Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Work smarter with a Pro licence Learn More
Parliament

Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | Video | Questions Of the Day | Search

 

NZ’s UN Security Council campaign and reform

Speech to New Zealand Institute of International Affairs: NZ’s UN Security Council campaign and reform

I want to begin by thanking the Institute for providing me with this opportunity to provide an update on the state of our UN Security Council campaign.

I intend to use the occasion to put on record the ground rules under which we are contesting a UN Security Council seat – because in some respects we appear to be testing what appears to have become conventional wisdom about such campaigns, and I want to make it clear that we are doing so with our eyes open.

And I want to set out the Government’s thinking on the question of Security Council reform – on which matter I took a paper to the Cabinet during 2011.

But of course it is impossible to address any of these matters meaningfully without first answering two underlying questions:

Does the Security Council matter?

And does New Zealand’s membership of that body matter?

A quick glance at the daily newspaper headlines any day in recent months should have been sufficient to convince most New Zealanders of the importance of the role of the UN Security Council.

The appalling tragedy that is Syria continues to unfold before our eyes.

Sadly, such a glance at the media is also sufficient to remind us that the Security Council often falls very far short of meeting our reasonable expectations as UN members and good international citizens, not just in Syria, but in other zones of actual or potential conflict.

However I want to present you with a slightly blunter and less emotional response to this question.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

For many decades New Zealand ministers and diplomats have affirmed our support for the United Nations and its associated bodies.

They have generally pointed out that as a small nation, New Zealand is more dependent than most upon strong multilateral institutions and respected bodies of rules to regulate international behaviour.

And I want to strongly endorse that view.

Over half of the UN members are smaller countries like New Zealand.

And we all look to the UN to provide a strong and effective institutional framework in order to confront the world’s serious challenges.

It follows from that statement that we must also have a significant investment in the effectiveness of the UN Security Council.

The UN Security Council administers a budget that is four times larger than that of the whole of the entire rest of the UN.

The peacekeeping operations of the Security Council alone cost over $8 billion a year – with over 100,000 peacekeepers deployed around the world.

Only the Pentagon manages more troops in theatre.

The Security Council is the body that now meets virtually daily to contend with the serious challenges to regional and international stability and security.

The UN Security Council, ladies and gentlemen, is where the rubber meets the road.

A commitment to a strong, effective United Nations must therefore entail a commitment to a strong, effective UN Security Council.

If we really do believe that multilateral institutions play a part in dealing with the challenges we confront, then it follows that we would want to play our full part in those institutions.

The decision that New Zealand would campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council for the 2015-16 term was made by the Clark government in 2004.

That decision was confirmed by the Key government in 2009.

That confirmation occurred in an environment when there were two countries, New Zealand and Spain, seeking election to the two seats available to the Western Europe and others group for that period.

When, Turkey, barely off the Council at the end of 2010, decided to contest a seat for the 2015-16 term, we again confirmed New Zealand’s candidacy.

I know that there is a view held by some that New Zealand does not hold a strong chance against two much larger and very formidable candidates.

But I do not share that view.

If we were to follow that logic we would never stand for anything.

And if that view were to be correct, smaller countries would never get elected to anything.

In the context of the UN that would be a serious problem, because, as I shall explain later, it is the influence of smaller countries like New Zealand that is urgently needed.

I have said that the Key government reconfirmed New Zealand’s candidacy for the UN Security Council, but we did not do so without conditions.

Both the Prime Minister and I laid down two very clear conditions: we would not attempt to buy a seat on the Security Council, either by spending New Zealand taxpayers’ dollars or by changing New Zealand policy positions.

It is very important that these conditions should be understood

Because they defy what some commentators and analysts believe to be the accepted wisdom associated with modern Security Council campaigns.

That view holds that contested Security Council seats will always fall to the highest bidder of aid dollars, or to the holder of the most flexible positions on the controversial foreign policy issues of the day.

Let me very clear: if the proponents of that view are correct then we will lose our bid for a Security Council seat for 2015-16.

We will lose because we, as a small country, do not have the aid resources to be able to campaign effectively on that basis.

And even if we did, I, for one, would decline to do so.

We have accepted that as a smaller donor, we need to focus our efforts on our own region, where, as a niche player, we can be truly effective.

