Graham Kennedy: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: General Debate[Sitting date: 04 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): It may not realise it but this Government has ruled out New Zealand’s support for any military action in Syria that is not authorised by the United Nations Security Council. Let me read out to the House the Government’s answer to my question on action over Syria of 15 February 2012: “7. Dr Kennedy Graham (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he give an assurance that New Zealand’s armed forces will not be used in any possible military intervention in Syria in violation of the United Nations Charter? Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes. Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he then … in a position to confirm that the Government does not support external military involvement in Syria unless it responds to a United National Security Council resolution authorising it—that is to say no coalition of the willing is legal without that mandate? Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: New Zealand always follows the United Nations Security Council resolutions so we would not be doing anything in violation of that.”I congratulate the Government. Let me point out why it was so insightful 18 months ago. Syria is a global human tragedy in a defining moment in the modern struggle for global peace and justice. There can be no lawful military action in Syria without proof to the United National Security Council of chemical weapon use and by whom. And even if proof is provided there can be no military action without authorisation by the council. That is not a matter of political judgment; it is a non-negotiable legal requirement. The US is advancing the argument that there is a legal justification based on humanitarian intervention. That is incorrect. That doctrine more appropriately known today as responsibility to protect does not trump the United Nations Charter. That was made clear in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/1 paragraphs 138 and 139 in 2005. The US is being somewhat disingenuous here. Even if the UN were to authorise military action thereby making it legal it would require a separate decision on the part of each country as to the political merit of becoming directly involved. The doctrine lays down six criteria for such a judgment. The critical issue is whether the action proposed would relieve suffering rather than cause more. It is almost certain it would not.If we ever needed a lesson in caution it was the illegal military action against Iraq by the US the UK and Australia in 2003. The evidence adduced to the council as proof of a nuclear weapon programme proved to be false—indeed part-fabrication. For its part the much maligned United Nations Security Council declined to agree to such an invasion. That was not simply a French veto. A majority of the council opposed military action yet those three countries proceeded without UN authorisation and illegally. If in the case of Syria the council chooses not to act because of a veto it does not mean the council is dysfunctional and not doing its job. It means the council has decided notto act. The council would actually be doing its job just as it did with Iraq in 2003. Many in the West might resent that fact retaining a 20thcentury sense of moral and political superiority. But they cannot disown the fact—indeed they created it. They created the UN and they refuse to this day to change the charter when the prospect of doing so is before them. They refuse to surrender or even circumscribe their veto and then when they confront a situation when another permanent member casts a veto they seek to circumvent that veto by acting around it. So if the US and the UK are concerned about vetoes impeding Security Council action they can rectify the situation by agreeing to surrender the veto or at least by agreeing to its strict circumscription to only when their vital interests of survival are at stake. Let this Parliament have a chance to debate this matter when it next meets.