UN Security Council: One year to go

New Zealand's Foreign Minister Murray McCully has been outspoken on the Security Council, but to little effect.

Are New Zealand's actions on the Security Council measuring up to its highly successful campaign message, which resonated amongst UN member states? New Zealand pitched itself as a trusted and independent advocate for non-permanent member states seeking a voice at the Security Council, with a proven track record of a human rights-based approach and a commitment to negotiation, dialogue and multilateralism.

At first glance, New Zealand has effectively translated its campaign message into a clear and consistent strategy on the Security Council. But as UN member states pledged increased troop personnel and assets at the Leaders' Peacekeeping Summit hosted by President Barrack Obama in New York in September, we need to ask the question whether clear and consistent statements are enough? Foreign Minister Murray McCully's "stinging criticisms" of the Security Council's failure to act over Syria make good headlines back home but when are we going to see New Zealand translate its Security Council doctrine into practical action? What new ideas has New Zealand brought to the table?

According to the latest UN rankings (August 2015) on member state contributions, New Zealand ranks 100th with a contribution of 11 personnel deployed to either the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) or the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in Jerusalem. To put New Zealand's contribution in perspective, we equal with the Republic of Moldova and below Jamaica with 13 personnel.

The question of whether New Zealand should increase its peacekeeping contribution is not new. It re-emerged during New Zealand's most recent campaign for the Security Council seat and as the electronic leaderboard at the Leaders' Peacekeeping Summit ticked over with pledges from UN member states promising increased contributions of troops, police, and assets, it has emerged again.

There are strong arguments for and against increasing personnel contributions but it isn't all about the numbers and nor is it as simplistic as "having a dog in the fight" now that we have a seat on the Security Council. New Zealand does have a stake in international security but it remains worthwhile to ask if New Zealand is contributing personnel in the most effective ways to peace operations. What value does inserting military observers into a few select missions have to the mission itself, to the UN more broadly, and, of course, to New Zealand? Does New Zealand, in fact, have a clear strategy for contributing personnel to UN peacekeeping operations?

Measuring New Zealand's record on the Security Council means evaluating its contributions in terms of the sustainability of its impact. That means gauging how much influence a small state like New Zealand can have over the international security issues dominating the Security Council in 2015-2016. Arguably, it is too early to do so now but there have been some interim analyses.

In June, Amnesty International released a report card on New Zealand's performance on the Security Council and gave New Zealand an A- for its commitment to making the UN Security Council more effective. The rest of New Zealand's report card went downhill from there with a B- for working to strengthen the human rights components of UN peace operations; a C+ for championing human rights and working to address Syria's humanitarian crisis; and a C for championing women's rights and their role in peace-making.

Amnesty was especially critical of New Zealand's failure to organise the bi-annual Security Council debate on protecting civilians in conflict during its presidency. A month later, a joint NGO letter was submitted to New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully on the eve of the open debate on peace and security challenges to Small Island Developing States (SIDS) hosted by New Zealand in the Security Council in July. It called for greater attention to women, peace and security issues in the Pacific.

Meanwhile, back in the Pacific, climate change is the critical security issue in the neighbourhood. At the August Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Port Moresby, New Zealand - and Australia - proactively worked against Pacific Island member states' efforts to achieve a climate policy accord before the COP21 talks in Paris. Small island states wanted emission reductions that would keep global temperatures within 1.5 degrees over pre-industrial levels. These are the same Pacific Island nations that New Zealand lobbied for support for its seat on the Security Council. Is this really the kind of legacy New Zealand wants to leave?