Tory foreign policy should begin with UN reform

There have been quite a few articles in recent days bemoaning the fact that neither the Government nor the Conservative Party has a serious foreign policy.  The most 'unserious' aspect of current foreign policy is the reverence for the UN.  I've written about the UN's failures before but this, from Jonah Goldberg, says it particularly well on TownHall.com today:

"Once again the "international community" is clamoring for the United Nations to fix things in the Middle East. It's reminiscent of an episode of "The Simpsons" in which Homer is in dire straits. In a panic, he yells heavenward, "I'm not normally a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman!" For some fetishists of multilateralism, the U.N. seems to fill this odd space in their brains once reserved for God, providence, the czar or even the Man of Steel - whatever force of good that can save civilization from evil. If religion is the opiate of the masses, then the United Nations is the opiate of the elites."

It's odd that Tories - who so understand the weaknesses of the EU - should feed support for this talking shop where dictatorships have as much power as democracies.

The UN is always at the mercy of the slowest Security Council member in any convoy to action.  In the absence of any consensus amongst UN members for its reform Conservatives should be arguing for a 'coalitions of the willing' multilateralism.  Such 'coalitions of the willing' include NATO, the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and the coalition of nations that organised relief for the Indian Ocean region after 2004's tsunami.  What has been called "multi-multilateralism" is a more promising route to both avoiding dangerous unilateralism and also to ensuring that there is some sort of response to international dangers.

Comments

[Yet Another Anon]

I doubt the UN will change much, certainly international bodies on various things are desirable - I'm not sure that Common security Policy is working at all well, it might be best to scrap The Security Council - there is never going to be agreement on how it should be constituted or what it decides, some Regional bodies such as NATO have been a success, otherwise the only way of it being a viable option is some kind of permanent force seperate from the nation states otherwise it's just a talking shop.

Certainly the WTO and World Bank have been doing good work and organisations such as the WHO and World Metereological Organisation, International Postal Union etc...., perhaps it needs to become more non-geographical - the UN Building is in the US, perhaps if it held conferences and meetings at hired venues in different parts of the world (obviously stable defendable ones) - it perhaps could do with some kind of independent revenue raising capacity.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Conservatives should be arguing for a 'coalitions of the willing' multilateralism"

Or to put it another way, a licence for the neocon hawks in Washington DC to pursue their foreign policy goals as they see fit.

The reason the internationcal community is calling for the United Nations to intervene in the latest crisis is the reprehensible failure of the United States government to bring its influence to bear as a moderating influence on the Israeli administration.

[John Coles]

"" The most 'unserious' aspect of current foreign policy is the reverence for the UN."
How true. It's all part of an instinctive reverence for large quasi-governmental organisations - the NHS, the EU, the UN, the Civil Service, the BBC.
Oh, for a bit of radical thinking coupled with a readiness to recognise major deficiencies and frame policy accordingly.

[william]

Tory foreign policy should begin with Melanie Phillips.com

[Opinicus]

The purpose of the UN is that it does nothing whilst looking as though it does something. Its purpose is not to work - otherwise it would have been set up differently. It is not a matter of belief but of contempt. Most of the world's problems are beyond help or have a solution that is personally worse than the problem.

The answer to the Middle East problem is to cut off the US subsidy to Israel until it stops lording it over the surrounding arab world and allows a truly independent palestinian state. This means coming down on the arab side and is politically difficult in the UK in the current terror context and completely impossible in the USA.
The problem in Zimbabwe is that it has elected a homicidal loony for president but no one, including RSA and Nigeria thinks its worth a soldiers life to pull their irons out of their fire.
What we get in each case therefore is a really stern resolution at the UN and an embarrassed silence of relief.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Tory foreign policy should begin with Melanie Phillips.com"

That's right - and Simon Heffer should draft the domestic policies for our next manifesto, with Peter Hitchens taking charge of strategic thinking!

See you in Downing Street!

[Jon Gale]

Anything that reduces national sovereignty should be avoided like the plague.

[Don Jameson]

Please, please, please, be careful.

Every time some-one says "I don't believe in the UN" a fairy dies.

[malcolm]

Interesting thread.You're absolutely right in that the UN is at the mercy of the slowest member of the security council.Twas ever thus with international groupings.NATO is not immune either,witness the utterly pathetic response for troops in Afghanistan.Identifying the problem is not the same 'though as providing a solution.A coalition of the willing is only a good idea if the 'willing' want exactly the same outcomes as we do.
In answer to your origal question,what should the Tories foreign policy be? I would suggest a hard headed approach to furthering British interests where we work with those who share our aims (including the EU,the USA etc) and against those who don't (including the EU,the USA etc).

[Editor]

DVA: I don't know if you have read Mel P or Peter H recently but they advocate very different foreign policies!

