Hira Bahadur Thapa

The UN General Assembly’s 76th annual session has been characterised by some features not seen before. It is the one and a half year-long COVID-19 pandemic that has changed the holding of the UN jamboree. This year’s regular session that kicked off on September 21 has wrapped up the general debate after a week. Participating in the debate Heads of States or Governments, or foreign ministers of the member states presented their positions on global issues of concern.

Last year it was different because the world faced very difficult public health crisis prompting the world leaders to speak in virtually organised General Assembly session. They allowed just two delegates from each of the member states to attend the UN meetings in-person. In UN’s history of more than seven decades, it was unique way of deliberation among world leaders.
In the current session situation looked better. A good number of delegations, including from Nepal, addressed the GA plenary from New York. Some countries’ leaders decided to participate in the session virtually. UN sources reveal that about 60 per cent heads of delegations participated in-person in the current session. Notable Heads of States who addressed the session virtually are from China, France and Russia. From South Asia, three delegations from India, Bangladesh and the Maldives attended the meeting in-person at the highest level. The Maldives holds the General Assembly presidency for the present session.

Sidelines meetings
Apparently, there is no difference in how the leaders present their opinions, whether virtually or in-person on issues of international concern ranging from political to economic and to security. But lack of in-person meetings deprives leaders of holding their bilateral consultations at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Arranging bilateral meetings at the margins of the UN has been a regular trait of the General Assembly. This offers the leaders a rare opportunity of interacting closely for discussing issues that matter them both bilaterally and internationally.
In this regard, Nepal’s foreign minister utilised the event of conducting bilateral meetings with his Indian counterpart, among others. Against the background of a long gap of in-person meetings between the leaders of Nepal and India, the above meeting carries an added significance for both nations.

The forum for holding bilateral meetings provided by the UN has been the key to reducing tension between countries. France’s frustration over the security partnership involving Australia, the UK and the US to supply Australia nuclear-propelled submarines leading to the cancellation of France-Australia arms contract is a case in point. The bilateral meeting between the foreign ministers of France and the US took place at the sidelines of the UNGA. Although the French uproar was calmed by demarche between their presidents, in-person dialogue between Jean-Yves Le Drian and Antony Blinken at New York definitely played a crucial role.
China, Russia and the US conducted behind-the-scenes diplomatic negotiations to help Myanmar’s sitting ambassador to occupy the UN seat at the GA hall, a symbol of legitimate representation despite the government which appointed the envoy was toppled several months ago. The elected government of Myanmar was ousted in February by the military coup. There is no justification whatsoever for legitimising the new rulers in Myanmar, who has grabbed power by force.

As per the rules of procedure of the UN General Assembly, any country’s credentials application for representing his or her government to speak before the assembly has to be decided by UN Committee on Credentials. The decision of the committee needs approval from the General Assembly. Until approved, no representative has the right to address the UN meetings, let alone addressing the prestigious General Assembly.
Diplomatic battle began with regard to lawful representation of Myanmar after the military rulers applied for credentialing their envoy to replace sitting representative Kyaw Moe Tun. Their credentials application is pending before the UN credentials committee comprising China, Russia and US, among others. Reuters reported that China, Russia and US had reached an understanding under which Kyaw Moe Tun would be permitted to keep his UN seat for the time being as long as he did not speak. Conforming to this understanding, the Myanmar representative withdrew his country’s name from the list of speakers to address plenary of the UN GA just one day before the meeting concluded on September 27.

Similarly, whether or not the current Afghani ambassador Ghulam Isaczai should be permitted to continue his country’s UN seat despite the Taliban government’s application for credentialing its new UN representative attracted attention of UN experts. The big powers not willing to permit Taliban representative to take Afghanistan’s UN seat asked the sitting envoy to forego UN address. The government that nominated him is in fact no more in existence after former president fled the country following Taliban take over in August. Nonetheless, Isaczai has continued occupying the country’s UN seat as part of the informal deal reached between the powerful members of the UN Credentials Committee. Taliban credentials application remains pending before the concerned committee.

Diplomatic acceptance
Seen from the legal standpoint it is the right to speak at the UN representing a member country that acts as a barometer of the government’s international acceptance. This is why who speak on behalf of Myanmar and Afghanistan at the current UN session was curiously watched by the world community.
The two episodes regarding credentials signify how the rivals like China and US and Russia can dismiss differences in pursuit of their parochial national interests and cooperate while maintaining their confrontational attitudes towards each other regarding some global issues. The secret negotiations for denying the Myanmar military rulers’ and Afghani Taliban’s nominees any chance to take the UN seats illustrate the tricky battles at the multilateral forum albeit the positions of three big powers on Myanmar junta vary sharply. Both China and Russia have been main arms suppliers to the Myanmar military.

(Thapa was Foreign Relations Advisor to the Prime Minister from 2009-09. thapahira17@gmail.com)