Global Policy Forum

By Michael Littlejohns

Less than a month before civic-minded Americans aged 18 and over decide who shall be their President for the next four years, member states of the United Nations will vote in an important election of their own. No, not for Secretary General -- that comes next year -- but for five seats in the Security Council, the UN's holy of holies with powers not unlike the advise and consent responsibilities of the US Senate.

Ten Council seats are allocated under a system known as equitable geographic distribution, which is actually not quite as equitable as one might think. The remaining places are occupied by five "permanent" members, namely China, France, Russia, the UK and the US, each of which has the power to veto any decision, even if all 14 of the other states favor it. (China, casting its veto more than a dozen times, famously blocked the re-election of Kurt Waldheim to an unprecedented third term as Secretary General; the US followed suit four years ago to deny Boutros Boutros-Ghali his hoped-for second term and cleared the way for the appointment of Kofi Annan.)

No one claims that this is democracy in action, but for all the railing against it, the power of veto is unlikely to change any time soon. There will be even more permanent members, perhaps also having veto rights, when a seven-year logjam is finally broken and Council membership expands. For now, the prospect of being less than equal has not deterred most states from trying to get in. South Africa is an exception; it could have won handily after the global icon Nelson Mandela became president, but to date has chosen not to make the claim.

This year, two vacancies will be filled by uncontested candidates: Colombia to replace Argentina, and Singapore to succeed Malaysia. For the remaining three vacancies, to replace Namibia in one of the three designated African seats, and to replace Canada and the Netherlands, vigorous campaigns are under way. The Organization of African Unity, which often displays its tin ear where international sensitivity in such matters as human rights is concerned, nominated that shining example Sudan, where children are forced into military service and other egregious offenses against accepted norms are common. Aghast at the OAU's effrontery, the US has given members at large another choice, persuading Mauritius to run. Both countries have served a single term in the Council, Sudan 1972-73 and Mauritius 1978-79.

Many delegates expect Sudan to win, but not necessarily by a romp in the first ballot. Three model states seek the two seats allocated to the so-called Western European and Others group (the others being countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand with their strong European links): Ireland, Italy and Norway. All have impressive credentials, having contributed their troops to UN peacekeeping operations, supplied generals for UN missions and senior diplomats for political, social and humanitarian positions in the system, helped the poor and needy and paid their dues on time and in full.

Fortunately for the UN electorate, balloting is secret. So no one will ever know for sure if a state committed to any of the candidates actually honored its pledge. In the past, a UN version (sort of) of the soft money system that now is negatively exercising the media if not the US electorate has been observed. Most notably by Greece, which ran three years ago against Canada and the Netherlands. Delegates and their wives or significant others were invited to fun-filled vacations in the Greek islands, forcing the Canadians and Dutch to induce goodwill, albeit on a less expansive, and expensive scale. In the event, and much to the consternation of Greece, less proved better than more: Canada and the Netherlands won.

Diplomats now claim that this episode left an unpleasant aftertaste, which is why they say it hasn't been paralleled in this year's race. But who can be sure that it's not being done again, but with more discretion?

As already mentioned, it must be hard for governments to choose among these three WEOG candidates simply on their merits. It could be argued that fairness ought to exclude Italy, which has had five terms in the Council, most recently in 1995 and 1996, while Ireland did one-year (in 1962) and a full term some 20 years later and Norway has served three terms, the most recent being in 1979-80. Norway has been a UN member from the start; Ireland and Italy were late entries for reasons related to their roles in World War 2, when Dublin was neutral and Rome was on the wrong side.

Ireland and Italy are members of the European Union, as are permanent members of the Council France and the UK. Norway is not, having rejected a proposal to join. Ireland has the boomingest economy in the EU, but has been pitching to the developing states that it understands their problems best and is a small country to boot. Norway, of course, has oil riches and has always been a generous donor of aid to the Third World (thanks in part to a confiscatory tax system that Norwegian citizens don't seem to mind, since it confers substantial social benefits).

Italy, also a major contributor of foreign aid, has lately been calling for Third World debt forgiveness. Its links with Latin America must be counted a plus in the Council race, and it has been in the forefront of states favoring extreme caution in their approach to membership enlargement. In the past, Italy has proved to be a formidable candidate and diplomats say nothing has changed this year.

A two-thirds majority of members "present and voting" is necessary for election. In a close race this has sometimes necessitated several ballots over several days. Some diplomats say this is a not unlikely occurrence this year, given the difficulties of choosing among candidates more or less equally qualified. One of the few who would go out on a limb and make a prediction is an Asian member, who forecast to The Earth Times that Norway and Italy will win. No explanation why.