I knew Larry through his work on the NZ nuclear-free zone back in the 1980s when I was on the government delegation negotiating the South Pacific regional zone. I remember him then as a tireless campaigner for the goal which we inside the government (or some of us) shared equally strongly.

Larry has been a resolutely determined campaigner for peace and disarmament, both in New Zealand, and globally, for many years.

He believed that the prospect or threat of nuclear war was abhorrent, and advocated for strong moral leadership at the United Nations to curb such a threat. New Zealand, he believed, could play an important and courageous role internationally, as a peacemaker, mediator, and beacon of nuclear-free, independent, and moral foreign policy.

Larry founded the New Zealand Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association in 1981, and was a founding member of the Christchurch Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. He was a strong supporter of Peace Movement Aotearoa.

Larry will be sorely missed, yet I feel confident that his contribution to society will endure.

My thoughts are with his family and friends, and with his vision for a more peaceful, just, and secure world.

These are, more or less, five-year events.  The 1st Congress, in Canberra in 2001, adopted the Global Greens Charter.  The 2nd, in Sao Paulo in ‘08, laid plans for strengthening the global movement.  This 3rd, in Dakar, Senegal, continued that process, with a few significant accomplishments.

First off, we created a Greens Parliamentarians Association.  With some 340 MPs at national and regional level (and many more at local level), the Green political movement is becoming a force to be reckoned with.  The ‘Global Greens Parliamentarian Association’ contrasts with the ‘international’ character of the other, 20th-century, political movements (Socialist International and the conservative movements).

The aim will be to coordinate the goals and actions colleagues with a view to making our work in committees and parliamentary debates more potent.  And, also, to ensure a democratic strengthening in all countries which can only work to our advantage.  As Green MPs further enter parliaments (and governments) around the world, the present imbalance of membership from Europe should leaven out, as new colleagues are elected elsewhere, especially in Africa and Asia-Pacific.  Latin America is reasonably well-represented already.

The Congress also agreed to create a full-time secretariat starting from 2013.  It will be a small office to begin with, but plans are being laid for financial and organisational strengthening over the next few years.

Resolutions were passed on a number of topics – preparing for Rio + 20 (the review of the Earth Summit, the global sustainability and climate change conference in Rio in 1992), democracy in Africa, the movements for self-determination in West Papua, the Occupy movement, Climate Change and Energy (moving away from fossil fuels to renewables and campaigning against deforestation), and on the future of the Global Greens.

The 4th Congress is likely to be in Europe, within the next three to five years.

The meeting was jointly convened by Chatham House and Parliamentarians for Global Action. The reputed British think-tank and the global parliamentary group based in New York and The Hague symbolised the principal theme – the relationship, synergistic if handled well, disastrous if not.

The interaction between the Court and the Security Council is one of the most important and dynamic phenomena of global politics in our time.  For ten millennia, leaders had led their people into war, with just cause or not, without individual accountability beyond avoiding personal slaughter wherein they usually proved remarkably adept.  In the 20^th century this all changed, with the Kaiser coming close to trial after WWI and Axis leaders being first up in the 1940s.

But even under the UN Charter which made the free market of war illegal, authorising only the legitimate use of force under specified principles, aggression remained a state responsibility. In 1991 Saddam was repelled from Kuwait through collective state action, but he was individually tried for crimes against humanity, not of invading a fellow state.

So the ICC, in operation since 2002, marks a qualitative step forward for humankind, being responsible for investigating and prosecuting individuals for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.  In 2017, it is likely to add aggression as an international leadership crime.

But, how to proceed to greater effect?  The world is a big place, and if you are a militia thug or a leader turned disarmingly demented, you can hide in the jungle, leafy or concrete. You often have powerful friends, or the powerful may befriend you for their clandestine strategic reasons.  The interplay among 194 national jurisdictions is on your side. There is no global enforcement mechanism for search and arrest, beyond Interpol which isn’t strictly fashioned for this.  And even today, the Rome Statute ranges uncomfortably alongside customary international law which has traditionally granted immunity to leaders.  So the going is tough for criminal law at this level.

Above all, the Court and the Security Council contemplate each other like estranged wedding partners proceeding out of the church.  The testosterone-spattered Council is responsible for peace and security through the application of raw power loosely hinged to the Charter. The Court is a model of objective and impartial application of justice.  Each needs the other, yet guards its prerogatives jealously.

The trade-off is an exquisite, and excruciating, balance of interests woven into the Rome Statute. Any state party can refer a case to the Court. The Prosecutor (controversially) can initiate his own investigation.  And the Security Council can also refer (and, even more controversially, defer) a case, potentially including any UN member state, even a non-member of the Court.

The major powers, being major powers, have not joined the Court – China, Russia, India, US.  Two of the P-5, Britain and France, have done so, but they are more evolved and perhaps (whisper) less powerful today. Yet it has belatedly (under post-Bush Obama) dawned on the US that it can have its diplomatic cake and eat it. Even as a non-party, it can push through a Security Council resolution referring a ‘situation’ to the Court, provided it can declare a threat to the peace with a straight face.

What does this mean for the real world?  It means you have to be a tad more attentive to your own behaviour these days.  On two occasions the Council has made a referral.  Sudan’s president has the dubious honour of being the first sitting head of state to be indicted – enraging the African Union.  Libya’s Gaddafi was the second, though fate pre-empted law in his techni-coloured case.  His son awaits trial, languishing under detention in a militia’s makeshift prison.  And during our conference Gaddafi’s intelligence chief was arrested – in Mauritania.  The new Libya wishes to extradite and conduct the trials for which, more-or-less, it has a right.

The ICC, despite early scepticism and misgivings, has grown and strengthened at phenomenal speed, with 120 parties by now and the first conviction (DRC’s Lubanga) just last week.  But it will always do a delicate waltz with Mr S. Council.

What’s in it for New Zealand?  The world.  We are a part of it.

What’s the Green take?  The rule of law.  The principle of non-violence.  An independent foreign policy.   Our global affairs policy requires New Zealand to be a responsible global citizen.  Unlike Labour which parrots the phrase, and National which fails to understand it, the Green policy would have us genuinely act as one responsible citizen, in supporting the Court.  We would not, for example, have quashed the arrest warrant for the former Israeli CDF, Moshe Ya’alon, when he was in New Zealand in 2006 during the Labour tenure.

