Written by Sir Peter Marshall
This article was first published in Briefings for Brexit, and we re-publish it here with their kind permission.
~~~ *** ~~~
Sir Peter Marshall, former Commonwealth Secretary General, makes a plea that the UK should remain as globally oriented once it leaves the EU as it was 75 years ago at the foundation of the United Nations.
Paragraph 2 of the “Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom” reads as follows:
“The Union and the United Kingdom are determined to work together
to safeguard the rules-based international order, the rule of law and
promotion of democracy, and high standards of free and fair trade and
worker’s rights, consumer and environmental protection, and co-operation
against internal and external threats to their values and interests”.
One’s first instinct is surely to applaud such an admirable, wide-ranging agenda. The follow-up question is “how do you deliver it?” The operative verb is “safeguard” which implies that the desirables are already in place, at least in essence. But is that so? The verdict of the December 12 election – which I think of as “the wisdom of the miners” – suggests otherwise.
The first item on the list for safeguarding is “the rules-based international order”, a phrase much in use but entirely lacking in precise definition. What in fact is it? An established, over-arching framework within which one may aspire to safeguard the other items? Or something separate from those items? If so, of what does it consist, and how does to relate to them?
Good friends on both sides of the Channel, in a year in which we mark the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and the launch of the United Nations, and the 70th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, it behoves us to go a little deeper into the matter.
The truth is that we live not in a rules-based international order (or “system”, as some would have it) but in a values-based interdependent community. The founding of this community is no accident. It came about because of the determination of the United Nations “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life-time has brought untold sorrow to mankind”. The past seventy-five years have mightily vindicated that determination and the action taken to pursue it. We have witnessed an immense improvement in the general human lot.
The acceptance by all concerned of their appropriate share of responsibility is the sine qua non, not only of a community’s sustained harmonious management but also of its very existence. Edmund Burke said – or did not say: opinions differ on the matter –‘all that was necessary for evil to triumph was that good [people] should do nothing’. In complex modern times, we have to put the thought the other way around: eternal vigilance and involvement are the inescapable price of safety. The buck stops everywhere.
Concepts such as “rules-based international system/world order” are seriously inadequate descriptions of the reality. They can – and do – so easily lead to a detached, self-regarding evasion of responsibility. If in 1945 the San Francisco Conference had accepted the draft United Nations Charter as prepared at Dumbarton Oaks by the “Great Powers”, the UN system might have declined over the years to little more than a “rules based international system”. But it was saved from that possible fate by the Commonwealth delegations – Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and UK – devising, under the inspiration of Jan Christiaan Smuts, the now-famous Preamble to the Charter.
Smuts, the South African Prime Minister, and a stalwart of the League of Nations, expressed his conviction that something was missing. The draft was a legalistic document which did not fill the bill. We had been engaged in one of the greatest struggles of all history. What the world expected was a statement of our human faith, of the things which we had fought for and which we should try to stabilise and preserve in the world.
Of translucent clarity, and a mere two hundred words long, it is the only part of the Charter with which most people have any familiarity.
The Declaration prophetically concludes “in a world torn by strife, we have met here in unity. That unity finds its strength not in any formal bond, but in the hidden springs from which human action flows… We believe that when victory is won and peace returns, this same free association, this same unity of purpose, will make us able to do further service to mankind”.
And how do we sustain in adverse, or confused and confusing times, this all-important sense of active and joint responsibility? For those of great antiquity, memory is an invaluable aid.
On January 10, 1946 – seventy-four years ago today – Clement Attlee, one of the greatest British political figures of the twentieth century, delivered the keynote speech at the inaugural session of the United Nations General Assembly, held in Methodist Central Hall, Westminster.
The speech itself, the occasion and the setting – a world-famous and revered place of worship in the heart of war-torn, bomb-scarred London, happily adaptable for so special a purpose – together symbolised both the central participation of the United Kingdom, with the Commonwealth, from the beginning to the end of the Second World War, and the role they jointly played in fashioning the enduring peace which ensued.
Britain had never been more “global” than it was at that poignant moment. As we approach the day of our withdrawal from the European Union, we need collectively to affirm that we shall be no less global in years to come.
