Canada & the UN >  Canada on the Security Council (1999-2000)

Presentation III - Observations from a Recent Experience on the Security Council

H.E. Danilo Turk, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the UN

Ambassador Turk shared with the seminar the experience of the recent Slovenian membership on the Security Council, outlining some of the problems and difficulties associated with working at the UN and suggested possible solutions. He said the beginning of the year has augured very poorly, but that the second half of the year had seen significant progress.

Ambassador Turk recognized that there had been positive progress of late, but he tempered it with a note of caution. He reminded the audience that at the UN nothing is guaranteed. There can be no assurance that improvements in method or in the political environment will be institutionalized. At any time in the future, national interests could sweep aside present gains.

His first observation was that elected members can indeed make a difference and to do so they must exploit opportunities as they arise. When Slovenia joined the Security Council as an elected member two years ago, its delegation did not ascribe to the opinion that non-permanent members of the council could not effect change. Much as Canada has done, Slovenia worked to identify opportunities and make positive contributions as circumstances presented themselves. He pointed out, however, that opportunities vary between presidencies as new international situations arise. In the Security Council circumstances are constantly changing and it is not always possible to ensure continuity between presidencies.

He noted how timing affects Presidencies. Slovenia presided over the Security Council proceedings in August 1998 and November 1999. During its first Presidency, expecting most members to be on holidays, the Slovenian delegation planned to focus the Council’s discussions on Afghanistan. August 1998, however, turned out to be a crisis-ridden month with emergencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. As a result, Slovenia was involved in crisis management and was unable to act proactively on any given issue. In contrast, November 1999 presented no acute crisis situations and the atmosphere in the Security Council was conducive to open meetings, allowing Slovenia to propose discussions on a variety of issues. Four open debates were held covering the issues of intervention in armed conflicts and the deteriorating situation in Burundi. These open meetings provided valuable political analysis and resulted in a shift in attitudes as Burundi began to be perceived as a situation properly falling under the purview of the Security Council and no longer solely a regional concern.

Ambassador Turk said that the Security Council should, as a matter of principle, be both active and pro-active. It should endeavour to exercise its proper role under the Charter so as to avoid recrimination when regional security efforts fail. Under the Slovenian presidency, the role of the Security Council in preventing armed conflict was addressed, and the resulting Presidential Statement contained a call for a foreign ministers meeting to discuss and decide on preventive conflict measures. The Security Council, said Ambassador Turk, can act preventively in certain situations, as was proven in the Macedonian peace-keeping operation (UNPREDEP) in 1992. Peace-keeping, however, is not the only action available and diplomatic initiatives and sanctions should be considered as viable alternatives. The main question is whether the Security Council is willing to act pro-actively.

Amb. Turk admitted that there are often limitations on the possible in the Security Council because resources are limited and there will inevitably be times when national interests will take precedence over global priorities. He noted, for example two recent examples of Security Council members sponsoring debates on issues which where largely motivated by national interests. Amb. Turk concluded that items designed to bolster national agendas may in the future help to prepare the ground for new areas of Security Council activity. He also noted that increased transparency in Council deliberations, in particular during the negotiations of resolutions, is important in order that elected members of the Council are not marginalised.

Ambassador Turk noted that Canada has been a leader in the area of human security, an issue that requires a long-term commitment. The Secretary-General’s report on the protection of civilians is very interesting and now the challenge will be to translate it into specifics. In view of setbacks in the last year, humanitarian law undoubtedly needs to be strengthened, but states can and should act quickly with the mechanisms that are now in place to seek to respond to threats to human security. Article 8 of the Convention on Genocide provides a way in which all parties can raise questions before the appropriate UN authorities at an early stage. Preventive action also provides opportunities for implementing options not requiring military support. This may be an overly optimistic appraisal, but without the exploration of such options it will be difficult for the UN to make any significant advances.

Returning to a cautionary tone, Ambassador Turk re-emphasized that, while there will be a certain amount of evolution with the Security Council, the advances made to date are by no means guaranteed. In the future members must exploit any and all opportunities to bring about effective change in the UN.