Postscript

Time, incidentally, we ratified the 2010 Kampala Review Conference amendment – which would make aggression a leadership crime, including in our own domestic law.  I asked the Government about NZ ratification, immediately after Kampala.  The Minister fell to murmuring.

The gossip last week is, Liechtenstein’s about to be the first to ratify, followed by Germany, and perhaps Austria and The Netherlands, and Uruguay.

Apart from Germany with its unique history, all are small, law-abiding states.

Responsible global citizens, each.

Are we up to it?

I experienced, yet again, one of those apocryphal exchanges with Dr Nick Smith on climate change.

Those who perceive global climate change as a competitive sport will be heartened to hear Minister Smith assure Parliament that New Zealand is punching above its weight in the negotiations. This is through the footwork and skill of Mr Groser.

The reason for the question was my concern that New Zealand had missed the deadline in sending its submission to the UN about increasing levels of ambition in greenhouse gas emission reductions.  At the Durban conference last December, parties had invited themselves to do so by 28 February.

The response was that only a few had met the deadline and New Zealand’s response would be sent before long.  This is OK – the real issue was not a few days here or there.

The real issue was the underlying gravity of the global emissions ‘ambition gap’ that has emerged since Copenhagen in 2009.  The question – the question of all time – is whether the NZ Government, even Ministers Groser / Smith themselves, accurately comprehend the enormity of the challenge before us all.

So, the critical third question I asked was – had he drawn to Cabinet’s attention the size of the required global cuts by 2020 for the planet to have half a chance of staying within a 2°C temperature rise?  No, the Minister essentially said, but he and his colleague read all sorts of reports, so not to worry.

The fact is that, as the UN reports, annual global emissions, currently hovering at about 50 Gigatonnes (50 billion tonnes) and projected to rise under BAU to 56 Gt. by 2020, must in fact fall to 44 Gt. in that year.

That’s a 12% drop in total emissions of the global community.  The UN has pointed out that the rich ‘developed’ countries of the North should cut by 30% (range: 20% – 40%).

New Zealand is one of these.  What has it committed to?  A 15% cut (range: 10% – 20%) provided other countries do the same.*

So, in short, we are committing to half what is required of us to ‘do our fair share’ in global emission reductions to save the planet from dangerous climate change.  But averting dangerous climate change is a binding legal obligation we signed up to in the Framework Convention in 1992.

And do we have any special obligation to our Pacific island neighbours, given that sea-level rise will force their total relocation some stage in the future?

Well, yes, thinks the Minister, but let’s not forget one thing: we are remarkably unimportant.  And despite that, Minister Groser is achieving extraordinary things out there and we truly are punching above our weight.

Besides, Minister Smith has never yet seen any credible plan to achieve that scale of reduction without extraordinary pain.  His colleagues nod widely.  I seek to table the Green Party’s 2009 plan, Getting There, which explored how this could be achieved.  The Speaker moves to prevent the document being tabled, lest it waste the time of the House.

Yet another enlightening exchange on the most critical challenge confronting God’s own.

Our current gross emissions are some 75 million tonnes (net = 60 m.t.).  This is projected to rise, under BAU to 88 m.t. in 2020 (net = 63 m.t.).  If we are to reduce by 30%, as the UN prescribes and the EU has committed to, we would cut from 75 m t. to 52 m.t.

If we achieved that, we would not be a leader, nor would we be a follower.  We would simply be doing what the UN prescribes in the interests of saving the planet – or, more accurately, protecting humanity from a very angry planet.

Instead, we are halfway short of the prescription – punching, you understand, above our weight.

Let’s see what the NZ submission says to the UN – when it enters the ring.

*Annex I cuts of 30 percent and NZ of 15 percent are off 1990 baseline. Whereas global cut of 12 percent is off 2010.

The Assembly condemns Damascus for ‘widespread and systematic violations of human rights’, calls for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from towns and cities, urges the president to stand down, supports the Arab League plan, and urges the UN Secretary-General to appoint a special envoy to Syria.

Russia and China opposed, critiquing the resolution as unbalanced in supporting the rebels and isolating the Syrian Government (‘one-sided pressure cannot help a proper settlement’). China has sent its own envoy to Damascus – striving to emulate Russia which has already done that…

The Arab League had called for a joint UN-Arab League peacekeeping mission. Western powers have not supported and the resolution did not endorse it.  So the prospect of a 1950s-style ‘Uniting for Peace’ force, sanctioned by the General Assembly without Security Council approval, is remote.

The Syrian Government had proposed a referendum on far-reaching political reform. The opposition and the West rejected this as too little, too late, judging covert support to be more potent than resolutions and events likely to conclude with the president’s overthrow.

This is not guaranteed.  The Syrian regime may yet prove more effective than Libya’s at suppressing the unrest and remaining in power.

We supported the resolution as we should have.

If the opposition prevails, there will be a need for a peacekeeping presence, probably a mixed UN-Arab League force – UN for global legitimacy and effective hardware, Arab League for regional legitimacy and cultural-linguistic affinity.

If the existing regime prevails, it will probably not accept either force, unless that is the only condition of its survival.  And it is highly unlikely that either the UN or the regional body would be prepared to shore up the regime.  Yet an entrenched regime might ask for Russian-Iranian military presence.  This would heat up the region, with Israel and NATO-member Turkey next door, as the recent reaction to the docking of Iranian warships in Tartus, Syria has shown.

Is there a lesson here? It’s back to the effectiveness of the Security Council in a crisis.  The veto needs to be constrained.

New Zealand should vigorously pursue that as part of a general package of UN reform.  I have called in the Foreign Affairs Committee for an enquiry into UN reform. We have a bit to offer in that area as a founding member state, one that has served in the Council several times with the hope  of re-election in 2014.

But nothing is simple.  Even if the Council were united, there is no guarantee that Syria would have experienced a peaceful transition to multi-party democracy.

Lesson no. 2.  Crises of this kind will only be avoided when all member states have achieved a minimum of stability through enduring legitimacy.  And the precondition of that is a genuine respect for the human rights in the two covenants – economic and social as much as civil and political.

For how long has the international community, including the West and including New Zealand, acquiesced in repressive regimes?  And does this not have implications for NZ policy towards Fiji?

