EFTA01074017

IPI 
INTERNATIONAL 
PEACE 
INSTITUTE 
TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 
Report to the Foreign Minister of Finland 
on the 2012 Elections to the United Nations Security Council 
April 2013 
EFTA01074017

Contents 
Acronyms 
3 
Executive Summary 
4 
Introduction 
 8 
I. 
Analysis of the campaign 
9 
1. Campaign themes 
9 
2. Strategies  
 11 
3. Resources 
 14 
4. Tactics 
 16 
5. Ideologies and Attitudes 
 19 
6. Ethics 
 21 
II. 
Lessons learned  
23 
1. For Finland  
 23 
1.1 Stay engaged in the work of the UN 
23 
1.2 Sharpen its international profile and 
communicate more effectively 
 24 
1.3 Diversify its bilateral partnerships 
25 
2. For the Nordic countries 
 26 
3. For the EU 
27 
4. For the UN membership 
28 
Methodology 
31 
EFTA01074018

Acronyms 
CARICOM 
Caribbean Community 
ECOSOC 
United Nations Economic and Social Council 
EU 
European Union 
G77 
Group of 77 
GNI 
Gross National Income 
IPI 
International Peace Institute 
ODA 
Official Development Assistance 
OECD 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
OECD/DAC 
OECD's Development Assistance Committee 
UN 
United Nations 
UNSC 
United Nations Security Council 
USD 
United States Dollar 
WEOG 
Western European and Others Group 
EFTA01074019

4 
Executive Summary 
The defeat of Finland at the 2012 elections to the UN Security Council came as a 
surprise to most delegates and observers. Finland, which was competing with Australia 
and Luxembourg, had long been considered a favorite. 
This report—based on confidential interviews by the International Peace Institute (IPI)—
is an attempt to analyze what differentiated the three candidates and to identify some 
lessons learned from their respective campaigns. 
I. 
Analysis of the campaign 
1. Campaign themes 
All three candidates developed similar campaign themes that emphasized their 
respective contributions to the work of the United Nations. Finland was placed in an 
unusual configuration: it had to compete on the one hand with a country the size of a 
continent, and on the other with one of Europe's smallest states. 
Sensitivities within the UN about the representation of European Union countries on the 
Security Council played in favor of Australia's candidacy, and unexpectedly led Finland 
and Luxembourg to compete with one another. 
2. Strategies 
Finland focused its strategy on UN issues. The cornerstone of Australia's strategy was 
to complement its discourse on UN policies with an emphasis on its bilateral and 
regional relationships with member states. It led an exceptionally active campaign both 
in New York and in capitals. Luxembourg prioritized cultivating ambassadors in New 
York while keeping close, constant contact at the ministerial level. 
Luxembourg enlisted support from small states, from Francophone and Portuguese-
speaking countries, and from EU members. Australia was endorsed by the Forum of the 
Pacific and by CARICOM, had access to the members of the Commonwealth, and 
received solid support in Asia and Africa, and also from some European countries. 
Finland could not rely—as Australia and Luxembourg did—on cultural and historic ties 
to build its constituency. It was supported by the Nordics, the Baltic states, and 
CARICOM, but received insufficient support from the least developed countries, in 
particular in Africa, and did not receive full backing from EU members. 
3. Resources 
Australia mobilized important resources for its campaign with a budget of USD 25 
million over 5 years, covering all its costs—including expenses for additional staff in 
EFTA01074020

