Leveraging diplomatic power and influence on the UN Security Council: the case of Australia

UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe. Security Council Authorises Multinational Force in East Timor. Alexander Downer, then Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia, addresses the Council on 15 September 1999 at the United Nations, New York.

In their recent paper ‘Leveraging diplomatic power and influence on the
UN Security Council: the case of Australia’, published in the Australian Journal of International Affairs Jeremy Farrall & Jochen Prantl compare Australia’s efforts to influence UNSC decision-making both as a UNSC member, and as non-member on the issue of East Timor.

You can access the paper here.

Advertisements

Jeremy Farrall’s new book chapter: ‘The use of UN sanctions to address mass atrocities’

Jeremy Farrall’s latest analytical piece on the use of UN sanctions to address mass atrocities was published in The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect. This first edition of the Handbook, edited by Alex Bellamy and Tim Dunne, was released last month.

A copy of the chapter is available here. You can also buy your copy of the book here.

 

Policy proposals on strengthening the rule of law through the United Nations Security Council released as UN document

On April 27, the report Strengthening the rule of law through the United Nations Security Council, authored by Prof. Hilary Charlesworth and Dr. Jeremy Farrall, was released as a UN document under the symbol S/2016/397.

The report offers policy proposals aim to enhance the Security Council’s capacity to strengthen the rule of law, particularly when it deploys peace operations, applies sanctions and authorises the use of force.

You can access the report here.

Book release: Strengthening the rule of law through the UN Security Council

The book StrengtheROL_book_coverning the rule of law through the UN Security Council, edited by Hilary Charlesworth and Jeremy Farrall, was released this month. The collection of essays, three from members of the Security Council Analysis Network,  examine the extent to which the Council has honoured his commitment to the rule of law when exercising its powers under the UN Charter to maintain international peace and security.

The book discusses both how the concept of the rule of law regulates, or influences, Security Council activity and how the Council has in turn shaped the notion of the rule of law. It explores in particular how this relationship has affected the Security Council’s three most prominent tools for the maintenance of international peace and security: peacekeeping, sanctions and force. In doing so, this book identifies strategies for better promotion of the rule of law by the Security Council. Click on  the links below to read excerpts from the book.

Foreward by Alan Ryan and preface to the book

Introduction by Hilary Charlesworth and Jeremy Farrall

Strengthening the local accountability of UN peacekeeping by Jeni Whalan

The UN Security Council as regulator and subject of the rule of law: conflict or confluence of interest? by Jeremy Farrall and Marie-Eve Loiselle

 

 

 

UNSC and the RoL: Launch of policy recommendations a success

UN Photo/Mark Garten 

Dr. Jeremy Farrall and Prof. Hilary Charlesworth traveled to New York  this month to launch a set of policy recommendations to strengthen the rule of law through UNSC’s practice. The launch was held at the UN headquarters in New York on 11 March during the Dialogue with Member States on the rule of law at the international level. The event was organised by the Permanent Mission of Australia, the Permanent Mission of Japan, and the Rule of Law Unit, on behalf of the UN Rule of Law Coordination and Resource Group.

Participants to the event included Mr. Edric Selous, Director, Rule of Law Unit, Executive Office of the Secretary-General; H.E. Ambassador Gillian Bird, Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations; Dr. Jeremy Farrall Fellow, Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy, the Australian National University; Prof. Hilary Charlesworth Director, Centre for International Governance and Justice, the Australian National University; Prof. Terence Halliday Co-Director, Center on Law and Globalization, American Bar Foundation; and H.E. Ambassador Motohide Yoshikawa, Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations.

Introduction by Edric Selous, Director of the Rule of Law Unit:

Comments by the Permanent Representative of Australia to the UN

Comments by Prof. Hilary Charlesworth

Comments by Dr. Jeremy Farrall

Comments by Prof. Terence Halliday (part 1 and 2)

 

 

 

Global Governance discussion seminar with Jeremy Farrall

GG Cover_0Jeremy Farrall will lead the discussion at the next Geneva Global Governance discussion seminar.  The discussion on the role of elected members on the Security Council will be based on the recent article published by Jeremy Farrell and John  Langmore in the journal Global Governance ‘Can Elected Members Make a Difference in the UN Security Council? Australia’s Experience in 2013—2014’.

