I was lucky enough this summer, to be invited on to a young diplomat’s programme run by an NGO. As a part of this programme, I was taken to New York to visit the United Nations, and attend the General Assembly. I will now recount some of my impressions of the conference.
There were eight main areas of debate and concern at this years UNGA meeting: the Security Council, The New Secretary General, Sudan (Darfur), Iran, Continuing Reform, The convention on counter terrorism, Iraq, and Israel.
For those counties not on the Security Council (SC), life at the UN can be intensely frustrating. A state can find itself banned from discussing matters held by the SC, and without a large scale alliance, prevented from having a serious impact on major UN decisions. Therefore those nations unhappy with the scope, power or make up of the SC pushed for its reform, and discussed the need for autonomy of the General Assembly (GA). Reform could see five additional members added to the existing five permanent members of the SC, so candidates Germany and Brazil quietly worked to be included, whilst others continued to lobby publicly for greater reform.
The secretariat is (unofficially) rotated regionally, at the beginning of the most recent race to become Secretary General it was believed Asia would take the seat. The Security council favored an Asian candidate (China has a veto), but yet there were candidates nominated from India, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Thailand, Lativa and Jordan. All candidates were profiling, and in some cases directly appealing for votes in their speeches, since the conference Latvian premiere Vaira Vike-Freiberga has left the race leaving the obvious winner Ban Ki-Moon the sole candidate. The Latvian premiere was one of a number of powerful female world leaders campaigning for a woman to lead the UN, a campaign that will hopefully have a successful outcome in the next election. As for Ki-Moon, he is a quiet man, who will have to prove his independence in order to avoid being labeled the American Secretary General.
The issue of Sudan, and in particular genocide in Darfur was consistently mentioned from the podium by a majority of world leaders. George Bush announced a special US envoy to the region and most premieres welcomed the development of the diplomatic efforts to ensure the troops in the region remained and were expanded to protect civilians. Darfur is on the agenda, but progress all too slow. How embarrassing that a movement that as Kofi Anan said ‘emerged from the ashes of the Holocaust’ has failed to tackle in any meaningful way, a genocide that has raged for years.
No one could ignore Iran at this years UNGA. Ahmedinejad used his time in New York for a tour of self publicity. Whilst American TV pundits condemned him and the mayor of New York refused to welcome him the statements from the platform were absent. Iran’s president was politely clapped to the stage, and from it having come as close as he could to denying the Holocaust and questioning Israel’s existence. Only a few Western states succeeded in putting Iran on the GA’s agenda, but the keyword was diplomacy, with violence all over the Middle East, nations were keen not to escalate the Iranian situation. That said, the lack of moral fortitude in the face of Ahmedinejad’s appalling comments was embarrassing.
Kofi Anan started a process of reform at the UN culminating in the discussions at the 2005 conference. The hangover from that conference was still evident this year, generally in discussions of the powers of the president and more specifically with questions or concerns over the Human Rights Council, its structure function and how it should report back.
Having adopted the Global Counter Terrorism Strategy on the 8th September, there was wide reaching discussion on the resolution, subsequent implementation and practical outcomes.
Iraq, although exhausted as a subject and mentioned in many speeches as an afterthought was still on the agenda at this years GA. The OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) seemed keen to ensure delegates were reminded of what was happening there.
Of course,Israel was mentioned in almost every speech, most times with some bias but not too disparagingly. Kofi anan in his opening speech referred to the conflict saying: “It is not just one conflict among many, its special, fuelled by religion, passion. The Pro Israelis say it is harshly judged by standards no applied to its enemies; this is true even in some UN bodies, but there is Israel, and its Occupation, disproportion, taking Arab lands. Until the UN Security Council can act, our authority will decline. Our unbias will be in question and our ability to deal with others (conflicts) will be questioned.” This I feel was quite a big step from him (I believe) attacking the UN Human Rights Committee, but equally, his speech opened the door to many more negative comments. Israel - especially after the Lebanon war - came in for harsh criticism, but is respected (by all perhaps, but Iran) as a member state and leads with experts on a number of UN committees focussing on issues of Science and Technology.
An Overview: the UN can be fun, watching smaller countries have their photos taken with other delegations on the floor of the UNGA is amusing, or hearing the Brazilian president speaking first in a long UN tradition, however the UN can also be upsetting, the grand scale of diplomacy is mirrored by bureaucracy. Furthermore, it can be, and often is a platform from which leaders boast their countries achievements rather than urging action on critical global concerns. The UN can however be used as a forum to share ideas and a Platform to make some face liberal values even if they do not hold or adopt those values themselves. And is that then not the challenge for our leaders in the UK, to enact progressive policies based on progressive values and hold them up as a mirror to the world, to encourage others to reflect on and mirror the good we can do.