We are not going to change a realistic and effective development strategy, focused on our own region, in order to chase Security Council votes around the globe.

We cannot throw billions of dollars at climate change funds of dubious effectiveness but we can, for example, take the Tokelau Islands from 100 per cent dependence of fossil fuels for electricity to over 90 per cent renewable solar power in the course of calendar 2012 – which we will do.

We can make significant progress towards renewable energy with other Pacific neighbours, because that is what our background and size equips us to do.

What I am saying, in essence, is that the Key government has made it very clear that we will not campaign on our chequebook.

And nor will our policy positions be for sale.

We have, on the truly controversial and divisive questions, like the issues around the Middle East peace process, staked out a long history of positions that are considered, careful and constructive.

For that reason, while either party may disagree with the individual positions we adopt, I am confident that our views will be respected.

And I have no intention of seeing an excellent reputation, in which we have a great deal invested, put at risk in the pursuit of Security Council votes.

The Prime Minister’s approach and my own approach is that we would rather lose with honour than trade ODA or policy positions for Security Council votes.

Having said all of that, we do not intend to lose, or expect to lose.

Our campaign has been running since 2004.

Since then we have gathered a large number of commitments of support from all regions of the world.

We have shown our ability to win campaigns in the past, based on our strong multilateral reputation and through our respectful and open conduct with all UN members.

This brings me to the question of Security Council reform – a matter on which some aspirants might decide that silence is the most effective policy – but that is not the New Zealand approach.

One of the most important issues confronting the UN is the question of Security Council reform.

And one of the great privileges of Security Council membership is the opportunity to press that case.

Last year I asked our Cabinet to confirm some basic principles about Security Council reform so that we could be very clear about our position before joining the Council.

Many of you will be aware of the range of proposals that have been put forward.

At one end, the G4 (Brazil, India, Germany, Japan) have put forward a simple proposal for expansion of the Council through their addition as permanent members.

Other significant regional players have advanced their own candidacies as alternatives to each of the G4 members.

The fact is that the G4 proposal is not going to succeed, and nor will some of the regionally-based proposals for reform that have been floated.

What has become clear from the debate is that there is a need for expansion of the Council, to make it more representative.

And there does need to be scope for countries that are not going to become permanent members to be able to spend longer terms on the Council.

So the pragmatic and realistic view agreed by the New Zealand government is for an expansion of the Security Council to include a so-called intermediate category of member.

The intermediate solution is not a New Zealand invention, but we have decided to support one adaptation of this concept as, in our view, a reasonable way of meeting everyone’s interests.

Under this approach the Council would be expanded to include up to 6 non-permanent seats with a term of up to five years.

These would be open to contest by a self-selected group of larger countries wanting to serve longer than a two year term and wanting also to be eligible for immediate re-election.

So a nation like India or Japan, both of which would see themselves as entitled to new permanent seats, would be able to run for these new seats for up to a five year term, and be able to run again immediately their term was complete.

The election would be at large, not regionally based.

This is important.

If we are to lift the performance of the Security Council we need to provide strong incentives for good individual performances.

At the same time as creating new intermediate seats, we would advocate the expansion of the number of ordinary non-permanent seats for the purpose of balance.

No commentary on Security Council reform would be complete without a reference to the veto.

First, we must ensure that any changes to the Council create no new rights of veto.

On the contrary, we need to see the existing powers of veto, held by the P5, meaningfully curbed.

The five vetoes were accepted reluctantly in 1945 because it was apparent that major powers would not allow their national security interests to be the subject of collective decision making.

But sadly, over the past two decades, we have seen the veto being used in circumstances which have no bearing on the national security of the member concerned.

No meaningful Security Council reform can take place without some moderation of the power of the veto.

At the very least we need the P5 to make a declaration that they will not use the veto in cases where there is a clear risk of crimes against humanity or genocide.

Now I want to be very clear about one thing here: I am not expecting a spontaneous outburst of support for the proposal I have just broadly outlined.

Just about everybody has reason to be equally disappointed about elements of this approach.

But it does provide the only pragmatic vehicle for Council reform that is going to actually improve the operation of the Council, and have some chance of actually being implemented when countries decide to get serious about Council reform.

