Veleposlanik Žbogar: Načelnost zaznamovala slovensko članstvo v Varnostnem svetu OZN

V novi epizodi GOVSI podkasta smo se posvetili enemu najzahtevnejših in hkrati najpomembnejših obdobij slovenske zunanje politike – dvoletnemu mandatu Slovenije kot nestalne članice Varnostnega sveta Organizacije združenih narodov. 

V studiu se je voditeljici Poloni Prešeren pridružil stalni predstavnik Republike Slovenije pri OZN, veleposlanik Samuel Žbogar, ki je v poglobljenem pogovoru osvetlil, kaj je v praksi pomenilo sodelovanje v organu, kjer so se sprejemale odločitve o najtežjih vprašanjih miru in varnosti v svetu.

Mandat Slovenije je potekal v času izjemno zaostrenih globalnih razmer, ki so jih zaznamovali konflikti v Ukrajini, Gazi in Sudanu ter številne druge, pogosto spregledane krize. Veleposlanik Žbogar je pojasnil, kako je Slovenija kot majhna država, a z jasno izoblikovanimi stališči in vrednotami, aktivno sodelovala pri razpravah, oblikovanju pobud in iskanju rešitev, tudi v okoliščinah, ko Varnostni svet zaradi globokih političnih razhajanj ni bil zmožen sprejemati odločitev. Poseben poudarek je namenil načelnosti slovenskih nastopov, doslednemu zagovarjanju mednarodnega prava, zaščite civilnega prebivalstva in odgovornosti do mednarodne skupnosti, tudi takrat, ko ta stališča niso bila najlažja ali politično najbolj udobna.

Pogovor je razkril tudi zakulisje diplomatskega dela v New Yorku, pomen usklajenega delovanja med Ljubljano in stalno misijo pri OZN ter povezovalno vlogo Slovenije kot med zahodnimi državami in t. i. svetovnim jugom. Prav ta sposobnost poslušanja in razumevanja različnih pogledov je Sloveniji prinesla ugled odgovorne in zaupanja vredne članice Varnostnega sveta, kar so ob zaključku mandata potrdile tudi številne pohvale.

Epizoda je na voljo na vseh priljubljenih platformah za podkaste ter na YouTube kanalu Vlade Republike Slovenije.

[ENGLISH VERSION]

Ambassador Žbogar: Principled Action Defined Slovenia’s Membership in the UN Security Council

In the new episode of the GOVSI podcast, we focused on one of the most demanding and at the same time most significant periods of Slovenian foreign policy – Slovenia’s two-year term as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Host Polona Prešeren was joined in the studio by Slovenia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Samuel Žbogar, who in an in-depth discussion shed light on what participation in a body where decisions on the most critical issues of global peace and security are made meant in practice.

Slovenia’s mandate took place during a period of exceptionally strained global circumstances, marked by conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, as well as numerous other often overlooked crises. Ambassador Žbogar explained how Slovenia, as a small country but one with clearly defined positions and values, actively participated in debates, initiatives and the search for solutions, even in situations where deep political divisions prevented the Security Council from reaching decisions. He placed particular emphasis on the principled nature of Slovenia’s positions, its consistent advocacy of international law, the protection of civilians and responsibility towards the international community, including at times when such positions were neither the easiest nor the most politically comfortable.

The conversation also revealed the behind-the-scenes aspects of diplomatic work in New York, the importance of close coordination between Ljubljana and Slovenia’s Permanent Mission to the UN, and a bridge-builder Slovenia’s role between Western countries and the so-called Global South. This ability to listen to and understand different perspectives earned Slovenia a reputation as a responsible and trustworthy member of the Security Council, as confirmed by numerous commendations at the conclusion of its mandate.

The episode is available on all major podcast platforms and on the YouTube channel of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia.

Transcript

Voditeljica: Spoštovane gledalke in gledalci, poslušalke in poslušalci, lepo pozdravljeni, v 34. epizodi GOVSI podkasta, ki ga za vas pripravljamo na Uradu za komuniciranje. Z vami sem Polona Prešeren. Danes bomo govorili o dveh zelo intenzivnih letih za slovensko diplomacijo. Govorimo o času, ko je bila Slovenija nestalna članica Varnostnega sveta Organizacije združenih narodov. Kaj to pomeni v praksi? Kako je sedeti za mizo, za katero se odloča o najtežjih vprašanjih? In kakšno vlogo pri tem lahko odigra majhna država? Kaj je Slovenija dosegla v tem dveletnem mandatu? Naš današnji gost je stalni predstavnik Republike Slovenije pri OZN, veleposlanik Samuel Žbogar. Dobrodošli v našem studiu.

Gost: Najlepša hvala. Hvala, dober dan.

Voditeljica: V veselje nam je, ker za vami so kar napeti tedni, meseci, napeti 2 leti. Ste že strnili misli po tem mandatu, ki se je zaključil ravno s predsedovanjem tudi Slovenije Varnostnemu svetu?

Gost: Ja, zelo napetih 730 dni, bi rekel. Veste, potem ko smo bili izvoljeni, junija 2023, me je predsednik vlade poklical na pogovor in takrat je predlagal, da zastopam Slovenijo v Varnostnem svetu. Takrat je tudi rekel - to bo gotovo višek vaše diplomatske kariere. In imel je zelo prav. Mislim, to je gotovo višek moje kariere, pa tudi verjetno eden od viškov slovenske zunanje politike.  Ja, bilo je naporno, imeli smo … En tak vlakec smrti je bil to. En tak tobogan smrti z vsemi temi občutki, ki jih imamo, ko gremo po takem toboganu. Torej od nekega vznemirjenja, veselja, vzhičenosti pa do strahu, tudi slabosti na trenutke zaradi odločitev, pred katerimi smo bili. In na koncu neizmerno veselje, ker smo prišli do konca iz tega vlaka oziroma iz tega Varnostnega sveta. Kot sem rekel, bilo je 730 na dni resnično vsak dan od jutra do večera. Imeli smo preko 440 uradnih nastopov v Varnostnem svetu … Veliko je bilo tega. Mislim, da smo bili uspešni, predvsem pa moram reči, da sem imel izjemno ekipo. Izjemno ekipo, ki je bila v New Yorku, tudi tale, ki je seveda v Ljubljani, v ministrstvu, ampak govorim za svoje ljudi. Med njim je 18 diplomatov iz ministrstva za zunanje zadeve, ki so resnično … Je bila to  sanjska ekipa. Lahko rečem, da smo se takoj ujeli, da smo lahko tako delali, kot smo delali, ne.

Zdaj smo prišli iz tega ven. Moram reči, da zadnje pol leta smo že kar komaj čakali, da bo tega konec, ker - naporno je bilo,  kakorkoli že … Posebej, ker na koncu smo zaključili s predsedovanjem. Kar mislim, da je zelo v redu: na enem takem,  z enim takim viškom, vrhuncem smo zaključili. Tudi s kar nekaj uspehi med tem decembrskim predsedovanjem. Smo pa veseli, da je to za nami. Zdaj smo si vzeli malo dopusta, da si malo oddahnemo, naberemo energijo. Nas pa opozarjajo, da prihaja tudi obdobje -  kako se temu reče v slovenščini? Withdrawn sindrom … Torej …

Voditeljica: Odtegnitveni sindrom ….

Gost:  Ja, veste, en kolega, s katerim sva bila v Varnostnem svetu... Prvo leto sva se pogovarjala in sem ga vprašal, kako je kaj, če resnično padeš v depresijo, potem ko nisi več v Varnostnem svetu. Kajti - Varnostni svet je vrhovni organ za mir in varnost v svetu, torej, tudi izjemno odgovorna funkcija, ki jo lahko države jemljejo tako ali drugače. Slovenija je izjemno odgovorno vzela to svojo funkcijo, torej, odgovornost za mir in varnost in smo temu primerno nastopali. No, in ta kolega mi je rekel: ja, najprej je šel na 3 tedne dopusta, da si je malo oddahnil, ampak potem, je rekel, potem sem bil pa tudi malo žalosten, ne. Ampak, je rekel, veš, kaj? Vi ste se pa toliko vrgli v ta Varnostni svet tudi nacionalno, vi boste gotovo depresivni … To še čakam. Ne, to še pride. Mislim, da smo zdaj še v fazi, ko smo si vsi skupaj vzeli čas, da zadihamo. Upam, da ne pride, zato delamo načrte tudi za naprej, da bi nekatere od aktivnosti, ki smo jih vodili v Varnostnem svetu, peljali še naprej potem v Generalni skupščini. Vendarle smo še naprej člani generalne skupščine tako kot ostalih 190 držav. Zaenkrat še ni,  me pa kar vsi opozarjajo, da to slej ko prej pride.

Voditeljica: Omenili ste - že junija 2023 je bilo to zadnje glasovanje, ko se je odločalo o članstvu, nestalnem članstvu v Varnostnem svetu. Takrat je Slovenija prejela podporo kar 153 od 193 držav članic, ampak ta podpora ni bila tako samoumevna, kot se nam pač zdi in kot so številke in glasovanje pokazale. Kaj menite, kaj je ta podpora povedala o ugledu Slovenije v tem diplomatskem svetu, v mednarodni skupnosti?