Lesson no. 3. There is too much of a tendency for major powers to engage in competitive diplomacy – sending in national envoys with ‘the best of intentions’.  National interests can never be eschewed in these situations.  The leadership should always be taken by the UN Secretary-General, who should have appointed an envoy some months back. And who should be prepared to put his reputation on the line through personal diplomacy himself.

So much depends on the leadership qualities of the UN’s leader.

Knowingly or otherwise, the Government pledged never to use force without an authorising resolution from the UN Security Council.

They will be forever held to account, from now on.

The issue at stake is when a country may legally use its armed forces.  For 5,000 years, the answer was – whenever you wish.  In the 20^th century, that began to change. Since 1945, under the UN Charter, there are only two occasions when armed force is legal – in self-defence against attack; or when the Security Council authorises (under prescribed conditions).

Of course, this has been largely honoured in the breach, and it remains controversial when major powers use force in their ‘vital national interests’ and small countries get sucked in (Australia and New Zealand in Suez ’56 and Vietnam ‘66; Australia in Iraq ’03).

The most recent, and controversial, use of force without UN authorisation is Iraq in 2003, when the UK and Australia followed the US in its ‘coalition of the willing’ to invade Iraq for regime change.  They cited the revival of earlier resolutions (dating back to 1991) but very few lawyers accept that, and almost everyone, including the UN Secretary-General, regarded it as illegal.

So, the challenge is to ensure that New Zealand never follows the US, or anyone, into an armed conflict, as part of such a ‘coalition’, that is contrary to the UN Charter – i.e. illegal. Of course, aggression is included as a leadership crime in the ICC’s Rome Statute. It is not yet justiciable but is likely to become so around 2017, following agreement at the ICC’s Review Conference in 2010.

The intriguing NZG policy twist is this.  In 2009, less than 30 months ago, during the debate on my member’s bill (International Non-Aggression and the Lawful Use of Force), this Government opposed on the grounds that it wanted the freedom to use force outside of a UN Security Council mandate.

To quote the then Defence Minister, Hon Wayne Mapp, during the 1^st reading debate:

“[I]t would effectively hand our foreign policy to the whims of a UN Security Council veto. … Under the proposed legislation, New Zealand and other Western democracies could not have defended the people of Kosovo against genocidal aggression …  There would have been no authorisation for their actions by the Security Council because Russia and China vetoed the proposed resolution.”

The Government voted against the Bill on these grounds.  Labour supported the Bill, and it was only narrowly defeated by 64 votes to 58.

So, in September 2009 this Government opposed making aggression a leadership crime in domestic law on the grounds that it did not wish New Zealand’s foreign-defence policy to be constrained by a UN Security Council veto that might stop the West intervening with armed force on the basis of the ‘responsibility to protect’ principle.

Given that the UN General Assembly had affirmed, in 2005, that ‘responsibility to protect’ was legal only in the event of an authorising Security Council resolution, this was aberrant to say the least (see my article in NZ International Review, 2009, Vol. 34, No. 6; and 2008, Vol. 33, No. 6); also NZ International Law Review, 2009; 7).

Now, in a (perhaps unwitting) fit of unction, the Government has dropped that opposition, and has said that it will NEVER commit armed forces outside of a Council resolution.

This is how it should be, and is good news.  I shall be resubmitting my International Non-Aggression and the Lawful Use of Force bill back into the ballot, so that the Government can support it into law.

Since independence, Maldives effectively maintained a single-party system until very recently.  President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom remained in office for 30 years, re-elected six times by referendum as the sole candidate – internationally well-known; legitimacy assumed or disregarded.

The post-Cold War democracy movement left the Maldives unmoved.  It took 15 more years for a multi-party system, and genuine presidential elections to be held, under international observation, in 2008, with parliamentary elections in ’09.

Gayoom stood again. His challenger, Mohamed Nasheed, a 44-year-old journalist and environmental activist, had enjoyed years of incarceration and exile in controversial circumstances during the Gayoom rule. They are not exactly close.  Nasheed won, and has governed since late ’08.

A mixture of religious intensity and economic difficulty has made Maldivian politics fragile since then. The Maldives is not the only country to be experiencing riots in today’s financially neurotic world.  But the army and the police fell out, and Nasheed resigned, and his Vice-President, from Nasheed’s coalition but a different party, was sworn in.  Nasheed has subsequently alleged that his resignation was coerced.  He has since been physically maltreated and has earned a new arrest warrant.

The question is whether the transfer of power was legitimate or not.  No doubt the new regime will invoke the ‘doctrine of necessity’, as with Musharraf in Pakistan and Bainimarama in Fiji – not the most reassuring of precedents.  But it has to be queried whether the transfer is legitimate, given the charges of the deposed president.

It is a tough call for world leaders – recognise the regime change permanently; recognise it temporarily, pending new elections; or withhold recognition and enforce the reinstatement of the elected president (through all necessary means, as in Haiti in the ‘90s…).

The UN Secretary-General hopes (8 Feb.) that the ‘hand-over of power’, which “has been announced as a constitutional step” to avoid further violence and instability, will lead to the peaceful resolution of the on-going political crisis.  He has acknowledged Nasheed’s “important contribution … to the establishment of democracy” – a salute into the sunset….  His Assistant Secretary-General, following a quick visit, concludes there are ‘no external solutions’ – code: no military intervention from outside – USA, India, whoever.

So UN leaders, along with the IPU President, are confining themselves to appeals for ‘inclusive political dialogue, non-violence, restraint and stability’. Thus are coups consolidated.

The NZ Government, of course, has said nothing about a policy: one small country to another…..  pleasantries all round…. check out what Washington has said….

We were all a bit more clear-eyed over Fiji.  The extra kilometres change nothing.  Both are members of the Commonwealth – and Fiji is suspended.

I urge the NZ Government to call for the following:

-       An end to violent police retribution against members of parliament and civilians;

-       An international investigation of the circumstances that led to the change of government;

-       A pledge for new elections within 6 months, failing which, suspension from the Commonwealth;

-       Supervision of the elections by the UN, observed by the Commonwealth, to ensure their fairness and integrity.