5 
Canberra and New York, seminars, and travel costs of special envoys. Finland and 
Luxembourg spent much less, although available information relating to their campaign 
budgets (2 million Euros for Finland in 2010-2012 and 1 million Euros for Luxembourg in 
2011-2012) does not include expenses for additional staff. 
4. Tactics 
Australia had announced its candidacy in 2008 and started its campaign almost 
immediately. It repeatedly checked pledges of support at all levels, and stepped up its 
efforts in the last two years of the campaign. 
Luxembourg had declared its candidacy in 2001. It started its actual campaign in 2008 
and progressively managed to establish strong credibility. 
Finland had declared its candidacy in 2002 but its campaign only started in 2009. Once 
launched, the Finnish campaign was at first very effective. The question remains 
whether Finland competed less actively in the last phase of the campaign, at a moment 
when its competitors intensified their outreach. 
Australia probably received between 150 and 160 pledges of support before the 
election. Luxembourg seems to have had slightly less than 160 pledges and Finland 
around 145. 
5. Ideologies and Attitudes 
Policies matter in UN electoral campaigns, but the competitive edge comes from 
bilateral relations or joint interests. 
Australia was aware that its political proximity to the United States and its own positions 
on the Middle East could be considered as weaknesses and it worked to limit possible 
damage to its candidacy. Luxembourg is traditionally seen as favoring consensual views 
and did not have issues of concern. 
Finland enjoyed a generally positive image as a Nordic country, but, too focused on UN 
issues, its campaign did not communicate enough about Finland's own achievements 
and identity. 
6. Ethics 
All three candidates seem to have refrained from committing to defend specific positions 
at the Council that would not be consistent with their traditional policies. 
Finland's long track record as an important donor was an asset, but probably to a lesser 
degree than for its competitors. Almost half of Finland's ODA is delivered through 
multilateral channels and, hence, less "visible" than that of Australia or Luxembourg. 
EFTA01074021

6 
II. 
Lessons learned 
1. For Finland 
Finland should remain engaged in the work of the United Nations and on the 
international scene. It should use the lessons learned from the campaign to build on its 
strengths and adapt, where needed, its diplomatic tools. 
1.1. 
Stay engaged in the work of the UN 
Last year's elections have not tarnished the good image of the country at the UN. 
Finland should continue what it currently does, which includes its contributions to UN 
funds and programs (with some adaptation), but also its initiatives like its work on 
mediation and conflict prevention. It could do even more and should review ways to 
revive its participation in peace operations and to bring support to efforts to address 
crises, in particular in Africa. 
1.2. 
Sharpen its international profile and communicate more effectively 
Finland could seize the current opportunity to reflect on its international profile, on what 
makes this profile different or similar to the ones of its closest partners, and on ways to 
communicate more effectively about what it stands for and what it does. 
Finland could consider a more selective funding strategy and concentrate its efforts on a 
smaller number of multilateral institutions working in areas which match its most 
important priorities. This would help build a more concrete narrative on Finland's 
development aid. 
For the Foreign Ministry, a more effective communication strategy would also require a 
reflection on ways to better include communication techniques in the training and 
professional development of diplomats. 
1.3. 
Diversify its bilateral partnerships 
Finland's substantial diplomatic network is a strong asset. But the campaign has 
revealed a few blind spots—in particular in Francophone Africa—and a certain deficit of 
communication with Arab countries. Finland could explore how to fill in these gaps. 
Finland's ODA is a major asset and could perhaps be more clearly connected to its 
foreign policy. Finland should continue to prioritize the most effective use of its 
resources from a development perspective. By redeploying only a margin of its ODA to 
bilateral cooperation, Finland could reach out to a wider range of countries than it 
currently does. 
EFTA01074022

7 
2. For the Nordic countries 
Finland's defeat came at the same time as Sweden's failure to be elected to the UN 
Human Rights Council and four years after Iceland's unsuccessful bid for a Security 
Council seat. Although each election had its own logic, many in New York consider 
these recent failures as "a wake-up call for the Nordics." 
Large segments of the UN membership acknowledge the particular profile of the 
Nordics as a "moral pillar" of the UN. But, for elections, they also tend to consider a 
Nordic candidate as one competitor among others, and very often not too different 
politically from the other Western candidates. 
Nordic states could reflect together on how a renewed commitment to the work of the 
UN and a more effective communication strategy could help them remain true to their 
values and at the same time engage more effectively with the other countries. 
3. For the EU 
Competition between EU members for elections at the Security Council—or other major 
UN elections—plays against the interest of EU members themselves. It also shows a 
lack of unity and solidarity within the Union and belies the European aspiration to a 
common foreign policy. 
A clear understanding among EU members that they need to work together to avoid 
electoral competition would strengthen the credibility of the EU foreign policy and would 
help enhance its contribution to the work of the UN. 
4. For the UN membership 
Countries tend to devote a larger amount of resources and mobilize at a higher political 
level to promote their candidacies at elections. Some delegates believe that such 
competition is inherently a healthy process. Others are more uncomfortable with big 
campaigns and all the effort which is put into them. 
On a voluntary basis, candidates willing to promote transparency at elections could: 
- Be transparent about their campaign budget, and 
- Reaffirm the rules and principles of their development cooperation. 
There is a need for a dialogue on the financing of development cooperation. Each set of 
donors seems to follow its own rules: South-South cooperation for the new donors, 
OECD-DAC for the traditional ones, with little overlap between the two. Member states 
could reflect on how to create some common ground between these different models. 
EFTA01074023