Gost: Ne podpora ni bila samoumevna, posebej zaradi tega, ker smo sami vstopili v kampanjo v zelo pozno. Belorusija kot naša protikandidatka je bila v tej kampanji že vrsto let. To je bil recimo naš handicap, da smo zelo pozno prišli v to kampanjo. Ampak, seveda, po drugi strani: protikandidatka nam je bila Belorusija, ki ne uživa ravno nekega ugleda, posebej od  vojne v Ukrajini oziroma napada Rusije na Ukrajino, ki jo namreč Belorusija podpira. Pa vendarle ni bilo tako samoumevno, da bo celoten svetovni jug tako množično podprl Slovenijo. Mi smo imeli zelo močno kampanjo v New Yorku in v prestolnici, torej, v Ljubljani. Ministrica se je angažirala, predsednik vlade se je angažiral, predsednica se je angažirala, predsednica državnega zbora se je angažirala. Resnično, celotna država se je angažirala, pa vendarle nismo pričakovali, da bo že v prvem krogu tako gladko Slovenija zmagala. Ne mislim, seveda, da je to posledica vse te kampanje. Kot sem rekel: verjetno tudi dejstva, da protikandidatka ni imela takega ugleda, pa tudi ugled Slovenije. Slovenija je že od samega začetka povezana z nekim … Ima pozitivno podobo v mednarodni skupnosti. Ni razloga, da je ne bi imela. Bila je aktivna v času vojne na Balkanu s pomočjo beguncem in tako da po vojni s predlogi z aktivnostmi, kako reševat zadeve na Balkanu. Vedno smo bili zgodba o uspehu, z nami so bili povezani neki pozitivni občutki. Mislim, da se je zgodilo s sedaj z našim dveletnim članstvom in vsem tem, kar smo delali v Varnostnem svetu, pa tudi, kar je slovenska zunanja politika oziroma slovenska vlada delala tukaj, vezano na zunanjo politiko, je, da smo izostrili sliko  slovenske zunanje politike. Sedaj je veliko bolj jasna. Ta podoba Slovenije  v svetu … Recimo južnoafriška veleposlanica, ki je med kampanjo prišla v Ljubljano v sklopu obiska veleposlanikov iz New Yorka, je rekla, nedavno mi je rekla, je rekla: ko smo bili v Ljubljani, smo vas poslušali, kako ste govorili, da boste načelni, da boste pač zastopali interese celotnega članstva, pa smo vas tako zelo previdno poslušali, ker vas nismo poznali tako dobro (beri: so malo dvomili o tem). Je rekla: jaz sem zelo zadovoljna, mi smo zelo zadovoljni s tem, kako ste delovali v Varnostnem svetu. Ona je to tudi na zadnji seji decembra, poleg ostalih, je tudi ona rekla ravno to: Pohvale Sloveniji za to, kako so delovali kot odgovorna članica Varnostnega sveta. Mislim, da smo zdaj v teh dveh letih - ja, Slovenija je bila prepoznavna, ima neko pozitivno podobo, je pa to zdaj po v teh dveh letih prišlo na čisto nek drug nivo. Mislim, da je veliko bolj izostrena, bolj jasna slika, kaj to Slovenija je, kakšna so načela slovenske zunanje politike. Recimo, en visok funkcionar organizacije mi je nedavno rekel - potem ko vas poslušam v Varnostnem svetu, kaj govorite, sem si rekel, jaz moram obiskati to državo, iz katere ti diplomati prihajajo, ker ste tako zanimivi zaradi te svoje načelnosti in doslednosti v zagovarjanju nekaterih načel. Je rekel, da si želijo obiskat Slovenijo, da vidijo od blizu, kako izgledajo ljudje v tej državi, ne, ki ima take diplomate. Mislim, da smo v teh dveh letih to zelo dobro izkoristili kot država. Predvsem s tem sozvočjem, ki je, ki je obstajalo med politiko vlade, državnim zborom in predsednico in tem, kar smo mi zastopali. To je bil ta recept uspeha, če lahko rečem, da je bilo potem to članstvo tako uspešno.

Voditeljica: Ta naš mandat v Varnostnem svetu je res potekal v času izjemno tudi zaostrenih Varnostnih razmer v svetu. Spremljali smo razmere v gazi, Ukrajini, v Sudanu. Številne pozabljene krize so tudi še po svetu. Delo VS so v tem času zaznamovala predvsem ta konkretna krizna žarišča. Kako se je potem Slovenija tukaj udejanjala, s kakšnimi načeli je pristopala?

Gost: Ja, kot ste sami omenili. Letos so bile tri glavne krize, s katerimi smo se ukvarjali od prvega dne. No, z Gazo … Ja, tudi z Gazo od prvega dne. Torej - Ukrajina, Gaza in Sudan - tri grozljive krize, konflikti, kjer prihaja do grozljivega trpljenja civilnega prebivalstva. Kaj se je dogajalo v Gazi, kjer od več kot 80 procentov vseh pobitih so civilisti, ali pa kar se dogaja v Sudanu. Grozljive briefinge smo imeli. Briefinge, ko smo vsi obnemeli o poslušanju, kaj se dogaja v Sudanu. In to je kriza, ki je še najmanj prisotna pri nas. Vse te tri krize so zaznamovale naše obdobje, zato je tudi lanskega septembra, ko smo predsedovali Varnostnemu svetu oz. ko je predsednik vlade Golob predsedoval Varnostnemu svetu je ravno ta glavna razprava, ki je bila in na kateri so sodelovali predsedniki in predsedniki vlad, bila posvečena tem trem krizam in vprašanju, kje, kako, kako oblikovat voditeljstvo, kako pristopati k tem trem krizam? Kako to, da Varnostni svet ne uspe rešiti teh treh, nima recepta, načrta, formule, kako rešiti te tri grozljive krize? To je bila prav ta razprava o voditeljstvu za mir, torej, nek poziv k iskanju tega voditeljstva, ki je tako potrebno v mednarodni skupnosti, da bi pripeljalo te tri krize in ostale seveda potem tudi  k neki rešitvi. Kaj je vloga Slovenije recimo pri takih velikih krizah? Seveda mi smo mala država. To je dejstvo. Niti nismo vojaško močna, niti nismo koordonatorji, neka velesila, pa vendarle smo ena od 15. držav. Bili smo ena od 15. držav z vso odgovornostjo in kaj lahko država počne? Lahko zahtevaš sklice Varnostnega sveta. Lahko zahtevaš, siliš Varnostni svet, da debatira o rešitvah -  kar smo mi počeli glede vseh treh kriz, najbolj  glede Ukrajine in Gaze. Lahko predlagaš rešitve. Mi smo glede Gaze bili del oziroma ena od voditeljev pri štirih resolucijah, ki smo jih predlagali, od katerih je ena celo bila sprejeta. Pri ostali smo dobili 14 glasov, ampak ena je bila prav takšna, ki smo jo mi vodili, pri ostalih pa smo bili med glavnimi pobudniki. Za Ukrajino smo bili skupaj z Združenimi državami nosilci dosjeja za Ukrajino. Vsak mesec smo sklicevali zasedanja o Ukrajini, enostavno, da smo držali to temo na dnevnem redu Varnostnega sveta. Čeprav je Ruska federacija preprečevala katerokoli odločitev, pa vendarle na našo zahtevo se je debatiralo o tem. Pripeljali smo temo otrok v Ukrajini, temo jedrske elektrarne v Ukrajini, v Zaporožju, temo bombardiranja v Ukrajini. Vsak mesec je Varnostni svet razpravljal o tem, da se ne pozabi, da je to tema, vojna, ki traja, in to po zaslugi članice Varnostnega sveta, stalne članice Varnostnega sveta. Naša vloga je … Ker ne moremo odločati mimo veta držav, je bila predvsem v tem, da vršimo pritisk … Da pride do rešitev.  Naša vloga, vloga male države je, da ker si sam mogoče šibkejši, deluješ v skupini. Mi smo delovali v skupini evropskih držav - 5 evropskih držav obstaja v Varnostnem svetu. V drugem letu smo velikokrat sklicevali zasedanja, zahtevali zasedanja v imenu teh 5 evropskih držav. Še bolj učinkovita je pa skupina nestalnih članic. To je 10 nestalnih članic. Od 15 je 10 kar velika številka in če nastopamo kot skupina, lahko pripelješ do rešitev ali pa vsaj izsiliš neke rešitve. In kot so nekateri kolegi rekli na zadnjem zasedanju ob poslavljanju od Varnostnega sveta konec decembra,  so rekli, da Slovenija je bila ena od tistih motorjev nestalnih članic. Mi smo bili od vseh zahodnih držav najbližje južnim državam, da tako rečem, nekaka povezovalna vloga z jugom, t. i. svetovnim jugom. Najbolj smo razumeli, kaj nam jug želi povedat in to prenaša zahodu in obratno, smo prenašali jugu, zakaj je problematika Ukrajine tako usodna za Evropo. 

Mislim, da je to bila neka dodana vrednost Slovenije v Varnostnem svetu, ta naša aktivnost tudi znotraj nestalnih članic in kot nestalne članice. Mislim, da smo kar veliko tega naredili v 2 letih. Generalni sekretar je v zadnjem pogovoru z ministrico v New Yorku rekel, da tako kot je skupina nestalnih članic delovala zadnji dve leti, je rekel, še nikoli tako močna ta skupina ni bila. Ne samo zato, ker smo bile pač močne države noter, močne po stališčih, ampak tudi, ker ti 2 leti so bili odnosi med stalnimi članicami takšni, kot so bili, torej, zelo polarizirani.

Voditeljica: No, ampak Slovenijo je ravno ta načelnost zaznamovala v Varnostnem svetu, a ne? Predvsem z našimi odločnimi načelnimi nastopi v Varnostnem svetu, kar je zadevalo Gazo in Zahodni breg in smo si pridobili zaupanje s tem našim proaktivnim nastopom. Je bila tudi ta načelnost tudi takrat, kadar ni bila najlažja pot, ena izmed prepoznanih prednosti slovenskega članstva v Varnostnem svetu?

