Making the most of the seat at the table

On the 1^st of January next year Australia will assume its seat at the UN's most powerful table. It was with a certain amount of relish that Minister for Foreign Affairs Bob Carr announced 'a big, juicy, decisive win' with Australia elected to a seat on the Security Council in the first round of voting with an emphatic 140 votes. With election now secured, discussion should turn to what Australia can actually achieve during its term in 2013-14.

To achieve Australia's active middle power strategy, getting a "seat at the table" is necessary but not sufficient. To make use of this opportunity, Australia has to set and promote some key priorities, including through coalition-building.

Setting Australia's Priorities

Australia will need to have a clear vision and agenda during its term, identifying a small number of core issues to push consistently throughout the Council's work so that it is not simply reacting to immediate crises. Andrew Hewett, former Executive Director of Oxfam Australia has noted that those core issues 'should be areas where there is a clear need for enhanced leadership and new thinking, and where Australia has sufficient expertise and credibility to drive the agenda.'^[1] There are a number of areas that fit these criteria, including arms control and the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

Australia can make a real difference to arms control by building momentum towards global ratification and implementation of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Australia is a well-respected advocate for disarmament, and has played a leading role in ongoing negotiations for the world's first ever international ATT to prevent arms from ending up in the hands of human-rights abusers and repressive regimes. Australia is a party to and fully implements all major disarmament treaties and established the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament with Japan. Foreign Minister Carr has already indicated this will be a priority issue.^[2]

A second issue certain to be on the Council agenda is the protection of civilians in armed conflict. Australia can make a difference by continuing to be a leading champion of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. While the Council has increased its commitment in recent years to respond to conflicts where civilians are being targeted, current situations including in the Middle East demonstrate that there is still work to be done. Andrew Hewett suggests that Australia should push for 'clearer articulation and commitment around the Council's role in advancing the R2P… and ensuring all military operations authorised by the Council are responsible while protecting.'^[3]

Using Tools to Promote Australia's Priorities

One way Australia can advance these core issues is during its term as President of the Council when it has a significant opportunity to shape the Council's agenda. As the Presidency rotates on a monthly basis in alphabetical order, Australia will preside over the Council in September 2013. This will coincide with the opening of the General Assembly, 'bringing more than one hundred world leaders into town.'^[4] Australia could follow President Barack Obama's example and preside over a UNSC meeting on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, or it could follow Canada's example in 1999 and highlight the issue of civilians in armed conflict. Given the early nature of Australia's first term, it may also get the opportunity to preside over the Council a second time at the end of its term in 2014 depending on which countries are elected in 2013. Australia could use its Presidencies to secure a resolution on a priority issue, or at the very least to open debate and discussion.

Australia can also make a difference on priority issues through participation in the Security Council's subsidiary organs. Looking at the experience of other middle powers on the Security Council, such as Mexico, this can be an important tool for influence.[5] There are several subsidiary organs where the current Chair will finish its Security Council term at the end of 2012:^[6] Germany vacates the Chairmanship of the Working Group on Children in Armed Conflict, the Committee concerning Al-Qaida and the Sanctions Committee concerning the Taliban and Afghanistan. South Africa vacates the Presidency of the Committee on Non-Proliferation pursuant to Resolution 1540, and Colombia vacates the Sanctions Committee concerning Iran. Morocco will vacate the Presidency of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations at the end of its term in 2013. While Australia will have to prioritise and be selective in choosing which subsidiary organs to participate in, it has the ability to make a valuable contribution.

Building Coalitions

Coalition-building will be an important factor in determining Australia's ability to make a difference during its term. Already on Security Council as elected members are Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan and Togo. Elected along with Australia on October 18 were Argentina, Luxembourg, Rwanda and South Korea. Australia will need to understand the dynamics and priorities of each of these elected Council members, as well as the Permanent Five, in order to build coalitions to promote and achieve its priorities.

Thom Woodroofe has offered a useful analysis of the priorities of the elected members serving out their terms.^[7] Azerbaijan, serving its first term on the Council, has generally supported the US position and stated its aim to promote greater transparency in Council working methods. Guatemala also supports improved Council working methods and has advocated more 'realistic and pragmatic peacekeeping mandates'. As a top-twenty peacekeeping contributor, Morocco also has an interest in the way peacekeeping operations are run by the Council. Pakistan was elected with the aim of combating terrorism and interference with small states, as well as advocating for international efforts to prevent environmental degradation. Lastly, Togo has been a strong advocate for the concerns of smaller states particularly in the Global South.

