Australia took up its two year seat on the UN Security Council on 1 January 2013. It is ill equipped to make the contribution expected of it. Whilst most other non-member states have a staff of sixteen or more to help run the seat, Australia has just eight. The penny pinching is not confined to New York. Sections, Branches and Divisions in Canberra that will be required to meet a substantially increased workload of briefings are understaffed. Already officers have been called back from leave to meet the demand.
However Australia is off to a bad start on the Council having agreed to accept chairmanship of the United Nations sanctions committee overseeing what sanctions should be applied against al Qaeda, the Taliban and Iran and entities dealing with them. No other country wants the job. The committee is a toothless tiger and chairing it will do little to increase Australian prestige or influence. As an early initiative Carr announced on 7 January that Australia would push for a UN arms trade treaty to reduce the flow of arms to terrorists and other renegade groups .If he were serious Carr might get the committee to consider sanctions against Sri Lanka.
The issues facing the UN Security Council are substantial with the Middle East requiring close focus and some tough decisions. At the top of the list is Syria, which is bringing into play NATO with the deployment of Patriot Missiles to Turkey. The rabid regime has caused a refugee humanitarian crisis in neighbouring countries. Resultant instability stalks neighbouring countries, whilst Israel pours fuel on the fire with further settlements on Palestinian land and a visceral hatred of Hamas, apparently precluding negotiations.
Egypt is struggling with a democracy managed by fundamentalists and Iran has a leadership respected by none and like North Korea (an ally) bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Afghanistan has been a costly failure and will sooner than later come under the control of the loathed Taliban, who have played the occupation by the US and NATO, every bit as skilfully as the occupation by the Russians was exploited internally by the Mujahideen. Pakistan is poised to gain influence, which will not play well with India. China has pocketed Sri Lanka and is securing what it wants from Pakistan in the form of naval bases and future access to some airbases.
Burma has moved into the US sphere of influence, a development not at all welcome to China, and Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Australia, have agreed to maintain or strengthen military ties. India, watchful of China, has so far been careful with the US, wanting and privately demanding recognition as a major world power. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Indonesia remain in play with both China and the US. Territorial disputes in the South China Sea have the potential to ignite regional conflict.
Climate change will require a complex range of strategic and diplomatic responses, particularly in Pacific Island countries and the Indonesian Archipelago. The movement of people as a response to climate change and the resultant political upheaval and conflict will require a more sophisticated and planned response than has hitherto been the case.
The movement of food, particularly live meat and grain, will require new international agreements. Australia should take the initiative whilst it has the opportunity on the Security Council.
The stagnation and over-borrowing by Western economies has the prospect of causing political instability during Australia's term on the Council. Several or more of the issues cited have the potential of coming to a head at the same time causing an escalating knock-on effect in the international community.
The inability of the United States to demonstrate the kind of leadership it expects from other states, particularly friends and allies, does not auger well for those states, such as Australia, that have tied their future to the listing mast of the US ship of state. Fundamental reform of gun laws and fiscal discipline, including the equitable redistribution of income through a fair and balanced tax system, might help maintain the respect necessary to support the notion of American exceptionalism, as expressed through the desire to influence and lead internationally.
The Federal Parliament and in particular the Government would do well to listen to and build on the diplomatic skills that it has at its disposal. These have been developed over the past seventy years. But these skills are being stretched and if we are to develop properly argued position papers for presentation on the Security Council, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade requires more staff.
On the other hand if we wish only to endorse United States policy, as Prime Minister Julia Gillard was prepared to do over recognising Palestine as a non-member state of the UN, until a revolt within her own party forced a change, then Australia could probably do without extra resources. But as a middle power with the potential to broker reform and positive change we should grasp the opportunity that membership of the Council offers to increase our political, diplomatic, commercial and trading leverage and influence.
Bob Carr is a better foreign minister than Kevin Rudd, but he still has much to learn. Amongst which is to listen to the professionals of his department. He has been well served by his departmental heads and the majority of his senior officers, but he undermines his authority and credibility on the international arena when he embraces the Rajapaksa regime in Sri Lanka with the sole purpose of achieving the domestic objective of stopping boats with Sri Lankan asylum seekers coming to Australia. The foreign ministers of other countries are listening more closely to their briefings on Sri Lanka.