[asia-apec 200] UN Security Council seat

[sonny at nation.nationgroup.com]

(Free to reproduce)

Editorial in The Nation, Bangkok, Saturday, Oct 26, 1996.

Don't blame the stars for Australia's UN debacle
-------------------------------------------------

Australia seems bewildered after its crushing defeat to Portugal in a vote
held Monday for one of the five non-permanent seats at the United Nations
Security Council.

Canberra had embarked on a two-year diplomatic campaign to secure the seat
on the UN's most powerful policy-making body. More than US$500,000 was
spent on that campaign and at the end of the day in New York, all
Australia had to show for it was 57 votes compared to Portugal's 124.

The result marked a personal defeat for UN ambassador Richard Butler,
criticised for his manner by his peers who have nicknamed him "the pope".
Butler offered no immediate explanation for Australia's stunning defeat,
saying that the "idiosyncratic result defied all logic."

For certain the "defying all logic" reasoning simply will not hold. The
crux of the matter is that Australia had taken for granted that its
current diplomacy in the region would have easily landed it the coveted
seat on the Security Council. What Canberra failed to realise is that
domestic policies and ties with neighbouring countries also matter in the
manner in which Australia is portrayed and perceived internationally.

There has been much speculation in the Australian media on two issues
dominating the debate -- whether Canberra's perceived anti-Asian
immigration policy swung the Asian vote, or if Australia's pro-Indonesia
stance on East Timor made UN member nations think twice about admitting
the country into the Security Council.

There is currently an anti-Asian rush in Australia under the Howard
government, with certain politicians openly making racist statements in
the name of "free speech". But little does Canberra realise that this
on-going anti-Asian immigration debate spreads internationally and makes
Asian nations, whose votes count in the UN, perceive Australia as a
whites-only, skin-conscious nation. The Labor government under Paul
Keating brought Australia closer to Asia, but the conservative Liberal
administration of John Howard seems to have undone that.

The East Timor factor was taken into account because of Portugal's support
for Timorese pro-independence activists. And this gave rise to some
malicious gossip circulating in New York that this year's Nobel Peace
prize winner, Jose Ramos-Horta, had used his new found influence to sway
the vote. Ramos-Horta admitted in a radio interview that some UN
delegations did consult him about Australia's policy on East Timor before
the vote. And to them, he did express concern that Australia's membership
in the UN Security Council might be favourable to Jakarta when it came to
East Timor issues.

But to say that he mounted a smear campaign against Australia would be
blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Though the Nobel laureate's
disagreements with Australia on East Timor are profound, he, however, has
a sense of loyalty to the country where he lives in exile as a permenant
resident. Ramos-Horta's calls for a peaceful settlement to the East Timor
conflict are with good intentions.

In an interview with the Agence France-Presse, where he spoke about his
meeting with Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer this week, he
said. "We are not asking Australia to cut diplomatic ties with Indonesia
or impose sanctions. There are a number of things it can do."

The Nobel laureate cited measures like offering temporary sanctuary to
East Timorese refugees and intitiating secret international talks aimed at
forcing Indonesian concessions to the troubled territory.

Perhaps Monday's debacle for Australia in the UN can be explained in
Shakespearean terms: "The answer dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in
ourselves."