8 
Introduction 
Elections to non-permanent seats at the United Nations Security Council took place on 
October 18, 2012. Australia, Finland, and Luxembourg were candidates for the two 
seats allocated to the Western European and Others Group' (WEOG). 
Luxembourg had announced its candidacy to the Security Council in 2001, Finland in 
2002, and Australia in 2008. Luxembourg had previously never served on the Security 
Council. Finland had served twice (1969-1970 and 1989-1990). Australia had previously 
served four times—the last one was in 1985-1986—and had been an unsuccessful 
candidate in 1996 when it lost to Portugal.2
On October 18, 2012, Australia was elected in the first ballot with 140 votes against 128 
for Luxembourg and 108 for Finland. Luxembourg was then elected in the second ballot 
with 131 votes against 62 for Finland (the required majority being 129 votes). 
The defeat of Finland came as a surprise to most delegates and observers. The three 
WEOG candidates had each led very active electoral campaigns, and—thanks to its 
longstanding involvement with the United Nations—Finland had been considered a 
favorite in the electoral race even though some doubts about its actual chance of 
succeeding had emerged in the very last weeks of the campaign. 
In hindsight it is possible to identify elements that played in favor of Australia and 
Luxembourg and to explain the final outcome. But the way these elements were going 
to interact at the time of the vote was quite unpredictable during the campaign. The 193 
member states of the United Nations vote in the elections to the UN Security Council. 
The ballot is secret, and it is difficult to guess how much the vote cast by each delegate 
reflects personal preferences or instructions sent by the capital. Last minute changes of 
heart do happen, and countries were indeed still trading votes in the hall of the General 
Assembly in the morning of the ballot. 
This report—based on confidential interviews3 by the International Peace Institute (IPI) 
in capitals and in New York with over fifty delegates, senior officials, and observers-is 
an attempt to analyze what differentiated the three candidates and to identify some 
lessons learned from their respective campaigns. 
The General Assembly also elected countries for the other seats allocated to the African, Asian, and 
Latin American and Caribbean groups. This report focuses on the campaign for the WEOG seats only. 
2 See Security Council Report, Special Research report on "Security Council Elections 2012", September 
25, 2012, available at ww.v.securitycouncilreportorg/special-research-reporUsecurity-council-elections-
2012.php 
3 See the section on methodology at the end of this report. 
EFTA01074024

9 
I. 
Analysis of the campaign 
The analysis of the campaign for the 2012 elections to the Security Council can be 
structured around the following dimensions: 
1. themes of the campaign, 
2. strategies chosen by the candidates, 
3. resources they mobilized for their campaigns, 
4. tactics, 
5. ideologies that shaped the context of the elections and the attitudes of the 
candidates, and 
6. ethical dilemmas they faced. 
1. Campaign themes 
All three candidates developed similar campaign themes that emphasized their 
respective contributions to the work of the United Nations. 
Finland underlined its participation in UN peace operations (over 50,000 Finnish 
peacekeepers have served since 1956), its contributions to UN funds and programs, 
and its generous international development policy. It also emphasized—perhaps more 
than the other two candidates—what it could bring to the Security Council because of its 
balanced approach toward international politics, its experience from two previous terms 
at the Council, and its record in support of mediation and peacemaking. 
Luxembourg focused on its long-standing commitment to multilateral cooperation, 
which is illustrated by its active participation in numerous regional and international 
organizations, its high level of official development assistance (which reached 1.05 
percent of its gross national income, GNI, in 2010), its support to peace operations led 
by the UN or by other organizations, and its involvement in all areas of the work of the 
UN including the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the Peacebuilding 
Commission. Luxembourg also stressed that, although it was a founding member of the 
United Nations, it had never served on the Security Council. 
Australia emphasized its strong UN record marked by its contributions to the UN and 
UN-mandated peace operations (more than 65,000 Australian personnel have served 
since 1947), the expansion of its aid budget set to reach 9 billion Australian dollars4 by 
2016-2017, and its active involvement in multilateral cooperation ranging from support 
for peace processes in the Asia-Pacific region, to disarmament and non-proliferation, to 
international law and human rights issues. Australia, though, complemented its 
discourse on UN policies with an emphasis on its bilateral and regional relationships 
with member states. This was a cornerstone of its campaign strategy. 
Beyond the similarities of these themes, the challenge was for each candidate to 
4 This amount was equivalent to USD 9.4 billion as of April 1, 2013. 
EFTA01074025

