Country

Hungary

Subject

Candidacy to the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council

Introduction

It has been a declared objective of the Gyurcsány Government to assure the election of Hungary in the UN Human Rights Council in 2009, and in the UN Security Council in 2011. Hungary's candidacy to these two significant UN bodies implies serious tasks for the Hungarian diplomacy. The elections will provide an image of Hungary's international appreciation and acceptance. Due to the country's present economic and social situation, as well as its international standing, withdrawal of the applications seems to be, for the moment, the only way to avoid probable failure.

Analysis

Based on the rule of equitable geographical distribution, as laid down in the UN Charter, Hungary may present its candidacy in any election related to the UN family as a member of the Eastern European Group. It has to compete for membership in the UNHRC with Azerbaijan and Russia, and in the case of the Security Council with Slovenia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Beyond an early announcement of the candidacy, there are a number of conditions to fulfil for becoming member in a UN body, especially the Security Council. Such a campaign is always full of uncertain elements, particularly in international organizations. Former cases show that one condition for success is the engagement of the country concerned in finding solutions for the global challenges, as well as its contribution to the promotion of peace and security in the world. Hungary is expected to conduct a coherent foreign policy both within the European Union (including in the CFSP decision-making) and in other international organizations. Continued absence of that, however, limits the room for manoeuvre of the Hungarian diplomacy. Further engagement - for example in the fields of environment protection, poverty reduction, international development policy - is also a primary consideration in the nomination procedure. Participation in important bodies of international organizations provides an opportunity for a country to show its international engagements, but it constitutes also a serious responsibility since the country in question is supposed to have specific ideas about the work carried out in the given organization.

Campaigns to be conducted in New York and Geneva as well as in certain capitals, which require significant human and financial resources, play an important role too. In the course of the procedure it is for the diplomacy of the candidate country to present and clarify the visions and goals set out by the country's foreign affairs leadership for the period of membership. It has become common knowledge that "small states" can upgrade their international standing by becoming members of major international bodies. By an active engagement, commensurate with their potentials, they can even secure the support of bigger and more influential countries in carrying out the tasks that arise in the global fora.

A well prepared campaign, however, should be built on genuine commitments that make a real sense in the UN context. By sheer "purchase of votes" in the UN General Assembly no sustainable result can be achieved. At the same time the campaign should rely on meaningful international relations that all the domestic political actors maintain worldwide. Under political pressure the Hungarian foreign affairs machinery - which has continued to weaken since 2002, and especially since the operation of the Government that got into power in 2006 - is trying to adapt itself to the tasks relating to Hungary's candidacy in international organizations. The lack of necessary financial resources and a human resource management that is not adjusted to the increased amount of assignments may lead to a further weakening. Thus, the ever increasing tasks expected from the system will need to be carried out in the absence of appropriate resources. It is doubtful whether the increased expectations can be met, given the serious financial problems revealed in the press. It is notorious that the size of the staff at the permanent missions in New York and Geneva is comparable only to that of small countries. Hungary's floating and visionless foreign policy has made the daily functioning of its representations abroad very difficult. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not able to ensure for Hungary a successful coordination and representation in the international organizations due to its weak position among the ministries.

As a result of the lack of strategic thinking even good initiatives make the impression of missing the target and being precipitant. The position of human rights ambassador that has been recently created is virtually imperceptible both in the definition of foreign policy as well as for the wider international public because of the lack of autonomy and visibility of its functioning. The Centre Against Genocide designed to operate in Budapest could become successful only if there is a balanced Hungarian foreign policy. Hungary can assume any role in solving crises at distant parts of the world only if its foreign policy is able to come through in the closer region too. By relying on its own experiences Hungary could carry out the tasks of democracy and nation-building, in conjunction with development policy, in a more credible and deliberate way. Hungary's international development policy is, however, lacking any comprehensive thinking, while the financial resources available are the toys of budgetary planning and thus, they are the very first victims of any restrictions in public spending. In 2007 Hungary contributed to such international responsibilities only to a largely inconsiderable extent (0,08% of GNI).

The UN and relating matters can be found on the periphery of a Hungarian foreign policy that has no vision and concept. There has been no serious consideration given to the fact that as a member of the European Union Hungary's government responsibilities should extend to the world organization as well. The majority of UN member countries classify all EU member states, including Hungary, as belonging to the "developed" Occident, and not to the "developing" or "transitional" countries. As a consequence of this perception the expectations towards Hungary are not in line with its real situation. By undertaking fanciful tasks the Hungarian Government could - in a paradox way - further strengthen this already distorted image. It would be a logical step by the Government to adjust Hungary's international responsibilities to the country's crisis stricken and deteriorating burden-baring capacities. Any foreign policy action must be integrated in a foreign policy that is adjusted to Hungary's functioning as an EU member state. Tasks undertaken in the world organization, especially in the field of international development, should be put in the service of national and Central-European interests.

Conclusion

The impaired and drifting Hungarian foreign policy hardly copes with even taking care of the technical tasks relating to its candidacy for membership in international organizations. The country whose economy has been seriously weakened is now undertaking these tasks beyond its existing capacities. A government that has no domestic legitimacy is not able to launch substantial initiatives in international relations either, and it has no means for asserting the country's interests in an efficient way. It seems therefore reasonable for Hungary to avoid defeat and a significant loss of prestige by tactically retreating from its UN candidacies.