In a keynote speech Monday during his official visit to India, Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, called for the shaping of a “new world order” in which the international community intervenes where populations are being threatened by "genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes or crimes against humanity, and the state is unwilling or unable to halt or prevent it." The world has "a responsibility to protect" Mr. Brown said. Last week, in a British Parliamentary debate on Sri Lanka, junior Foreign Minister Kim Howell called for a new ceasefire and for UN monitoring of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.
Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a "new world order" and "global society", British press reports said.
Reform of the so-called international architecture, Britain believes, should include an "expanded" Security Council to include India, along with Brazil, Japan, Germany and another African country as permanent members.
Prime Minister Brown believes the UN is punching below its weight, press reports said.
Mr Brown proposed the UN spend £100m a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. Civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers would work alongside military peace-keepers.
"There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow," he will say. "So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over – and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development."
The keynote speech sets out the Brown administration’s foreign policy vision. Mr. Brown took over the premiership from Tony Blair last year.
Recently British officials raised the theme of ‘responsibility to protect’ in the context of Sri Lanka, where the UK has been strongly backing the establishment of a UN human rights monitoring mission.
In the wake of the Sri Lankan government’s abrogation of the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) with the Liberation Tigers, British parliamentarians last week debated the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka.
MPs from all three main British parties agreed a UN human rights monitoring mission was needed and criticised the Sri Lankan move, which resulted in the withdrawal of international ceasefire monitors.
Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells said the end of the ceasefire meant "we have entered a dangerous new phase in Sri Lanka."
"A new ceasefire must be constructed as quickly as possible if we are to make progress," Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells told MPs.
"The [2002] ceasefire agreement was not perfect but (it was) a basis for peace and moving forward," he said.
Britain, he said, has "to continue to work with international partners to make it clear that there cannot be a military solution, and to work for a cessation of hostilities."
"We must press the Government of Sri Lanka to address the grievances of Tamils through a credible and sustainable political solution. We must urge the LTTE to change," he said.
"We must work quietly and patiently behind the scenes with all the communities and with civil society in Sri Lanka to sow the seeds of a future resolution of the conflict."
"We must encourage the diaspora to play a bigger role in the search for peace," he also said.
Mr. Howells admitted "there is little substance around which to base negotiations," but said "the international community must clearly continue to stay engaged, stop the violence and help Sri Lanka build a credible environment for a sustainable peace process."
"Having chosen to end the ceasefire arrangement, the Sri Lankan Government have a clear responsibility to live up to their commitment to address the grievances of the Tamil people," he said.
He noted that the All Party Representative Committee (APRC), appointed by President Mahinda Rajapakse had had “a promising start” but had been "be-devilled" by opponents of a peace process and "hindered" by a lack of consensus between the two main parties.
Noting the APRC was due to report shortly, Mr. Howells said "we think it important that those recommendations go beyond the current constitutional provisions to protect minority rights."
"The international community will be watching carefully, and we do not want to see another false dawn," he warned.
He said the LTTE "must renounce terrorism and demonstrate a real commitment to democratic principles if it is to be regarded internationally as a legitimate political movement."
"Some Tamils argue that the military pursuit of self-determination is generated by a sense of despair that their grievances will never be addressed in a united Sri Lanka," he said.
"It is vital that the Government of Sri Lanka allay those fears and give them hope."
"For Sri Lanka to find a way forward, we need to see signs of genuine good will from the Government to any proposals for devolution that might emerge and a readiness on the part of disillusioned Tamils to contemplate alternatives to self-determination."
"There needs to be a full debate among the Tamils, free of intimidation and polarisation, on what an acceptable political settlement might look like for the Tamil people," he said.
Turning to the theme of human rights, the British Foreign minister said "there is an urgent need to address the culture of impunity that persists."
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, who visited Sri Lanka recently, "was alarmed at the weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity for those abusing human rights," he said.
"She criticised the absence of credible systems of public accountability for the vast majority of these deplorable incidents and the general lack of confidence in the ability of existing Government institutions to safeguard against the most serious human rights abuses. Surely that must be the first duty of any Government in any sovereign state in the world," Mr. Howells asked.
At the start of the debate, Simon Hughes, a senior MP of the Liberal Party, read out extracts of a formal statement issued by the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London.
"The [Sri Lankan] government wishes to avail itself of this opportunity [the British Parliamentary debate] to restate its opposition to the proposal made by the UN High Commissioner to establish UN field presence in Sri Lanka for monitoring and reporting," the statement said.
"The [Sri Lankan] government wishes to state that, its decision to end the CFA would not be reversed and would be implemented as previously stated, in the best interest of the country and its people", the HC’s statement added.
Commenting on the Sri Lankan statement, Mr. Hughes said: "I have to say that without international adjudication and verification, the Sri Lankan Government will not be regarded as acceptable."
"I understand the arguments about sovereignty, but if they are trying to win credibility in the world after 30 years of civil war, the UN must be represented in the country and able to go about its business there."
During the debate, reflecting what Tamils lobbyists say is a growing sense amongst British Parliamentarians, Jeremy Corbyn, an MP of the ruling Labour party, observed “there must be a permanent - that is, for as long as necessary - independent UN representation in Sri Lanka that can go to all parts of the country.”
