Lisa Owen interviews UN analyst and author Jeffrey Laurenti
____________________________

The Nation on TV3, 9.30am Saturdays and 10am Sundays.

Check us out online, on Facebook or on Twitter. Tell us what you think at thenation@mediaworks.co.nz or text 3330.

The Nation is proudly brought to you by New Zealand on Air’s Platinum Fund.

____________________________

Lisa Owen: Welcome back. If you like the Game of Thrones, you'll love a bid for the United Nations Security Council. It's got high-stakes diplomacy, promises made and broken and intense lobbying for power. New Zealand is part of this year's contest for two non-permanent seats; up against Turkey and Spain and the Western Europe and Others block. The vote takes place on Friday. Now, to talk about our chances, I spoke to earlier to Jeffrey Laurenti, who has served in numerous senior United Nations roles and more recently as a senior fellow at the non-partisan Century Foundation. I began by asking whether countries just vote for their mates.
Jeffrey Laurenti: Well, in General Assembly elections, the Spaniards always have an advantage over the rest of the European group because they have a natural constituency in the block of 20-some Latin American countries. And the European Union holds together pretty tightly for any candidates from within its membership. So between those two, the Spaniards are already up to something like 50 votes. The real interesting part of the race this year is Turkey. And where Turkey is able to broaden its base or where it is finding itself now... on the point of being punished for Turkish government policies. Now, four years ago, the last major contested race for the Western seats on the Security Council, the candidate was subjected to an unprecedented defeat in its UN history. Virtually the entire Muslim world voted for Portugal against Canada because the conservative government of Stephen Harper had become militantly pro-Likud, militantly pro-Israeli, and that touched off very serious reservations.
If we look at Turkey in a bit more detail, as you say, it's a large Muslim country, but it is a bit of a success story in its part of the world, however, it does war at its doorstep. Does that play in its favour or against it?
It is not the war at its doorstep in itself that is the issue for the Turks, it is the Turks own involvement in fomenting that war or the perception they have, and just over the past week or two, President Erdogan's decision to stonewall and try and force President Obama in the United States to change the focus of attacks in Syria from the Islamic state to the Assad government. And I think that there is a good sense among Europeans that this is not the kind of representative that they want for the West European and Others group. So this provides an opening. The other problem for the Turks is that they were just on the Security Council six years ago, so the Kiwis, as it were, the New Zealand candidacy, which would normally appear to be a long shot from the other side of the world for the Western group, looks as if it has some traction only because of the energy... negative energy surrounding Turkey.
But what are the stumbling blocks...? When you talk about New Zealand, what are the stumbling blocks for us?
The stumbling blocks are that New Zealand does not have automatic blocks that will flow to it with dozens and dozens of votes. So it starts with a base of two, perhaps. Perhaps the states in the South Pacific. You can add them up and get to a dozen. But it doesn't start with a large base of its own. But it does have, I suspect, a good deal more traction with the Latin Americans as well as with the actual members of the Western group than today the Turks would. The game is really in Africa.
Where we are expecting swing voters, if you like?
The swing voters would presumably be in much of Asia, which I think for east Asia would see New Zealand, if you have to have a Westerner, as more sympatico, let's say, than Turkey, and in Africa, where the Turks really haven't done much south of the Sahara, and the New Zealanders have something of... at least a positive reputation, both in terms of aid and in terms of their positions on issues. Remember, the last time that New Zealand had a seat some 20 years ago, its then permanent representative in New York, Colin Keating, had been president of the Security Council trying to get action on Rwanda when the Clinton Administration in Washington was pretending there was nothing really wrong.

Attention:

© Scoop Media