Sir Peter does not say the obvious thing. He nearly says it, maybe he thought it. What is it? All those GOOD things that NEED to be safeguarded DO NOT NEED US TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE EU, for us to help safeguard them. IF (and I doubt it) the EU believe they safeguard these things, well that is their opinion.
My first reaction was WTO, UN, NATO, undoubtedly other organisations bringing together like minded nations. Those are the communities we should be working together with. If some or all of those organisations are failing and cannot be put right we will just have to stand alone.
Sir Peter Marshall. Your comments could not have any detractors unless the door is jammed open to those with little intelligence ! ….. Attlee’s Government brought in the NHS, right after WW2 when this Nation had debt rather then money. – The time was wrong, but since the need was great it was welcomed by the vast majority. – It is now part of this Nation’s standing, and something that Labour should be proud of ! – Today’s Labour would do well to reflect upon their values of that time, and make the period of Blair, Brown and Corbyn something to file away for good !
Parliamentary Government needs a sensible opposition for it to work, and today’s Labour falls well short of that requirement ! The only other old National Party are the Lib/Dems, and they have shown their contempt for Democracy, as they will stand for anything in order to get back on par with the other two Parties ! – They would do well if they called it a day for British politics, if this is the best that they can do !
The UK of GB used to be Globally Oriented, and upon cutting the ties with the EU, I am expecting this Nation to get back to that position. – British history, tradition and character, used to be well founded for the job. – Power and Clout are not particularly necessary in the world today, but our opinions and verbal input are a needed extra to the ‘superpowers’ individual National focus, that is not making the world’s betterment ! We have always done well by World Trade, and I see little change to the nature of Trade. – If you make a better item or supply a better service, customers will naturally follow. – Entities like the EU, in the matter of Trade, are generally just in the way, and yet it was Trade that was touted by Heath that was his selling point for us joining The Common Market ! – Heath really was a lying drivel merchant !
As usual Mike, spot on. Trade brings wealth. Wealth properly used tends to lead to clout/power. But as you say our opinions, verbal input are what we have been good at for a long time and still are.
Heath wasn’t just a lying drivel merchant Mike – he was the greatest traitor this country has ever harboured.
“The Union and the United Kingdom are determined to work together…” is a worrying statement; it implies a relationship with the EU which is too close, not what we voted for, and sure to be seen by the EU as an opportunity to impose control.
The UN, as originally created was the vehicle for such “working together” but it has been destroyed from within by its rampant support for the Great Global Warming Scam and pursuit of its Agendas 21/2030 which seem to have been inspired by the writings of Orwell and Huxley.
Our representatives in government need to be careful which path they tread and remember that the prime reason for their existence is to serve the people of the UK, not sell us out to whoever comes knocking on their door.
Yes Jack, worrying indeed. Typical EU strutting, arrogant, bluff though. Hope Boris takes it with a pinch of salt.
I’m sure the United Nations was formed with very noble intentions, however, as the Common Market morphed into the very dangerous European Union, the UN seems to have morphed into something just as nasty. The UN has been hijacked by power hungry globalists and it needs to be abolished.
Great Britain was the greatest global powers, the world it seems would still like to do business with us but we do not need and should not cede our sovereignty to do it. As the EU lost its way, so has the UN, it is just as determined to dissolve borders and sovereign nations, it too has morphed into a dangerous entity, when we’re out of the EU we must rid ourselves of the UN.
The UN won’t prevent wars, in fact, I’m sure that World War 3 will in our country be fought largely on our streets.
Flyer,
Seems we have a similar opinion of the UN; not sure how we rid ourselves of it but we should certainly de-fund it. Maybe others would then see the light and do likewise.
I see your point flyer. Sir Peter does rather exaggerate the benefits brought us by the UN. It has not prevented wars (though it may have been used from time to time – Cuba? – to stop the cold war becoming WW3). And it is debatable how far it has helped improve the human lot. Perhaps some of us have become conditioned to think it wonderful by comparison with the League of Nations.
I’m beginning to get some idea of what you mean by Globalism. The whole idea of ‘International Law’ let alone ‘rules based international order’ tends to abolish National Sovereignty. That seems to be what some people want – I’m thinking Greens and LibDems. Well it certainly IS NOT what I want.
Didn’t their “peacekeepers” simply stand by and watch as thousands were massacred in the Balkans?