This is standard ‘finger in the air, eyes down, look to Washington for a lead’ foreign policy of this Nation’s Government. The claim to bipartisanship is a throw-back to FPP days (conscious or subliminal?) where Labour and National share most foreign-policy DNA.  But we live in an MMP Parliament now, for 15 years in fact, and the Green global affairs policy is different from the sclerotic thought processes of these two aging parties.

The emerging doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) is the symbol of the transition from the ‘international relations’ approach to the ‘global affairs’ approach to world events.  The latter requires the UN Charter, and the thinking of nation-states, to get up to speed with the 21^st century, ensuring that the aspirations of the peoples of the world are taken into account in diplomatic statecraft at the UN.

The R2P doctrine emerged in response to the frustrations over the twin crises of the mid-90s – in Rwanda where UN inaction (‘very numerous killings…’) resulted in genocide being committed; and in Kosovo where the West intervened militarily on controversial grounds.

With Kosovo, the West essentially over-interpreted a humanitarian resolution of the UN Security Council, and bombed the hell out of Serbia.  Russia and China claimed this was illegal, but their draft resolution was defeated by a majority in the Council.  An independent commission of inquiry subsequently concluded that the military operation was ‘legitimate if illegal’ – a phrase to set the hares running if ever there was one. Serbia then took NATO states to the World Court, but the Court found that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.  Brilliant!

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan then challenged the international community on how to respond to these nightmares.  An(other) independent commission produced the R2P doctrine.  It says that, while the responsibility to protect civilians lies with a national government in the first instance, if that government is unable or unwilling to meet its responsibility, then it falls to the international community as a secondary responsibility, including the right to intervene, if necessary, with force.

The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 complicated matters when a majority in the Security Council opposed the military operation yet the US, UK and Australia proceeded.  The fallout prompted (yet another) independent commission which made it clear that ‘responsibility to protect’ was legal and legitimate only if it had an explicit Security Council authorisation. I was involved as a consultant to that commission and followed matters closely in the UN that year.

Reflecting the commission’s work, the UN General Assembly effectively adopted the doctrine in 2005 when it declared that member states were prepared to “take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis.” The UN would co-operate with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are “manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

This is the clearest sign, among many, of movement in sovereignty from the national to the global level for the protection of civilians.  But its effectiveness is stymied by the veto in the Security Council.

So long as the veto remains, effective UN reaction will be thwarted, whether it is Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, or Syria. Anywhere – not least Israel-Palestine.

The problems of the Security Council come from opposite ends:

-        Rwanda (’94) where the Security Council shied away from acknowledging genocide lest it trigger a binding obligation to act under the Genocide Convention – ‘sheer cowardice’;

-        Kosovo (’99) where the West over-interpreted a Security Council resolution (for delivery of humanitarian supplies) and bombed Serbia to the negotiating table – ‘legitimate if illegal’;

-        Iraq (’03) where the Council opposed (by majority, not through a veto) military intervention, but the Anglo-Americans invaded anyway, for regime change purposes, through a selective interpretation of previous (12-year-old) resolutions – ‘illegal and illegitimate’;

-        Libya (‘10) where the Council authorised military intervention to protect civilians, and the West interpreted this to justify regime change – ‘studied hypocrisy’.

So what to do with Syria, which is eerily close to the Libyan situation?

Russia and China vetoed the Syrian resolution (for a second time) because they oppose the Western knee-jerk over-interpretation of Council resolutions, plus covert arms supplies.  It is no use lambasting them alone for pursuing their national interests – every one of the permanent five does just that, despite their special obligations.  At least Russia is striving to facilitate a solution behind the scenes – offering Moscow as a venue for dialogue.  But that is dead in the water, so long as it does it alone without US engagement.

The top UN officials have, uncharacteristically, taken sides.  The Secretary-General expressed ‘great disappointment’ over the veto on behalf of all supporters of democracy: “It undermines the role of the UN and the international community in this period when the Syrian authorities must hear a unified voice calling for an immediate end to its violence against the Syrian people”.  The Human Rights Commissioner said that “the failure of the Security Council to agree on firm collective action appears to have fuelled the Syrian Government’s readiness to massacre its own people in an effort to crush dissent”.  The ICC may well be waiting, she added.  Remarkably strong language against what remains the government of a member state.

So the options, over the next month or so, are military, economic or diplomatic:

1. Military intervention in Syria (Libyan-style) with a Council resolution. Legal (today, unlike only 20 years ago) but politically inadvisable since many civilian deaths will result.
2. Military intervention in Syria by the West (Libyan-style) without a Council resolution. Illegal and politically inadvisable.
3. Bilateral military intervention by Turkey for ‘regional stability’ akin to the Tanzanian intervention of Uganda in 1979, justified on an updated version of R2P. Unacceptably dangerous for everybody since it invites escalation.
4. UN-authorised economic sanctions on Syria, akin to those applied to South Africa over apartheid. Blunt and effective only over the long-term, if at all.
5. Continued diplomatic negotiations with Syria for internal dialogue and political settlement, bilaterally (Russia, Iran, Turkey) or regionally (Arab League) or multilaterally (UN Secretary-General plus envoy).  Soft, but often the most effective (as in Yemen, where the UNSG and the sub-regional organization (GCC) brokered a transfer of power endorsed by the UN Security Council).

Until the UN can decide and act on the basis of a constitutional majority, with no veto or a circumsribed veto, the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine will remain controversial and undeveloped.

Until that time, it is better to remain confined to the route of peacemaking through UN diplomacy.  Diplomacy through the good offices of the UNSG, supported by the regional organization, will always be more effective and enduring than that advanced by any major power.

Just yesterday, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon “told journalists that the UN and the League of Arab States are considering sending a joint observer mission to Syria.”

New Zealand should call upon the UN Secretary-General to appoint an envoy, to work with the Arab League, host a venue (Aqaba? Doha?), form a high-level ‘friends of Syria’ advisory panel, and be prepared to personally engage – in Hammarskjöld-style.

The armed forces continue to attack Homs in the name of suppressing the Free Syria Army but, in reality, killing citizens through widespread collateral, if not targeted, damage.  The UN Security Council is rendered ineffectual, again, through use of the veto.  The Arab League’s plan for a controlled and peaceful transition to democracy is stalled.