10 
express what made it more capable than the two others to take responsibility on the 
Security Council. 
In this regard, Finland was placed in an unusual configuration: it had to compete on the 
one hand with a country the size of a continent, and on the other with one of Europe's 
smallest states. As one delegate interviewed for this survey summed it up: "It is hard to 
compete when you are in the middle. Whatever measure of achievement you choose, 
one of the two other candidates performs better than you do. For instance, Finland's 
ODA is larger than Luxembourg's, but Luxembourg gives a higher proportion of its 
national income. Finnish aid is higher than Australia's in proportion to its national 
income but much lower in actual amount."5
More importantly, another theme had a major impact on the campaign: the issue of the 
representation of European Union countries on the Security Council. Although this 
theme did not appear in the brochures circulated by the candidates, this issue had a 
significant influence on the outcome of the election. 
In the last ten years, elections to the WEOG seats at the Security Council had all played 
in favor of candidates from the European Union. EU members had "clean slates" (i.e., 
only two candidates for two seats) in 2002, 2004, and 2006. Austria, the only EU 
candidate, was elected in 2008 together with Turkey in a bid against Iceland. In 2010, 
two EU members, Germany and Portugal, were elected over Canada. 
These successes had generated a sense of frustration among the non-EU members of 
the WEOG. As one delegate put it, "After Iceland's and Canada's failures, there was 
some concern that—within the WEOG—the others, the non-EU, would never be elected 
again." They also raised questions about an "over-representation" of the EU at the 
Council, given that two of its permanent members, France and the United Kingdom, 
belong to the EU, and an EU member can also be elected for the Eastern European 
seat at the Council. Indeed, the "anti-EU rhetoric" had been one of the traits of the 2011 
campaign for the Eastern European seat, which Azerbaijan won in opposition to EU-
members Hungary and Slovenia. 
Other elements also contributed to create a context that was less favorable to EU 
candidates. European Union countries had led two campaigns in 2010 and in 2011 to 
enhance the status of the EU in the General Assembly that resulted in the adoption of a 
resolution in May 2011.6 But this had caused negative reactions from other countries, in 
particular from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), which considered that the EU 
was asking for more than other regional organizations at a time when the contribution of 
EU members to the UN budget was declining and when the crisis of the Euro was 
affecting its image. 
5 According to the OECD/DAC, net official development assistance flows in 2011 were respectively USD 
5 billion from Australia (0.34% of its GNI), USD 1.4 billion from Finland (0.53% of its GNI), and 0.4 billion 
from Luxembourg (0.97% of its GNI), 
available at www.oecd.org/dac/stats/statisticsonresourceflowstodevelopingcountries.htm . 
6 UN General Assembly Resolution (adopted May 3, 2011), UN Doc. A/RES/65/276. 
EFTA01074026

