New Delhi: Nearly every year, the United Nations Security Council usually gets a tongue lashing from the wider international community which grows peeved at the opaque nature of this club of powerful countries. This year was no different.
On June 11, the 193-member General Assembly first elected five nations for the rotating two-year-term seat in the security council. With the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) dropping out, there were no contested seats – but all of them had to get more than two-thirds of the vote to get elected.
Ghana and Gabon received the highest votes for the two African seats at 185 and 183, respectively. Brazil came third at 181 votes, followed by UAE. Albania, elected for the first time to UNSC, got 175 votes.
If a member does not want to vote for any unopposed candidate, their unhappiness is usually expressed by naming another country on the ballot paper.
This time, Iran got a single vote, as did Peru, while DRC obtained three votes.
I congratulate
Albania 🇦🇱
Brazil 🇧🇷
Gabon 🇬🇦
Ghana 🇬🇭 and
UAE 🇰🇼
on their election as non-permanent members of the @UN Security Council for the term 2022-2023. #UNGA75 🇺🇳 pic.twitter.com/ARW0tgOg4E— Volkan BOZKIR (@volkan_bozkir) June 11, 2021
Incidentally, Iran’s voting rights were curbed in the first week of June after it failed to pay its dues to the world body. A furious Tehran had pointed out that its inability to pay was due to accounts frozen by US sanctions. The US government reportedly allowed Iran to access its frozen South Korean accounts to pay $16.2 million in dues to the UN, following which its rights were restored before the UNSC elections on June 11.
While it is difficult to guess which member states would have voted for whom, the single ballot for Iran could have been a protest vote from Tehran to show its disenchantment with UAE.
Following the voting, the debate of the UNSC’s annual report last Friday brought out the annoyance of the majority of the membership – from the use of vetoes to a lackadaisical attitude in compiling the annual report.
Under the UN charter, the only legal obligation that the Security Council – and its five permanent members – have towards the General Assembly is to submit annual reports. The Council is the only body to adopt binding resolutions. The UNSC also has the right to select the United Nations Secretary-General (which it did on June 8), which is then rubber-stamped by the General Assembly. Therefore, when the time to discuss the Council’s annual report comes, the UNGA airs its grievances.
The annual report for 2020 was prepared by Niger, as it will hold the Council presidency in July.
Last year was exceptional due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced the UNSC to adopt new mechanisms for meetings and voting – virtually.
During 2020, the Council held 269 video conferences, more than three times the 81 physical meetings. Fifty seven resolutions were adopted, and 13 presidential statements issued. This was higher than the 258 meetings and 52 resolutions in 2019.
A perennial complaint has been that the annual report is perfunctory.
Costa Rica pointed out that the analytical section in the report was “getting smaller and smaller”. In the 239-page report, the analysis was only three lines, said the Costa Rican diplomat Rodrigo A. Caraz.
“In 2020, the international situation was marked by crises, despite the call by the Secretary-General for a global ceasefire to focus on combating the COVID-19 pandemic,” observed the annual report. This was the sentence that Caraz noted was the only sign of assessment, while the rest was a compilation of the calendar.
Similarly, Brazil, which will be joining UNSC for the 11th term, said that the annual report should not be viewed as the “only instance when the Council is accountable to the Assembly, as synergy is required to make both bodies more effective”. Brazil’s permanent representative noted that the report must not be just a compilation of meetings but a reflection of key trends in peace and security.
Austria felt that the report could have had more details on the impact of the restrictions on working methods of the Council due to pandemic on the wider UN membership. Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations Alexander Marschik listed a lack of analysis on implementing the call for global ceasefire as one of the significant gaps in the report.
Canadian diplomat Robert Rae was scathing and noted that there was a “major failure in leadership” in the Council’s delay in addressing the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The report could have offered analysis on the Council’s actions as well as inactions and polarisation in addressing some international peace and security threats, including in highlighting violations of Security Council’s resolutions,” said Malaysia’s Syed Mohamad Hasrin Aidid.
Liechtenstein asserted that the Council’s ability to take effective action was hampered by veto powers, with three permanent members exercising their vetoes last year.
In 2020, seven draft resolutions were not adopted by the Council, which was one more than the number in 2019.
The United States vetoed a resolution in August 2020, related to the return of foreign terrorist fighters. A month earlier, Russia and China vetoed a resolution for continued cross-border supply of aid across the Syrian border without requiring the permission of Damascus. The two countries also vetoed another resolution on the supply of assistance across two border crossing in Syria.
Current non-permanent member Mexico also observed that the Council’s report fails to explain why the permanent members exercised their vetoes.
Also read: UNSC Watch | India Abstains on Resolution to Extend Sanctions, Arms Embargo on South Sudan
The United Arab Emirates’ Lana Zaki Nusseibeh hoped that the return of in-person meetings would help to unravel knotty political hurdles. She noted that the proportion of peacekeeping mandates renewed unanimously had fallen from 84% in 2019 to 77% in 2020, adding that politics must not erode support for UN missions.
India also flagged that the UN’s flagship tool for maintaining international peace and security should be properly scrutinised in the annual report. “We need more information on how peacekeeping operations are run, the problems they face, on why certain mandates are set or changed, or on when and why they are strengthened, scaled down or ended,” said India’s R. Madhu Sudan.
The debate was also another platform for India and Pakistan to exchange verbal volleys on Kashmir.
This week in UNSC
The week begins with a busy Monday, with the Council holding meetings on Mali, Sudan and Somalia. Additionally, there is a closed-door discussion on the UN Disengagement Observer Force in the Golan Heights (UNDOF).
The highlight of this week is likely to be the informal interactive dialogue on the situation at Ethiopia’s Tigray region on Tuesday. On the same day, Council members will get two chances to discuss Yemen in both open and closed formats. There will also be a similar format for briefings on the UN Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH).
The dire humanitarian situation in DRC due to the volcano eruption will feature in an ‘any other business’ meeting, which will not be recorded. A separate briefing on DRC sanctions is also on the schedule. There are two closed meetings at the end of the week – one on Myanmar and another on Sudan sanctions.
After the UNGA, the UNSC will be the platform to discuss the Council’s working methods in their annual open debate on the subject on Wednesday.
This is a weekly column that tracks the UNSC during India’s current term as a non-permanent member. Previous columns can be found here.
