Brown hides behind the UN as Burma's protestors join the list of the peoples failed by the "international community"

At least nine people have been killed during the latest Burma protests but the United Nations has failed to act.  In an emergency meeting last night China and Russia defied calls from democracies, led by France, to punish the Rangoon regime through a variety of economic measures.  Russia's Ambassador to the United Nations - explaining his nation's reluctance to act said that Burma needed a "return to security".

Conservative foreign affairs spokesman David Lidington MP has told ConservativeHome that the credibility of the whole UN is at stake:

"I want to see the UN work but it needs to show that it can defend the principles set out in its founding charter.  When it fails to take action against such brutal behaviour then its whole credibility is at stake."

This is not the first time the UN has failed to act, of course.  Think of Srebrenica, Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur.  Saddam Hussein would still be in power if the UN Security Council had had its way.  Many more people have died because of the failure of the fabled "international community" to intervene than from intervention.

Whenever I think of the UN I'm reminded of that Yes Prime Minister sketch when Sir Humphrey explains standard Foreign Office tactics when faced with calls for intervention.  It went something like this...

• In stage one say that it is not clear that anything especially serious is happening.
• In stage two say that something serious might be happening but we need more information before taking a decision.
• In stage three say that something serious does appear to be happening but it is not clear that intervention would be effective.
• In stage four say that there was something we could have done but it's too late now.

In the world where multilateral institutions like the UN and EU are hero-worshipped we don't even need those Foreign Office lines.  Politicians like Gordon Brown can go straight to the 'action must be taken and the UN must take it' line.  They appear decisive but they can talk in the full knowledge that the UN won't act.  It is an institution of convenience for politicians wanting to talk tough but unwilling to walk tough.

John McCain has put forward sensible ideas for a new alliance of democracies to emerge so that nations like Russia and China cannot exercise unreasonable vetoes.  Even the serious possibility of such an alliance emerging might create the pressure necessary for the UN to fulfil its constant promises of internal reform.  It would be great if the Conservative Party matched Euroscepticism with UNscepticism.  Both organisations have similar flaws hardwired into their make-up.

Comments

[EML]

Too right, couldn't agree more. People pop up on the BBC all the time moaning about unilateral American "aggression", but where would we be if there weren't governments round the world prepared to take action? The UN would still be talking about Iraq if Bush/Blair hadn't done anything.

It's an institution that demands immediate and wholesale reform.

[Edward]

NATO should act. It wants a new relevance in the modern world - this is it.

[Tony Makara]

The UN either must exist as a proactive organization or its reason for being is pointless. That must include military intervention in extreme cases where civilians are denied human rights and even killed for expressing an opinion. Situations like Zimbabwe, Darfur and Burma are examples where the UN could intervene to prevent catastrophy and genocide. The very threat of intervention may be enough to bring about a change in circumstances. The problem with the Iraq invasion was that it did not have UN consensus. However where consensus is possible the UN should be able to act.

[Nick Young]

The UN has for many years been a failed organisation - I cite what it did, or rather did not do, in Rwanda and Bosnia as examples there, among others.

The only was in which it works is as a very expensive talking-shop for politicians who want to show that they're big international statesmen, chatting away with their foreign counterparts.

What these politicians don't seem to realise is that talking doesn't solve everything! Jaw jaw is indeed preferable to war war, but only if you can persuade the aggressors (whoever they may be) to back down. Aggressors throughout the world have, alas, long since wised up to the fact that the UN is incapable of backing up its fine words with action when necessary.

[Traditional Tory]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN BY THE EDITOR.

[Iain]

Paxo stitched up Milliband lastnight, when he found that the Labour Governments response to Burma we to errr... call a meeting of EU Ministers; couldn't say why the UK Government didn't respond themselves, even though we are still supposed to have an indeopendent foreign policy; and found that the Labour Government had given more to bat conservation in Burma (£120,000) than to support the democracy movement.

[Jon Gale]

The fate of the Burmese people lies with the people themselves - just as the French Revolution (and later 19th century French revolutions), Russian Revolution, German Revolution, etc. etc.

When regim,es get unpopular enough, they fall.

I hope we do see a "storming the winter palace" moment when the Burmese people get rid of the regime, but it is NOT Britain/USA/UN's place to storm the barricades for them.

[Mountjoy]

I am delighted that Bernard Kouchner has said it is time for sanctions and actions against the Burmese regime. He is a great humanitarian and an inspired appointment by Sarkozy - whereas Brown hides behind "the UN" (according to Conservative Home). Now France, not the UK, is willing to act...

[laurie van trukk]

Can you imagine that GB is going to do anything more than posture about the situation in Burma after seeing what happened to George W and Tony Blair who took decisive action against a regime they felt was out of line? Most of the country seems to believe we should never have been in Iraq...putting rogue regimes out of business isnt seen as our business. So we may as well just ignore whats happening, because I cant believe theres any stomach for intervention, and anything else is merely talk. Ditto for Zimbabwe, Darfur.

[Richard]

So short of military action, what can we actually do?

[Patsy Sergeant]

The news pictures of those military males with all that superfluous scrambled egg all over their Khaki, was quite sick-making the other day, and they way that they were sniggering and smirking together while apparently watching parade.

The Buddhist monks in Burma are not like the monks in Thailand, who are much more assertive and sure of themselves. The monks in Burma are very poor, and rely on an equally poor public to give them alms. If one has not been to Burma it is difficult to understand the strength of PEACEFUL desperation which has brought out a large percentage of the population onto the streets, to demonstrate with just their bodies only, their desire for peaceful democracy.