Gost: Kratek odgovor je: ja.  Glejte, ko smo mi … Pa bom spet pojasnil mogoče še hkrati s tem, kaj sem mislil, ko sem rekel 'izostrili sliko slovenske javne zunanje politike', ko smo vstopili v Varnostni svet. Vedno je tako, da ko nove članice vstopijo v Varnostni svet, se jih zelo posluša, kajti skozi prve govore dobiš nek občutek, kakšna je ta država. Kajti v Varnostnem svetu si razgaljen. Si sam in ne moreš se skriti za nikogar, ne v skupino ne s tem, da ne govoriš. Moraš govoriti, moraš povedati svoje stališče in posebej prve govore se zelo posluša. In vendar po naših prvih nastopih januarja 2024  je recimo švicarska kolegica, ki je sedela zraven mene, ne, ker smo po abecedi, mi je pošiljala listke - joj zelo, zelo, zelo dober govor, zelo zanimivi argumenti. In je potem rekla - joj, pa mi smo zelo podobno misleči - ampak tako, kot neko presenečenje. Mi smo vedeli, da smo podobno misleči s Švico glede mednarodnega prava, mednarodnega humanitarnega prava, ampak za njih je bilo to neko presenečenje. In je rekla, no, pa mi bi lahko pa veliko skupaj delali … In smo potem resnično s Švico zelo veliko skupaj delali prvo leto. Zelo, zelo dobri smo bili kot tak tandem in tako je še več držav prišlo. Tam se je že pokazala ta naša načelnost. Ker smo govorili tako načelno in ker smo vedno izhajali s stališča: Ustavna listina govori tole,  mednarodno pravo govori tole in zaščita civilnega prebivalstva nam je prioriteta. Katerakoli kriza, lahko govoriš kar koli, se lahko poenotiš, a civilno prebivalstvo trpi. Zakaj trpi? Ni treba, da trpi. In naši govori so izhajali iz tega. Naši govori so bili zelo emocionalni, vedno bolj emocionalni. Mislim, da smo … če koga vprašate, po čem je Slovenija prepoznana v New Yorku, V Varnostnem svetu, so to ti naši emocionalni govori, torej, zanimivi govori. Mislim, da smo zelo veliko vložili v ta naša sporočila, ki so šla skozi govore in kot so moji kolegi, ki so sedeli za mano, mi govorili, so ljudje odložili telefone in so poslušali, ker vedno je bilo nekaj zanimivega.  In to so nam priznavali - da smo imeli take govore, ki se jih je poslušalo… Zdaj sem malo zgubil nit, kaj sem v bistvu hotel povedat … No, pač po teh govorih smo bili znani.

Voditeljica: Lahko tudi nadaljujeva še z eno drugo temo. Omenili ste še ta svetovni jug. Eden izmed vaših kolegov, vam je rekel - village is proud of you. 

Gost: Eden najlepših komplimentov, ki smo jih dobili v Varnostnem svetu. Veste, ko je ko predseduješ,  na začetku, prvi dan predsedovanja predstaviš celotnemu članstvu svoj program, in zadnji dan predsedovanja predstaviš celotnemu članstvu uspehe svojega predsedovanja. Mi smo oboje … No, na tej predstavitvi je eden od afriških kolegov rekel tole, no, da je v Afriki zelo velik kompliment, torej, da smo dobro zastopali barve celotnega članstva. In na koncu ob tem recapu, kot ga imenujemo, torej ob zaključku predsedovanja, ko poveš, kaj si počel tam, smo mi bili ponovno inovativni. Imeli smo veliko nekih inovativnih idej v Varnostnem svetu in nisem bil sam na tej zaključnem predstavitvi, ampak sem povabil vseh pet kolegov, ki smo šli ven iz Varnostnega sveta, torej, naša generacija članov Varnostnega sveta, da predstavijo svoje vtise dveletnega članstva. In moram reči, da smo bili zelo močna, zelo močna … Kako se reče? Generacija? Veleposlanik Alžirije, tak zelo izkušen veleposlanik, gromovnik na nek način, ki se ga je tudi zelo poslušalo, z močnimi stališči. Veleposlanica Gvajane, bivša zunanja ministrica, tudi zelo močna oseba, celo med kandidatkami, možnimi za generalno sekretarko, pa potem Sierra Leone, veleposlanik, zelo močan mednarodni pravnik, ki je vsak govor napeljal nekako na mednarodno pravo. Vedno ga je bilo zanimivo poslušat in potem veleposlanik Koreje - onadva sta se zamenjala z menjavo vlade in smo mi nastopali potem konec decembra in govorili o teh svojih dveh letih. In je to trajalo 2 uri. Še nikoli ni zaključni pregled predsedovanja trajal 2 uri in je bilo izjemno zanimivo. Izjemno zanimiva vprašanja in predvsem zanimive refleksije mojih kolegov. Ja, tako da mislim, da v Varnostnem svetu, v OZN je ostal en zelo, zelo velik politični kapital, ki smo ga skozi ti dve leti članstva uspeli nabrat.

Voditeljica: Slovenija je bila tudi deležna zelo velike medijske pozornosti. V tem času o vašem o slovenskem delovanju v Varnostnem svetu in v OZN na splošno. Medijske hiše, kot je New York Times, BBC, največje globalne medijske hiše so veliko poročale o tem. Tudi to ni samoumevno in v ozadju je veliko dela, ki javnosti ni vidno. Kaj po vašem mnenju je pritegnilo pozornost teh tujih medijev, teh velikih medijskih hiš za poročanja o Sloveniji?

Gost: Ja, ponovno veliko stvari, veliko elementov, veliko delov tega puzzla, da sestaviš to sliko. 

Seveda, mi smo se zelo veliko ukvarjali s tujimi mediji. Sam sem imel neformalne briefinge. Mislim, da sem imel 10 neformalnih briefingov v 2 letih z mediji, kjer sem zelo odkrito, smo se pogovarjali o tem, kaj se dogaja po vsem svetu. Zelo odkrito smo jim povedali, kakšni so načrti, kdo kaj …  En tak zelo odkrit pogovor, kar so cenili dopisniki iz raznih hiš, da ni bila neka formalnost, ampak da smo šli zelo v globino. Potem smo dnevno imeli stik z diplomatko, ki je bila pristojna za medije. Dnevno smo imeli stik z njimi in smo jih obveščali o svojih nastopih. O tem kaj prihaja, kaj se predvideva. In potem naši govori, kot sem rekel, so bili zanimivi. Vsaj tako so bili ocenjeni. Že takoj v začetku smo imeli nastop , ki ga je povzel novinar Al Jazeere na svojem računu x, ki je imel dvesto tisoč ogledov. Česar potem nismo nikoli več presegli, ampak to je bilo za nas nekaj neverjetnega. In takrat mislim, da so ljudje postali pozorni na nas in velikokrat smo imeli v govoru kaj takega, da je bilo zanimivo za medije. Tako da smo skozi vse to, odnos, ki smo ga gojili z mediji, do nastopov, do tega, da so voditelji, ki so prihajali v New York - predsednik vlade, ministrica - so bili odprti do medijev, so dajali intervjuje. Mislim, da smo razvili eno tako dobro sobivanje s tujimi mediji in to je dalo tudi rezultate. Mislim, da imamo prek 240 omemb,  citatov v tujih medijih in to od vseh - od Reutersa, BBC do New York Timesa, Washington Posta pa do Al Jazeere ali pa drugih  arabskih medijev. Mislim, da smo tudi skozi te medijske objave se je zgradila dogradila ta podoba Slovenije, ki mislim, da je izjemno pozitivna in jo velja v nadaljevanju … Nek tak val recimo pozitivne podobe, na nekateri velja jahati še nekaj časa.

Voditeljica: Slovenija zdaj vstopa v nekako 35. leto slovenske diplomacije. Članica OZN je od leta 1992, drugič je bila sedaj nestalna članica Varnostnega sveta. Kako je to vplivalo na … Kako recimo vi kot karierni diplomat ocenjujete to pot Slovenije v tem diplomatskem smislu, predvsem mogoče v okvirih OZN?