[Deputy Editor]

You're absolutely right in that the UN is at the mercy of the slowest member of the security council

Did you see Vivienne Westwood, the "human rights campaigner" on The Week last night? It was almost sad to watch such well-meaning but misguided and baseless platitudes.

Predictably, she thought the only thing wrong with the UN was America's veto.

[John Hustings]

I sometimes wonder if those kind of platitudes are so well-meaning.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"DVA: I don't know if you have read Mel P or Peter H recently but they advocate very different foreign policies!"

Aye - I can't recall the last international intervention that Hitchens actually supported. (Agincourt?)

"Predictably, she thought the only thing wrong with the UN was America's veto."

No country should have a veto when it comes to safeguarding security in the world as it means vested interests will always win through. Some form of 'double majority' voting system in the UNSC (i.e. majority of the permanent members and majority of UNSC) would be preferable.

[Og]

What Vivienne Westwood is to making girls look good, so Genghis Khan was to ethical foreign policy.

[Editor]

Daniel: Would democracies have the same weight in this double voting system as dictatorships?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel: Would democracies have the same weight in this double voting system as dictatorships?"

As per the current voting system, all UN member states would carry the same weight. Expansion of the number of permanent UNSC members to include Brazil, Germany, India and Japan would give democratic states the whip hand.

[Chad]

Yes, UN reform please. Why not create tiered membership (4+ tiers) where a place within that tier is calculated as a % of GDP (with a fixed minimun $ value to keep it sane)

That way a country could decide to either take a more proactive role by contributing the higher amount and stepping up a tier or step back a bit by contributing a lower amount and going down a tier

So for example, a growing economy like India may decide it really wants to be in the top tier, so it could come up with the readies to secure a place.

The veto would apply to the top tier as now.
(let's be realistic here we won't get the big ones involved if they don't have a veto)

That way, the organisation would have a linear proportionality to votes based on contributions.

As least this would be transparent, fluid and reflect the world now, rather than a just a snapshot of the power bases at the time it was created.

[Kevin Davis]

It is the UN where we should be wielding influence and not the EU. The EU is a 20th century, post war structure that has had its time. In a period of globalisation surely attention should be turning to the UN. "National and local, but not regional" - It applies internationally as much as it doe nationally.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

The trouble with your system Chad, is that it would either lead to poorer governments having no voice in top-level decision-making or lead to poorer government spending beyond their means in an attempt to buy influence and/or prestige.

Taking your example, India is a rapidly growing economy, but it is also a country suffering deep-rooted social problems as well. Don't you think the Indian government should be 'coming up with the readies' (as you put it) to meet the needs of the Indian people rather than attempting to buy access to top-level decision-making?

[Editor]

I'm sorry Daniel but I cannot support any system of 'world government' where Iran has the same voting power as the US or Syria the same as Australia. I don't trust Britain's interests and values to such a system.

[Chad]

You make a good case for us to withdrawal from the EU Daniel.

Why stump up so many readies when we have our own issues to resolve?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I'm sorry Daniel but I cannot support any system of 'world government' where Iran has the same voting power as the US or Syria the same as Australia."

Which is why I suggested the 'double majority system' for UNSC voting - the permanent members would still be able to veto resolutions deemed to be against wider interests by majority agreement.

[Chad]

There's more chance of the Tories withdrawing from the EPP than one of the permanent members agreeing to give up their vetoes.

Any reform proposals must have some base in reality.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Nice straw man you've got there Chad.

Some people believe that we benefit financially from being a member of the European Union, but please please please can we try to not turn this thread into yet another argument about the benefits and drawbacks of EU membership.

In any case, citing Britain's economic relationship with the EU doesn't really counter the argument I previously made.

[Chad]

:-)

I wasn't trying to, I was just seeking to highlight that cooperation comes at a price.

We should also consider that the contributions India would make, for example, won't diappear into a black hole, but will be used to address their problems from an international perspective.

For me as an internationalist, reforming the UN in this way (a nation state international body) would enable us to step up and out of the regionalist EU, so the two are very interlinked for me.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"There's more chance of the Tories withdrawing from the EPP than one of the permanent members agreeing to give up their vetoes."

Chad, I was stating the 'double majority' idea as a personal preference for the UNSC voting mechanism.

"Any reform proposals must have some base in reality."

I think tinkering with the current voting mechanism is a more realistic prospect than introducing your cash-for-votes proposal, but maybe that's just me...

[Chad]

I'm not going to knock your plan, Daniel, it is good to see people coming up with different ideas.

My plan is simply to cut all the cr*p and be honest about it, basing influence on contributions. That seems fair. I mean that is what the Tories have proposed with various donation levels, isn't it?

