http://www.serbianna.com/columns/borojevic/025.shtml INTERVIEW (Transcript) Major General Lewis MacKenzie
By Boba Borojevic AUDIO_FILE Interview with Lewis MacKenzie Listen >> September 12, 2005 -- World leaders will gather for the UN summit in New York on September 14, 2005. They will mark the 60th anniversary of the United Nations and discuss if not endorse the new UN reform proposals. You once said the credibility of the UN as an instrument of world peace and security is in tatters. Why so? It is in tatters. [..] The conference will not resolve the problem. People tend to forget that the UN was created in 1945 and it is to make sure that we do not have World War III. And we did not. From that point of view it worked. But the structure that was set up within the Security Council, where the permanent 5: China, Russia, France, the UK and the USA gave themselves the veto, in another words if one of these countries disagree with any Resolution it doesnt pass and nothing happens, that has been perpetuated and will be perpetuated beyond this summit too, God knows for how long. There are still five countries, anyone of which can interfere by doing the right thing, if you want to use that wording. And that is not going to change. Because the veto doesnt just apply to issues of international peace and security, it applies to the procedures within the Security Council. It is very incestuous and those Permanent Five powers are not going to voluntarily give up their priority position within decision-making within the UN. That is why things do not get done in Dafour; that is why things did not get done in Rwanda etc. Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, you have led UN peace missions in several hot spots, including the former Yugoslavia in 1992. I remember as a child that people believed in and were very proud of the UN blue helmets. Much has changed since the Balkan wars, especially when the UN peace missions became peacemaking missions led by the NATO and the USA. Was it not a big mistake on the part of the UN SC to let NATO and the US dictate the rule of engagement in the Balkans and elsewhere in the 1990s? The UN has no choice, has no control over that, whatsoever. Because people involved in the NATO mission, four of them sit on the Permanent Five of the Security Council. One of the Permanent Five, China, did not participate. So, it is totally unrelated to the UN. If we waited for the UN to have a resolution approving the use of force, the use of force would never be used. Because, there will always be one member of the Permanent Five that will vote against it. So, those actions were taken because of the UN inadequate response within the Balkans. By that I mean they were still treated as a peacekeeping mission when in actual fact there was no peace to keep. And therefore if the world was truly going to step in and try and stop the civil conflict with three sides, it was not going to be the UN that have that capability. It is a catch 22. Because the UN is not capable of intervening militarily, it does not have that capability, then other multinational organization fill the vacuum. It would be wonderful if the UN could do it, but the reality is that it cannot. What needs to change in order for the UN to be efficient in the field of peace and security? What role should the UN have in maintaining global peace? Its role initially was to deal the conflict between the countries. Countries rarely go to war now. The 43 wars that are going on today, virtually every one of them are internal conflicts. Even Iraq is turning into an internal conflict. The UN is not structured to deal with civil conflicts. Because it is, quite frankly, the issue that has you dealing with individuals as opposed to countries. And individuals do not have delegations in the UN; individuals do not have a flag flying in front of the UN building in Manhattan. And therefore there is no one around to meet with. And when you are lucky enough to sit down and meet with the leader of fractions, weather it is the Balkans or Rwanda and you make a deal, there is no way to enforce that deal, because they disappear back to their location. But their location is not the government headquarters and therefore you cannot deal with them on the regular basis. So, it will be impossible in my estimation for the UN to continue to have primary role in international peace and security. Paradoxically all of the add things to the UN, since 1945 are working fairly well; weather it is UNCHR with refugees, or UNICEF with children or the WHO with aids. Those issues are very important core responsibilities for the UN, but ironically international peace and security, which was the cause to create the Organization, in the first place of the UN fails miserably. Major General Lewis MacKenzie Do you see NATO as part of the UN military operations in the future? I see NATO, I see the Organization of American States, I see the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, I see South-East Asia Organization, I see many multinational organizations having to take the lead, and in fact what is effectually become known lately as coalition of the willing. In another word if there is a crisis and there are number of nations who it is in their best interest to get involved. Unfortunately the Canadian proposal the responsibility to protect will be vetoed by Russia and China within the Security Council, because they do not want international community interfering in their internal affairs. It is going to have a rocky ride. It is most obvious that intervention