Gost: Bom prišel do tega, pa sem se spomnil, da nisem na eno vprašanje prej odgovor, če je bilo težko biti načelen in če so bili trenutki, ko je bilo to težko. Pa mogoče je prav povedati. Ja, bili so, ni tako enostavno biti načelen posebej, ker ni nujno, da tvoji zavezniki cenijo, da si vedno načelen. Vsi seveda cenijo, da si načelen, ko govoriš o Ukrajini, tvoji zavezniki ali pa tvoja družina, iz katere prihajaš. To je EU. pa Nato. Mogoče, če si pa preveč načelen npr. glede Gaze, pa ni bilo vedno zelo dobrodošlo. Bile so situacije, ko smo mi bili enako načelni v Gazi kot smo bili pri Ukrajini. Dobra stran nas je bila, da nikogar nismo presenečali. Torej, česarkoli smo se lotili, tudi glede gaze, smo najprej obvestili Združene države Amerike, čeprav jim mogoče ni bilo všeč, ampak jih nismo presenetili. Tudi resolucija, na katero so dali veto, naša resolucija, smo jo z njimi najprej… Kar nekaj časa smo se pogovarjali z njimi o resoluciji in tudi spraševali, kaj bi bilo za njih potrebno, da je v tej resoluciji, zato, da ne bi vetirali. In smo naredili nekaj poskusov, ampak na koncu smo prišli do točke, ko pa tistega ni bilo mogoče vključiti v resolucijo na način, da bi ostale članice lahko to podprle. Ja, so bile te situacije, ko ni enostavno biti načelen, ker nekomu dvigneš obrvi in mogoče nekdo ni zadovoljen in pričakuješ, da bodo mogoče protestirali v prestolnici nad tem, kaj ti delaš v New Yorku. Je bilo pa ena zadeva mogoče, ki bi jo tudi omenil kot primer. Recimo Zahodna Sahara, ki je tak primer nenačelnosti svetovne politike. Pazite, ko smo mi bili prvič v Varnostnem svetu - leta 1998, 1999 - je Varnostni svet govoril o priznanju samoodločbe Zahodne Sahare in pripravljal se je referendum, da bi se prebivalci odločili, ali želijo samostojnost.  25 let kasneje, ko smo zdaj bili v Varnostnem svetu … Vmes je Maroko priznal Izrael. V zameno so Združene države Amerike priznale Maroku avtonomijo nad Zahodno Saharo in potem so pa ena za drugo države začele priznavat, da v bistvu Zahodna Sahara spada k Maroku in pozabljale na to samoodločbo. Francija, Nemčija, lani tudi Velika Britanija in Španija -  vse velike države so naenkrat priznavajo avtonomijo, torej suverenost maroka nad tem ozemljem, ne bi vprašali te prebivalce. No, in mi smo imeli dve razpravi v Varnostnem svetu, kjer smo mi šli stran od teh svojih zaveznikov. Mi smo nastali na osnovi pravice do samoodločbe in in to je neko načelo, od katerega Slovenija pač ne more odstopati in ga mora braniti v mednarodni skupnosti. In smo ga branili do konca. Mi smo do konca zagovarjali, čeprav smo na koncu tudi glasovali z resolucijo, ki je podaljšala mandat, ampak vse do zadnjega in tudi v pojasnilu glasovanja smo mi vztrajali na tej pravici do samoodločbe in na koncu so nam vsi to priznali, da cenijo to našo načelnost. Tudi Maroko, ki je zelo pritiskal tukaj v Ljubljani in tudi v New Yorku, je na koncu dal priznanje, da smo pač načelni. Slovenija je načelna, vzamemo to v zakup. Ampak tam smo  bili najbolj deležni pritiskov, tudi tukaj, v Ljubljani, je bila ministrica deležna ogromno pritiskov ministrov, da bi ne vztrajali na tej samoodločbi. In to je ta načelnost naša, ki je bila nekako taka religiozna načelnost, ne, ampak zaradi lastnih interesov. Če mi ne bomo branili pravice do samoodločbe na primeru Zahodne Sahare, se lahko tudi pri nas postavi pod vprašaj -  in tukaj smo zdaj - glede pravice do suverenosti in teritorialne integritete. Recimo to, kar se zdaj dogaja okrog Venezuele, pa mogoče Grenlandije. Zato je tako pomembno, da države govorimo o tem načelu Ustanovne listine, o suverenosti, o nedotakljivosti meja  teritorialni integriteti, kajti brez tega male države, kot smo mi, kot je Slovenija, lahko pridejo v zelo težke situacije, če ne enkrat ta načela suverenosti teritorialne integritete ne bodo več veljala. Potem mi kot mala država, tudi vojaško mala država, lahko pridemo v težke situacije in zato je prav …, mislim, da je v našem življenjskem interesu, da smo načelni in da na teh načelih vztrajamo in jih ponavljamo, tudi če kdaj kakšnem od naših velikih zaveznikov to ni všeč. Recimo takrat jim ni bila všeč samoodločba, danes jim verjetno ne bo všeč, ko govorimo o teritorialni suverenosti in integriteti držav, ampak mislim, da brez tega Slovenija ni Slovenija.

Voditeljica: So bili tudi zdaj v času mandata o Varnostnem svetu kakšni pritiski teh velikih zaveznic?

Gost: V času Varnostnega sveta je bilo nekaj pritiskov prvo leto, potem počasi so nas spoznali in so ugotovili, da pač taki smo in se nas kaj dosti ne da premakniti glede načel. Tako da niti ni bilo tako hudo, kot smo mislili. So nas pa vsi opozarjali, ko smo šli v Varnostni svet, da je za delo v Varnostnem svetu ključno dobro razumevanje in sodelovanje med prestolnico in New Yorkom. Drugi so nas opozarjali, da se dostikrat zgodi, da do pritiska pride v prestolnici in potem prestolnica da neka navodila drugačna kot bi si mogoče ljudje v New Yorku želeli. In mislim, da kar se je pri nas dogajalo, je to sozvočje, o katerem sem govoril med Ljubljano in New Yorkom. Je bilo takšno, da nikoli ni prišlo do tega, da bi prestolnica drugače razmišljala, kot je New York, oziroma v bistvu, da bi New York drugače razmišljal, kot razmišlja prestolnice. Mislim, da je bila to neka naša prednost, ker iz tega sozvočja je izhajala tudi zelo veliko zaupanje voditeljev v Ljubljani v delegacijo v New Yorku. tako smo mi včasih lahko reagirali spontano,  ne da bi preverjali stališča z Ljubljano. Ker enostavno ni bilo časa, ker smo vedeli, da Ljubljana podobno razmišlja. To je bila neka velika dodana vrednost. Naj povem en primer. V Organizaciji je podsekretar za humanitarne zadeve Tom Fletcher. Izjemno, izjemno sposoben bivši britanski diplomat. Sedaj je podsekretar za humanitarne zadeve. Zelo visoka funkcija, ampak izjemno dober. Zelo ga cenimo. On je na enem od briefingov Varnostnega sveta opozoril  Varnostni svet, da obstaja možnost genocidnih dejanj v Gazi. Prvič se je ta beseda izrekla v Varnostnem svetu s strani Sekretariata.  Da obstaja možnost genocidnih dejanj v Gazi in na to je seveda predstavnik ZDA reagiral, da je nesprejemljivo, da Sekretariat govori o genocidu v Gazi. On ni govoril o genocidu. On je govoril o možnosti genocidnih dejanj. Kakor koli - napadli so ga. In  Slovenija je bila edina, ki smo bili sposobni v tistem trenutku hitro reagirat, ga vzeti v bran in to je zelo cenil in še vedno zelo ceni. Potrebna je bila hitra reakcija. Vedeli smo, da bo Ljubljana to podprla. Veliko mojih kolegov bi morala tako stvar najprej preverit s svojimi prestolnicami, mi pa smo vedeli, čutili smo, da Ljubljana enako razmišlja. Navsezadnje so naši voditelji govorili, uporabljali to besedo, tako da smo ga podprli, pač v smislu, da ni problem v kurirju, ki prinaša sporočila, problem je v sporočilu, dajmo se o sporočilu pogovarjat, a ne. To je en tak primer. Drug tak primer je bil, pa ne bom konkretno govoril  dosjeju, ampak samo, da je bila neka resolucija na dnevnem redu in ZDA naj bi se vzdržale.  Potem pa so v zadnjem trenutku hotele imeti nek amandma v tisti resoluciji, ki pa ga niso hotele predlagat in so prosile, naj ga vloži Slovenija. Bilo je pol ure časa do volitev, do glasovanja in so prosili Slovenijo naj vloži ta amandma, da se bodo oni z njim strinjali in bodo potem lahko glasovali za resolucijo. Vedeli smo, da se bodo tudi vsi ostali strinjali in smo to operacijo izpeljali. Potem so se vsi čudili, kaj se je zgodilo, ampak ni bilo časa preverjanja s prestolnico in naša delegacija je bila taka, da je lahko sprejemala odločitve takrat, ko je vedela, da bo za to imela tudi podporo v prestolnici in tle je tukaj. Mislim, da je bila to neka taka dodana vrednost, ki jo je tudi ameriška delegacija videla: »Prišli smo k vam, ker verjamem, da boste vi lahko to izpeljali.« Ja, vprašali ste me tudi za teh 35 let? Nekak skačem … Slovenija je vedno, kot sem rekel, bila povezana z neko pozitivno podobo v mednarodni skupnosti. Nikoli ni bil, nismo bili problem. Vedno smo imeli iste prioritete. Mednarodno pravo, človekove pravice, zaščita civilnega prebivalstva, tudi ta naš fond za deminiranje izhaja iz tega. To je bila neka konstanta in mislim, da še vsakič, ko smo imeli neko funkcijo v mednarodni skupnosti smo se dobro izkazali. Ali je bilo to predsedovanje Organizaciji za varnost in sodelovanje v Evropi ali je bilo to dvakratno predsedovanje Evropski uniji ali pa, ko smo predsedovali Svetu Evrope, ko smo tudi rešili eno krizo v tistem času. Mislim pa, da je to članstvo, ti zadnji dve leti Varnostnega sveta, da se je zgodil nek preskok. Mislim, da smo dobili neko samozavest tudi kot slovenska zunanja politika ali pa kot Slovenija, če hočete. Yes, we can.  Lahko smo mali, ampak lahko smo prepoznani, lahko smo vidni, lahko imamo glas, lahko nas poslušajo, lahko imamo ideje. Mislim, da je to en velik kvalitetni preskok, predvsem pa potrditev, da lahko razmišljamo s svojo glavo in da ni vedno treba spraševati, kaj mislijo drugi, kaj mislijo naši zavezniki, ampak to, kar smo delali zadnji dve leti kot država: najprej smo se vprašali, kakšno je naše stališče, kakšen je naš interes in smo ga zagovarjali, kakšna so naša načela in potem smo iz tega oblikovali neko stališče in ga predstavili. In kot sem rekel, včasih tudi ni nujno, da je bilo usklajeno z zavezniki. Mislim, da je to ena taka velika dodana ta samozavest in upam tudi iz reakcij, ki jih dobivam iz Slovenije, je, da da so ljudje ponosni na to članstvo oziroma da mislijo, da smo dobro naredili. Mislim, da to zelo pozitivno vpliva na samozavest naroda. Tako kot smo veseli gospodarstvenikov, ki uspejo, kulturnikov, ki uspejo v tujini, športnikov, ki uspejo v tujini. Vidim, da so ljudje tudi zadovoljni, ko je diplomacija uspešna v tujini in vse to krepi samozavest. Kajti ne moreš biti uspešen gospodarstvenik, če nisi samozavesten, če ne verjameš vase, če ne verjameš v svoj produkt. In tako je slovenska diplomacija verjela v ta svoja načela, ki jih je zagovarjala, in vse to skupaj mislim, da krepi samozavest naroda in edino samozavestni narodi so uspešni narodi. Upam, da je dvoletno članstvo dalo en košček v mozaik samozavesti Slovenije.

Voditeljica: Slovenija zdaj nadaljuje še v okviru Združenih narodov s članstvom v Svetu za človekove pravice. Ampak ta je v Ženevi?