Of the members elected alongside Australia for the 2013-14 term, Argentina and South Korea are likely to be key. Both are well-respected middle powers and G20 members. Argentina has previously served on the Council and contributed to better communication between the Council and troop contributing countries during its last term in 1994. South Korea is likely to advocate a stronger focus on nuclear non-proliferation, especially concerning North Korea. Rwanda, on the Council for the second time, has traditionally had a focus on promoting the transition from peacekeeping to state-building. Luxembourg, elected for the first time, advocates an approach based on the primacy of international law in all Council resolutions and is concerned with non-proliferation issues.^[8]

Understanding these members' priorities and desires in relation to each issue that comes to the Council will be crucial to Australia achieving any difference during its term. Australia will find many friends in relation to its core interests: for example South Korea and Luxembourg are like-minded partners in relation to nuclear non-proliferation issues while Guatemala, Argentina and Morocco will be allies in relation to protecting civilians in armed conflict. The challenge will be in understanding how to work with them to overcome any challenges. If Australia can do this well, it should be able to achieve a real and sustained difference on its core priorities.

Responding and Resourcing

A vital part of being effective on the Security Council is responding to situations that arise. This can sometimes be dramatic: for example, Mexico started its term on 1 January 2009 in the middle of the shelling of Gaza (this could happen again). How countries respond to crises in the heat of the moment is vital. For example, New Zealand still has a great reputation for the way it responded on the Council to the unfolding genocide in Rwanda.

To respond to events effectively requires excellent representation in New York and a strong diplomatic network. The latter area is of concern for Australia. Persistent underinvestment by multiple governments has left Australia with the smallest diplomatic footprint of the G20 countries.[9] For example, Australia currently has only nine High Commissions and Embassies across Africa. This makes it difficult when Australia is called upon to form a view on situations anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.

The increased workload on the Department of Foreign Affairs due to Australia's term on the Security Council – not to mention Australia's hosting of G20 in 2014 and an ever-increasing array of trade negotiations – suggests the need for greater investment in Australia's foreign affairs capacity. In the current budgetary climate, this is something that will require strong political will.

Australia will need to walk into the Security Council Chamber on 1 January next year with a clear agenda. It must understand the dynamics of the Council in 2013-14 and the potential for coalition-building if it is to have any success on selected core issues. Australia's term(s) as President of the Council and taking on of roles in the Council's subsidiary organs provide an opportunity for Australia to promote its priorities and interests, but it will also need to look for innovative ways to reach constructive solutions on the issues of the moment as they arise. If Australia can do this, it will achieve its stated aim of being an effective representative of small and middle powers on the Security Council in 2013-14.

[1] Andrew Hewett, 'Seat or No Seat, Australia has Security Council Status', Sydney Morning Herald, 18 October 2012: (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/seat-or-no-seat-australia-has-security-council-status-20121018-27sjj.html).

[2] Simon Bensen, 'Foreign Minister Bob Carr Fires Warning Shot on Weapons', Herald Sun, 29 September 2012: (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/foreign-minister-bob-carr-fires-warning-shot-on-weapons/story-fndo317g-1226483733594).

[3] Andrew Hewett, 'Seat or No Seat, Australia has Security Council Status', Sydney Morning Herald, (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/seat-or-no-seat-australia-has-security-council-status-20121018-27sjj.html), 18 October 2012.

[4]Thom Woodroofe, 'Australia's Two Years on the UN Security Council', Australia and the UN Security Council,Australian Institute of International Affairs Policy Commentary Number 13, October 2012, p 40: http://www.aiia.asn.au/news/31-national-news/905-australia-and-the-un-security-council

[5] Guillermo Puente Ordorica, 'Mexico's Experience on the UN Security Council 2009-2010', Australia and the UN Security Council,Australian Institute of International Affairs Policy Commentary Number 13, October 2012, p 43: http://www.aiia.asn.au/news/31-national-news/905-australia-and-the-un-security-council

[6]United Nations, Elections of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Subsidiary Bodies for Period Ending 31 December 2012, S/2012/2 (2012), 1, 3.

[7]Thom Woodroofe, 'Australia's Two Years on the UN Security Council', Australia and the UN Security Council,Australian Institute of International Affairs Policy Commentary Number 13, October 2012, p 37: http://www.aiia.asn.au/news/31-national-news/905-australia-and-the-un-security-council

[8]Permanent Mission of Luxembourg to the United Nations, 'Luxembourg and the United Nations – Candidate for the Security Council 2013-14', (2001).

[9] Lowy Institute for International Policy, 'Australia's Diplomatic Deficit: Reinvesting in our Instruments of International Policy', Blue Ribbon Panel Report (2009), 9.