The event will be held at the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations in Geneva. Participants will include H.E. Mr. John Quinn, Permanent Mission of Australia to the UN, Alistair Edgar, Academic Council to the United Nations System (ACUNS), and Roberta Spivak, One Earth Future Foundation (OEF).

The Global Governance discussion series provides a forum for scholars and policymakers to share ideas and forge new partnerships. It is convened by the One Earth Future Foundation and the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS). For more information visit: http://oneearthfuture.org/research/global-governance. Access the brochure of the event.

 Summary

The UN Charter gives the Security Council the extraordinary function of being responsible for international peace and security. Although the Permanent Five members are disproportionately powerful, there is nevertheless scope for elected members to influence the Council’s decision-making processes during their short two-year terms. This article uses Australia’s membership in 2013 and 2014 as a case study to examine why states seek election to the Council, means through which they can strengthen their influence how they can navigate P5 power. How successful they are in achieving their objectives, and how the effectiveness of both elected members and the Council as a whole could be improved. Despite the substantial constraints facing elected members, those that are imaginative and industrious can nevertheless make influential contributions to achievement of the Council’s purposes.

John Langmore and Jeremy Farral, ‘Can Elected Members Make a Difference in the UN Security Council? Australia’s Experience in 2013—2014’, Global Governance, 22 (2016), 59—77.  Click here for full paper.

 

 

 

Australia adds weight in global leadership

ml-artw-leadership-20131028173741200955-620x349 In world diplomacy, the Security Council has been a vital proving ground.

The Canberra Times29 October 2013

Jeremy Farrall and Jeni Whalan

Australia is almost halfway through its two-year elected term on the UN Security Council. Our delegation has acquitted itself well, particularly in the ceremonial role of council president in September. Hopes are high that Australia can build on its 2013 achievements to craft a lasting legacy as a productive contributor to global peace and security.

During the first half of 2013 Australia made solid contributions to the Security Council’s work, primarily in its work as chair of the committees overseeing sanctions against Iran, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It also worked behind the scenes to coax other council members to support action to address the shocking humanitarian situation in Syria. An example of these efforts was Australia’s sponsorship of an informal briefing for Security Council members by a UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria.

Australia’s most important test came in September, when we assumed the temporary position of Security Council president. Preparations for the presidency were hampered by the timing of federal elections, which complicated efforts to arrange a flagship high-level council meeting on a theme of Australia’s choosing. As president Australia also faced the considerable challenge of managing differences between council members on how to address the crisis in Syria. Tensions over Syria were particularly high following the August 21 use of chemical weapons against civilians in Damascus.

Despite these challenges, Australia managed to preside over three important high-level meetings and secure the adoption of two landmark resolutions. The first high-level meeting, on September 26, was on stopping the illegal flow of small arms and light weapons. Australia chose this theme to build on its successful efforts earlier this year as chair of the final conference for the Arms Trade Treaty. It was the Security Council’s first formal meeting on small arms for five years and Australia’s leadership ensured that an intensive negotiation process culminated in the adoption of the council’s first ever resolution on small arms.

The second high-level meeting, on September 27, discussed the situation in Yemen, where an ongoing national dialogue process is making progress towards a more peaceful, inclusive transition to democracy, notwithstanding ongoing security, political and humanitarian concerns, particularly in the south of the country.

In the third high-level meeting, late on September 27, the Security Council took its first action in 18 months to address the situation in Syria. In one of its final acts as president, Australia thus presided over the adoption of resolution 2118 (2013), which endorsed the framework agreed by the United States and Russia for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons. As Australia’s ambassador Gary Quinlan noted at the time, this was a momentous occasion.

After a successful first year of membership, Australia now has greater diplomatic capital with which to address important global issues that might otherwise escape the attention of the Security Council’s major powers.

