BIDS & BRIBES: THE UN SIDESHOW
UPDATE: October 19. 2012
Australia has won its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. It was announced in New York last night that 140 of 193 countries had voted in our favour.
Monica Attard wrote about the process to secure the seat in September this year:
The Australian diplomatic road show to secure a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council hit a crescendo this week with the PM and the Foreign Minister in New York City – home of the United Nations – selling our credentials.
The bid is one of the few Rudd era initiatives that Prime Minister Gillard hasn’t thrown out the window.
Foreign Minister, Bob Carr speaks at a press conference prior to meetings with the UN in New York. Image via Bob Carr’s blog.
She and her Foreign Minister Bob Carr appear to agree with Kevin Rudd that holding one of the five seats up for the taking would give Australia strategic and diplomatic clout when it comes to convincing (or coercing) other nations to take a stand against the big, ugly issues with which the United Nations is generally concerned.
Australia has long seen itself as a middle power with a voice that deserves to be heard.
National pride, or ego, as Foreign Minister Carr puts it, has motivated Canberra to want to formalise that self-belief, even if it costs – as it has thus far – some $55m in programs to woo support and flying diplomats, ministers and the Governor-General around the world to lobby the case.
And that’s not to mention the reverse schmoozing when Australia foots the bill to host the diplomats of countries whose vote we need to secure to win the seat.
Sounds an awful lot like state-sanctioned bribery.
We won’t know until mid October whether this expensive exercise to get Australia noticed, heard and listened to on the world stage has been successful. But given the expense, wouldn’t you want to know that it’s a “safe bet” that the goal can be achieved?
I would. But I’m not a government.
This is how confident the Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr was when speaking to Leigh Sales on 7.30 on ABC TV: “Only very guardedly optimistic. 193 nations vote. It’s a secret ballot. The ambassadors in New York might vote differently from the commitments made by Foreign ministers. Always competitive for Australia to win in international forums, and, it’s hard, it’s competitive, but there’s lot of good will towards Australia.”
No doubt, $55m has bought a lot of good will on the diplomatic cocktail circuit.
But what are we really up against?
| Page 1 of 2 | next >> |
10 Responses to this article
-
Carole September 28, 2012
Maybe you could tell me Monica how Abbott will dump the bid when the vote takes place on the 18 th October. Last time I looked , Phony Tony was still only the leader of the opposition.
We know he promises to trash everything but he’ll actually have to win the next election to do so .
I believe Australia should be heard on the world stage.
Is anyone really surprised that Abbott takes a negative view of this too. -
Monica September 28, 2012
Carole, should Australia not be successful on October 18, the government can choose to continue to pursue the seat. In this event and IF there is a change of government, Tony Abbott says he will abandon the bid…not sure whether that will be before or after he abandons the carbon tax!!! But I’m not convinced winning a non permanent seat on the UN Security Council will have Australia “heard”. Do you recall any missives from Azerbaijan for example on any issue, in its capacity as a non permament member of the security council?
-
Ro. Watson October 1, 2012
Thanks Monica~ don’t the permanents have the power veto, or did I miss something in your article?
-
Ro. Watson October 1, 2012
oh yeah “greater power unananimity”~ also known as hegemony!! Those ‘permanents’~ which is a slighly silly notion in human affairs~distinguished by them being “nation states” in earlier wars and peaces~ each of them has a power of veto for actual action by the “Security Council”.
-
Leesa October 1, 2012
I do think its worth trying to get a seat. We may not have heard of missives from Azerbaijan but that doesn’t mean their vote was irrelevant. Mind you if Abbott was the PM I’d probably not want us to get a seat…I wouldn’t trust his ability to represent Australia intelligently and humanely.
-
RhMonkey October 4, 2012
Un representation is not going to end up being about representing the Australian nation state to the world (tho’ there is politics, admittedly!) but about the ability of the represented nation to realise change on big ticket isues that affect us nationally and internationally – in short, on human rights issues (including education). Finland and Australia are being pushed in opposing directions and it will be interesting to see how nations vote, for me, because of the obvious differences between the European ideals that drive policy on education (as it affects developing nations using universal and unilateral support mechanisms) and the reforms recommended in *ducks for fear of angry protest* Gonski.
-
Lynda October 4, 2012
I think this is such a waste of money, she loves to suck up to Obama on her overseas jaunts…she doesnt seem to care if a man is mariied!! .At least Abbott is a Rhodes scholar not a disgraced lawyer!!! you lot should all log onto michaelsmithnews.com and learn the truth about this woman
-
MemKate October 20, 2012
It will be interesting to see how Australia uses this (temporary) seat. My prediction is that we will vote the same way as Israel and the US – no surprises, so it will a waste of a real vote and more support to them. There is the opportunity to do something worthwhile, but trust me – it will be wasted. Gillard and co. are under orders and we are paying.
