UNITED NATIONS - After 16 rounds of marathon voting, Azerbaijan, a former Soviet Republic, won a seat on the U.N. Security Council, beginning in January. Its rival Slovenia withdrew from one of the most hotly contested races in several years.
The 15-member U.N. Security Council, whose decisions are mandatory, can be critical in getting world support for sanctions, initiating peacekeeping missions or threatening states to cool it -- or else. For countries initiating action, a positive vote in the Council shows international backing.
On Friday the 193-member General Assembly elected Morocco, Togo, Pakistan and Guatemala to serve two-year terms in the Security Council, starting in January 2012. But the Eastern European seat failed to get the two-thirds vote needed. The race was important enough that foreign ministers from most of the candidate nations came to New York to lobby.
The new Security Council's political complexion next year will not be much different than it is now. Azerbaijan, a Eurasian oil-rich secular Muslim country of nine million people, will serve for the first time in the Security Council as a rotating member for two years. It is not expected to side with the West on controversial issues.
Slovenia had a Council seat in 1998-1999 and made its mark. Its then-ambassador, Danilo Turk, an international law professor, became a U.N. assistant secretary-general for political affairs and is now president of Slovenia, a nation of two million people. Slovenia is a member of the European Union, believed to be a key factor in its defeat as four EU members serve on the Council (Britain, France, Germany and Portugal).
In the final round, Azerbaijan got 155 votes, Slovenia 13 and Hungary 1, with 24 countries abstaining. Slovenia withdrew after losing the last round to Azerbaijan by a 77 to 116 vote. The lengthy balloting was unusual but in 2007, a race between Guatemala and Venezuela went 47 rounds before Panama became the compromise Latin American candidate and was elected.
In withdrawing its candidacy, a Slovenian delegate told the Assembly: "Our campaign was for Slovenia and not against any other candidate. We don't approve the way this campaign was held and we don't approve the way these elections were held."
How it works
Among the Council's 15 nations, five are permanent members with veto power: Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States.
The other 10 elected members have two year terms with five rotating each year. At the end of this year, Brazil, Nigeria, Lebanon, Gabon and Bosnia leave the council. The new members will join Germany, Portugal, Colombia, South Africa and India, who remain on the Council for another year.
Pakistan holds hands with India
The election of Pakistan means it sits on the Security Council for a year with its arch-rival India and at a time when the United States accuses it of aiding insurgents in Afghanistan. But on most issues Pakistan and India as well as Azerbaijan are expected to join Russia and China in blocking American and European efforts to sanction such nations as Syria and Iran or take a tough line in Sudan.
Pakistan's ambassador, Abdullah Hussain Haroon, told reporters he was on good terms with his Indian counterpart, Hardeep Singh Puri, who transmitted his congratulations by cell phone as Haroon was speaking to the media, in an obviously planned encounter.
They last served on the Council at the same time in 1977, before they had nuclear weapons. Their joint presence next year raises the number of nuclear-armed states in the Council to seven.
What's it mean for Palestine?
The Palestinians want a vote for full membership in the United Nations which has to be approved by the Security Council. They are willing to accept a U.S. veto, if they can get the required minimum nine votes as a sign of support for another attempt in the future.
At the moment they are expected to have eight votes and in 2012 they are expected to have the same number. Palestinian supporters have not set a date for a vote, which may not happen at all in the Security Council.
Palestine also intends to go to the General Assembly where it is assured of an upgrade in status as a non-voting observer state. This allows it to sign treaties and join other U.N. bodies. Congress intends to pull out of any UN agency that accepts Palestine, which could include the nuclear agency or the World Health Organization, a disaster for Washington.
"Our absence would only lessen our ability to influence how the world functions and would undermine the legitimacy of vitally important global institutions, "said former U.S. Senator Timothy E. Wirth, president of the U.N. Foundation.
Follow Evelyn Leopold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/evjournalist
China, 20 November 1988
Russia, 19 November 1988
India, 18 November 1988
South Africa, 15 February 1995
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27 May 1992
Brazil, 1 December 2010
Gabon, 12 December 1988
Lebanon, 30 November 2008
Nigeria, 18 November 1988
Am I wrong? Enlighten me please.
The election of Azerbaijan is one more piece of evidence (not that any more was needed!) attesting to UN's total moral bankrupcy and irrelevance in terms of global leadership. True, Azerbaijan has 9 million inhabitants, Slovenja just 2 million. But the Slovenjan government represents those 2 millions, because it is the product of free and fair elections. As for the Azeri dictatorial regime, who does IT represent?? Every UN forum (not just the UNSC) includes dictatorships -- they are usually a majority, or at the very least a large plurality. This includes the permanent UNSC members, which include Russia & China. Such an organization is completely devoid of moral standing, let alone capacity to legislate.
I do not call for it to be disbanded. As long as dictatorships exist (not for long, inch'allah), it is sometimes better to have a dialogue with them. UN is useful as a forum to maintain such dialogue, but that's where its usefulness ends.
It is high time we established the League of Democratic Nations. The world needs moral leadership and the LDN will be in a better position to supply it. Admission should be subject to strict criteria; it will prove an incentive for more nations to choose the path of democracy, freedom & progress.
Not that simple. All UN members agree (as a condition of their membership) to abide by decisions of the UNSC. But the actions of the UNSC are divided into Chapter-6 and Chapter-7 resolutions. It is important to understand that the vast majority of UNSC Resolutions (all but three in history) were issued under Chapter-6. Chapter-6 of the UN Charter deals with settlement by way of mutual agreement of the parties. Thus, in all instances, the only power that the UNSC has under Chapter-6 of its charter is to direct the interested parties to achieve a negotiated settlement. The problem here is that it is not physically possible to insist that more than one party agree on anything. Which is why Chapter-7 exists. NEITHER Chapter-6 or Chapter-7 are acts of LEGISLATION. How could they be? 5 permanent members and 10 rotating members legislating international law over the other 178? These provisions and powers of the UNSC were designed to deal with threats to world peace. As such, a Chapt-7 resolution is most akin to a declaration of martial law, superimposed over existing (legislated) law.