Question and answer with Indonesian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Marty Natalegawa, on the country’s presidency of the UN Security Council (UNSC) in November 2007.

(23 October 2007)

 

What do you have as the agenda for November?

A great deal of the issues has been decided by its very nature in terms of discussion. If you look at the tentative agenda, we see a number of issues that will be addressed by the council. For example, the council is going to review the situation in Ethiopia, there’s a UN mission there, we also will be looking at the situation in Somalia, in Darfur, Sierra Leone, to mention a few. Those are a number of issues or areas the Council plans to examine. But also there are other possible issues, so-called footnoted. These are anticipated, but not yet formally included in the likely calendar. You would be familiar with the developments in Myanmar, developments in non-proliferation (Iran), which may be brought to the Council. So you cannot say for certain the kind of issues to be discussed, but certainly there will be enough on our plate to keep us busy for the month.

Apart from those types of conflict situation issues, we will be keen to see several other thematic issues. Indonesia will be proposing a discussion on the sixth of November on the role of regional organizations in the promotion of international peace and security. Also we foresee a meeting with the president of the International Court of Justice, also a thematic debate on protection of civilians in armed conflicts, and also a possibility in having an open debate on the situation in the Middle East.

How beneficial is this presidency for Indonesia?

First I think it’s best to always manage expectations. We must put things in context in the sense that here is a chance for us after about ten years ago (in 1996 when it last held presidency) to show the changes that have taken place in Indonesia.

But at the same time we must be realistic that the work of the president of the Council is to serve and facilitate all the Council members, and work by consensus, and therefore it’s the Council that will decide how to proceed. We will be very keen to manage expectations, and in that connection, we are not out to do the possible but simply do what’s practical and oable within that month. Of course for that month – and beyond since we are in the Council —we constantly have the opportunity to present our case.

When Indonesia assumes the Council’s presidency, in a way we have two heads. One is the national head as Indonesia, and one as the president. Sometimes, it may mean we have to accentuate and emphasize the presidency role when we have to speak on behalf of all.

As you know, whenever a president speaks on behalf of the council members, every little word, coma, and full stop must be agreed to beforehand. You can only have a greater capacity in an open manner if you take off the presidency head and assume the national head, as long as you distinguish clearly, delineate between the occasions.

I think the trick for us as a delegation here at the UN is to be sure there’s not much gap between the national perspective and the presidency one, and this will be a key challenge for us on how to be able to ensure the wish and position of the council is also one that we are comfortable with as well.

Does that mean there will be a lot of compromising in our position?

Well, there will be nuances. It doesn’t mean as the president of the Council, we cannot speak in our national capacity. It’s just a matter of switching on and off the positions. We must be mindful that we have a responsibility that we are not simply promoting our national perspective but also should make sure that the Council works in a smooth manner and in a collegiate manner with good outcomes.

Would you elaborate on the discussion on improving the role of regional groups?

Under chapter 8 of the UN Charter, there is a recognition and provision for the role of regional organizations to the maintenance of international peace and security. Now we wish to reflect on that, to ask ourselves the question whether we have actually optimized the capacity in the region and sub regions to do that. We suspect that we could do better.

The way we see things is there are at least two areas where we can have a better contribution. One is a simple regional organization putting their house in order. So if you have a situation where regions and sub regions have a very mature, advanced organization, then they don’t add to the burden of the international security or the UN.

Indonesia, for example, has been a key in promoting the development of an ASEAN community. Basically we’re saying let’s build our regional capacity, make sure we can deal with our own regional problems and therefore we can be less of a burden to anyone else.

The other way is a more direct linkage between these organizations and the UN, particularly the SC. We’re asking ourselves is the SC making the best use of the capacity that exists in the regions. For example, when an issue comes before the SC related to one particular region, is the SC tapping the existing knowledge and expertise that’s prevalent in that region? We suspect we can do more.

There are certain situations where there’s already an advanced and mature cooperation and synergy between the SC and the regional organizations concerned, for instance the African Union in the case of Darfur. But we feel this kind of practice is done is a relatively ad hoc manner.

