Security Council performance creditable given global realpolitik

PERHAPS the only way was down after Ireland’s landslide win in the UN Security Council elections which caused gasps of disbelief in at the organisation’s New York headquarters in October, 2000.

With 130 of the 173 available votes it was a triumph for a very professional campaign by the country’s diplomats and senior politicians.

Ireland had projected itself as a successful small country which had retained its neutrality and opposition to colonialism while showing empathy with the developing and poorer nations.

It had reaped a surprising dividend from a number of nations whose vote was influenced by past contact with Irish missionary teachers and medical and other aid workers.

Over two years later, as the curtain comes down on a most eventful two-year Irish term on the guiding arm of the organisation guarding global peace, the 191 member nations are bracing themselves for another major war.

Critics of Foreign Affairs Minister Brian Cowen argue there were few successes and many missed opportunities in the country’s stated aim of promoting the views of small nations.

The main criticisms focus on a lack of political leadership in standing up to USA’s policies on Afghanistan and Iraq along with the lack of progress on any kind of United Nations structural reform. They also feature Ireland’s decision last summer to cut overseas aid by 40m, while significant increases were a central promise of the Irish campaign to win the UNSC seat.

Unsurprisingly, Foreign Affairs Minister Brian Cowen rejects these criticisms. He argues that Ireland gave a good account of itself since taking its seat on January 1, 2001, and especially in its biggest test of chairing proceedings in the month of October 2001, in the weeks following the outrageous attacks of September 11 on US targets.

The minister also contends that Ireland played honest broker on Middle East problems and worked to raise consciousness of the problems in Central and East Africa.

Mr Cowen further argues that the US only used their security council power of veto on one occasion during the two years.

He says that the USA’s retaliatory action against al-Qaida had the unanimous support of all United Nations member nations and insists that Ireland discharged its role of ensuring that the UN and its Security Council remained centre-stage throughout.

The foreign affairs minister offers identical arguments on the question of the Iraqi crisis. He says the rest of the world wants to see Iraq divest itself of weapons of mass destruction. This will not happen unless there is a real threat of force being used against Saddam Hussein and his regime.

Irish officials suggest that both Afghanistan and Iraq left Ireland needing to show its solidarity with the USA given our strong ethnic, cultural and economic links. However, Dublin was also conscious of the need to leaven this support with a strong message of the need for restraint and caution.

The minister insists that all 15 UNSC members will have all the information they require to make an informed decision on whether Iraq is co-operating with the UN weapons inspectors.

He rejects critics' claims that this has been hampered by the five permanent UNSC members keeping the longer Iraqi weapons inventory private.

Mr Cowen is also adamant that the UN resolution adopted early this month means that the US must return to the Security Council before any strikes against Iraq can be initiated though this resolution remains a matter of contentious debate.

“We don’t accept that war with Iraq is inevitable,” he insists.

On the use of Shannon, Mr Cowen says nothing has changed: if the UN sanctions strikes against Iraq then Shannon may have to be made available for US military re-fuelling - if requested.

He concedes that he is disappointed that more progress has not been made in reforming UN structures which are still largely based on 1945 structures.

He says that he wants to see more involvement by the Latin American and emerging Asian countries.

Overall, Mr Cowen insists that through all its UNSC term, Ireland sought to work with and maximise what was available. We didn’t involve ourselves in grandstanding or striking moral positions all the time.

“I just don’t believe in getting up on your soapbox,” he summed up.

That final criticism about the €40m cut to overseas aid offers few get-out arguments.

It was a shameful decision by the entire Cabinet.

It was a breach of faith with the world’s most vulnerable and a disgraceful reneging on promises given during Ireland’s UNSC campaign.

There is little doubt that what was saved will do little enough at home, while abroad, it will quite likely cost lives. Promises to make up ground in the longer-term and meet the UN donation target of 0.7% GNP by 2007, as promised in the campaign of 2000, must be watched carefully.

However, on balance, given the global realpolitik and the chronic difficulties inherent in getting 191 nations to steer a common course, Ireland did a good job on the United Nations Security Council over the past two years.