While the threat of military strikes against Syria is no longer immediate, there is little respite for the seven million people in need of humanitarian assistance. On October 2, a joint Australia-Luxembourg initiative culminated in a presidential statement calling for all UN member states to contribute with urgency to the ongoing humanitarian appeals for Syria. At $4.4 billion, the Syrian appeals constitute the largest aid request in the UN’s history. Barely half the funding needs have so far been met. A crucial test of Australia’s leadership will be whether it can maintain its commendable record on Syria’s humanitarian crisis, both in and outside the Security Council.

Australia should continue its efforts to improve Security Council transparency and accountability. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) initiative, once championed by Australia, has fallen out of favour with many UN members as an unfortunate consequence of NATO’s over-enthusiastic implementation of the mandate to protect civilians in Libya. One way to restore confidence in R2P would be to develop appropriate accountability mechanisms for civilian protection mandates. Australia should also encourage careful review within the council of recent shifts in UN peacekeeping practice, including the authorisation of ”combat peacekeepers” and surveillance drones in the Congo, a controversial new mission in Mali, and expanded efforts to counter organised crime and terrorism throughout Africa.

Finally, Australia is the ”penholder” on Afghanistan – the nickname for a Security Council member that takes the lead on the issue’s deliberations. With both elections and the ”transition” of NATO-led international operations due in 2014, Australia will play a crucial role in shaping the future role and status of the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA).

Australia has 14 more months on the Security Council, including another turn as monthly president. Australia’s legacy will be shaped by our ability to use this time to promote political and humanitarian progress in Syria, increase the council’s transparency and accountability, strengthen peacekeeping practice and promote a constructive role for the UN in Afghanistan.

Let’s hope our diplomats have the stamina and support to achieve positive outcomes on all these fronts.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/australia-adds-weight-in-global-leadership-20131028-2wbrd.html#ixzz2jpYJ52b5

New York is Jakarta: why Tony Abbott should attend Leaders’ Week at the UN

Jeni Whalan and Jeremy Farrall

First published by The Conversation, 20 September 2013

Foreign minister Julie Bishop’s austerity announcementsover the weekend make it clear that she will attend Leaders’ Week at the United Nations later this month. But it is still not clear whether Australia’s new prime minister Tony Abbott will attend this important gathering of world leaders. We think he should.

The UN remains the most important forum of global governance, indispensable for collective efforts to solve the world’s most troubling problems. But visiting New York this September will also enable Abbott to achieve two of his most important short-term foreign policy goals: consolidating relations with our nearest neighbours and saving money for the Australian taxpayer.

Every September, world leaders gather in New York for the opening of the UN General Assembly. This provides leaders of the UN’s 193 member states an opportunity to share their views of the biggest challenges facing the world community. It also provides an invaluable chance for these leaders to meet their counterparts to discuss issues of pressing national interest.

In the past, Australian prime ministers have taken full advantage of this opportunity. Kevin Rudd is reported to have held around 50 one-on-one meetings with other heads of state and foreign ministers.

During the final days of the election campaign, Abbott was asked if he would attend this important event. While he didn’t rule out the possibility, he used the opportunity to emphasise his “Jakarta not Geneva” approach to foreign policy by assuring journalists that his first international visit would be to Indonesia.

There are many reasons why Abbott should go to New York. The first is that he is now Australia’s leader and there is a reason that this occasion is called “Leaders’ Week” rather “Foreign Ministers’ Week”. This is Abbott’s opportunity to announce his arrival on the global stage as Australia’s leader and to begin forging those essential personal relationships with his peers.

Australia is also currently President of the UN Security Council, and it will hold a high-level meeting on small arms on September 26. As the meeting will take place during leaders’ week, all 15 Security Council members have been invited at the head of state level.

As the Security Council’s president, Abbott could therefore get to bang the gavel to call to attention a gathering of peers that might include presidents Obama, Putin, Hollande and Jinping, and conservative UK prime minister David Cameron. There is also a possibility that the presence of such leaders in New York might galvanise the Security Council into action on Syria, which would make the absence of an Australian prime minister all the more conspicuous.