Not only in terms of intensity and frequency of synergy, but also the phases. We get the impression that the SC tends to knock on the door of these organizations at the tail end of the process. When you need a peacekeeping force to be deployed, you turn to these groups asking for contribution of troops. We feel that the capacity of regional organizations should be optimized even at the very early stage of a conflict, from prevention to post conflict building.

How do you expect to deal with the stark power play among the five permanent members?

As the president, one of the criteria to judge success would be the ability to build bridge, to achieve consensus and to have positive outcomes in the SC resolutions. I think this is where we must apply a lot of energy and effort.

Here, it shouldn’t be too alien an approach because our diplomacy has always been emphasized as a bridge builder. We’ve learned that Indonesia doesn’t accentuate divisions, but brings countries together. That’s why our presidency suits our profile rather well. But to be able to exercise that kind of function, you have to adopt a rather calibrated and well-nuanced position.

I know some parties (at home) may want to evaluate the success of foreign diplomacy by the noise level created, a megaphone diplomacy type of thing. But if in the final analysis it leads to disruptions and divisions, no one is better served, it’s best for us to proceed with consensus building.

A voice of the SC may not be one that everyone is happy with, but that’s the nature of compromising.

One of the criticisms against the SC is it does nothing but draft resolutions without actually getting things going.

There is a concern about that to the level it devalues the SC, the expectation. We have been very keen to ensure that the Council, when addressing an issue, has full appreciation of the way it handles the issue.

It’s not about the number, but the quality, of the decision. It’s no use to have a Council that issues two or three statements each day that are not being heeded to. We have devaluation in the SC. Less can be more in many instances.

The temptation is always, especially when holding the presidency, having so many whatever resolutions or statements, showing we’re a busy body doing this and that, but we must exercise restraint that it’s not
about the number. It’s about the quality. And sometimes, it may mean less council intervention or pronouncement. It’s a very pertinent issue because we see a risk of cynicism or skepticism about what the council is about if the decision isn’t made more practical.

And we need consistency. There are developments throughout the world. We have one development somewhere, and the council expresses a view in a certain way. Then you have a similar one elsewhere, the council chooses not to speak or do in a different tone. Of course people will seek answers on this.

What is Indonesia’s view of a veto-wielding power within the SC?

We’ve always believed it may seem to be out of context and needs to be reviewed in the reality of today’s international relations. After all, one speaks of democracy within countries with one man one vote, talks about sovereign quality of nations; it seems that that principle doesn’t quite match with the reality of the wielding of veto.

But this is the fact of life; we must work within that reality so we are not going to make excessive complaints. Let’s make sure that, despite the reality, we can be as effective as possible. We must recognize that the influence to make things happen doesn’t simply depend on whether a country wields its veto power, but also the power of its argument.

Oftentimes, the permanent Council members meet outside the UN having
informal meetings. What’s your view and do you plan on joining them?

That is one of the challenges faced by countries wishing to have greater transparency and sense of common ownership in the council’s work. We do realize that one of the consequences of having a number of issues discussed intensively is we have the phenomenon of informal “informal” meetings where like-minded countries sit together on a common issue and later bring it to the attention of the council.

I don’t think we should necessarily oppose to that practice, which is
very common, as long as the principle of open-endedness is preserved. But the challenge is that we must be kept informed and not be left behind because we don’t want to see a situation where an issue is brought to the council as a whole only to be rubberstamped. If we’re not involved in the initial process, we haven’t given our view.

Do you think the tabled issues for November have any relevance to Indonesia?

There will be quite a few that will get national attention. The issue of the Middle East, we are very keen to ensure that during our presidency it is properly addressed. The issue has been with us for decades, since the inception of the UN. It will be too much to expect it will be resolved now, but at least we want to see during November that solutions will be empowered.

On Lebanon, we have peacekeeping troops there with UNIFIL so we can speak with a great deal of moral and practical authority. On Darfur, we have a principle position in wanting to see assistance by the international community to the situation there while working with the government of Sudan.