Gost: Tako je, to je pač drug organ. Ni tako prepoznaven, kot je Varnostni svet, ki ga nekako enačijo z Organizacijo. To je Svet za človekove pravice – ime že vse pove. V glavnem se ukvarjajo s stanjem človekovih pravic po svetu in je v Ženevi, kjer je tudi sedež vseh teh mednarodnih organizacij, ki se ukvarjajo bolj s človekovimi pravicami. Ampak idealno se nam nadaljuje iz članstva v VS v ta Svet za človekove pravice. Vse te zadeve, ki smo jih počeli v Varnostnem svetu, bomo zdaj nadaljevali v Ženevi. Mislim, da imamo dobro ekipo tudi v Ženevi, zelo izkušeno veleposlanico, in verjamem, da bomo vse te prioritete, tole prepoznavnost  Slovenije, ta brand name Slovenije, ki se je zdaj izostril, da se bo nadaljeval tudi skozi razprave v Ženevi. Je pa ta Svet manj prisoten v javnosti, kot je Varnostni svet. Seveda, ker v VS gre za vprašanje varnosti. Miru in varnosti.

Voditeljica: Nisva še omenila tega, pa smo veliko govorili o tem med mandatom v Varnostnem svetu. Pogosto slišimo, da Združeni narodi izgubljajo moč, da je Varnostni svet ujet v blokade stalnih članic, blokade veta. Kako vi vidite to situacijo in mogoče - ali je ta vloga Združenih narodov in Varnostnega sveta danes še tako relevantna, kot je bila morda pred desetletji?

Gost: Varnostni svet, pa tudi Organizacija nista v najboljši kondiciji, bi rekel. Mislim, da je to vsem jasno. Organizacija se spopada s kar veliko izzivi, finančni ni nepomemben. Glavna  članica, glavna prispevnica, Združene države Amerike, ne plačujejo članarine že drugo leto. Glede na to, da prispevajo 25 odstotkov v proračun organizacije, je to kar velik problem in generalni sekretar opozarja, da če tudi prihodnje leto, torej, v letošnjem letu ne bo nakazala sredstev, bo organizacija bankrotirala. Kajti organizacija si ne more izposojati denarja, lahko porabi samo to, kar ima. Če že 2 leti največja prispevnica ne prispeva, prispeva pa 25 odstotkov vsega, potem ni iz kje plačevati dohodkov. Generalni sektor je zmanjšal  proračun za 20 odstotkov, znižujejo zaposlovanje oziroma odpuščajo 20 odstotkov svojih ljudi, ampak tudi to ne bo dovolj. To je en tak zelo velik problem organizacije. Drug problem je, da se vedno več zadev vodi izven, da se Organizaciji jemlje vedno več pristojnosti. Pa to niso samo ZDA, ki trenutno pogajajo mir po svetu, to so tudi razne regionalne organizacije, regionalne države, ki vedno bolj želijo same pogajati, same reševati probleme po svetu in Organizacija je vedno bolj porinjena na stran. In potem je seveda še cela situacija z Varnostnim svetom, ki je vse od vojne v Ukrajini zelo polariziran. Začelo se je med Rusko federacijo in ZDA, sedaj pa se veliko bolj čuti polarizacija med Kitajsko in ZDA. Kitajska postaja vedno bolj enakopravna velesila ZDA, v proračun organizacije plačujejo že skoraj toliko kot ZDA in iz tega zahtevajo tudi določene pravice: zaposlovanje, besedo pri odločanju… In to samozavest Kitajske je čutiti v Varnostnem svetu. Na vsako kritiko s strani ZDA reagirajo in se postavljajo kot tisti nasprotni pol ZDA. Niso pa še pripravljeni iti v direkten konflikt. Ampak ta polarizacija je kar močna. In potem seveda imate Združene države, ki vedno bolj uporabljajo Varnostni svet zato, da Organizacijo izločajo iz urejanja zadev. Tudi Resolucija o Gazi, ki smo jo sprejeli, ker druge opcije pač ni bilo, kot da podpreš resolucijo, ki prinaša mir v Gazi. Pa vendarle: v tej resoluciji je veliko problemov, vključno s tem, da se celotno reševanje problematike pelje izven Varnostnega sveta. Ta board of peace, tj. svet za mir nima predstavnikov, poročanje je zelo občasno Varnostnemu svetu. Tako da to je tudi velik izziv, da se Varnostni svet trenutno uporablja, zato da se Organizacijo izloča iz urejanja zadev.  Varnostnem svetu je vedno več debat, ima pa vedno manj resolucij. Neke podatke smo dobivali, kako imamo vsako leto več zasedanj, pa vsako leto sprejemamo manj resolucij kot Varnostni svet. Tako da trenutno poteka v Organizaciji razprava o tej reformi. Mislim te razprave potekajo vsake par let, ampak mislim, da trenutno bo potreben malo bolj resen razmislek o tem, kaj bo z Organizacijo v prihodnje. Rekli ste, ali je še potreba po taki organizaciji? Absolutno, vedno bolj. V trenutku, ko vidimo, da začenja prevladovati načelo moči, torej, če sem močan, potem lahko počnem kar hočem, potem načela suverenosti niso pomembna, potem Ustanovna listina ni pomembna. V trenutku, ko se to načelo začne prepovedovati, potem mislim, da se moramo male države zamislit. Nas mora začeti skrbeti in malih držav je pa velika večina v tej organizaciji, zato verjamem v neko mobilizacijo držav za Ustanovno listino, za multiliteralizem, za Organizacijo, kajti edino Organizacija lahko nudi takšno kolektivno zaščito, ki jo velika večina držav potrebuje. Organizacija ni bila ustanovljena po 2. svetovni vojni brez razloga in ti razlogi še vedno obstajajo. Verjamem, da bomo šli čez nekaj težkih obdobij v bližnji prihodnosti, kot sami opazujemo te razprave okrog Grenlandije in bogve, kaj še vse pride. 

Ampak mislim, da bo to vedno bolj utrdilo odločenost držav članic OZN, da se začnejo bolj resno boriti za to organizacijo in za načela, ki jih zastopa.

Voditeljica: Samo zaključek še eno vprašanje. V preteklosti so se že pojavljala ugibanja, da bi morda lahko kandidati iz Slovenije nekoč prevzeli tudi vodenje OZN. Predvsem zato, ker Vzhodna Evropa še ni imela svojega generalnega sekretarja. Ima Slovenija po vašem mnenju takšno težo, takšen ugled in kredibilnost, da bi o tem lahko realno razmišljala?

Gost: Mislim, da ima Slovenija takšno zavest samozavest, da mora o tem razmišljati, da ima pravico o tem razmišljati. Mislim, da ni toliko … Ja, imate prav - Vzhodna Evropa še ni imela kandidata, ampak trenutno je vzdušje v organizaciji, da je vrsta na Latinski Ameriki da ponudi svojega kandidata ali kandidatko. Čeprav ta regionalna zastopanost ni nekje zapisana in je bolj neko načelo, gentlemansko načelo, ki se ga pa niso držali v prejšnjem prejšnjih volitvah, ko je veljalo načelo, da je vrsta na Vzhodni Evropi. Kot se spomnite, je tudi Slovenija imela takrat zelo dobrega kandidata, bivšega predsednika dr. Türka, ki mu je tudi dobro kazalo dolgo časa. Pa vendarle: na koncu so se odločili za predstavnika iz Zahodne Evrope, čeprav je bilo veliko dobrih kandidatov iz Vzhodne Evrope. Pač na koncu odločajo velike države, ker imajo pravico veta na kandidate. Končno glasovanje je v Generalni skupščini, ampak  stalne članice imajo pravico veta na kandidate in seveda to jim daje dodatno moč. One v bistvu odločajo, kdo gre naprej in kdo ne.  Veliko poskusov je, kako bi lahko to malo razrahljali, ampak seveda ni v interesu stalnih članic, da bi se to razrahljalo. Slovenija trenutno ima tak ugled, vedno ga je imela, da bi lahko predlagala kandidata. Vse je odvisno od kandidata, ki mora ustrezati trenutku, potrebam organizacije in tako dalje. Trenutno - to bodo zelo zahtevne volitve tudi zaradi odnosov med stalnimi članicami, o katerem sem prej govoril, ki morajo najti kandidata, s katerim bo vseh pet stalnih članic zadovoljnih. Zelo zahtevne volitve, tudi zaradi - kot sem rekel - situacije v Organizaciji od finančne krize pa do vloge same organizacije, ko se jo tako potiska na stran v neko marginalnost. Bomo potrebovali verjetno nekoga, ki bo zelo pogumno poskušal organizacijo spet pripeljati v center. To bo moral biti nekdo, ki bo imel dobre odnose z vsemi stalnimi članicami, pa hkrati tudi užival spoštovanje vseh članic. To pa je že skoraj kvadratura kroga v današnjem času. To bo izjemno zahtevne volitve. Ampak, ko vprašate za Slovenijo: mislim, da moramo mi biti samozavestni in kandidirati na takšne in podobne funkcije. Mislim, da smo kot Slovenija vse preveč skromni glede pričakovanj, da dobimo določene funkcije, ker vedno nekako ostajamo v tem, da smo mala država in smo skromni. Pa vidim, da po vsem tem, kar smo pokazali v vseh teh letih, pa dodatno še v zadnjem obdobju, mislim, da moramo pokazati, imamo to samozavest, da tudi predlagamo kandidate, če jih imamo, ali pa kandidatke, še boljše. Kajti nekako je upanje članic generalne skupščine, da bo naslednja generalna sekretarka ženska.

Voditeljica: Veleposlanik Žbogar, najlepša hvala za ta pogovor in za  izredno zanimiv pogled v zakulisje delovanja Varnostnega sistema in OZN, predvsem pa, da ste nam osvetlili vlogo naše države v znotraj te organizacije.