Finally, Abbott does not have to “choose” between regional and global commitments. All of our region’s most important leaders will be in New York. He could therefore advance Australia’s national interests in meetings with his most valued regional peers on issues of bilateral and multilateral concern. Of course, if he were to meet these leaders in person in New York then it would eradicate the need to undertake costly trips at taxpayers’ expense to dozens of other capitals.

Visiting New York for Leaders’ Week is not a frivolous extravagance: it is core business for Australia’s new prime minister. That Tony Abbott can save money conducting foreign policy at the United Nations should be the icing on the cake.

This Saturday, Australians will finally elect a president

Gary Quinlan, Permanent Representative of Australia to the UN and President of the Security Council for the month of September, chairs the Council’s meeting on the situation in Liberia. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.
Gary Quinlan, Permanent Representative of Australia to the UN and President of the Security Council for the month of September, chairs the Council’s meeting on the situation in Liberia. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.

Australia is now President of the United Nations Security Council. Throughout September, Australia will set the council’s agenda and chair its meetings. But what will this Saturday’s federal election result mean for Australia’s September presidency and our remaining 16 months on the council?

First published by The Conversation, 2 September 2013

Jeremy Farrall and Marie-Eve Loiselle

Under normal circumstances it would be a stroke of good fortune to hold the Security Council presidency in September. Towards the end of the month, presidents and prime ministers from around the world will gather in New York for UN leaders’ week.

In previous years, countries holding the council presidencyin September have scheduled high-profile, high-level council debates on important global themes. But the scheduling of federal elections during the same month as our presidency has complicated our diplomatic efforts to make the most of this rare opportunity.

It is no small irony that the greatest challenge posed so far to Australia’s presidential aspirations has come not from a sceptical Coalition, but from a convinced Labor. As Oscar Wilde might have observed, to schedule elections in September once (under Gillard) may be regarded as a misfortune but to do so twice (under Rudd) seems like carelessness.

Kevin Rudd must have been tempted to delay the elections beyond September so that he could have the Security Council presidency all to himself. But the Coalition would have gleefully painted him once again as “Kevin 747”, a prime minister who was more interested in rubbing shoulders with global leaders than humble Australians.

Somehow, despite the conflict between national elections and our Security Council presidency, Australia has managed to schedule a high-level council meeting on small arms. This is the first time since 2008 that the council has held a formal debate on this topic.

According to diplomatic convention, our prime minister will be expected to sit in the president’s chair for the high-level meeting on small arms. This means that the election’s victor will soon get the chance not just to look presidential, but to be president of the most important peace and security body in the world.

So how will the election result affect the rest of Australia’s presidency? The answer is very little. While the Security Council has the flexibility to respond spontaneously to pressing threats to international peace and security, September’s formal schedule was painstakingly negotiated with other council members during August.

No matter which candidate wins government on Saturday, he will have little scope to modify the agenda for this month. In terms of protocol, Australia’s UN Ambassador Gary Quinlan will be the daily face and voice of the council throughout September.

The more interesting question is how the election result will affect Australia’s general participation on the council once our month as president ends. Kevin Rudd’s position on the virtues of Security Council membership would appear clear. He was the chief engineer of Australia’s campaign to join the council and plainly values any chance to showcase his nation’s contributions on the global stage.

So, if anyone understands the importance and the possibilities of our council membership it is Kevin Rudd. If he does win on Saturday, then he could be expected to use the presidency and the remainder of our membership to promote effective action to protect civilians in Syria and to stamp out illegal trade in small arms. However, with the polls the way they are, it is highly likely that Tony Abbott will soon set the priorities for Australia’s membership on the Security Council.

Australia is now President of the United Nations Security Council. Throughout September, Australia will set the council’s agenda and chair its meetings. But what will this Saturday’s federal election result mean for Australia’s September presidency and our remaining 16 months on the council?

Under normal circumstances it would be a stroke of good fortune to hold the Security Council presidency in September. Towards the end of the month, presidents and prime ministers from around the world will gather in New York for UN leaders’ week.

In previous years, countries holding the council presidencyin September have scheduled high-profile, high-level council debates on important global themes. But the scheduling of federal elections during the same month as our presidency has complicated our diplomatic efforts to make the most of this rare opportunity.

