Australia and the United Nations

Adil Hilman, Jakarta

By all accounts, Australia can be proud to be a model international state that in the past has pulled its weight in international affairs by playing an important role in the United Nations for more than five decades. It participated in the drafting of the UN Charter, and was keen to ensure that the interests of medium and small powers were taken into account.

At the insistence of the then Australian external affairs minister, H.V. Evatt of the Labor Party and the representatives of other medium and small states, Articles 10 and 12 were inserted in the UN Charter authorizing the UN General Assembly to discuss any matter and make recommendations to the Security Council. This gave medium and small powers an opportunity to debate security issues.

Evatt was elected president of the UN General Assembly in 1948 when the UN adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which is generally regarded as the source of subsequent human rights instruments, such as the 1996 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Australia went on to play high profile roles in promoting human rights, environmental initiatives, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Cambodian peace process, among other things.

When the Labor government under Prime Minister Chifley was defeated in the 1949 general elections, Robert Menzies of the Liberal Party became prime minister. His foreign policy was firmly grounded in realism and hence his view on the function of the UN and international organizations in general, sharply contrasted with those of Evatt. He thought that reliance on morality and justice to prevent international disputes from erupting into war, could not be effective in international politics.

After World War II, there was a widespread feeling against a repetition of the League's failure and a desire to find some effective instrument to maintain international peace. To that effect, the UN Charter was given teeth by the insertion of Article 43 which calls on its members to make available to the Security Council the armed forces necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Menzies, however, believed that Article 43 could not serve its purpose.

First, the extensive membership of the UN would militate against an effective application of that article in a crisis situation.

Second, the interpretation by UN members of the obligation imposed upon them by the Charter would vary from country to country. In other words, it is the behavior of states reflecting a nationalist state of mind and not any defect of the Charter which makes enforcement of international action impossible.

The differences in the views of Evatt and Menzies on the function of the UN were revealed during the Suez crisis in 1956. Menzies' position was that Australia should not decide its stance in terms of whether the UN condemned or approved the British- French action. Australia should support Britain, according to Menzies because it was in its own interests to do so, in spite of the fact that such a decision would be against the expressed opinion of the UN. Evatt, on the other hand, maintained that enforcement action by Britain and France should not be taken without the UN's approval.

Several decades later, Menzies' views on the function of the UN were in large measure adopted by the present Liberal government under Prime Minister John Howard. From his accession to power in early 1996, Howard has shown little interest in the UN. He believed that the previous Labor government under Paul Keating had paid too much attention to UN peacekeeping and other multilateral issues at the expense of bilateral relations.

On the other hand, the Howard government's record on human rights, the environment and refugees has been criticized by the relevant UN agencies. The Australian government's long-term vision on foreign policy can be discerned from its position on specific issues which is reflected in the White Papers of 1997 and 2003 related to international affairs both firmly grounded in realism, based on the belief that war is essentially a matter of power, self-interest, and necessity, largely making moral analysis irrelevant. From the titles alone -- In the National Interest (1997) and Advancing the National Interest (2003) -- one can assume that the UN is of little significance except in the pursuit of national interests.

This implies that if going to war with Iraq was in Australia's national interests, then the government should have used its resources to ensure that it was a member of the Security Council to provide the vote the U.S. and the UK needed.

The legal basis provided by international law for going to war with Iraq has been debated among members of the UN. The U.S., the UK, Australia, and several other countries have argued that the war was legal on the basis of Security Council Resolutions: 678, 687, and 141. It is their interpretation of Resolution 1441 of Nov., 8, 2002, in particular, which reveals the basic weakness of their arguments. This resolution gives Iraq one final chance to disarm and warns of severe consequences should it fail to co- operate and to fully comply fully and immediately with the terms of the resolution.

Whatever the differing interpretations of Resolution 1441, which clearly needed the Security Council approval of any action taken, the resolution did not give any country the right to wage war outside the UN framework. It says that the Security Council would "convene immediately upon receipt of a report" on weapons inspections" in order to secure international peace and security".

Australia's support of American unilateralism will hurt rather than advance Australia's national interests. Without vast military and economic resources, it would benefit more from an international order based on respect for international law, norms and institutions, than on one predicated on the military preponderance of one super power. The violation of international law and support for preemptive actions are not in Australia's interests.

The writer is an observer of international affairs.