Gost: Najlepša hvala. Jaz sem bil zelo ponosen, da sem dve leti zastopal barve Slovenije v Varnostnem svetu in kot sem rekel, ko smo bili izvoljeni v Varnostni svet, junija 2023: upam, da zadovoljstvo in ponos, ki ga je Slovenija takrat čutila ob izvolitvi, da vsaj podoben ponos čuti tudi po tem dveletnem članstvu. Najlepša hvala.

Voditeljica: Članstvo v Varnostnem svetu ni le diplomatski mandat, ampak tudi odgovornost do mednarodnih skupnosti in vrednot, ki jih država zagovarja. Naša država je, kot smo slišali, svojo nalogo v Varnostnem svetu, izpeljala načelno in odločno. In Slovenija zdaj svojo pot nadaljuje še v Svetu za človekove pravice in drugih forumih v okviru OZN. 

Gledalke in gledalci, poslušalke in poslušalci, najlepša hvala za pozornost. GOVSI podkast lahko spremljate na vseh priljubljenih aplikacijah za podkaste in Youtube kanalu Vlade Republike Slovenije. Nasvidenje.

[ENGLISH VERSION]

Host: Dear viewers, listeners, welcome to the 34th episode of the GOVSI podcast, prepared for you by the Government Communication Office. I’m Polona Prešeren. Today, we will be talking about two very intense years for Slovenian diplomacy. We are talking about the period when Slovenia was a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. What does this mean in practice? What is it like to sit at the table where the most difficult questions are decided? And what role can a small country play in this context? What did Slovenia achieve during this two-year mandate?

Our guest today is the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Slovenia to the United Nations, Ambassador Samuel Žbogar. Welcome to our studio.

Guest: Thank you very much. Thank you, good afternoon.

Host: We are very pleased to have you here, as you are coming off quite intense weeks and months – two intense years. Have you already had time to gather your thoughts after this mandate, which concluded with Slovenia also presiding over the Security Council?

Guest: Yes, I would say 730 very intense days. You know, after we were elected in June 2023, the Prime Minister called me in for a meeting and at that time suggested that I represent Slovenia in the Security Council. He also said then: this will certainly be the peak of your diplomatic career. And he was absolutely right. I think this is definitely the peak of my career, and probably also one of the peaks of Slovenian foreign policy.

Yes, it was demanding. We had… it was like a roller coaster. A kind of death slide, with all the feelings you experience when you go down such a slide – from excitement, joy and exhilaration to fear, and even nausea at times because of the decisions we were facing. And in the end, immense joy that we made it to the end of that ride, or rather, out of the Security Council.

As I said, it was truly 730 days, every single day from morning until evening. We had over 440 official interventions in the Security Council… There was a lot of it. I think we were successful, but above all, I have to say that I had an exceptional team. An exceptional team in New York, and of course also those in Ljubljana, at the ministry – but I am talking about my people. Among them were 18 diplomats from the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, who truly… it was a dream team. I can say that we connected immediately and were able to work the way we did.

Now we have come out of it. I must say that over the last six months we were already quite eagerly awaiting the end, because it was exhausting, no matter how you look at it. Especially because we concluded the mandate with the presidency. Which I think is very good – we finished on a high note, at a peak. And we also had quite a few successes during that December presidency.

We are happy that it is behind us. We have now taken a bit of time off to rest and regain our energy. But we are being warned that a period is coming – what is it called in Slovenian? Withdrawal syndrome…

Host: Withdrawal syndrome…

Guest: Yes. You know, one colleague with whom I served on the Security Council – during our first year we were talking, and I asked him how it is, whether you really fall into depression once you are no longer in the Security Council. Because the Security Council is the supreme body for peace and security in the world, and therefore an extremely responsible function, which states can approach in different ways. Slovenia took this responsibility for peace and security extremely seriously, and we acted accordingly.

And that colleague told me: yes, first he went on three weeks of vacation to rest a bit, but then, he said, he also felt a bit sad. But then he said: you know what? You threw yourselves into the Security Council so completely, even at the national level, that you will certainly become depressed.

I’m still waiting for that. No, it will come. I think we are currently still in the phase where we have all taken time to breathe. I hope it doesn’t come, which is why we are already making plans for the future, to continue some of the activities we led in the Security Council within the General Assembly. After all, we remain members of the General Assembly, like the other 190 states. For now, it hasn’t happened yet, but everyone keeps warning me that sooner or later it will.

Host: You mentioned that already in June 2023 the final vote took place on non-permanent membership in the Security Council. At that time, Slovenia received the support of as many as 153 out of 193 UN Member States. However, that support was not as self-evident as the numbers and the vote might suggest. In your view, what did this support say about Slovenia’s reputation in the diplomatic world and in the international community?

Guest: No, the support was not self-evident, especially because we entered the campaign very late. Belarus, our opposing candidate, had been in the campaign for years. That was our handicap – we joined very late.

But of course, on the other hand, our opponent was Belarus, which does not enjoy a great reputation, especially since the war in Ukraine, or rather Russia’s attack on Ukraine, which Belarus supports. Still, it was not a given that the entire Global South would support Slovenia so strongly.

We had a very strong campaign in New York and in the capital, in Ljubljana. The Minister was engaged, the Prime Minister was engaged, the President was engaged, the President of the National Assembly was engaged. Truly, the entire country was engaged. Still, we did not expect Slovenia to win so smoothly already in the first round.

I am not saying, of course, that this was solely the result of the campaign. As I said, it was probably also due to the fact that the opposing candidate did not have such a reputation, and to Slovenia’s own reputation. From the very beginning, Slovenia has been associated with something… it has a positive image in the international community. There is no reason why it should not.

Slovenia was active during the war in the Balkans, assisting refugees, and after the war with proposals and activities on how to resolve issues in the region. We have always been a success story, associated with positive feelings.

I think that what happened with our two-year membership and everything we did in the Security Council – and also what Slovenian foreign policy and the Slovenian government did at home in connection with foreign policy – is that we sharpened the image of Slovenian foreign policy. It is now much clearer.

That image of Slovenia in the world… For example, the South African ambassador, who visited Ljubljana during the campaign as part of a visit by ambassadors from New York, told me recently that when they were in Ljubljana and listened to us talk about being principled and representing the interests of the entire membership, they listened very cautiously because they did not know us well – meaning, they had some doubts.

She said: I am very satisfied; we are very satisfied with how you acted in the Security Council. She also said this at the final meeting in December, along with others – praising Slovenia for how it acted as a responsible member of the Security Council.

I think that over these two years – yes, Slovenia was recognizable and had a positive image, but during these two years it moved to a completely different level. The picture of what Slovenia is and what the principles of Slovenian foreign policy had become much sharper and clearer.

For example, a senior official of the organization recently told me: after listening to you in the Security Council, I thought to myself, I must visit the country these diplomats come from, because you are so interesting due to your principled and consistent advocacy of certain principles. He said they want to visit Slovenia to see firsthand what the people in this country are like, the country that produces such diplomats.

I think that over these two years we used this opportunity very well as a country – especially thanks to the harmony that existed between government policy, the National Assembly, the President, and what we represented in New York. That was the recipe for success, if I may say so, and that is why the membership turned out to be so successful.

Host: Our mandate in the Security Council indeed took place during a period of extremely tense global security conditions. We followed developments in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan. There are also many forgotten crises around the world. The work of the Security Council during this period was primarily marked by these concrete crisis hotspots. How did Slovenia engage in this context, and what principles guided its approach?

Guest: Yes, as you mentioned. There were three main crises that we dealt with from the very first day. Gaza as well – yes, Gaza from the very first day. So: Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan – three horrific crises, conflicts marked by horrific suffering of the civilian population.

What happened in Gaza, where more than 80 percent of all those killed were civilians, or what is happening in Sudan. We had horrific briefings. Briefings where we were all left speechless listening to what is happening in Sudan. And that is the crisis that is least present in our public space.

All three crises marked our period. That is why last September, when Slovenia presided over the Security Council – or when Prime Minister Golob presided over the Security Council – the main debate, attended by presidents and prime ministers, was devoted precisely to these three crises and to the question of leadership: where is leadership, how should it be shaped, how should we approach these three crises? Why is it that the Security Council has not been able to resolve them, that it has no recipe, plan or formula for resolving these three horrific crises?

That debate was precisely about leadership for peace – a call to seek the leadership that is so desperately needed in the international community to bring these crises, and others, toward solutions.

What is Slovenia’s role in such major crises? Of course, we are a small country. That is a fact. We are neither militarily powerful nor a coordinator, nor a great power – but we were one of the 15 members. One of the 15, with full responsibility.

And what can a country do? You can request Security Council meetings. You can insist, push the Security Council to debate solutions – which is what we did regarding all three crises, especially Ukraine and Gaza. You can propose solutions.

Regarding Gaza, we were involved in – or led – four draft resolutions, one of which was adopted. For the others, we received 14 votes; one was specifically led by us, and in the others, we were among the main initiators.

On Ukraine, together with the United States, we were the penholder for the Ukraine file. Every month we convened meetings on Ukraine, simply to keep the issue on the Security Council’s agenda. Even though the Russian Federation prevented any decisions, debate still took place at our request.

We brought forward the issue of children in Ukraine, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the bombing of Ukraine. Every month, the Security Council discussed the fact that this war continues, thanks to the initiative of a Security Council member – and a permanent member, at that.

Because we cannot make decisions beyond the veto, our role was primarily to exert pressure – to push toward solutions. The role of a small state is that, because you may be weaker on your own, you act in groups.

We acted within a group of European countries – there are five European countries in the Security Council. In the second year, we often convened meetings on behalf of these five European states. Even more effective, however, is the group of non-permanent members – ten out of fifteen. That is a significant number, and when you act as a group, you can achieve solutions or at least force movement toward them.

