UN Security Council stint concludes on a high note

AUSTRALIA has won plaudits for its boldness and positive impact.

AUSTRALIANS can take considerable satisfaction from the strong assertion of our international strategic and security interests during our two-year term as a temporary member of the UN Security Council, which ended with the close of 2014.

In a highly significant final act we aligned with the US to defeat a quixotic Palestinian attempt to use the world body to achieve statehood through the back door — a decision that has drawn condemnation from the usual suspects, including the chief Palestinian representative in Canberra.

Comparisons have been made with British abstention and French support in a critical vote that, had it succeeded, would have seen the council used to unilaterally impose one-sided Palestinian terms on Israel for a settlement. These included, bizarrely, recognition of Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital rather than the shared capital of two states as part of a two-state solution. To its credit, the Abbott government, particularly Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, stood its ground and refused to be railroaded, with our UN ambassador Gary Quinlan warning a solution in the Middle East would be found only in negotiations between Palestinians and Israel, not on the basis of an imposed solution put forward by one party alone.

Australia’s position would probably have been different had Labor’s Bob Carr, with his perplexing Palestinian bias, still been foreign minister. But the success of Ms Bishop on the council has been to pursue Australia’s national interests rather than succumb to pressure groups in western Sydney seats, and for that she has won public accolades, with Britain’s UN ambassador, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, saying that in his five years at the UN no temporary council member has had a greater impact than Australia.

On major global crises Ms Bishop, assisted by Mr Quinlan, has put us in the forefront of global diplomacy and decision-making, leading the response to the MH17 atrocity and putting Russian President Vladimir Putin firmly in the frame over it; getting the UN to take unprecedented action by adopting a resolution to override the sovereignty of a member state so humanitarian aid can be delivered to Syria; and focusing global attention on North Korea’s abysmal human rights record. Sir Mark said: “Australia has been bold, I wouldn’t say risky, but I think they’ve certainly been brave for standing up for what they believe and being prepared to say it straight.” UN expert Richard Gowan, of New York University, has argued “most temporary members of the Security Council have very little impact ... Australia has surprised and impressed other diplomats by being more proactive and much more effective in their two years on the council than most other states have managed.”

There is, of course, a paradox in the Abbott government’s success on the council given the way, in opposition, it was so critical about Kevin Rudd’s bid and the “waste of money” outrage it articulated when it emerged our effort to win the seat would cost $25 million. Events, however, have shown the value of the council seat for a government keen to defend its interests and those of its citizens. The force Ms Bishop brought to global outrage over MH17, where 38 Australians and Australian residents were killed, is a case in point. Now that we are back to being just another of the UN’s 193 members, we should continue to act decisively.

On major, ongoing issues, such as Middle East peace, we must continue to show the same strength that led to Australia voting against the Palestinian resolution defeated on New Year’s Eve. We must not allow ourselves to be beguiled by the kind of lobbying that led David Cameron’s Conservative government in Britain to abstain and France to vote for a resolution that can only seriously impair peace prospects.

With polls showing his popularity plummeting drastically, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is lashing out, trying anything that may win him support. His tactic now in signing up for membership of the International Criminal Court is of that genre. By failing to accept the fundamental reality that the only way to achieve a sustainable, two-state solution is through direct negotiations with Israel, not through the UN, he is doing severe damage to the Palestinian cause — and stalling the peace process with grave consequences for all Palestinians.