United Nations, NATO and the world Beyond Westminster

On Saturday (13th September 2008), BBC Radio 4's Beyond Westminster hosted a fascinating discussion on the nature and future of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the United Nations. Those invited onto the programme did an excellent job of examining the complex world both organisations now find themselves deeply involved in. I have no further comment to add to this discussion, so I have posted my (very) rough notes below.

You can download the programme here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UN & NATO relied upon by the Western world as the ‘twin pillars of peace’.

John Bolton (former US Ambassador to United Nations). UN is at best an irrelevance and at worst an obstacle. The two biggest threats to the world are terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The world sees its existential threats as the same as America. Feels the UN has an inability to ‘resolve’ conflicts. Peacekeepers are stationed on conflict lines and can remain there for decades arguably helping maintain the status-quo/maintain the unresolved conflict. A proponent of the creation of a League of Democracies.

David Hanney (Britain’s Ambassador to the UN). Skeptical of the possibility of removing the veto power for certain nations. He was the author of 100 recommendations made to Koffe Annan, UN Secretary General, on how to reform the ‘outdated’ organization structure. These recommendations included the ‘responsibility to protect’ idea, stating that the UN had a responsibility to protect the people of a country if the country was unable to do so. In contrast to John Bolton’s view, he believes the UN to be ‘indispensable but not very effective’.

Maurice Jochams (Senior NATO Official and Director of NATO Operations in Afghanistan). Since 9/11 the geographical scope of NATO has increased dramatically. He believes that although Georgia joining NATO could be perceived as provocative by the Russians, it should be in their interests as having democratic countries on their borders will increase stability.

Simon Jenkins (Author and Journalist). Believes NATO should be disbanded as it is outdated and outmoded. Russia and Britain have been belligerent in recent years. As an organisation which prevented Soviet expansion into Europe, it was excellent. Now though, there is nothing positive to be gained from taunting Russia by allowing membership from Poland, Czech Republic, etc. Russia will eventually respond aggressively to what it views as an aggressive threat. Russia is not stable enough to start enraging. NATO has gone back to being an ‘artificial confrontation organisation’ and it is dangerous. UN Security Council membership should be decided on some definition of power and some idea of a ‘being a policeman in an area where there is none’. The UN is a vast gravy train, and it is a wonder that anything gets done at all. It is at its best when it is a forum.

Dr. Paul Cornish (International Security Programme – Chatham House). NATO mishandled the build-up to and aftermath of the Georgia war but did not cause Russian tanks to cross into Georgian territory. Russian attempts to join NATO were mischievous. The recent conflict in Georgia will now be used by numerous Balkan and Caucus states as proof of their need to join NATO so as to shield them from the Russian threat. The war in Afghanistan is not going well and it is due to the lack of cohesion between the NATO members. On the UN, he believes that as spheres of influence, diplomatic conflicts and the high-wielded power of the veto become more commonly used [following the post-9/11 example of the United States perhaps] the UN is again becoming paralysed.

Margo Light (Professor of International Relations - LSE). Believes NATO to be the cause of the Georgia war which it now fights to contain. NATO has expanded too far already and should not accept the Ukraine and Georgia as members. The UN has benefited hugely when the US has acted as one of the main protagonists of the UN. In recent years all the US has sought to do is undermine the organisation and this significantly discredits and disarms the organisation.