Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

And I note that Senator Mason was an adviser to the United Nations General Assembly the previous year and also has an interest in this matter. At the outset I want to congratulate the members of the committee—and Senator Fifield is here, another member of the committee—for the report that was tabled yesterday in the parliament by the chair, Senator Bishop. I congratulate Senator Bishop as the chair, the former chair, Senator Payne, and whoever else was chair during this period of time, for what I regard as an excellent and comprehensive report. I think there are some very worthwhile recommendations in there as well as a lot of pertinent information that I would urge all senators and members of parliament to read.

There are a lot of problems with the United Nations—we all know that—and it is easy to sit back and criticise. And it is easy to do that when you are there, going into the building every day, and going into committee meetings—and I have spoken about this earlier—where there is an obsession about what happens in the Middle East and an obsession of an overwhelming number of countries in constantly attacking Israel. I am on the record in terms of my views on that matter.

I make those comments because it is a fact and it is such a concern. You could feel desperate at times in that environment when you saw things like what was happening in Myanmar and Darfur and what had happened in Kosovo. There were also issues in the north of Cyprus with the Turkish occupation and trying to resolve a problem that has been there since 1974. More recently we have seen the situation develop where there is violent conflict between Russia and Georgia—coinciding with the Olympic Games in Beijing. So you sit there and think, ‘Why can’t this world body focus on those areas, in addition to the Middle East, that need action taken urgently?’—and I particularly refer to Darfur.

At the end of the day, despite all of its faults—its bloated bureaucracy and the way it works politically—the United Nations is all we have. I know that to a lot of people that might seem to be a trite statement, but, at the end of the day, the United Nations is the 192 member states that make it up. It is the world. If we do not have that body, then you do not even have the discussion. The fact that the problem in Myanmar was on the agenda of the Security Council very early I think may have helped to stop what may have developed into far more repressive action. It was bad, but I think it is one of the first times that the Security Council unanimously condemned a member state and was able to bring some pressure to bear.

That leads me to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Because I had been involved in that committee’s deliberations and public inquiries, had listened to the evidence that was given and had read the submissions that came in, I took the opportunity at the UN to focus particularly on the UN’s role in peacekeeping. I must mention three people: firstly, Ambassador Hill for his great support in making our time there so worth while; secondly, Colonel Tim Simkin, who was at that time the defence adviser in our mission in New York; and, thirdly, Andrew Hughes, who had just, prior to our arrival in September, been appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as the police adviser in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in the UN—a very significant position, reporting directly to the Secretary-General. Andrew Hughes had formerly been a distinguished officer with the Australian Federal Police and has an extensive history of involvement over 30 years, locally, regionally and internationally.

That highlights something I wanted to say which is also picked up in the committee’s report. There is a recommendation, on page 269 of the report, which says:

The committee considers that it is in Australia’s interests for government personnel to be seconded to the UN. It also believes that government departments could be more active in seeking out these opportunities.

One of the things that was obvious to Senator Kemp and me—and we referred to this in the report that we wrote and presented to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives—was that Australia simply does not do enough to promote itself in the UN bureaucracy. We are one of the top contributors: we are in the top 15 financial contributors to the United Nations budget; we are the 12th highest contributor to the peacekeeping budget, which runs into billions of dollars; and we are extremely well regarded for our involvement in peacekeeping. We have a proud record of being involved in peacekeeping operations with the UN since its foundation and, of course, more recently in regional peacekeeping operations, whether that is in Timor or the Solomons. The UN is increasingly looking to regional bodies to take up these challenges.

One of the things I think the UN, despite its faults, actually does well is peacekeeping. It is a huge agenda and it is a huge task to bring forces together from a wide range of countries, place them under a single command, send them into a country, most often with very few services on the ground, after there has been carnage and conflict, and try and keep the peace. At the same time, they have to try and create the environment for some return of governance or some development of a new form of governance, where civilians will be protected. It is an enormous task. There are around 120,000 personnel in peacekeeping operations under UN command, or with UN involvement, and I think the police numbers are up to 15,000, which Andrew Hughes has direct responsibility for. They have issues such as getting the force in Darfur onto the ground and working. I regard it as a terrible tragedy that that was supposed to have been in place by the end of last year and they are still struggling to get it operational—to get the Western powers, the major powers, to provide the resources, the military hardware; to get the Sudanese government to actually agree to some forces having an active role and placement there; and so on.

As I said, our expertise, our longstanding involvement, as an honest player in peacekeeping is well regarded in the UN. Unfortunately, when it comes to getting access to the senior positions, we have not been able to achieve it. I strongly support the committee’s recommendations. I think they may reflect some historical views—such as: ‘We won’t bother too much about the UN because it’s a huge bureaucracy run by a bunch of leftists,’ or whatever—but, if we want to be part of the world and promote our values, this is a serious issue. We have great people working at the United Nations in New York who have got there under their own volition, by answering advertisements and so on, but we could do a lot more.

I strongly support the campaign that Prime Minister Rudd has initiated for us to get a place on the Security Council, because that is where it counts. We may only be there for two years as a non-permanent member, but we can be respected and our voice can be heard on all of these important issues, particularly on things such as peacekeeping, where at the end of the day it is about saving the lives of innocent citizens. (Time expired)