I I 
This European Union context in the campaign for the 2012 elections set Australia apart 
from the two EU competitors. Most delegates with whom IPI met said that this 
background gave a real advantage to Australia against Finland and Luxembourg. The 
EU theme transformed the dynamic of the campaign. As one delegate put it, "Finland 
thought that it was going to be elected because of its UN record and that the race was 
between Australia and Luxembourg." But in reality another race, between Luxembourg 
and Finland, was taking place. 
One delegate commented: "Countries at the General Assembly are attached to a sense 
of balance. They did not want two EU countries to be elected in the same year. Finland 
had already been twice a member of the Council and Luxembourg had never been. 
Australia had lost a few years ago and countries wanted to give it a second chance." 
2. Strategies 
Campaigning for the Security Council requires multifaceted strategies. The candidates 
need to approach officials of other countries both in their capitals and in New York. They 
have to identify the right level for their demarches. They need to strike the right balance 
between the presentation of their views on UN issues and more targeted messages on 
matters of bilateral interest. 
All three candidates managed to combine these different elements in their electoral 
strategies, but with a different focus for each. 
Finland's strategy prioritized UN issues, in line with the main themes of its campaign. It 
emphasized what it could bring to the Security Council, an approach that is consistent 
with the UN Charter itself. Article 23.1 specifies that the General Assembly shall elect 
the non-permanent members of the UNSC with "due regard being specially paid, in the 
first instance to the contribution of members of the United Nations to the maintenance of 
international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also 
to equitable geographical distribution." 
The choice had clearly been made that Finland's campaign should be "substance-
driven." Finnish representatives emphasized their country's commitment to the UN and 
its capacity to work in the Council in a reliable and predictable way. The messages were 
adapted as needed to the interlocutors, but it appears that they were generally related 
to the UN and Finland's work in the organization. Specific themes also related to the UN 
were added to these messages as work developed at the UN. For instance, 
representatives highlighted the initiative sponsored by Finland and Turkey on mediation. 
In addition to the many contacts developed by the Finnish permanent representative 
with his colleagues in New York, a special representative of the foreign minister was 
appointed, who did most of the bilateral visits to capitals. 
In a similar way, Australia emphasized UN issues in its contacts in capitals and New 
EFTA01074027

12 
York. But the originality of its campaign was that it also made room for a substantial 
bilateral dialogue with each potential voter. Australian diplomats made special efforts to 
understand the needs and priorities of each country that they approached. They 
developed targeted messages for each voter, on a case-by-case basis, which 
explained, on a range of issues, what Australia was doing and why, detailing facts while 
at the same time avoiding generalities. 
The result was that the Australian campaign succeeded in giving to each interlocutor a 
"convincing story," based on experience and a long-track record of involvement with the 
UN and complemented by well-chosen talking points on bilateral issues. 
Of the three candidates, Australia is probably the one that, thanks to the resources it 
mobilized for its campaign, developed the most active strategy toward the capitals and 
in New York. In capitals, Australian diplomats made sure to have access at very high 
levels. In New York, they cultivated the permanent representatives through an active 
engagement on substantial issues and an important program of invitations to Australia. 
The prime minister and foreign minister actively campaigned for their country's 
candidacy. Australia deployed a number of special envoys in Africa and other places 
with good knowledge of these regions. In addition, it mobilized members of parliament 
who were sent to targeted capitals. 
Australia had defined a comprehensive strategy of lessons learned by visiting a range of 
foreign ministries which had in the past won or lost seats at the Security Council. These 
lessons learned formed an important part of its campaign strategy. One of them was 
that the special envoys should be envoys of the prime minister, rather than of the 
minister of foreign affairs. This enabled the envoys to have access to head of states and 
of governments. The reason was that, for most countries, it is much more difficult for the 
representative in New York to ignore the voting instructions from its capital if these 
instructions emanate directly from the head of state or of government. 
On its part, Luxembourg prioritized cultivating relationships with member-state 
representatives in New York. It also very actively campaigned at the ministerial level. 
Luxembourg's foreign minister, who had the rare advantage of having been in office 
since 2004, tirelessly traveled to capitals and to meetings of international and regional 
organizations and kept in constant, personal contact with his peers. 
New York, however, remained a key focus for Luxembourg. This was due to 
Luxembourg's relatively smaller diplomatic network compared to its competitors. This 
also reflected a deliberate strategy to approach and remain in close and frequent 
contact with important voting blocs such as Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific, which 
could be more easily reached at UN headquarters than in capitals. Luxembourg also 
appointed a special envoy for each of these three regions. 
Luxembourg's permanent representative and mission to the UN played an essential role 
in the success of the campaign. The permanent representative was able to build on her 
achievements as president of ECOSOC in 2009 and chair of the Guinea configuration of 
EFTA01074028

