Diplomacy and back-stabbing at UN

By Andrew Beatty

Date: 19/05/05

An ever closer union appears to have given way to fratricide. Debate over reform of the United Nations has become swamped in emotion. And as the prospect of an EU seat at the Security Council falls away, EU member states find themselves squaring up to each other toe-to-toe, and occasionally knifing each other in the back.

Discussion about UN reform is intensifying ahead of a reform conference in September. Perhaps it should have been an opportunity for navel-gazing Europeans to bond while they pursued their favourite pastime, discussing institutional architecture.

Alas it was not to be. Italy has actively campaigned against Germany obtaining a permanent seat, promoting the group of 119 'like-minded countries' whose (perhaps only) common point of reference is opposition to expanding the number of countries that have a permanent seat on the Security Council.

The seriousness and fervour with which Italy has pursued its campaign to stop Germany getting a Security Council seat has been matched only by Germany's own attempts to achieve the opposite outcome, with Berlin cozying up to Brazil, India and Japan, fellow Security Council hopefuls.

But, according to officials, this unfairly obscures what has been fruitful co-operation between EU member states in New York and Geneva since the early 1990s.

Each year the EU presidency holds more than 1,000 internal meetings in New York and Geneva to co-ordinate positions, prepare for votes, or issue declarations on behalf of the EU on subjects ranging from the situation in Haiti to human rights education.

The Commission says that since 1995 EU members have voted jointly on 95% of issues before the UN General Assembly.

"It works pretty well," says one diplomat who recently worked at the UN during his country's EU presidency, "a split is the exception."

But cynics may argue that the consensus is reached in the 95% of cases that constitute an easy choice. And the 5% of disagreements constitute issues that truly affect national interests.

"I don't think that is fair," says the diplomat, "on something like the Middle East where there are complex and difficult issues, although we have broadly similar views, working out detail on this or that resolution can take quite a bit of work. It is a similar situation with the [UN] budget, some obviously pay more than others."

These thousand-plus meetings each year do appear to have an impact.

"[It] gives us a very powerful voice in the General Assembly. Many countries look to the European Union's position as a benchmark that they can align themselves around.

"In an assembly where voting is usually very fragmented it is worth 20-30 votes".

Those who talk up European co-operation also point to some very recent examples of EU successes, not only on non-binding General Assembly resolutions.

With massacres continuing in Sudan, the four EU members on the UN Security Council - France, the UK, and the two rotating members Denmark and Greece - began negotiations to agree on resolution 1591.

The resolution called on the government of Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed militia which was terrorising the population of Darfur. Significantly, the resolution froze assets and imposed a travel ban on those believed to have committed human rights abuses.

The groundwork laid, work began on resolution 1593, which allowed the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the human rights abuses.

With the US a vocal opponent of the ICC, it was a difficult resolution to sell.

"The four worked very closely together, it was very effective," says one New York-based European diplomat.

Eventually the resolution was carried with the US, China, Brazil and Algeria abstaining.

But "it is not only about voting", says James A. Paul, executive director of Global Policy Forum, a New York-based UN monitor.

On issues of 'peace and security', EU unity often appears to be of secondary importance. Iraq seems to be a case in point.

Despite the Sudan vote, says Paul, "the UK and France were colonial powers in Africa, they perceive different interests".

Could the differences over 'peace and security' issues be put down to the way the Security Council operates, with its balance of power structure and its veto mechanism? Perhaps France and the UK are being influenced by the UN's own peculiar institutional architecture into taking a narrow view of the national interest. Germany's actions, if it does become a permanent member, might tell us once and for all.

Author suggests that the current debate on the reform of the United Nations is ignoring the fact that there is efficient co-operation between EU Member States on the majority of issues to find a common stance to be taken by those Member States represented on the Security Council

European Commission: The European Union at the United Nations: The EU and how it works at the UN http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_1002_en.htm

---