It is no small irony that the greatest challenge posed so far to Australia’s presidential aspirations has come not from a sceptical Coalition, but from a convinced Labor. As Oscar Wilde might have observed, to schedule elections in September once (under Gillard) may be regarded as a misfortune but to do so twice (under Rudd) seems like carelessness.

Kevin Rudd must have been tempted to delay the elections beyond September so that he could have the Security Council presidency all to himself. But the Coalition would have gleefully painted him once again as “Kevin 747”, a prime minister who was more interested in rubbing shoulders with global leaders than humble Australians.

Somehow, despite the conflict between national elections and our Security Council presidency, Australia has managed to schedule a high-level council meeting on small arms. This is the first time since 2008 that the council has held a formal debate on this topic.

According to diplomatic convention, our prime minister will be expected to sit in the president’s chair for the high-level meeting on small arms. This means that the election’s victor will soon get the chance not just to look presidential, but to be president of the most important peace and security body in the world.

So how will the election result affect the rest of Australia’s presidency? The answer is very little. While the Security Council has the flexibility to respond spontaneously to pressing threats to international peace and security, September’s formal schedule was painstakingly negotiated with other council members during August.

No matter which candidate wins government on Saturday, he will have little scope to modify the agenda for this month. In terms of protocol, Australia’s UN Ambassador Gary Quinlan will be the daily face and voice of the council throughout September.

The more interesting question is how the election result will affect Australia’s general participation on the council once our month as president ends. Kevin Rudd’s position on the virtues of Security Council membership would appear clear. He was the chief engineer of Australia’s campaign to join the council and plainly values any chance to showcase his nation’s contributions on the global stage.

So, if anyone understands the importance and the possibilities of our council membership it is Kevin Rudd. If he does win on Saturday, then he could be expected to use the presidency and the remainder of our membership to promote effective action to protect civilians in Syria and to stamp out illegal trade in small arms. However, with the polls the way they are, it is highly likely that Tony Abbott will soon set the priorities for Australia’s membership on the Security Council.

It is less clear how Abbott would use Australia’s seat on the Security Council. He was of course a vocal critic of Australia’s campaign for a council seat and the Coalition’s few electoral foreign policy pronouncements have suggested a preference for Jakarta over Geneva, and trade over aid. Abbott’s shadow foreign minister Julie Bishop recently suggested that a Coalition government would use its membership to focus the council’s attention on preventing the emergence of failed states in our region.

However, if in government, the Coalition would have to engage effectively in council deliberations on the global crises of the moment, no matter where they may be located. In the current climate this is more likely to mean Syria, Egypt or Afghanistan than Fiji or the Solomon Islands. The Coalition should not shy away from shouldering Australia’s responsibilities on the council.

If it serves no other purpose, Australia’s council membership would surely enable Abbott to fulfil the pledge in his policy booklet to “enhance Australia’s role and engagement in the world developing greater international cooperation”.

If Kevin Rudd defies the odds to win Saturday’s election, he would fly to New York in a heartbeat to preside over the Security Council’s high-level meeting on small arms. And despite the Coalition’s vocal opposition to the Labor Party’s campaign for Security Council membership, Tony Abbott’s advisers must be licking their lips at the prospect of prime minister Abbott chairing a council meeting potentially attended by presidents Obama, Putin, Jinping and Hollande, as well as British prime minister David Cameron.

Such a priceless photo opportunity would announce and anoint Abbott as a heavyweight leader on the global stage. Depending on your perspective, it would be a terrible – or delicious – irony that the person he would most have to thank for the chance to partake in his first truly historic moment on the international stage would be none other than Kevin Rudd.

Will Australia make the most of its Security Council presidency?

UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré. Julie Bishop, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia.

As the federal election calls Australian attention to matters domestic, our diplomats are preparing for one of their most demanding briefs. On September 1, Australia becomes President of the United Nations Security Council.

Will Australia make the most of its opportunity? Or will politics at home overshadow this crucial role?

first published by The Conversation28 August 2013

Jeremy Farrall and Jeni Whalan

The Security Council is the world’s preeminent authority on matters of international security. It is accorded primary responsibility under the UN Charter for identifying threats to the peace and determining appropriate global responses.

