---

Burma

I agree with much that has been said and I will not repeat those points, but I want to pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations that are today doing vital work in Burma, but also in other parts of the world, saving lives and improving the conditions of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. That work goes on, day by day, regardless of whether newspapers and television programmes are showing any interest in it. It is important that members of the British public know that those organisations are not corrupt, that they are efficient and that, as has been said, money that is given gets through directly. I concur with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) who talked about the situation with the vile brutal regime in Burma. It is important that we understand that as well as not doing enough, or actively impairing humanitarian efforts, it has also devoted its television channels to broadcasting smiling, dancing women, telling people to go out and vote; it has postponed its referendum on its fake constitution in the area that is now under water by just a few weeks, seemingly in the belief that it can then run some falsified referendum in a few weeks' time; and it is still pursuing its brutal repression of the ethnic groups in the rest of its country. This, after all, is a very complicated country, where there is a brutal military regime at the top, which does not have the support of the people, and where Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, 20 years ago, won a democratic election—then she was put under house arrest, which she has been unable to leave. It is important to place that on the record today. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to the impact of climate change. Sadly, that issue, which we are confronting today, will have to be confronted more and more in this century. Rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions impact on coastal peoples causing natural disasters, with a world population that is now far more urbanised, and with many people and living in flood plains or on the coast. We need international mechanisms whereby we can intervene quickly and effectively in such cases. However, we do not live in a world of world government. We do not live in a world where the United Nations General Assembly or the United Nations Security Council can decide something and then it happens. There are almost 200 countries in the world, some with corrupt and incompetent Governments, some that are failed states, and some where the Governments are not incompetent, but rather are very effective at maintaining their power despite the wishes of their people or of the rest of the world. It is extremely frustrating when we know that intervention and assistance could make a huge difference to those millions of people, yet we do not have the means to intervene. There is therefore a real question to be confronted about how we strengthen international institutions and the rule of international law. The motion in the name of the Conservative party uses the phrase ““international community”” in its last sentence. I would ask what we mean by ““international community””. We have had a bit of a debate about the differences between the motion and the Government amendment. The Government amendment, interestingly, does not use that phrase. It talks about the United Nations. I am trying to tease out whether we are saying that the existing UN system is not able to deal with these issues. Does that mean that we should move towards a league of democracies that would act outside—my Scottish friends would say ““outwith””—the international community? That issue is flagged up in an article in today's Financial Times by the foreign policy adviser to Senator John McCain, Mr. Robert Kagan. I am very worried about that development, because we do not strengthen the ability to act, particularly in countries such as Burma, if we do not have the support of the growing major power in Asia, which is China, or of India. If we rely simply on the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Canadians, the United States and European Union countries, that will not be effective. Sadly, reference has been made to opposition within the UN Security Council to taking responsibility. That is not just China. It is also Russia and South Africa—a non-permanent member of the Security Council that seems to have taken a totally traditionalist attitude to non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. That is the traditional Communist party view from the 1970s, which seems to be influential in the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of South Africa. It is understandable, but it is not right, because in the world today we need the growing economic and political powers, the so-called BRICS—Brazil, India, China and South Africa—to work for the development of international institutions that work. They should not take a traditionalist view that would stop the more effective international organisations that we need to deal with such issues working. Even if we all agreed, however, we would still face a very difficult situation because we know that intervention is not always easy, and there are unintended consequences. Reference has been made to the no-fly zones in connection with the Kurds in Iraq. I think that John Major's Government deserved enormous credit for establishing that. It may have been said that it was in accordance with international law, but it is doubtful whether it was. Kosovo, too, comes to mind. Some people have said that the invasion in 1999 was illegal but legitimate. That was done with no UN Security Council authorisation or resolution, and we are still dealing with the consequences of that today with the developments in the Balkans, Serbia and the greater western Balkans. If there were to be intervention by the ““international community””, however defined, without a UN Security Council resolution, it would be contrary to the conditions laid down within the Canadian-sponsored commission, the UN Secretary-General's high-level panel and the UN General Assembly resolution of 2005. It was explicitly made clear in 2005 at the General Assembly that the principle of the responsibility to protect would be based on, first, each state having the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, not from humanitarian disasters. Secondly, the principle is that if a state fails to discharge its responsibility, the international community has a responsibility to use peaceful means to protect the population, and it can also, on a case-by-case basis, as a last resort, and through the Security Council, issue a binding resolution or authorise the use of force if"““national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations””." There is perhaps an argument that by failing to assist in coping with this disaster, the regime in Burma is manifestly failing to protect its population.