1 Ambassador Wittig, Germany has now been a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for one year. What is your personal “half-time” assessment?
Our election to the Security Council was an expression of the great trust in Germany’s strength and reliability: we are regarded here as one of the leading industrial nations and as one of Europe’s most important voices. Admittedly, the election was also accompanied by great expectations – especially since we contribute steadily and substantially to the work of the United Nations. The past year of 2011 has certainly shown us the significance of the United Nations – not just through Germany’s Security Council membership: Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and now Yemen, Iran and Syria. These conflicts are all serious and, for Germany too, they are very important conflicts to which the international community must find answers. The place to negotiate these – however antiquated this may sound –“questions of war and peace” is here in New York. Particularly the major changes in the Arab world have shown how crucial the political role of the Security Council is. Our objective was to work together and help shape solutions to all these conflicts. And we were able to meet this objective, thanks to a foreign service that indeed has a global presence – especially in the crisis regions – but also thanks in particular to a highly competent team of outstanding diplomats at the Permanent Mission in New York.
2 In 2011 the Security Council focused strongly on the radical changes in North Africa and in the Arab world. Nobody could have anticipated this beforehand. What policy did Germany pursue towards these new crises?
It’s true that developments in the Arab world have played a very central role over the past year. The events were surprising and have raised new, fundamental questions. Who would have thought that the main focus would be on North Africa and the Middle East during the first half of our membership? In this respect the Security Council was, and is, confronting entirely new challenges – and it has not always fulfilled our expectations. In the case of Syria, for instance, a double veto prevented the Security Council from sending the necessary, strong message to the leadership in Damascus. In New York, Germany pursued a proactive, forward-looking foreign policy. Let me give you an example: in close coordination with our French and our
British partners, we undertook early steps to persuade the Security Council to address the crisis in Yemen. This indeed met with some resistance. But it was successful in the end and led to the unanimous acceptance of a resolution and a fixed place on the Council’s agenda. Admittedly, this still hasn’t solved the crisis. But it did lead to a situation in which the conflicting parties in Yemen finally found their way to a political transition settlement. And that is an initial success to which we also made a substantial contribution.
3 You just mentioned the failed Syria resolution. Does the Security Council have to accept being described as “toothless” because of decisions like these?
We would have preferred sending a strong and united signal from the Security Council to the regime in Damascus. Unfortunately, because of the double veto of Russia and China the Council has not yet been able to do that. One must understand that the Security Council can only be as strong as its members allow it to be. It is therefore all the more important for us to exert influence and promote our positions and interests within this body. After all, one thing is clear: when the Security Council acts as one it can have very sharp teeth indeed – as, for example, in the case of Ivory Coast or Iran. Nevertheless, it is not the case that there has been no political pressure on Assad: together with partners from the region we were able to obtain a very clear condemnation of the human rights situation in Syria in the General Assembly of the United Nations – with unprecedented support from the assembled community of nations. That also shows Assad how isolated he is internationally.
4 German diplomacy is particularly involved in improving the protection of children in armed conflicts. What have you managed to achieve so far in this area on the Security Council?
As chair of the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict we are able to push forward a key area of our foreign policy, namely human rights policy. In our day-to-day work we are concerned with how we can improve the concrete situation of children in specific crises and conflicts. That’s because children are often among the first victims of war and violence – and they are entirely at the mercy of these circumstances, vulnerable and defenceless. In this respect, we work very closely with the Secretary General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, and with the relevant human rights organizations. As a result, in July 2011, we successfully negotiated a resolution, which was then adopted, for further improvements in the protection of children in armed conflicts. Since then, targeted attacks on schools and hospitals have been banned under international law and the perpetrators will be brought to justice and face punishment. That’s one result from which we expect concrete deterrent effects on the ground – and are now actually achieving in some conflict areas.
5 Climate protection isn’t exactly seen as a classic Security Council domain. Nevertheless, Germany is pressing for the Security Council to concern itself with this issue. What are the reasons for that and how successful has Germany been?
The effects of climate change are already leading to food crises and a scarcity of drinking water in Pacific Island states and other places. Some South Pacific states have already experienced distribution conflicts and forced evictions as a result of climate change. Our position is that conflicts surrounding the growing scarcity of land and resources will increase, and this in turn will lead to increasing numbers of evictions and refugees. Whole countries are in danger of disappearing from the map. A growing threat to world peace is clearly evident, and we think the Security Council needs to act in the interests of crisis prevention. We need a comprehensive concept of security policy, because if we rely solely on the classic instruments, we will not be able to confront today’s global issues and challenges satisfactorily. We presented the Security Council’s presidential statement concerning the impact of climate change on international peace and security, and it was passed in July 2011. This promoted the debate significantly and firmly anchored the issue in the United Nations. After some very difficult negotiations, the statement was unanimously accepted. In the statement the Council established for the first time that climate change presents a potential threat to international peace and security. This acknowledgement has far-reaching significance: in future, the Secretary General will have to include the aspect of climate change in all his reports, which are of particular importance, especially for crisis areas. This is a remarkable milestone and also a success for German diplomacy.
6 Within the Security Council, Germany took over the role of lead coordinator for the Afghanistan dossier at the beginning of 2011. What does this entail in concrete terms?
It’s important to know that the responsibility for the Security Council’s regional dossiers lies firmly in the hands of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The only exception is the Afghanistan dossier which was entrusted to us. That’s a sign of esteem for the German engagement in and for Afghanistan. Our task is to coordinate all of the Security Council’s activities concerning Afghanistan, be it support for the latest conference in December 2011 in Bonn, the extension of the mandates for the United Nations mission or the International Security Assistance Force. At the same time Germany became chair of the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee, where we were able to make several advances: we succeeded in dividing the committee into two sections, one for the Taliban and one for Al-Qaida. That was an important and highly sensitive diplomatic undertaking with regard to combating international terrorism and considering Afghanistan’s domestic policy. Thanks to this new differentiation we can now flank the internal political process in Afghanistan more effectively.
7 Germany sees itself as a motor for reform in the United Nations. Can you see any notable progress in the discussion about a composition of the Security Council that reflects today’s geopolitical realities?
You know that in our view the composition of the Security Council reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945, not those of the present day. Africa, Latin America and Asia are just as underrepresented as two of the three biggest contributors, namely Japan and Germany. We think that the political weighting in the Security Council should be adjusted to reflect today’s world. So, our call for a Security Council reform is more than the wish for a permanent seat for Germany. However, it has to be pointed out that a reform of the Security Council will not be negotiated within the Council but within the General Assembly where it will also be eventually decided. And that is where we are persistently promoting the discussion together with our partners in the so-called G4 group of nations. But it’s a very arduous task. Through our current work in the Security Council we want to show that altogether we can greatly enhance the Council’s achievements and its membership – and that our membership “makes a difference”. And this will most likely be of benefit in the reform discussion.