The presidency of the Security Council offers a rare opportunity for Australia to promote its foreign policy agenda within this powerful body, usually by focusing the council’s 15 members on a particular issue of concern. Historically, council presidents have used their tenure to tackle such important issues as preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, protecting civilians in conflict, and promoting justice and the rule of law.

September is a big month at the UN. Not only will our diplomats need to contend with the distractions of the Australian election, they also face a demanding list of precarious international situations before the Security Council.

Last week’s allegations that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against civilians will demand the council’s attention. However, the Syrian conflict exposes the deep political divisions between the council’s permanent members. Russiaand China have repeatedly blocked proposals from the United States, Britain and France for action against the Syrian government. Russian support for an independent UN investigation of the chemical weapons attack is a positive move, but is not expected to lead to Security Council consensus on further action.

Meanwhile, the council is also managing fragile conditions in countries around the world. These include the Democratic Republic of Congo, where earlier this year the council authorised the UN’s first combat peacekeeping operation; the Central African Republic, where deteriorating political, security and humanitarian crises have left 1.6 million people in dire need of assistance, half of them children; and Sudan and South Sudan, where violent conflict and humanitarian crises have occupied the council in 17 meetings this year alone.

Further, the council currently oversees 31 peacekeeping and field-based political missions spanning the globe, including the hotspots of AfghanistanMali and Somalia.

Given the international turmoil and domestic election campaign, why does Australia take on the presidency in September? The simple reason is that the Security Council presidency rotates on a monthly basis according to which country comes next in the English alphabet.

Due to our favourable alphabetical position, Australia was actually the first ever president of the Security Council. On Thursday January 17, 1946, the council’s inaugural meeting was called to order by none other than Australian Norman Makin. The presidency is currently held by Argentina, which will hand us the presidential baton at 12.01 am on Sunday September 1. We will then dutifully pass it to Azerbaijan at 12.01 am on Tuesday October 1. The monthly presidential rotation also means that Australia will have a second opportunity to be president in November 2014.

So what can we expect Australia to do in September while it holds the presidency? As president, we will set the Security Council’s agenda, chair its meetings, sign off on formal correspondence and speak to the press as the official voice of the council. Savvy past presidents have also taken advantage of their position to promote Security Council policy refinements.

If Australia’s performance to date on the council is any indication, then the day-to-day business of the Security Council should proceed smoothly and effectively. Our delegation will undoubtedly fulfil its chairing responsibilities diligently and professionally. But it would be terrific if Australia could use its presidency to deliver more durable improvements in the Security Council’s effectiveness and credibility.

The scheduling of national elections for September was less than ideal for our Security Council presidency. Normally, a September presidency would be a golden opportunity to shape the council’s approach to pressing issues of the day. This is because heads of state and government from the UN’s 193 member states will converge on New York in the third week of September for the annual UN General Assemblyleaders’ week.

An Australian prime minister could therefore preside over a leaders’ level Security Council meeting on their favoured cause, with potential attendees including presidents Obama, Putin, Jinping and Hollande, as well as UK prime minister David Cameron. This would represent a full house of thePermanent Five members.

In the past, September presidents have shone the spotlight on protecting children affected by armed conflict (Germany in 2012), preventing nuclear proliferation (United States in 2009) and maintaining peace and security in Africa (France in 2007).

At the time of writing, Australia has still not announced what its flagship presidency theme will be. Insiders suggest that a rabbit is waiting to be pulled out of the presidency hat. It might be promoting a greater role for women in peace-building, protecting civilians in Syria, strengthening the rule of law in countries emerging from conflict or banning illegal trade in small arms and light weapons.

In light of recent Syrian events and Australia’s own historic role in the successful conclusion of the Chemical Weapons Convention over 20 years ago, this would also be an opportune moment to devote renewed energy to arms control.

Let us hope that Australia makes the most of this opportunity to promote an important theme that will improve the effectiveness and credibility of the Security Council. If we can do this, then we might be remembered not just as a country that worked hard as council president, but as one whose hard work in that position made a difference.