As some colleagues said at the final meeting when we said farewell to the Security Council at the end of December, Slovenia was one of the engines of the non-permanent members. Of all Western countries, we were closest to the countries of the Global South – we played a kind of bridging role. We understood best what the Global South wanted to convey and transmitted that to the West, and vice versa – explaining to the Global South why the issue of Ukraine is so existential for Europe.

I believe this was Slovenia’s added value in the Security Council – our activity within and as part of the group of non-permanent members. I think we achieved quite a lot in those two years.

The Secretary-General said in his final conversation with our Minister in New York that the way the group of non-permanent members functioned over the past two years had never been seen before – not only because the states involved were strong in their positions, but also because relations among the permanent members were so polarized during this period.

Host: But Slovenia was marked precisely by this principled approach in the Security Council, wasn’t it? Especially through our firm, principled statements on Gaza and the West Bank, through which we gained trust with this proactive engagement. Was this principled stance, even when it was not the easiest path, one of the recognized strengths of Slovenia’s membership in the Security Council?

Guest: The short answer is: yes.

Look, when we… and perhaps I will again explain at the same time what I meant when I said that we “sharpened the image of Slovenian foreign policy” when we entered the Security Council.

It is always the case that when new members enter the Security Council, people listen very carefully to them, because through the first speeches you get a sense of what kind of country this is. In the Security Council, you are exposed. You are on your own and you cannot hide behind anyone – not behind a group, nor by staying silent. You have to speak, you have to state your position, and the first speeches are listened to very closely.

And after our first interventions in January 2024, for example, the Swiss colleague sitting next to me – because we sit alphabetically – was passing me notes saying: wow, very, very good speech, very interesting arguments. And then she said: wow, we think very similarly – but with a sense of surprise. We knew we were like-minded with Switzerland on international law and international humanitarian law, but for them it was a surprise. And she said: well, we could work a lot together.

And indeed, in the first year we worked very closely with Switzerland. We were a very, very good tandem. And then more countries joined in this way. This is where our principled stance already became evident. Because we spoke in such a principled way, and because we always started from the position that the UN Charter says this, international law says this, and the protection of civilians is our priority.

Whatever the crisis, you can say whatever you want, you can try to unify positions, but civilians suffer. Why do they suffer? They don’t have to. And our speeches stemmed from that. Our speeches were very emotional, increasingly emotional. I think that if you ask anyone what Slovenia is recognized for in New York, in the Security Council, it is these emotional speeches of ours – interesting speeches.

I think we invested a great deal in the messages that came through our speeches. And as my colleagues sitting behind me told me, people would put down their phones and listen, because there was always something interesting. And this was acknowledged – that we had speeches that people listened to.

Now I’ve lost my train of thought a bit… But yes, after these speeches, we became known.

Host: We can also continue with another topic. You mentioned the Global South. One of your colleagues told you: “the village is proud of you.”

Guest: One of the most beautiful compliments we received in the Security Council.

You know, when you preside over the Council, on the first day of the presidency you present your programme to the entire membership, and on the last day you present the achievements of your presidency. We did both.

At that presentation, one of our African colleagues said this – that in Africa this is a very big compliment, meaning that we had represented the colours of the entire membership well.

And at the end, at that recap, as we call it, at the conclusion of the presidency, when you explain what you did, we were again innovative. We had many innovative ideas in the Security Council. And I did not stand alone at that final presentation – I invited all five colleagues who were leaving the Security Council, our generation of Security Council members, to share their impressions of the two-year membership.

And I must say, we were a very strong, very strong… how do you say it? Generation. The Algerian ambassador – a very experienced ambassador, a kind of thunderer, very influential, with strong positions. The ambassador of Guyana, a former foreign minister, also a very strong personality, even among possible candidates for Secretary-General.  Then Sierra Leone – the ambassador, a very strong international lawyer, who always framed every speech around international law; always interesting to listen to. And then the ambassador of Korea – there was a change due to a change of government.

We spoke at the end of December about our two years. It lasted two hours. Never before had a final presidency review lasted two hours. It was extremely interesting – extremely interesting questions and, above all, interesting reflections from my colleagues.

So I believe that in the Security Council, in the UN, a very, very large amount of political capital remains – capital that we managed to accumulate over these two years of membership.

Host: Slovenia also received a great deal of media attention during this period for its work in the Security Council and at the UN more broadly. Major international media outlets such as The New York Times, the BBC and other leading global media reported extensively on this. This is not self-evident and involves a lot of work behind the scenes that is not visible to the public. In your view, what attracted the attention of these foreign media and major outlets to reporting on Slovenia?

Guest: Yes, again, many things, many elements, many pieces of this puzzle that together form this picture.

Of course, we worked a great deal with foreign media. I personally held informal briefings. I think I had about ten informal briefings over the two years with journalists, where we spoke very openly about what was happening around the world. We spoke very openly about plans, who was doing what… It was a very open conversation, which correspondents from various outlets appreciated, because it was not formal, but went very much into depth.

Then we had daily contact with the diplomat responsible for media relations. On a daily basis we were in touch with journalists and informed them about our interventions, about what was coming, what was expected.

And then our speeches, as I said, were interesting – at least they were assessed as such. Right at the beginning we had an intervention that was quoted by an Al Jazeera journalist on his X account, which had 200,000 views. We never reached that number again, but for us it was something unbelievable. I think that was the moment when people started paying attention to us.

And many times we included something in our speeches that was interesting for the media. So through all of this – the relationship we cultivated with the media, our interventions, and the fact that leaders coming to New York – the Prime Minister, the Minister – were open to the media and gave interviews – I think we developed a good kind of coexistence with foreign media, and this produced results.

I think we have more than 240 mentions and quotations in foreign media, ranging from Reuters and the BBC to The New York Times, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera and other Arab media. I believe that through this media coverage, the image of Slovenia was built and further strengthened – an image that I think is extremely positive and worth continuing to build upon. This kind of positive image wave is something you should ride for some time.

Host: Slovenia is now entering roughly its 35th year of diplomacy. It has been a member of the United Nations since 1992 and has now served for the second time as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. How has this influenced Slovenia’s diplomatic path? How would you, as a career diplomat, assess Slovenia’s journey in diplomatic terms, particularly within the framework of the UN?

Guest: I will get to that, but I just remembered that I did not fully answer one earlier question – whether it was difficult to be principled, and whether there were moments when this was hard. And it is probably worth saying this.

Yes, there were. It is not easy to be principled, especially because your allies do not necessarily appreciate it when you are always principled. Everyone appreciates it when you are principled on Ukraine – your allies, your family, which in our case is the EU and NATO. But if you are perhaps too principled on Gaza, that was not always very welcome.

There were situations when we were just as principled on Gaza as we were on Ukraine. The good thing about us was that we never surprised anyone. Whatever we undertook, including on Gaza, we first informed the United States. They may not have liked it, but we did not surprise them.

Even the resolution on which they cast a veto – our resolution – we first discussed it with them. For quite some time we talked with them about the resolution and asked what would need to be included so that they would not veto it. We made several attempts, but in the end we reached a point where it was no longer possible to include those elements in a way that other members could support.

Yes, there were moments when it was not easy to be principled, because you raise eyebrows, someone may be unhappy, and you expect that there might be protests in the capital about what you are doing in New York.

But there is one issue I would mention as an example. Western Sahara is such a case of the lack of principle in global politics. When Slovenia first served on the Security Council in 1998–1999, the Council spoke about recognizing the right to self-determination of Western Sahara and preparations were under way for a referendum so that the population could decide whether they wanted independence.

Twenty-five years later, when we were now in the Security Council, in the meantime Morocco recognized Israel, and in return the United States recognized Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara. One by one, states then began recognizing that Western Sahara belongs to Morocco, forgetting the right to self-determination. France, Germany, last year also the United Kingdom and Spain – all major countries suddenly recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the territory without asking the people living there.

We had two debates in the Security Council where we departed from our allies. Slovenia was founded on the basis of the right to self-determination, and this is a principle from which Slovenia cannot depart and must defend in the international community. And we defended it to the end.

We defended the right to self-determination to the very end, even though we ultimately voted for a resolution extending the mandate. But until the very last moment, and also in the explanation of our vote, we insisted on the right to self-determination. In the end, everyone acknowledged this and appreciated our principled stance – even Morocco, which exerted strong pressure both in Ljubljana and in New York, ultimately acknowledged that we were principled. Slovenia is principled; they accepted that.

That was where we were exposed to the greatest pressure, including in Ljubljana, where the Minister faced enormous pressure from other ministers not to insist on self-determination. But this principled stance is not ideological; it is in our own interest.

If we do not defend the right to self-determination in the case of Western Sahara, it could also be questioned in our own case – regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity. What is happening now around Venezuela or Greenland is another example.

That is why it is so important that states speak about the principles of the UN Charter, sovereignty, the inviolability of borders and territorial integrity. Without these principles, small states like Slovenia could find themselves in very difficult situations. As a small and militarily limited state, we depend on these principles.

That is why I believe it is in our vital interest to be principled and to insist on these principles, even if at times this displeases some of our major allies. Without this, Slovenia would not be Slovenia.

Host: Were there also pressures from major allies during the Security Council mandate?

Guest: There were some pressures during the first year in the Security Council. Then gradually they got to know us and realized that this is simply how we are, and that we are not easily moved when it comes to principles. So it was not as bad as we had expected.

Everyone warned us before we entered the Security Council that good understanding and cooperation between the capital and New York are crucial for effective work. Others warned us that pressure often comes in the capital, which then gives instructions that differ from what the people in New York would want.

What happened in our case was the harmony I mentioned between Ljubljana and New York. There was never a situation where the capital thought differently from New York, or rather where New York thought differently from the capital. This harmony was one of our advantages, because it created a great deal of trust among decision-makers in Ljubljana in the delegation in New York.

As a result, we were sometimes able to react spontaneously, without checking positions with Ljubljana. There simply was no time, and we knew that Ljubljana thought in a similar way. This was a major added value.