Crises have a habit of being resolved through diplomatic creativity (rare), blowing up into full-scale violence (occasional) or dragging on to some unsatisfactory semi-conclusion (usual). Which way Syria goes will depend on the political consistency and diplomatic skill of the major powers – not the greatest reassurance available to a concerned global public.

Yesterday, in the first Question Time of the new Parliament, I asked the Foreign Minister about the Government’s response.  New Zealand, he said, had condemned the bombardment and planned to draw this to the attention of the Syrian chargé in Canberra.  And it was deeply disappointed over the veto.

Would it endorse the precise plan produced by the Arab League?  The Minister did not think it was helpful ‘to get into the detail’. But it was imperative for the Security Council to ‘show some leadership’ and resolve the differences between Russia and China, on the one hand, and the others.

Did the Minister see any parallel between the Russian-Chinese veto in the Syrian case and the persistent US vetoes on the Israeli-Palestine issue?  The Minister thought “that range is rather wider than I would care to go”.  He reiterated the need for leadership in the Council.

As a courtesy, we chose not to raise the matter of leadership in NZ foreign policy.  The range might be a touch too wide and the detail too excruciating.

But on the substance, one thing is clear. For the UN Security Council to show leadership, it needs two fundamental reforms.  The permanent membership needs to include regional leaders such as India and Brazil, and whomever Africa decides.  And the veto needs to be dropped or, at the least, circumscribed.

It is a question of national sovereignty in the global age.  The major powers insist their vital national interests require the veto and that this was recognised back in 1945 as the quid pro quo to creating the UN.

But it is exactly two-thirds of a century since then, and national sovereignty is increasingly shared in the common interest.  And even under the Charter, the five permanent members are required to act in the Security Council in the interests of the entire membership, not their own.  This is more than a fiduciary or contractual obligation, it is constitutional.

But the veto provides undue temptation to pursue the national interest.  And the major powers succumb.  During the Cold War, the USSR had the record.  In the post-Cold War world, it is the US.  Where Russia and China exercise the veto over Syria, the US does it over Israel-Palestine – 13 times in the past 16 years.

It is unlikely the major powers will accept a constitutional change to surrender the veto, since formal change to the Charter is politically elusive.  But it is entirely feasible to develop a convention, without charter change, for the veto to be circumscribed – through, among options, a double veto or a 48-hour second resolution rule.

In the post-Cold War world, two serious attempts have been made to reform the UN – in the early 1990s and in 2004-5 following the tensions of the Iraq invasion.  Neither succeeded.  But it is time for a third exploration.

It was pleasing that the Minister, in answer to my final question, agreed that New Zealand needed to ‘take a role’ in the emerging debate on Security Council reform.  He expects the Government to become ‘more active’ in the issue, and the question of the veto was an inherent part of that.

I shall be pursuing this with the Minister in this 50^th Parliament, and in the Foreign Affairs select committee.  There is no more important issue.

The Council has the opportunity, along with the obligation, to lead in the international community’s call for respect for human rights and political freedoms in this latest country to enjoy the warmth of the Arab Spring.

Manoeuvring delicately within the grey area of state sovereignty, popular will and universal rights is one tough challenge. Especially in the Arab world where the political culture is significantly different from the prevailing Western norms that inform Security Council strategy.

Western support for popular uprisings in that region faces the inevitable road-block. The West finds it easier to be clear-eyed over Tunisia and Egypt, Yemen and Libya, and even Syria, than it does over Palestine.

Deriving from the Libyan experience, the rhetoric surrounding Syria is embedded with the principle of non-intervention. The League of Arab States has made it clear its draft resolution would avoid foreign military intervention.

Echoing the aspirations of the League, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for the Syrian President to ‘heed the people’s call’, and urged the Council to ‘start a credible political solution’. This would be an internally-driven peaceful political transition, compelled by international consensus in the form of economic pressure “so that the Syrian regime might realise that it is imperative to meet the demands of its people”, as the Chair of the Arab Ministerial Committee on Syria explained to the Security Council.

The power of the UN lies in its ability to act collectively. A UN mandate, albeit often complicated and politically subjective, holds global legitimacy because it derives from a collective decision-making and consensus-building process. Nothing else, including US engagement in the Palestine issue and Russian engagement in Syria, does.

In approaching the Security Council, the League strengthens the power of this collective legitimacy, as opposed to the singular power of a large nation such as the US.  Hence, the UN Security Council has the opportunity to take the global lead on Syria.

Amnesty International calls on Russia not to veto the draft resolution. Neither should it.  But the Security Council will never attain the objectivity required for full global legitimacy until it applies an even-handed approach to the comparable forms of repression in the region. Syria and Palestine stand as a twin litmus-test of transparency and objectivity.  Ramming through a resolution on Syria and continuing with US vetoes on Palestine will not do, from now on.

The Oath (Affirmation) I took was to the Head of State of my country.  I solemnly, sincerely and truly declared to be:

“…faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law.”

Thirteen years ago, on becoming Director of a UNU agency, I took the UN Oath of Loyalty:

“I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the Organization.”

As a result, from 1999 to 2004 I was working as a New Zealander for the global interest as expressed, imperfectly but legitimately, through the decisions of the United Nations, and sworn not to accept instructions from the NZ Government.  As a NZ citizen (stationed in the Middle East, Europe or New York), I could vote for a political party which might form a NZ government, but not to accord it ‘loyalty’.

Today as a member of the NZ Parliament, where is my loyalty to lie?  What is the relationship between the two oaths?  Are they intrinsically compatible or incompatible?  As a student in Boston in the ‘70s, I did my master’s thesis on this question (Values in Paradox: Loyalty and the International Civil Service; Fletcher School of law & Diplomacy, 1974).

As a result of the parliamentary oath my loyalty is to the state of New Zealand, as represented by its Head of State. Is it to the NZ Government, as led by the Prime Minister? I am free to oppose his Government’s policies in parliamentary debate as a member of the loyal opposition. But am I bound to accept instructions from his Government?

The answer is in the phrase ‘according to law’.  In the 21^st century, law is composed of domestic and international law.

In domestic law, I am bound by the laws adopted by the Parliament of which I am a member, even though I may have voted against them.

