Discussion

Summary

Question

At the beginning of your lecture you discussed the theme of global security to which, quite rightly, you gave a great deal of importance. You said that it was time to begin to move towards a system where force can be used multilaterally to maintain international peace and security. However, your comments regarding the Secretary-General of the United Nations suggest that you are not entirely in agreement with the UN's system of collective security. Is that the case, and do you have some other system in mind, which you could perhaps elaborate on?

Professor O'Neill

I am generally supportive of what Dr Boutros-Ghali is trying to do. I think the current situation centralizes his authority and the authority of those under him to an undesirable extent. I know from discussions with senior members of his staff in New York earlier this year just what a problem this is; with all of these things happening simultaneously in what we used to call Yugoslavia as well as Somalia, there is very little opportunity to think ahead. It is hard enough just to cope with the problems as they exist. To make the UN a really viable guarantor of world security, it has to think of itself more as the ultimate resort working closely through regional powers and regional linkages. And the way in which it is endeavouring to work with the European Community, in the case of Yugoslavia, is very helpful. This is a sign of things to come, and in this part of the world, obviously ASEAN is going to be very important. But it needs to be an ASEAN that looks out and wants to really solve the Cambodian problem, not an ASEAN that wants to push these sorts of things away.

When one looks at other parts of the world, particularly at Africa and the Middle East, one has to ask how can regional organizations that have any real strength be created. It is going to take a long time.