Let me give you an example. At the UN there is the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Tom Fletcher – an extremely capable former British diplomat, now holding a very high position. We value him greatly.

At one of the Security Council briefings, he warned the Council that there was a possibility of genocidal acts in Gaza. This was the first time that this word was uttered in the Security Council by the Secretariat. He did not say that genocide was taking place; he spoke about the possibility of genocidal acts. Nevertheless, the US representative reacted strongly, saying it was unacceptable for the Secretariat to speak of genocide in Gaza.

Slovenia was the only one able to react quickly at that moment, to come to his defence. And he appreciated this greatly and still does. A quick reaction was needed. We knew Ljubljana would support it. Many of my colleagues would have had to first check with their capitals, but we knew and felt that Ljubljana thought the same way.

After all, our leaders had already used this word, so we supported him – in the sense that the problem is not the messenger who brings the message, but the message itself. Let us discuss the message.

Another example – I will not go into the specific file – involved a resolution on the agenda where the United States intended to abstain. At the last moment, they wanted an amendment included in the resolution, but they did not want to submit it themselves. They asked Slovenia to table the amendment so that they could support the resolution.

There were only thirty minutes left before the vote. They asked Slovenia to submit the amendment, assuring us they would support it and vote in favour of the resolution. We knew that everyone else would also agree, and we carried out the operation. Afterwards, many wondered what had happened, but there was no time to consult the capital.

Our delegation was structured in such a way that it could take decisions when it knew it had support from the capital. This was another added value that the US delegation also recognized: “We came to you because we believe you can carry this through.”

You also asked me about 35 years… I am jumping around a bit.

Slovenia has always, as I said, been associated with a positive image in the international community. We have never been a problem. We have always had the same priorities: international law, human rights, protection of civilians. Even our demining fund stems from this.

This has been a constant. And every time we have held a position in the international community, we have performed well – whether it was chairing the OSCE, presiding twice over the European Union, or chairing the Council of Europe, when we also resolved a crisis at that time.

But I believe that this last two-year Security Council membership marked a leap forward. I think we gained self-confidence as Slovenian foreign policy, or as Slovenia if you prefer. Yes, we can. We may be small, but we can be recognized, visible, we can have a voice, we can be listened to, we can have ideas.

This is a major qualitative leap, and above all a confirmation that we can think with our own heads. We do not always need to ask what others think or what our allies think. Over the past two years, as a country, we first asked ourselves what our position was, what our interest was, and then we defended it. What are our principles? And then we shaped our positions accordingly and presented them.

As I said, sometimes these positions were not necessarily aligned with our allies. This self-confidence is a major added value. And judging by the reactions I receive from Slovenia, people are proud of this membership and believe we did a good job.

I think this has a very positive effect on national self-confidence. Just as we are proud of businesspeople, artists and athletes who succeed abroad, people are also satisfied when diplomacy succeeds abroad. All of this strengthens self-confidence.

You cannot be a successful entrepreneur if you are not self-confident, if you do not believe in yourself and in your product. Slovenian diplomacy believed in the principles it defended, and all this together strengthens national self-confidence. Only confident nations are successful nations. I hope that this two-year membership added one small piece to the mosaic of Slovenia’s self-confidence.

Host: Slovenia is now continuing its work within the United Nations framework with membership in the Human Rights Council. But that body is based in Geneva, correct?

Guest: That’s right. It is a different body. It is not as recognizable as the Security Council, which is often equated with the Organization itself. This is the Human Rights Council – the name says it all. It primarily deals with the state of human rights around the world and is based in Geneva, where the headquarters of many international organizations dealing with human rights are located.

But this is an ideal continuation from our Security Council membership to the Human Rights Council. All the issues we worked on in the Security Council will now continue in Geneva. I believe we also have a strong team in Geneva, with a very experienced ambassador, and I am confident that all these priorities, this recognizability of Slovenia, this brand name of Slovenia that has now become sharper, will continue through the debates in Geneva.

This Council, however, is less present in the public eye than the Security Council – of course, because the Security Council deals with issues of peace and security.

Host: There is one issue we have not yet mentioned, although it was discussed frequently during the Security Council mandate. We often hear that the United Nations are losing power, that the Security Council is trapped in blockages caused by the permanent members and the veto. How do you see this situation? Is the role of the United Nations and the Security Council today still as relevant as it was decades ago?

Guest: The Security Council, and the Organization as a whole, are not in the best shape, I would say. I think this is clear to everyone. The Organization is facing a number of challenges, and the financial one is not insignificant.

The main contributor, the United States of America, has not paid its membership dues for the second year in a row. Given that it contributes 25 percent of the Organization’s budget, this is a major problem. The Secretary-General has warned that if funds are not transferred this year as well, the Organization could go bankrupt. The UN cannot borrow money; it can only spend what it has. If the largest contributor does not pay for two years, there is simply no way to cover expenses.

The Secretariat has reduced its budget by 20 percent, hiring is being cut, and 20 percent of staff are being laid off – but even this will not be enough. This is a very serious problem.

Another problem is that more and more issues are being handled outside the Organization, with the UN gradually losing competencies. This is not only the United States negotiating peace around the world; it also includes regional organizations and regional powers increasingly wanting to negotiate and resolve issues on their own, pushing the UN to the margins.

Then there is, of course, the situation in the Security Council, which has been highly polarized since the war in Ukraine. It began with polarization between the Russian Federation and the United States, and now it is increasingly felt between China and the United States. China is becoming an increasingly equal superpower, paying nearly as much into the UN budget as the US, and demanding corresponding rights – in staffing, in decision-making.

This growing Chinese self-confidence is felt in the Security Council. China reacts to every criticism from the United States and positions itself as the opposing pole. They are not yet ready for a direct confrontation, but the polarization is strong.

At the same time, the United States increasingly uses the Security Council in ways that sideline the Organization from resolving issues. Even the Gaza resolution we adopted – because there was no other option than to support a resolution that brings peace to Gaza – contains many problems, including the fact that the entire process of resolving the issue is being conducted outside the Security Council. This “board of peace” does not include representatives of the Security Council, and reporting back to the Council is very sporadic.

This is a major challenge: the Security Council is increasingly being used to exclude the Organization from managing issues. There are more and more debates in the Council, but fewer and fewer resolutions. We were receiving data showing that each year there are more meetings but fewer resolutions adopted.

That is why discussions on reform are currently taking place within the Organization. These debates happen every few years, but I think now a more serious reflection will be necessary about what will happen to the Organization in the future.

You asked whether there is still a need for such an organization. Absolutely – more than ever. At the moment when the principle of power begins to dominate – if I am strong, I can do whatever I want – then the principles of sovereignty no longer matter, the Charter no longer matters.

When this principle takes hold, small states should be concerned. And small states make up the vast majority of this Organization. That is why I believe in a mobilization of states in defence of the Charter, of multilateralism, of the Organization. Only the UN can provide the kind of collective protection that most states need.

The UN was not established after the Second World War without reason, and those reasons still exist. I believe we will go through some difficult periods in the near future, as we already see in discussions about Greenland and who knows what else may follow.

But I think this will only strengthen the determination of UN Member States to fight more seriously for this Organization and for the principles it represents.

Host: Just one final question. In the past, there has been speculation that a candidate from Slovenia could one day assume leadership of the United Nations, particularly because Eastern Europe has not yet had a Secretary-General. In your opinion, does Slovenia have the weight, reputation and credibility to realistically consider this?

Guest: I think Slovenia has the awareness and self-confidence to think about this, and the right to think about it. You are right that Eastern Europe has not yet had a Secretary-General, but currently the mood in the Organization is that it is Latin America’s turn to propose a candidate or candidate. This regional rotation is not written anywhere; it is more of a gentleman’s agreement, which was not respected in the previous election, when it was Eastern Europe’s turn.

As you remember, Slovenia had a very strong candidate at that time, former President Dr Danilo Türk, who was doing very well for a long time. But in the end, they opted for a candidate from Western Europe, even though there were many strong candidates from Eastern Europe.

In the end, it is the major powers that decide, because they have veto power over candidates. The final vote is in the General Assembly, but the permanent members have veto power, which gives them decisive influence.

There are many ideas about how to loosen this system, but it is not in the interest of the permanent members to do so. Slovenia currently has such a reputation – and always has – that it could propose a candidate. Everything depends on the candidate, who must suit the moment and the needs of the Organization.

These will be very demanding elections, also because of relations among the permanent members. They must find a candidate acceptable to all five. This is extremely difficult, especially given the financial crisis of the Organization and the marginalization of its role.

We will probably need someone very courageous, someone who will try to bring the Organization back to the centre. That person will need good relations with all permanent members and the respect of all Member States. That is almost a squaring of the circle today.

But when you ask about Slovenia: I think we must be self-confident and run for such positions. We are often too modest as a country. After everything we have shown over the years, and especially recently, I believe we must show the confidence to propose candidates – or even better, candidates who are women. There is hope among General Assembly members that the next Secretary-General will be a woman.

Host: Ambassador Žbogar, thank you very much for this conversation and for an exceptionally interesting insight into the behind-the-scenes workings of the Security Council and the United Nations, and especially for shedding light on the role of our country within this organization.

Guest: Thank you very much. I was very proud to represent Slovenia in the Security Council for two years. As I said when we were elected in June 2023, I hope that the satisfaction and pride Slovenia felt at that time is at least equally felt after this two-year membership. Thank you very much.

Host: Membership in the Security Council is not only a diplomatic mandate, but also a responsibility towards the international community and the values a country upholds. As we have heard, Slovenia carried out its task in the Security Council in a principled and determined manner. Slovenia now continues its path in the Human Rights Council and other UN forums.

Dear viewers and listeners, thank you very much for your attention. You can follow the GOVSI podcast on all major podcast platforms and on the YouTube channel of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia. 

Goodbye.