But then there is international law, which is binding on New Zealand. The UN Charter forbids aggression by a Member State. Non-aggression is regarded as ius cogens – an obligation so fundamental to humanity as to be non-derogable and binding towards all (erga omnes).

Throughout my adult life I have perceived the global interest as being paramount and the national interest as being legitimate provided it is compatible with the global interest – see my 1999 book The Planetary Interest (UCL Press, London; ed.).

In this paradigm, there is no conflict between the NZ parliamentary oath and the UN oath.

But if a NZ government were, say, to break the UN Charter and commit aggression, then it follows that my loyalty to the global interest would over-ride my loyalty to New Zealand in the specific case of a particular decision by the Government.

In the event that the UN itself failed to make a ‘decision’ on such a matter (such as a veto in the Security Council) I would consult international legal authorities and follow my conscience.

Either way, the (legitimate) national interest would remain compatible with the global interest. I would be remaining true to New Zealand by attributing a higher loyalty to the United Nations Charter than to a NZ government decision, which I would regard as null and void, and not binding upon me.

In response, we have agreed to retain disarmament as a separate portfolio.

The intention was not to downplay disarmament as a political priority.  The aim was to develop some clarity between the full number of component issues within the total policy.

These are, among others: climate change, ozone depletion, biodiversity, population, sustainability, trade and investment, debt relief, collective security, control of weaponry, cultural dialogue, strengthening global governance, and strengthening international law.

Of these, climate change and trade had been separated, while disarmament (actually the broader concept of control of weaponry) had been folded in, because of its strong causal connection to collective security.

Strictly, each of these twelve, above, can be seen as component policy issues within global affairs, interacting causally.  But there is a political logic in highlighting disarmament, not least since the 1987 nuclear-free legislation created a ministerial portfolio of disarmament.

There is a touch of irony in all this.  As a NZ diplomat in the ‘80s, I did my PhD on nuclear weapon-free zones, deputised to Chris Beeby on the NZ delegation negotiating the South Pacific zone, was sent to our UN mission in Geneva to defend our policy against all-comers in the Conference on Disarmament. Later I was commissioned by UNIDIR to author the first book in a series on security and disarmament – Security Concepts of States: New Zealand (Taylor & Francis, New York, 1989).

On substance, the Green policy, as outlined on the website, outstrips both National and Labour in promoting disarmament, and particularly nuclear disarmament.  But that can be explored, in terms of healthy democratic debate, in Parliament and outside, in the coming months and years.

As I have indicated in e-mail correspondence, I am happy, actually keen, to meet with groups around the country, and discuss our disarmament – and general global affairs – policy with everyone, with a view to exploring how we can translate a vision of a more stable and safer world, into reality.

Ka kite te anō.

This is a new development that builds upon, and refines, the previous foreign affairs portfolio.  It focuses on the same reality, but from a different, updated, worldview.

From the mid-17^th to mid-20^th centuries, the nation-state emerged, waxed, and waned as the principal political unit in what theorists call the Westphalian age.

With the United Nations, however, the sovereign state has been joined by the individual as an entity under international law – initially through the universalisation of human rights, more recently through international criminal law. From Göring and Hess to Milosevic and Karadzic.

Also since the mid-20^th century, we have been confronting problems that are truly global in character and impact – weapons of mass destruction, ozone depletion and climate change.

And since the late 20^th century, we have acquired a global consciousness, through deep-space exploration and moon-shots of Earth, along with a planetary interconnectedness through the ITC revolution.

We are today in the post-Westphalian age – a fast and dynamic transformation towards a global society of some form.  Ours is a transitional age, in which the international community of states is now joined by a global community of peoples. The global civil society ranges alongside the global corporate sector, acting as the not-so-still voice of conscience in our changing world.

In this unfolding scenario, nations have become integrated in myriad ways into the global scene.  A country’s attitude towards the world and its actions are now less a matter of foreign policy – ‘us’ v. ‘them’; more a matter of ‘us’ as part of the broader ‘us’.

We are now an integral part of the global community.  What we do and say – our policies towards, not ‘the world’, but ‘the rest of the world of which we are a part’, is the subject of global affairs.

Within this new paradigm we do not seek to maximise a competitive national advantage to excess, indifferent to the consequences elsewhere.  We collaborate in identifying the global challenges before humanity. We agree on the global solutions, and then we agree on our legitimate national interests, and then we carry them out.

It is a matter of global responsibility. This is not moral handwringing – it is an imperative of collective survival. Our global responsibilities and our national interests become one and the same.

Thus, a country’s portfolio for dealing with the rest of the world is most appropriately described now, not as foreign policy, but as ‘global affairs’.

The Green Party will henceforth pursue this approach in the Parliament, in the country, and around the world.

Kyoto is, of course, the only binding climate instrument with specific emission targets. It compels the world’s worst emitters to reduce emissions. But it has always been inadequate in itself – a first step to greater things. And it terminates within 12 months.

The 194 nations at Durban cannot agree on the details of the second Kyoto commitment period, from 2012-2020, or on how to implement a ‘roadmap’ to a global agreement beyond 2020.

As Minister Groser has pointed out, New Zealand has been playing its part in this:

• - We have been holding other Parties to ransom.
• - We have demanded the excessive transfer of emissions units beyond 2012.
• - We have opposed any binding obligations beyond this date.

The message we are sending to the world is this: do not let humanity’s greatest crisis get in the way of national opportunism – of making a quick, unsustainable, income.

There is increasing evidence of dangerous, possibly catastrophic, climate change approaching. The latest science leads to the conclusion that limiting climate change to a 2⁰C increase in average global temperature is now not possible. There always was, after all, only a 50% chance. Now it has become a question of which year the threshold will be breached, how high the temperature will rise, over what time period, and what the consequences will be for the planet.

Twenty years after Rio – after the legislative framework for effective global coordination to combat climate change was set in place – we arrive at deadlock. The capacity of the global community to solve the over-riding global challenge has proven to be inadequate. As I said last week, the global interest has been torn to shreds by the mindlessly competitive pursuit of excessive national interests.

The talk will now turn to ‘transition periods’, to ‘preparatory phases’, ‘voluntary targets’, ‘coordinated action’, and ‘bottom-up approaches’. Our national leaders will spin positively into 2012. The ‘realistic expectation’ will focus on the possibility of global agreement by, or after, 2020.

