Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Spring Fund Drive: Keep CounterPunch Afloat
CounterPunch is a lifeboat of sanity in today’s turbulent political seas. Please make a tax-deductible donation and help us continue to fight Trump and his enablers on both sides of the aisle. Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Australia and the Security Council

“Australia, for the most part, is invisible in international politics and rarely rates a mention in international media”

M. Connors, New Global Politics of the Asia Pacific, 60.

Why do countries bother?  In a sense, a position as a temporary member on the UN Security Council is merely an award to the best and smoothest briber – such a country can claim some ceremonial status, not more.  The gang of five retain their vice like grip on proceedings, allowing some faux respectability to be conferred on the other ten members who do the decent thing and innocuously rotate.  Some commentators have been frank enough to identify the farce and call it as it is.

For Remy Davison, Jean Monnet Chair in Politics and Economics at Monash University, Australia’s bid to join the party is “much ado about nothing”.  Till, of course, you start looking at the price tag – “the Mandarins in Canberra (bad pun intended) are spending $55 million (a far cry from the original $15 million estimate) of the over-burdened Australian taxpayers’ money on this vainglorious project” (The Conversation, Sep 7).  All of this, as the Australian foreign ministry, known by its more crude acronym DFAT, has been shedding jobs and implementing budget cuts.  This might be considered appalling, till one realises that Australia’s number of missions is a paltry 100 and shrinking.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been boosted for this mad bid by what she claims is support from Pacific Island states and states in the Caribbean.  She is attempting, in clumsy fashion, to push Australia’s case in New York.  She is persistently overstating Australia’s “unique” claims, sounding repeatedly like a Toyota advertisement on a loop.  “Whether you look at the Pacific, whether you look at Asia, we believe Australia is placed to bring a perspective to the UN Security Council that our competitors could not” (The Australian, Sep 24).

In one way, the megalomaniac former Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister’s legacy does live on in the leader that knifed him.  In 2008, Kevin Rudd endeavoured to distract himself, and his country, from more pressing needs, and place Australia on the campaign trail for a UN Security Council seat.  He was already behind the competition – Luxembourg and Finland had commenced their campaigns in 2001 and 2002 respectively.

The explanation for undertaking this task is shielded by an assortment of justifications – Australia is a punchy, above average middle power with weight on the scales of international politics.  (This is fantasy, but let’s not let that muddy the narrative.)  It participated in the Cambodian peace process (let’s ignore the troubles that came along with that) and has been a keen ‘international citizen’.

Former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans has tried to concoct some idea of a national interest in being a temporary UNSC member.  “There is not just sentiment involved here, but hard-headed calculation.”  Australia can be seen to be an “active player” in cooperative solutions dealing with “mass atrocity crimes, terrorism, trafficking in drugs, arms and people and cross-border aggression”.  He calls this, somewhat obliquely, a “general reputational benefit” that the Scandinavians well understand.  Evans might be right about a Scandinavian angle, but that is where the comparison falls flat.

Naturally, the report card for membership ignores the fact that Australia cantered along with Washington in the ill-fated war in Iraq and remains a heavy contributor to the Afghan war effort, despite not being in NATO.  That is the lot of being America’s janissaries and some things are best kept quiet.  The best Australia can do is extol their skills at bribing countries in the General Assembly.

Two other contenders – Luxembourg and Finland – also chalk up points in the bribery stakes – their international aid budgets are generous, and, just in case the UN voters are going to be kind, they might want an innocuous power like Luxembourg on the committee.  Why bother going for a heavy gun when you can go for an air rifle?  Australia, interestingly enough, is too innocuous to bother anybody, but significant enough to look like an American attachment, dangling on Uncle Sam’s coattails.

Australia might be invisible, but it’s an invisibility that vanishes at certain moments when the voting patterns are examined.  This act of sham bribery is unlikely to succeed, but should it transpire that a seat is won, Canberra’s role will be barely noticeable.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
May 18, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
The Donald, Vlad, and Bibi
Robert Fisk
How Long Will We Pretend Palestinians Aren’t People?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Wild at Heart: Keeping Up With Margie Kidder
Roger Harris
Venezuela on the Eve of Presidential Elections: The US Empire Isn’t Sitting by Idly
Michael Slager
Criminalizing Victims: the Fate of Honduran Refugees 
John Laforge
Don’t Call It an Explosion: Gaseous Ignition Events with Radioactive Waste
Carlo Filice
The First “Fake News” Story (or, What the Serpent Would Have Said)
Dave Lindorff
Israel Crosses a Line as IDF Snipers Murder Unarmed Protesters in the Ghetto of Gaza
Gary Leupp
The McCain Cult
Robert Fantina
What’s Wrong With the United States?
Jill Richardson
The Lesson I Learned Growing Up Jewish
David Orenstein
A Call to Secular Humanist Resistance
W. T. Whitney
The U.S. Role in Removing a Revolutionary and in Restoring War to Colombia
Rev. William Alberts
The Danger of Praying Truth to Power
Alan Macleod
A Primer on the Venezuelan Elections
John W. Whitehead
The Age of Petty Tyrannies
Franklin Lamb
Have Recent Events Sounded the Death Knell for Iran’s Regional Project?
Brian Saady
How the “Cocaine Mitch” Saga Deflected the Spotlight on Corruption
David Swanson
Tim Kaine’s War Scam Hits a Speed Bump
Norah Vawter
Pipeline Outrage is a Human Issue, Not a Political Issue
Mel Gurtov
Who’s to Blame If the US-North Korea Summit Isn’t Held?
Patrick Bobilin
When Outrage is Capital
Jessicah Pierre
The Moral Revolution America Needs
Binoy Kampmark
Big Dead Place: Remembering Antarctica
John Carroll Md
What Does It Mean to be a Physician Advocate in Haiti?
George Ochenski
Saving Sage Grouse: Another Collaborative Failure
Sam Husseini
To the US Government, Israel is, Again, Totally Off The Hook
Brian Wakamo
Sick of Shady Banks? Get a Loan from the Post Office!
Colin Todhunter
Dangerous Liaison: Industrial Agriculture and the Reductionist Mindset
Ralph Nader
Trump: Making America Dread Again
George Capaccio
Bloody Monday, Every Day of the Week
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Swing Status, Be Gone
Samantha Krop
Questioning Our Declaration on Human Rights
Morna McDermott
Classrooms, Not Computers: Stop Educating for Profit
Patrick Walker
Today’s Poor People’s Campaign: Too Important Not to Criticize
Julia Stein
Wrestling With Zionism
Clark T. Scott
The Exceptional President
Barry Barnett
The Family of Nations Needs to Stand Up to the US  
Robert Koehler
Two Prongs of a Pitchfork
Bruce Raynor
In an Age of Fake News, Journalists Should be Activists for Truth
Max Parry
The U.S. Won’t Say ‘Genocide’ But Cares About Armenian Democracy?
William Gudal
The History of Israel on One Page
Robert Jensen
Neither cis nor TERF
Louis Proyect
Faith or Action in a World Hurtling Toward Oblivion?
David Yearsley
The Ubiquitous Mr. Desplat
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail