13 May 2012

I'll start this week far removed from the UN offices in New York and Geneva. Instead we find ourselves in the southern Caucasus, in a border region between Armenia and Azerbaijan: the Nagorno-Karabakh. Based on Soviet borders the regions falls under the sovereignty of Azerbaijan, however the region's population consists overwhelmingly of ethnic Armenians. The region has been a source of conflict since before the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1988, a full-scale war broke out between the two then-Soviet Republics. A cease-fire agreement was reached in 1994, but continues to be breached on a regular basis by both sides. Against this backdrop, I want to introduce the first topic this week.

Thursday's briefing by the chairs of the Security Council subsidiary committees demonstrated clearly some of the problems with the current setup of the Council. Azerbaijan, a country actively involved in an international conflict, holds the Council presidency this month. The end of the Council meeting degenerated into a somewhat ridiculous back and forth between the Armenian representative, who had been invited to the meeting as an observer, and the Council president, and its not the first time the countries have abused the Council to blast each other. The first meeting convened by the Azerbaijani presidency, while branded as “threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts”, was convened for the express purpose of accusing Armenia of terrorism. In fact, every Council meeting this year, at which both countries have spoken, has resulted in arguments similar to the one we saw on Thursday.

While the actions of both countries are reprehensible, what bothers me more is that the rest of the international community allows it. Azerbaijan's election to the Council last fall shows a patent disregard for Article 23 of the UN Charter, which says that in the election of members of the Security Council “due regard [shall be] paid...to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security”. Given Azerbaijan's involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, its violations international peace and security certainly out way its contributions thereto.

All of this, however, is emblematic of a much larger problem with the Security Council. For all the emphasis that is put on the role of permanent members, and on the veto power, other issues, including the selection non-permanent members and the Council's working methods. The veto in my opinion, for all its problems, is a necessary evil. If there is no clear way for the major powers, democratic or otherwise, to use the UN to there advantage, they will simply marginalise the Organisation. The working methods of the Council, on the other hand, leave much to be desired. Input from non-members is limited. The people most directly effected by the Council's decision are often completely unrepresented. Reports and working papers are produced in an incredibly non-transparent way. Sometimes reports are even doctored by certain Member States.

For all the problems though, I have to give credit where credit is due. A group of countries calling itself the S5 (Small five), consisting of Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore, and Switzerland, has been heavily advocating for reform of the Council's working methods. This group regularly presents draft resolutions to the Council, most recently in April 2011. Unfortunately, their proposals have found little support among the permanent members of the Council, and other relevant states. Even if the Council is reformed, the working methods are unlikely to change, as the status quo remains in the best interest of the permanent membership.

On an unrelated issue, something rather unique happened this week at the UN. The Food Assistance Convention was opened for signature. At present, it is the only binding international agreement on food aid, and is open to signature for the Schengen Zone countries, plus Canada, the US, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, and Japan. While I must admit, I know little about the convention and what it does. What I want to comment on is the material related to the signing procedure put out by the UN. Much of it relates to the presentation of full-powers. Full-powers refers to a document issued by a government granting that state's representative the authority to sign a treaty. In the associated material, the Secretary-General comes across as condescending; scolding the Member States about the presentation of full-powers, leading me to believe that it may have been a problem in the past.