The realistic prescription, from the UN and research institutes, is that global emissions need to peak between 2015 and ’17.

Historians, assuming sufficient social stability for dispassionate analysis a half-century from now, will search for reasons for our collective failure during the critical twenty-year period, 1992 – 2012. They will conclude that human technology outpaced human institutional capacity for rational decision-making. National leaders responded, as constitutionally and politically obliged, to national interest.

There were no global leaders. While individuals could identify the global interest, while nations, through the UN, could also identify it in theory, they could not break it down into legitimate national interests, and enforce these.

Should national leaders be held to account in any way, and if so how? Electoral judgement is palpably insufficient. Elections reflect a multitude of issues and considerations. They focus on the minutiae of local politics. They are bound by the short electoral cycle.

Is this failure a criminal matter? Not yet; and even if in the future, probably not in time.

There is a gathering movement to make ‘ecocide’ – the mass destruction of the natural environment – a crime in international law. Friends of the Earth have suggested that, “ecocide law may be the only way to make climate criminals rethink crimes of commission and omission”. A leading campaigner, Polly Higgins, toured New Zealand earlier this year. But ecocide might be more pertinent to corporations or individuals – it’s a stretch to capture national leaders criminally on climate change.

In the US, a group of children (Kids v. Global Warming) filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government in May to compel it to take action. “The generations before us … just kind of thought of the world as limitless,” says Glori Dei Filippone, 13, a plaintiff in the case.  “My generation and the one after it are going to have to work hard to fix this mess.” Comparable action has been tried, and further contemplated, here in New Zealand. But the courts interpret weak law with rigorous conservatism.

Recently Palau announced an intention at the UN to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on, “whether countries have a legal responsibility to ensure that any activities on their territory that emit greenhouse gases do not harm other States.” That is pretty much within the reach of existing law, but it is unlikely to move national leaders before 2017.

Then, of course, there is mass civic protest. Much of this has been happening for a while. It is likely to intensify. In the US, James Hansen, in his 70s, has transmogrified from leading scientist to protest activist – to allay, if not avert, the approaching storms of his grandchildren. Jeannette Fitzsimons, in her 60s, has surrendered parliamentary activity for similar civic action here in New Zealand. She, too, cites her grandchildren. It is not just Generation Zero.

I too, am deeply concerned for my own grandchildren. Mia is aged 7, Khali is 5, Mala is 4, and Oshani is 2. My first grandson, Sal, was born a few days ago – while the Durban conference was busily failing. I shall devote my efforts to parliamentary debate and questions – committee work here, a member’s bill there. It is where I am at, in the here and now. It is what I can do.

The 50^th Parliament opens next week with the Speech-from-the-Throne. Will the Prime Minister devote more than a passing line or two to climate change? Will we, in response to the existential human challenge of all time, do more than chant our willingness to play our part in what has proved to be an inept, and inadequate endeavour?

We need an Urgent Debate in the NZ Parliament. The discussion needs to be of a new kind. It must not be the usual adversarial partisan game that passes for free and robust debate within healthy parliamentary democracy.

We need a new approach. Something has to be done. Fast.

Yesterday he delivered our country’s main speech to the UN climate change conference – the 17^th meeting of the parties to the UN Framework Convention.

“I would like to acknowledge”, he begins, “and thank our gracious hosts, South Africa, and assure the Parties present that New Zealand is, as always, committed to playing a constructive role in these negotiations”.

The Parties stare back, unblinking.

Mr Groser, engaged in so many critical global issues elsewhere, has reached Durban in the final days of the conference.  The Parties, for the previous week, had been struggling to find a global solution to humanity’s biggest challenge.

In the land of our gracious hosts, New Zealand has won another Fossil of the Day award. We have one-upped ourselves since last week’s 2^nd place, taking 1^st place for trying to gain from the Kyoto 2^nd period without the need to be bound by it.

Global carbon emissions are at their highest, and temperature trends continue upwards.

Independent of his hosts, Minister Groser opined this week that we are the ‘only idiots doing anything’, and that a call for a legally binding deal by 2015, while understandable, ‘may not be realistic’.

The mirror on the wall has myriad images of idiocy.

Are we being catatonic here, stupid, devious, or simply dilatory? Either way, will the outcome be different?

Is this the deflating gasp of the outgoing Government of the 49^th NZ Parliament collapsing, as it did in Copenhagen when it was fresh and, relatively, young?

Minister Groser, employing his endearingly flirtatious trade vernacular, called for a ‘roadmap, or a process, to negotiate a more coherent long-term deal which ends this mosaic of different bits into a single comprehensive treaty’.

In fact, we have had, since Rio, Kyoto, Marrakech and Bali, a framework convention, an international treaty, a roadmap, and an international plan. What we need from Durban, in the wake of Copenhagen and Cancun, is decisive action. The people require this of their representatives, including New Zealand.

I call upon Minister Groser to use Durban to bolster New Zealand’s domestic climate change policy, and strengthen commitment to mitigation, in the presence of his hosts.

He is free to borrow from my humble plea. Call for an unconditional commitment by New Zealand for national carbon emission reductions, domestic without offsets, of 33% by 2020 and 90% by 2050. Make this call, irrelevant of what other State Parties choose to do.

Start the 50^th Parliament as a Government willing to lead the debate and action on climate change. Renounce the position of ACT, recycled coalition partner, comprised of its climate change denial and self-indulgent opposition to the emissions trading scheme.  Be part of a leading triumvirate of NZ leaders fit for history – Messrs, Key, Smith and Groser.

Your gracious hosts will thank you.  That is to say, the New Zealand voters of 2014.  And 2024.

Because, New Zealand is now at risk from rising sea level.  The IPCC has highlighted our vulnerability, expecting that the projected rise will make it riskier to live here over the next century. Niwa scientist James Renwick points out that this could be a problem, given that 12 of our 15 major centres are on the coast.

My own report in response to the Canterbury earthquakes highlights the need for resilience against inevitable sea-level rise. Christchurch is now predisposed to flooding. The chance of more extreme weather events, more often, must be considered when planning the rebuild.

The Earthquake Recovery Minister, Mr Brownlee, is yet to comment on sea-level rise and the impacts of climate change on our future city.  He is especially dynamically engaged in the demolition of the inner city.