I'm not knocking it, I'm supporting it. If people want to pay then let them.

[Adam]

The major problem with the UN isn't so much the voting structure (although it is a problem). The major problem is the lack in many countries of a military that could go in and do anything about a conflict.

Only the US can actually project it's power to anywhere on the globe. Most of Europe lacks a military large enough to take a conflict on. Most of the rest lack the ability or willingness to project far beyond their own borders.

People want something done in Darfur and Lebanon. Getting the appropriately worded resolution in the UN isn't the solution. Getting a suitably sized and competant force into Darfur or southern Lebanon just might.

Of course, that requires more defence spending for more troops with more equipment...

[Richard]

I find myself wondering whether or not the world would be worse off if the UN was shut down and we returned to a system of conferences and congresses.

[Jon Gale]

Richard,

I think that would be the best way. A 'free market' of nation-staes acting in their own rational self-interest.

[Morten Fjeldberg]

Just a comment on EU; the EU leaders will certainly try to revive the constitution or parts of it. That will mean a common Foreign Minister (Javier Solana, the Spanish socialist). He want EU to have a seat in the UN Security Council (which will mean that France and UK loses their places). Further he wants EU to have their own embassies. What a shamble you are into my friends.

UN has to reform, but I doubt it ever will. Not with the current SG, nor with a new one, which will almost def. come from Asia. China make sure of that.

[Andy Peterkin]

The UN is an outdated collection of corrupt officials, dictators and their bagmen, with a leavening of democracies thrown in for good measure.

Its time it was put out of its misery.

[Morten Fjeldberg]

Hear, hear.

How are you Andy btw? I mean I met you during the CF National Weekend in Bath 2002?

[Gildas]

There are people on here arguing about voting systems and the like - why??? Why is it right to bomb or blockade XXX if some other countries agree but wrong if they don't? It is either right or wrong on its merits, in our interests or against them on its merits. To make a decision on any other basis is madness.

[Gildas]

"The reason the internationcal community is calling for the United Nations to intervene in the latest crisis is the reprehensible failure of the United States government to bring its influence to bear as a moderating influence on the Israeli administration."

You know, perhaps it is uncharitable of me, but I am tired of people complaining that the USA doesn't go out and do what they want done for them.

If the "international community" wants to restrain Israel, let it have a go at doing so itself, but bearing in mind the US veto power I don't think the UN will be much use to you in that endeavor.

Of course if all the "international community" wants to do is bitch and moan petulantly on the sidelines then pat itself on the back on a job well done, then the UN is the place to go!

[Oliver McCarthy]

The comments about Israel are actually quite amusing. In reality the rest of the West (if not the rest of the World) is quietly thankful that the Israelis are doing the unpleasant job of taking out Hezbollah. Partly this is because in a War on Terror dead terrorists are always welcome, and it's partly because Israel can well play the same role the Jewish race has played for centuries -- that of the World's scapegoat.

As for the person who wants Melanie Phillips and Peter Hitchens to work together on the Tories' foreign policy, I'm not sure whether to laugh or sympathise. Back in reality, the UN was set up after the War to be an American version of the League of Nations-European Union European integration project. The reason the Americans have difficulty letting go of it is the same reason why Whitehall trembles whenever anyone suggests leaving the EU -- because career civil servants (not to mention their political representatives in Congress and Parliament) who have invested time and money and personal prestige in these projects aren't prepared to abandon them. The UN serves little useful purpose as far as America is concerned, and neither it nor the EU serve any useful purpose as far as Britain is concerned. (The difference is that we like to think of ourselves as a founder member of the UN, and anyway our American friends are members and therefore so are we. Why we even joined the EU in the first place, on the other hand, I shall continue not to understand until the day it dies.)

[Graeme Archer]

What is unbearable about the UN is the way that the ****** at the BBC use it to justify their morally obscene equation of Israel with Hizbollah. I hear the sonorous, authoritative tones of Annan pronouncing on What Is To Be Done and I scream quietly at the way the world is turning out.

[TomTom]

The answer to the Middle East problem is to cut off the US subsidy to Israel until it stops lording it over the surrounding arab world and allows a truly independent palestinian state.

The answer is to cut off all subsidy to the Palestinians so they get off welfare and out to work rather than feeding huge families on my taxes.

$1.100.000.000 was given to the Palestinian Authority in 2005 - 52% budget - a budget deficit of $800 million.

From March 2006 the Palestinian Authority has a funding need of $110 million/month and a public payroll of 140.000 and a further 138.000 as students in tertiary education - out of a population of 4 million

In 2003, the US funded $224 million, the EU $187 million, the Arab League $124 million, Norway $53 million, the World Bank $50 million, the United Kingdom $43 million, Italy $40 million, and the last $170 million by others.