He has generated momentum. Since late 2003 he has managed to generate a political momentum for change which has now reached a critical mass. We hope this package can be agreed upon to a large extent and that we can go forward from there. I hope this set of recommendations will not lie on the shelf, like others the Deputy mentioned, but that we will take the essence of what is in it and go forward.
Nobody would disagree with the Deputy regarding the threat posed by arms and the mayhem caused, especially the sales of small arms and light weapons into developing countries. In the Cluster II: Freedom from Fear section, the Secretary General proposed that we develop legally binding international instruments to regulate the marking, tracing and illicit brokering of small arms and light weapons — we in Ireland attach enormous importance to this — and to ensure the effective monitoring and enforcement of United Nations arms embargoes. When Ireland went on the Security Council in 2001 it was quite shocking to me, as a member of the delegation, to find that while there were several embargo regimes in place, complete with committees and chairmen to oversee them, most were not monitored, and most of these committees were effectively inoperative. We certainly made a difference while we were on the Security Council regarding the sanctions against UNITA in Angola; we played a role in making sure they were finally effectively monitored. It was attended by great success in the end. That is a very important aspect on which I agree with the Deputy.
The Secretary General has made no specific recommendation regarding reform of the Security Council. He has made it clear that this is a matter for the member states. They must work it out between them. He cannot make them come to an agreement. There are two very definite camps among the member states. There is a process at work at the moment to see which will prevail. This will probably have to play out before we see an outcome. It is very much in play at the moment. I can only suggest that we watch what is going on in New York and perhaps there will be some news in due course. The Secretary General has made it clear that there should be a result this year, that this has been discussed for far too long, that the Security Council needs to be expanded for the sake of its legitimacy and credibility and that it is up to the member states to do that. He has made no secret of that view.
There is a proposal that the Trusteeship Council be finally laid to rest and it may be in this round of discussions.
To clarify that, the 1994 report suggested, very valuably, that the conflicts coming down the tracks would not be ones between states but would be based on religious, ethnic and tribal differences, and that there could have been a role for the Trusteeship Council if it had evolved into anticipating events, and it had the capacity and the structure at the time to examine cultural, ethnic and religious differences which did not fall neatly between national boundaries. That was my point.
Mr. Deady
In the run-up to the current process a role along those lines was suggested for the Trusteeship Council. There could be a kind of overseeing role for countries with fragile institutions. However, the problem is that the Trusteeship Council is associated, by the broad mass of countries in the UN, with colonialism and the colonial era. It was intended to supervise the administration of the colonies by the colonial countries in the early years of the existence of the UN and has a lot of baggage in that regard.
The functions proposed for the peacekeeping commission would be similar to what was proposed during the 1990s. The reality is that it will probably go. It is very much the bottom line for Ireland that any involvement peacekeeping operation on our part requires authorisation by the Security Council. The Secretary General welcomes a strengthening of capacity in crisis management on the part of regional organisations and of making that available to the UN during crisis situations.
Even though we could face another Macedonia, Ireland will still continue to adhere strictly to the concept of the triple lock.
Mr. Deady
A Security Council resolution is a requirement in our legislation for involvement in a mission abroad by the Defence Forces. The situation in Macedonia was very important. I was at the Security Council when it happened. Everyone was shocked that such an event could happen but it did. However, all of this is a matter for the Government and I cannot enter into it. I still think that it will be regarded as a very important safeguard and an indication of the consent within the international community when authorisation by the Security Council is provided.
There is a debate about the distinction between humanitarian intervention and humanitarian protection. Doctor Sahnoun's document on that was very valuable and I agree with the Senator in this respect. There is a problem in terms of balancing sovereignty and the protection of rights. That bigger issue is to achieve agreement on a set of universal rights. Humanitarian intervention was used by Mussolini and is a discredited concept. On the other hand, humanitarian protection is a fresh concept and it is worth discussing how it might be achieved.
Mr. Deady
I believe that the Secretary General has dropped the word "intervention". He spoke about humanitarian intervention when he spoke to the General Assembly a few years ago. The concept of the responsibility to protect is now to the fore and I think that is the correct language to use.
The principles for the use of force are listed in the Secretary General's recommendations. He speaks about the need to consider, when contemplating whether to authorise or endorse the use of force, the seriousness of the threat, the proper purpose of the proposed military action, whether means short of the use of force might reasonably succeed in stopping the threat, whether the military option is proportionate to the threat at hand and whether there is a reasonable chance of success. These are fairly well established principles of international law in any event. Ireland would have no difficulty in signing up to them.
The background to this matter lies in what happened in Rwanda, Srebrenica and so on. During the 1990s, the UN was hit with immediate post-war situations with which, perhaps, it was not fully prepared to deal. The international community in general was not prepared either for the events that took place. We have learned a great deal since then. No-nonsense operations with robust mandates have been put in place, particularly in west African countries such as Sierra Leone and Liberia. These mandates have included Chapter VII mandates and they have made a huge difference. The EU and UN authorised action in Bunia, in the north-east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where there was an intervention to prevent a massacre. More robust action is now being taken and I hope that huge disasters like Rwanda and Srebrenica are behind us. I say that in the full knowledge of what is happening in Darfur.
There was a suspicion that it was unilateral action by British forces on the ground in Sierra Leone that helped to resolve that matter. They operated outside the mandate but managed to get the job done. I will not go down that road. However, it did happen in the context of a strong mandate.
Mr. Deady
The mandates in respect of the west African nations are extremely robust.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs is keen to stress to his European colleagues the importance which the Secretary General attaches to a strong action by the EU in coming up with robust commitments on development. This will be the trigger for everything else. If there are credible commitments on the part of the developed world in respect of official development assistance, we will achieve much of what we would like to achieve in September. The European Commission proposed that the EU commit itself to an overall contribution of 0.56% of GDP by 2010. This would fit well with the Secretary General's proposals. This covers the 25 members states of the EU, so the contribution is an average. It would be very satisfactory if the EU were to sign up to this commitment.
Are we supporting the human rights commission proposals?
Mr. Deady
We can certainly accept the proposal relating to human rights. There is much discussion about it at present, in terms of teasing out what it means. For example, what size should the commission be and should there be criteria for election to it? In principle, we can support it.
If the EU is to get to 0.56% of GDP overall, the countries further up the line will have to push ahead urgently to meet the requirement by 2010. There was an earlier figure of 0.39% but that has since been raised.
Mr. Deady
This commitment is to be reached by 2010.
We will note the point as we are working on that separately. I thank Mr. Deady sincerely for coming before the committee and giving members the benefit of his knowledge of these issues. We began working on this process earlier but it is such a vast challenge that other matters intervened.
We are anxious to return to it and to obtain as much clarity as possible. We also are anxious for renewal at this important point in time. There is much work on which to base the future. Many people would wish to be more deeply involved and better recognised within the UN system of operation. As strong supporters of the UN, the committee wishes Mr. Deady well in his work. Likewise, we wish the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, well in his work.
We will prepare a report which will be available by September. That month will see the achievement of certain key objectives. The reform within the organisation will need to be much deeper and wider to renew its effectiveness and help it deal with the challenges ahead. I thank Mr. Deady for appearing before the committee.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.32 p.m. and adjourned at 3.43 p.m. sine die.