Illustration / Guy Body
When Helen Clark announced New Zealand's bid in 2004, for a Security Council seat in 2015 and 2016, it seemed a ridiculously long lead time.
It was, however, designed to maximise chances of success, to give other countries as much notice as possible in order to avoid a vote.
That's how the vacancies in three other groups were filled yesterday: Angola, Malaysia and Venezuela.
And it is how the two vacancies for the Western European and Others Group may have been filled had New Zealand and Spain gone uncontested by Turkey.
It was looking pretty good for New Zealand.
Then no sooner had Turkey completed its most recent two-year term in 2010 than it put up its hand for another turn.
It seemed a bit of a cheek to be trying again so soon, but with Turkey's increasing importance in global affairs and strategic importance to Europe and the Middle East, it had no compunction about having another go.
Its selling point was its importance but in the end that was not enough. Its lack of action in recent weeks to prevent Kobani on the Syria-Turkish border falling to Isis jihadists assuredly did not advance its chances.
Spain's selling point was essentially that it was its turn again, having last been on the council 10 years ago. With the natural support of Europe and Latin America it may not have deemed it as crucial to have a stronger selling point than "it's our turn". Certainly UN watchers were variously predicting shoo-ins by Spain and Turkey but none by New Zealand, which eventually won on the first ballot, leaving the big players to contest second and third rounds.
It was just as well.
By the eve of the vote, New Zealand's New York team had calculated that it needed to win on the first ballot or it would probably miss out altogether.
At 145 votes, it was at the upper limit of what New Zealand thought it would get. It seems the unprecedented happened at the UN and countries that had pledged their support in private, carried through. Normally a 20 per cent allowance is made for defections.
As one observer put it yesterday, New Zealand has no natural enemies.
The essence of New Zealand's win, besides taking no vote for granted, was in employing a classic campaign technique: turning a big disadvantage to the primary advantage.
The concern that New Zealand would be too small to matter against heavy hitters Turkey and Spain was turned into "New Zealand matters because it is small".
It cultivated new relationships with smaller countries over the globe, particularly the Caribbean, and with Africa whose issues along with the Middle East dominate about 80 per cent of the Security Council agenda.
It told anyone who would listen it would be the independent voice of the small countries on a Security Council that is growing increasingly distant from ordinary members of the United Nations. It tapped a deep vein of resentment at the UN at the frequent dysfunction of the Security Council principally, not just over the veto of the permanent five members (the P5) -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- but conducting negotiations in private and preventing the council from meeting on particular issues.
The tough talk has not escaped the notice of close UN watchers. New York-based NGO the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect issued fact sheets yesterday on each of the five new members including notable quotes on the P5's veto.
New Zealand's quotes, by Prime Minister John Key and Foreign Minister Murray McCully, were way more critical than any others. New Zealand's campaign was won with a clear and focused message. The challenge now is living up to the expectations it has set.
It will be a delicate balancing act at times to promote the interests of smaller countries without upsetting large Security Council members to such an extent that it would be damaging for New Zealand. But its default position will have to be independent. An issue -- of more importance domestically than internationally -- is whether belonging to a coalition contributing to the fight against Isis compromises New Zealand's independence. For two weeks now, John Key has talked down the prospect of the SAS playing an active role in Iraq and prospective membership of the Security Council will be another factor to consider when the final decision is made.
New Zealand will also have to manage its relationship with close friends China and the United States at close quarters on the Security Council, particularly over issues such as Syria where China and Russia blocked proper debate, upsetting the Western members of the P5.
That deadlock was eventually loosened by elected members, Australia, Jordan and Luxembourg, which cleared the way for humanitarian aid to get into Syria.
It is difficult to imagine that Syria, Iraq and Isis will not still be issues on the Security Council agenda when New Zealand joins it on January 1. Ebola too may be presenting new challenges.
For only the second time in its history, the Security Council has declared a health issue, Ebola in West Africa, to be a threat to international peace and security, and therefore under its purview.
Whatever crises arise, it will be a huge thrill to be at the centre of centre stage. For the Government's success yesterday, it can thank Helen Clark for starting it.
And who knows, if New Zealand performs well, it might enhance her own chances of becoming the next Secretary-General of the United Nations in 2017.