is needed in Dafour and the respond has been pathetic today. Maybe the UN will not be involved in military operations at all? It will search around for, what we call in Canada, Pearsonian peacekeeping missions, where you are there by invitation, lightly armed and impartial. And the only one of those that has taken place in the last decade that is pure peacekeeping, was when we were invited to go between Eritrea and Ethiopia and gave both sides a pause so that two governments could come to some agreement. Which happened. That was Pearsons idea of peacekeeping, which started in 1956 with Suez crisis. But, no. As far as the use of force maybe in some instances sub-contacting, which is exactly what happened with East Timor after the UN failed miserably and local UN employers were slaughtered the UN SC then turned to Australia and asked Australia to intervene under the authority of the UN resolution. This is what I call subcontracting. You might see some of that in the future. For example, America was a subcontractor in Somalia, when the UN was incapable of arriving in timely manner. Some of those types of missions might appear in the future. What would you consider a successful conclusion of the UN summit in realistic terms? Nobody walks out[ ] And they made progress in some issues I mentioned. [..] There is an issue of poverty and the elimination of it; there is the education to ensure that all children receive at least basic elementary education; HIV additional funding and infrastructure. All those are good issues for the UN. But when it comes to the Security Counsel, what is known as G4 (India, Brazil, Germany and Japan) who have been lobbying to receive the veto and the permanent seat, after a year of investigation with all the member nations of the United Nations they actually issues the report a month ago saying that they will revisit the issue in 15 years. It is too much a difficult problem to take on right now so we will be back in 15 years. Nevertheless it just shows how inflexible the Permanent Five will be in giving up their authority. The Brits and the French should not have the veto. It should be the European veto. People say that European Union is not a country. No. But it is going to become one, so there should be a veto and the permanent member from South America, presumably Brazil, the worlds largest democracy, India, big supporter of the UN. But, none of that will happen because the Permanent Five as exist today will say No. What do you think of the joint Russian China military excises conducted in August this year? It does not concern me in the least. In fact more people excise together at the military level. Lots of people forget that military people, we are all cut more or less from the same cloth. Ive spent thirty years of my career getting ready to kill Russians as they crossed the international frontier into Germany. Then I ended up in Sarajevo and my best friend and my Depute Commander was a Russian Special Forces colonel. We tend to get along. So the more military forces exercise together, as Americans have exercised with the Chinese and exercised with the Russians, I dont read anything dangerous into that whatsoever. So, this is not a sign of the world bipolarization like we had during the Cold War? No, not at all. Not in my estimation. These are just military forces working together to understand each other and to enhance their capabilities. And there will be Americans, dare I say Canadians, which had happened in the past, exercising with them in the future also. Major General Mackenzie, thank you very much for talking to us. Yes, my pleasure, have a good one. Thank you ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Note: On 1st January 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, supported by the representatives of 26 countries, published the Declaration by United Nations, a document that pledged their governments to continue fighting together against Nazi Germany and Japan during the Second World War. This declaration was followed by a conference of Foreign Ministers in Moscow, in October, 1943 where discussions took place concerning a replacement for the discredited League of Nations. Further talks took place at San Francisco between 15th April and 26th June, 1945. Delegates from fifty nations that had been at war with Germany, decided on the design and structure of this new organization. The conference drafted the United Nations Charter and it was signed on 26th June and ratified at the first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in London on 24th October 1945. The main differences between the League of Nations and the United Nations were the stronger executive powers assumed by the Security Council and the requirement that member states should make available armed forces to serve as peace-keepers or to repel an aggressor. The Security Council had five permanent members, United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and Britain. Six other countries served two-year periods on the Council (this was increased to ten in 1965). Controversially, permanent members were given the power to veto decisions made by the Security Council. The other nations vigorously opposed the idea of the veto but it became clear that without such a favoured position the five major nations would not join the United Nations. The United States Senate ratified the United Nations treaty by a vote of 89 to 2 on 28th July, 1945. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAun.htm Serbian News Network - SNN [email protected] http://www.antic.org/