And I believe there are an increasing number that are getting serious, and for good reason.

A lack of reform momentum has seen the large players that are not permanent members seek election more and more frequently.

Turkey contesting against New Zealand having just come off the Council is a classic illustration.

Smaller countries are being increasingly squeezed out of contention by this phenomenon, and increasingly understand the need for the rules to change.

This brings me to a key element of New Zealand’s campaign: we are a small state and we are strong advocates for the interests of small states.

Of 193 UN members, 102 are small states.

If the UN is going to be a truly effective international body, it must engage these states effectively.

In New Zealand’s own region there are 12 Pacific UN Member States who have never been on the Security Council and struggle to get the profile they deserve.

Representing the Pacific region is an important motivator behind New Zealand standing for a seat on the Council.

We are using our role as Pacific Islands Forum Chair as an opportunity to raise the profile of the Pacific in the UN.

A gain at last year’s Forum was a commitment by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to meet Pacific leaders annually to discuss regional concerns.

Our Pacific experience resonates with a host of small states beyond our region, in particular Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and we have been active in getting the forum more connected to regional bodies like CARICOM, the organisation of 14 Caribbean states.

Through the Commonwealth and other groupings such as the Alliance of Small Island States we easily find common interests.

We have become more closely engaged with other bodies as well.

In the last 12 months we have established an accreditation to the African Union and Ethiopia.

It is crucial that New Zealand understands the issues confronting the 54 states of the African Union if we are to constructively engage in Security Council matters and be a responsible member of the UN.

When we were last on the Council, nearly 20 years ago in 1994, we pushed the Council to respond to the genocide in Rwanda, at a time when no one wanted to take action.

This contribution has not been forgotten by Rwanda, nor by its African neighbours.

Many of the problems my African Ministerial counterparts talk to me about – the importance of agricultural trade access, energy and food security, importance of the rule of law and the challenges of being ex colonies - are all themes that affect our region and us.

I attended the Non Aligned Movement Summit in Bali last year, and again recently in Egypt.

The Government is increasing its interaction with groups like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

We have appointed a number of Special Envoys, including Sir Don McKinnon and former New York Permanent Representative Colin Keating.

And my Ministerial colleagues and senior officials have become accustomed to being tasked with undertaking Security Council lobbying calls

We are against much larger and more powerful opponents.

But we started early, we have a good brand, and a good track record on the Council.

And at the end of the day, after all the lobbying, vote swap proposals and offers of familiarisation visits to capitals for Permanent Representatives are over, the question that countries need to ask is this:

What sort of people, with what sort of values and with what sort of working style, do we want to see sitting around that table in New York when something difficult comes up in our region?

I remain confident that there are many compelling reasons why countries should answer that question in our favour.
ends


© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines


Gordon Campbell: On The US Opposition To Mortgage Interest Deductibility For Landlords


Should landlords be able to deduct the interest on the loans they take out to bankroll their property speculation? The US Senate Budget Committee and Bloomberg News don't think this is a good idea, for reasons set out below. Regardless, our coalition government has been burning through a ton of political capital by giving landlords a huge $2.9 billion tax break via interest deductibility, while still preaching the need for austerity to the disabled, and to everyone else...
More


 
 

Government: Concerns Conveyed To China Over Cyber Activity
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed New Zealand’s concerns about cyber activity have been conveyed directly to the Chinese Government. “The Prime Minister and Minister Collins have expressed concerns today about malicious cyber activity... More

ALSO:


Government: GDP Decline Reinforces Government’s Fiscal Plan

Declining GDP for the December quarter reinforces the importance of restoring fiscal discipline to public spending and driving more economic growth, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says... More

ALSO:


Government: Humanitarian Support For Gaza & West Bank

Winston Peters has announced NZ is providing a further $5M to respond to the extreme humanitarian need in Gaza and the West Bank. “The impact of the Israel-Hamas conflict on civilians is absolutely appalling," he said... More


Government: New High Court Judge Appointed

Judith Collins has announced the appointment of Wellington Barrister Jason Scott McHerron as a High Court Judge. Justice McHerron graduated from the University of Otago with a BA in English Literature in 1994 and an LLB in 1996... More

 
 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels


 
 
 
 

Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.