The Burmese people are quite special I think, excluding the group of self-appointed colonels - brainless bullies - supposedly in charge at the moment.

[Alistair]

It's interesting to observe various Tories expressing apparent solidarity with the oppressed people of Burma.

Very interesting indeed.

I don't seem to recall such humanitarian concern when Mrs Thatcher's favourite dictator Gen Pinochet was killing and torturing the people of Chile.

Wasn't General Pinochet one of the heroes of the Federation of Conservative Students along with the leaders of the Apartheid regime in South Africa?

[Tony Makara]

laurie van trukk, the big issue here isgetting consensus. The UN could be a real force for good if it could get consensus from all sides on acting against regimes who engage in genocide. However unsavoury the Saddam regime was, there was not consensus to remove him and the eventual rational for going into Iraq was flawed.

I would not be against the idea of major powers having a sphere of influence under the auspices of the United Nations and having the licence under UN directives to intervene where a humanitarian crisis is unfolding.

[One marcus]

Alistar times have moved on I can remember Arthur Scargill objecting to a Labour motion to support Solidarity in Poland because to do so they would be attacking a Socialist government.

The problem with the UN is if you want action you need to get all the major players UK, US, Russia China to all agree before united action can be taken, when does that ever happen.

[Oberon Houston]

Unlike Kosovo, there is no NATO sphere of influence here, and it would be extremely risky to start unilateral action in the face of Chinese and Russian objections. The US and UK has bogged itself down in Iraq and Afghanistan, so, other than air strikes, there is little we could do on the military front anyway.

The best we could realisticaly do is to continue to work through the UN to exert pressure, and also work outwith the UN to group together the US/EU and other anti Burmese governments to impose effective sanctions so that China and Russia need to prop up the military in Burma and face the consequences.

We could also start proceedings at the international court to prosecute the leaders of the military for mass murder. We could up the anti, by pledging to provide support for the monastry's from any further attacks (leave the threat hanging).

[Helen]

Srebrenice and Rwanda are great examples of what happens if the UN does go in - considerably more people killed. The UN has no purpose and it is sitting on some prime real estate.

[Paul]

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more with the sentiments expressed on this thread, the UN is now an ineffective talking shop that needs to be disbanded. As the Burmese people honourably protest against this hideous regime, this once august body does nothing. To paraphrase an attack against Messer's Blair and Bush, the UN has blood on its hands...again.

[TomTom]

The UN is a figleaf for naked ambition thwarted and will never function with China and Russia......

India must invade Burma and topple the regime.....China and Russia will back down before India

[ToryJim]

"The UN would still be talking about Iraq if Bush/Blair hadn't done anything."

...on balance, would that really be such a bad thing?

[Traditional Tory]

India must invade Burma and topple the regime.....China and Russia will back down before India

Firstly India won't do anything of the sort and secondly the idea that China and Russia are frightened of India is utterly risible.

There will be more international noise, some more demonstrators will be shot and then the whole business will die down again.

The impotence of the 'Democratic West' is becoming increasingly obvious.

[Nick Young]

ToryJim - so, a highly repressive regime backed by a murderous secret police system still in place is a good thing?

The only things that were flawed about the Iraq War were:
1) That the Coalition hadn't overthrown Saddam Hussein back in 1991
2) That Tony Blair bungled the 'case for war' argument by unnecessarily lying to Parliament (WMD, 45 minutes, etc).

[James Maskell]

As some have said here, whenever a major situation such as this happens, we need international support. But that very rarely happens, if ever. Russia and China keep saying no.

[ToryJim]

Nick, an interesting observation but I'm curious - do you think any (every?) "repressive regime backed by [...] secret police" deserves to be overthrown?

Do you feel this strongly about other repressive regimes? China? Iran? North Korea? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Several African states might deserve a mention too...

Do think think the West needs more armed conflicts rather than fewer?

I wonder how many MPs and voters agree with you?

[TomTom]

Firstly India won't do anything of the sort and secondly the idea that China and Russia are frightened of India is utterly risible.

You are wrong on BOTH counts....the USA stands behind India.

Russia is a puny oil satrapy with 150 million population, and China is an unstable dictatorship with 300 million industrial workers on the coast and impoverished slaves in the hinterland.

India is an emerging power with aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines and the only nation worthy of Security Council Permanent status

[James Mawdsley]

John Gale (19:29): "The fate of the Burmese people lies with the people themselves - just as the French Revolution (and later 19th century French revolutions), Russian Revolution, German Revolution, etc. etc."

This overlooks globalisation. In previous struggles for freedom there was some kind of parity in the technology and weaponry available to each side.

However the Burmese regime is supplied by China, India and others with automatic weapons, fighter planes and sophisticated surveillance equipment.

Imagine now the passion and determination of any group you cite from history ranged against the most modern weapons. The result is a massacre.

Surely as the outside world has been supplying the regime in Burma with arms, billions of dollars of investment, and--until now--certain diplomatic credibility, then it is incumbent on the outside world to give the people of Burma their due support.

WE on the outside have made the equation impossible for the Burmese to solve on their own. We have thoroughly distorted the balance of power between the rulers and the ruled. History does not have all the answers. We are in a new situation which calls for new responses.

The Burmese people will lead the way to their freedom; they will suffer the most, sacrifice the most. But we have an essential role to take.

[Patsy Sergeant]

U Thant must be 'turning in his grave'!

[TomTom]

"The fate of the Burmese people lies with the people themselves - just as the French Revolution (and later 19th century French revolutions), Russian Revolution, German Revolution, etc. etc."

Tien An Mien Square in 1989,