Preventive Diplomacy: Lessons Learned from the Security Council During Mexico's Presidency
By Sylvia Paola Mendoza Elguea
During November 2021, Mexico held the UN Security Council presidency. In 76 years, Mexico has been a member of the Council only five times, counting the current two-year presence (2021-2022). One of the priorities presented when it became a member, starting in January 2021, was the use of preventive diplomacy, to move the Council further away from its default of simply managing conflicts. In that regard, Mexico organized three signature open debates. The first one, held on November 9, was chaired by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The second debate, held on November 16, versed about how the main organs of the United Nations, namely the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the International Court of Justice, could work in a more coordinated fashion to address preventive diplomacy more effectively. Finally, the third open debate held on November 22, addressed the negative impact of the proliferation of small arms and weapons.
All three debates resulted in documents adopted by the Council. The first two adopted Presidential Statements that had to be agreed upon by all 15 members of the Security Council, while in the case of the third event, a resolution was adopted a few weeks later.
Preventive diplomacy refers to the capacity to prevent disputes from arising and to prevent existing conflicts to escalate. It entails actions, such as mediation, promoting dialogue, compromise, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Furthermore, all main organs of the United Nations work together to ensure the mandates of its Charter are met, namely, to take “collective measures or the prevention and removal of threats to peace”. In the view of most Member States, this also entails addressing root causes of conflict or long-term structural solutions, such as poverty eradication, promotion of sustainable development, human rights and the rule of law, the control of small arms, elections and building democratic institutions. These root causes of conflict are precisely the link between non-traditional security threats and preventive diplomacy.
Addressing preventive diplomacy and issues that are sometimes referred to as “non-traditional security concerns” has historically been challenging for the Security Council due to the resistance from Permanent Members such as Russia and China. Even some notable elected Members, such as India, have similarly resisted. These issues generally span sustainable development, human rights, global health, and climate change. The conventional argument is that the Security Council is a specialized body that does not include all countries and cannot impose its agreements on all members of the United Nations. Moreover, there are other bodies that can and should address those issues, such as the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), or the World Health Organization.
Preventive diplomacy is also a point of contention between the members of the Security Council. While there is general agreement that inequality and poverty can be a cause of conflict, there is also a claim of using double standards driven by national interests and the need to adhere to international law and respect for non-interference and state sovereignty when exercising preventive measures.
Exclusion and inequality as root causes of conflict
The debate chaired by the President of Mexico on November 9 made a clear statement that inequality and exclusion are issues that should be dealt with by the Security Council as root causes of conflict that can exacerbate existing conflicts or create new ones. It also made clear that the Security Council, as the main body in charge of maintaining international peace and security, needs to be more proactive rather than remain reactive. As the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations said, the Security Council must avoid “applying a Band-Aid to a gaping wound”. This band-aid metaphor illustrates opposing state views. While the US made clear that if the Security Council does not address these root causes of conflict, it is only managing conflicts, Russia, on the other hand, argued that the social and economic challenges in conflict and post-conflict affected areas are so arduous that the Security Council doesn’t possess the tools to address them, and measures taken by it can only serve as “applying a band-aid”.
While it can be said that each side of the argument has a point, the ability for the Council to deliberate on non-traditional security threats, particularly considering contemporary threats such as pandemics and climate change, is of utmost importance for effective action of the Security Council to maintain international peace and security. The concept note provided by Mexico acknowledges that the nexus between development and security was recognized by the Security Council and by the 2030 Agenda. Moreover, the concept note signals that even though not all those suffering from poverty resort to violence, social, political, and economic exclusion can lead to exacerbating conflicts. The fact that the Council can deliberate these issues and give legitimacy to actions taken to prevent the outbreak and escalation of conflict based on those root causes evades the fears by some Members of double standards based on specific national interests and of using human rights or development concerns for regime change.
Meeting records show that preventive diplomacy and addressing root causes of conflict is important for most Member States as well as for the Secretary General of the United Nations. In his recent report “Our Common Agenda”, the Secretary General placed prevention at the heart of the work of the United Nations, addressing the root causes of conflict and joining humanitarian, peace, and development efforts. It is now time for all of UN Member States to ensure that all the main organs of the Organization work in tandem being more proactive to maintain peace and security, promote human rights and sustainable development cohesively and effectively.
A plan for global prosperity
The announcement from the President of Mexico of an initiative that his delegation would present to the General Assembly to create a mechanism to end poverty for 750 million people living on under $2 a day gained the most press from the November 9 open debate. Specifically, President López Obrador proposed direct cash transfers to the world’s poor, financed by voluntary contributions from the fortunes of the 1,000 richest individuals and corporations, as well as donations from G20 countries that would amount to 0.2% of their economies. The Mission of Mexico to the UN is currently working on the details of the proposal.
Conclusion
Prevention of conflict entails addressing human rights violations, promoting sustainable development, reducing inequalities, addressing climate change and global health threats by all the UN bodies, including its most visible and influential, the Security Council. The coherent action of the United Nations as a comprehensive entity can avoid working as a simple manager of conflicts that reacts to them and only looks to put the fire out once it has started. Countries that seek to promote sustaining peace and sustainable development must continue to foster this view for a more effective multilateralism.
Sylvia Paola Mendoza Elguea is a Mexican career diplomat. She entered the Foreign Service in 2010 and she is currently posted to the Mission of Mexico to the United Nations in New York. She oversees sustainable development issues, such as food security, global health, and international cooperation, as well as other 2030 Agenda related issues. Before coming to New York, she was posted in Lima, Peru for five years, where she worked on political issues, cooperation, and economic affairs. She graduated from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 2008 with a Masters of Arts in Law and Diplomacy degree. The views expressed are her own.