When Minister Groser tears himself away from his gracious hosts and returns home, he could do worse than turn the local triumvirate into a quartet.  Local, national, global interests – they are all one and the same.

Prophetic words from the 19^th century – Gustave Moynier advancing the idea of an international criminal jurisdiction

Some 132 years later, in July 2002, the International Criminal Court was created under the Rome Statute. Genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are offences for which political leaders are now personally liable.  Probably in 2017, the crime of aggression will be added.  Civilising the human ape remains a work-in-progress.

It may be that work will near completion around the time Gaia wrecks her own vengeance.

Vanuatu has just become the latest state to accede to the Statute, coming under ICC jurisdiction on 1 February 2012. It joins other Pacific nations including NZ, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa and Timor-Leste.

Of 139 signatories of the Rome Statute, 120 have now acceded or ratified. Vanuatu joins a long list of countries wishing to see an end to impunity for war criminals. Where a nation refuses to prosecute, the ICC will.

Vice-President of the ICC, Judge Kaul, asks “Is it a natural right, the inherent right of states to make war? Is war-making a national right?”  The short answer is that ‘war’ was abolished under the UN Charter in 1945.  Only the ‘legitimate use of force’, in self-defence or authorised by the Security Council, is left.

In the real world of the late-20^th century, the distinction has been vanishingly small.

In the aspirational world of the 21^st, the distinction may take root. The introduction of aggression as a leadership crime will be humanity’s next great step forward in enforcing peace – and answering Judge Kaul’s practical question.

There is a campaign around the world for ratification of the aggression protocol to the Rome Statute. Leaders will come to understand, on pain of acute embarrassment through incarceration, that the ‘right to war’ is not a natural one, but an historical relic.  And in particular, the major powers will no longer pursue wars of choice in the national interest.

In his 10^th anniversary speech of the Rome Statute, out-going Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said: ‘[We] are moving from an era of ad hoc international tribunals to a global criminal justice system.  A novel system, not of state, but so different, that we have to rethink how the law works’.

It remains, of course, for New Zealand to ratify the aggression protocol adopted in Kampala in 2010.  Time to shame the nice Mr Key into doing something for the global common weal.

Bensouda, a former attorney at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and head of the Prosecutions Division of the Office of the ICC Prosecutor, will be elected on 12 December 2011, at the UN, and assume the post on 16 June 2012. She is the single candidate.

It is no small triumph for the Court and for international law, that she is a woman and an African (Gambian).

Her raison d’etre: the victims of Africa. She states clearly that those who are trying to bring unspeakable atrocities, suffering to civilians anywhere in the world will be held accountable.

This is no small task. Since its inception, the court still has not delivered a conviction. Cases are accumulating  in South Sudan, Kenya, DR Congo, CAR, Uganda, and now Libya.

But the movement to end impunity for the four core crimes of the ICC is strengthening. The reach of the Court is growing. The Security Council used its right of referral this year with the situation in Libya, and so the general population begins to better understand the relevance of the court in international security and law.

In her 9-year term, Mrs Bensouda is likely to have a fourth core crime, the crime of aggression, within the Court’s jurisdiction.

It will be a political maturation for the global community for an African woman to lead the world’s criminal investigation of political leaders including, potentially, Western leaders.

The ICC needs to use her historic election to alert the world to the future role of international criminal justice. ‘Never again’ will have come of age. Universal jurisdiction can be a call to put down arms.

The three remaining permanent Council members must be seriously questioned about why they remain at arms-length to the Court. The allocation of resources and funding, so that it can effectively investigate and try suspects, should be reviewed (and the idea of an Office of the Defence, should be considered.)

Asset sales, tax reform, benefits, superannuation, debt, the privacy of a public cup of tea – have riveted us for the past month or so – straight after the rugby.

In the Christchurch Press last week, the front page headlines had to do with a murder and the local building enquiry.  On page 2 of Section B, a modest-sized article noted that scientists have concluded that dangerous climate change for the planet was now irreversible.

We prefer not to have this kind of news on the main page of our daily newspapers, thank you.

It is two decades since the international community resolved to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would avert dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.   This was to be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally, ensuring that food production was not threatened and enabling economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

That was the Rio Earth Summit, and the UN Framework Convention.  It set up the skeletal mechanism for effective and timely action through legal obligations – the international community of states, speaking with one voice on behalf of the global community of peoples, each state committed to pursuing its legitimate national interests in pursuit of the collective goal.

Twenty years later, 193 states, squabbling amongst themselves, have failed – the global interest torn to shreds by the mindlessly competitive pursuit of excessive national interests.

This week the 17^th conference of the Framework Convention parties opened in Durban.  No agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol is in sight.  Instead, the conference legerdemain is of a ‘political transition period’, of ‘voluntary national commitments’, ‘muscular bilateralism’, ‘bottom-up action’.  The negotiators know, as surely as you and I, that this is self-deception, of humanity, by humanity, for humanity.  But they are paid to engage in ‘constructive ambiguity’, innocent of political responsibility – a legacy of 19^th-century diplomatic craft.

In June, the IPCC scientists concluded that the average global temperature is set to rise 3.5 degrees C; the sea-level by some 1.25 m. by 2100.  What should we care?  That’s far off into the future – our grand-children’s dwelling-time on Earth, way beyond our electoral pocket, our personal gaze.

UN officials speak bravely of the fusion, ‘at the border’, between top-down and bottom-up, between legal compulsion and political volition, global objective and national interest.

UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity, Virginia Dandan, is a little more acerbic. The Durban conference, she said, represents a ‘make or break moment for humanity’. Failure to act would greatly damage future environmental negotiations. The world, she said

“…is calling for genuine international solidarity and multilateralism, and for its leaders to take a leap of faith in unison, and as one. There is great need for a radical mind-set change in order to bring back to the negotiating table the time-honoured values of humanity that have been forgotten after decades of market and profit-driven orientation.”

I must forward her comments to our new ministers for climate change, energy and economic development.  Perhaps they can draw it to the attention of the Prime Minister.  Perhaps he can act quickly and decisively.  Perhaps he can persuade other governments to follow suit.  Perhaps the problem of climate change can be solved in time.  Perhaps I can raise the matter in the House before Xmas – to remind him.