From a lecture given by Hilary Benn at Leeds Metropolitan University:
[L]et me speak plainly about three issues.Follow the logic through here, and not only in a way that sits comfortably with your own preferred assumptions. What do we do when states or those within states commit crimes against humanity? Benn answers: we strive for a multilateral approach, with (reformed) UN legitimacy. By making this the answer to the question we show another way to 'those who would act unilaterally'. OK, call this the ideal answer to the question. But now suppose that, in a particular, terrible case - of Rwanda-type proportions - this answer is not effective; no multilateral action to halt an ongoing slaughter or genocide occurs, no other way is shown in fact. Is there then a right of humanitarian intervention that may be exercised unilaterally by a self-selecting individual state or group of states?Iraq. I am only too aware of the huge well of bitterness and anger on the part of lots of people in the party and beyond.
The current situation is grim. The intelligence was wrong, the de-Ba'athification went too far, the disbanding of the army was a mistake, and we should have the humility to acknowledge those things, and to learn.
But there are other truths too. I do not wish that Saddam was still in power - which is why I voted the way I did in March 2003 - and I don't think a majority of the Iraqi people think so either.
And whether people agreed with the war or not, we should all support the fragile democracy in Iraq which offers the people the best and only hope they have for a better future.
And the reason I say that is because Iraq under Saddam, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Sierra Leone when the RUF and the West Side Boys were at work, Rwanda in the genocide, and Kosovo when Muslims were being murdered in Europe's backyard all raise an uncomfortable question. What do we do when states or those within states commit crimes against humanity?
As we look to the future, I think we have to answer that question by making a renewed commitment to multilateralism in our foreign policy.
A multilateralism that commits to work with the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union, NATO and the widest range of partners, whenever we can.
A multilateralism that pushes for reform in these international institutions to make them work more effectively - to deal with conflict and defeat poverty - and make the responsibility to protect work in practice, with all the authority and legitimacy that only the UN can command.
Because the more we can demonstrate that multilateralism can answer that uncomfortable question, the stronger we can make the argument with those who would act unilaterally that there is another way.
It might be said that to allow such a right is to create a space for the powerful, for states who might have other interests at stake in intervening. This is true. On the other hand, to deny the same right is to say that in the face of anything whatsoever - crimes against humanity on however large a scale, genocide - the victims have no recourse and no hope; pending the time when effective and putatively legitimate multilateral mechanisms of protection have come into existence, nothing may be done to save those being murdered.
It's not an easy choice structure but it's there, out in the world. Defining the ideal answer is important, but this doesn't establish that that answer is always available. (Thanks: AC.)