Lebanon’s seat at the table

29.9.2009 von Thilo Nordmeyer.

Lebanon can expect two years of intense international pressure as various players vie to sway its vote should it take its expected rotating seat on the UN Security Council in 2010. Beirut’s spot on the council, which appears assured, could bring an increase in aid and prestige to the small Mediterranean country, but is apparently not an absolute guarantee given the current cabinet crisis.

Moreover, even if Lebanon gets the seat, there are other concerns that Syria, which has traditionally controlled the Foreign Ministry, and Iran could use this seat for their own advantage.

Michael Williams, the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon, has repeatedly said in recent weeks that Lebanon’s ascendency to the Security Council “requires a fully-functioning government that can follow up on many important international issues.” It is unclear if Williams meant Lebanon would actually be forced to relinquish its seat should no government be formed soon.  Attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.

Recent renewed contacts between Syria and Saudi Arabia have raised hopes that a cabinet will soon be formed, meaning Lebanon might have a government before its term on the council would start on January 1, 2010 and would not have to worry about losing the seat. However, as Hariri has not yet been successful in his second round of consultations, these hopes might be hollow.

Ten of the 15 council members are non-permanent, elected for two-year terms. Lebanon is part of the Asian States regional group of countries – there are five regional groups – and has secured the backing of its peers and the Arab League, meaning it is all but assured of election in the UN General Assembly vote, scheduled for October 15.

And it has good reason to want a seat on the Security Council. According to a 2006 study by two Harvard economists, rotating membership on the council is potentially lucrative. Ilyana Kuziemko and Eric Werker found that “a country’s U.S. aid increases by 59 percent and its U.N. aid by 8 percent when it rotates onto the council.”

Membership also allows a country a bully pulpit to argue in favor of itself and, for Lebanon, would be “important for establishing strong ties and relations with many countries, especially the permanent members” – Britain, China, France, Russia and the US – said Hassan Krayem, a professor of political science and public administration at the American University of Beirut

However, being part of the world body responsible for international peace and security would subject the country to numerous pressures from other states, Krayem added.

“There would be pressure on Lebanon to adhere to all Security Council resolutions and international law,” he said, noting, however, that there is no formal mechanism to force the country into full compliance. Lebanon is the subject of numerous resolutions, several of which – including 1559, 1680 and 1701 – call for the disarmament of all militias.

Lebanon would also face pulling and prodding from various states when it comes to voting on new resolutions, said Simon Karam, Lebanon’s former ambassador to the US. In its position on the council, Lebanon would represent both the Asian States regional group and the Arab League.

If asked to vote on a particularly contentious regional issue – such as sanctions against Iran, which appears to be a topic the council will certainly address soon – Lebanon’s ambassador to the UN, Nawwaf Salam, would no doubt be the target of lobbying by many competing voices.

Karam said Salam might end up abstaining from “hot potato” issues related to the Arab-Israeli peace process, Iran, Iraq or Syria. That said, real power on the council lies with the five permanent members who hold veto power and who are frequently divided on contentious issues. As a rotating member, Lebanon’s vote will not be crucial on any given issue.

Perhaps the most intense pressure on Lebanon’s voting behavior, then, could come from within. The country does not speak with one voice on many of the divisive issues it may face, and its diplomatic mission could receive competing orders from the opposition-controlled Foreign Ministry and the majority prime minister.

“It’s a risk,” Karam said of Syria and Iran using their allies in the Foreign Ministry to put undue influence on Salam. He added, however, that competing internal pressures on Salam are unlikely to have negative repercussions for the country.

“I think Lebanese diplomats are used to this from the civil war,” he said. “They’re used to representing a fractured state.”

Geschrieben in Nordmeyer | Drucken | Keine Kommentare »