13 
the Peacebuilding Commission in 2011, a post that gave Luxembourg good visibility vis-
a-vis African delegates. In addition, Luxembourg's foreign minister made special efforts 
to visit New York frequently and to meet personally with permanent representatives 
there. 
In a similar fashion as its two other competitors, Luxembourg developed arguments to 
explain its contributions to the UN and express its views on UN issues. But it was also 
able to relate to a very large and diverse group of countries that could one way or 
another identify with its candidacy as a country that had never served in the Security 
Council, as a small state, or as a multilingual and multicultural country. As one delegate 
commented, "Luxembourg looked very confident, focused on its small country profile, 
something many could identify with." 
Indeed, the ability to access large networks of countries and to build a constituency is 
probably what differentiated the three candidates most. 
Luxembourg was able to enlist support from small states', Francophone countries, and 
Portuguese-speaking countries—thanks to its important Portuguese community. The 
Grand Duchy mobilized a number of monarchies. It also appears that Luxembourg 
received stronger support among the members of the European Union than Finland. 
Australia was endorsed by the countries of the Forum of the Pacific and by CARICOM 
in 2011 and 2012. It had access to the members of the Commonwealth (for whom it 
hosted a summit in Perth in October 2011). It enlisted solid support from countries in 
Asia and Africa, and also received support among European countries. 
In contrast, as one interviewee put it, Finland "lacked a natural constituency beyond the 
Nordics—which endorsed its candidacy from the start—and the Baltic states." Thanks to 
the successful campaign of its special envoy based in the region, it received an 
endorsement from CARICOM in 2012. But, although a small state itself, Finland had to 
compete with Luxembourg to cultivate other small countries. Even though Finland had 
played an important role in promoting development cooperation with the least 
developed countries, it did not gain much support among this group, in particular in 
Africa. 
Out of a sense of European solidarity, several EU countries pledged their support for 
both Luxembourg and Finland. However, it seems that Finland did not receive full EU 
backing. Several public commentators in Europe have pointed out Helsinki's positions in 
the crisis of the Euro as an explanation of the low support for Finland during the 
election. It is indeed possible that these positions cost Finland the votes of several 
Mediterranean members of the EU. But they do not seem to have influenced the voting 
behavior of the larger UN membership. On the other hand, the lack of European support 
for Finland may have weakened its candidacy and left many non-European countries 
wondering why it did not have full backing. As one delegate questioned, "Why did not 
7 Small states account for more than half of the UN with the Forum of Small States counting 105 countries 
as members. 
EFTA01074029

14 
the EU support both Luxembourg and Finland? Does the EU ever support one 
candidate? There was a perception that the EU did not support Finland." 
It is also worth noting that, due in large part to historic and cultural ties, Luxembourg 
and Australia managed, better than Finland, to secure the sympathy of some permanent 
members of the Security Council. 
Finland could not rely—as Australia and Luxembourg did—on similar ties to build its 
constituency. But, in hindsight, Finland's strategy also proved to be too narrowly 
focused on UN issues and lacked the bilateral campaign that Australia and Luxembourg 
successfully developed. It also seems that Finland was less active than its competitors 
in pursuing contacts at the political level in capitals. According to one delegate, "The 
Finnish campaign was too abstract and too focused on policy mailers. It needed talking 
points on bilateral issues and a follow-up on the ground." 
3. Resources 
The resources mobilized by the candidates for their campaigns reflected the choices 
they had made to define their electoral strategies. Australia had a very substantial 
budget to support its efforts both in New York and in capitals. Finland and Luxembourg 
spent much less. However, Luxembourg concentrated the use of its smaller resources 
for a targeted impact, whereas Finland allocated its funding to a wider range of projects, 
with perhaps a more diffuse effect. 
Australia allocated to its campaign 24 million Australian dollars8 over five years.9 This 
covered staff expenses for the campaign task force in Canberra, additional staff posted 
in New York for the campaign (including a senior diplomat), several regional envoys and 
their travel expenses, publication costs of brochures and various campaign materials, 
and costs related to a dynamic invitation program for New York delegates to visit 
Australia for consultations or participation in a seminar (invitations were sent to 
approximately 100 delegates). 
Australian diplomats did not spare their efforts. They obviously felt under pressure to 
succeed in order to make up for their country's failed bid in 1996, and made sure that 
adequate resources matched their electoral strategy. Additional staff in Canberra and 
New York were a key asset to lead a well-coordinated campaign, identify the needs and 
expectations of potential voters, draft countless memos with the right mix of UN-related 
talking points and messages on bilateral issues, and ensure effective follow-up. In 
addition, members of parliament were actively mobilized and made campaign visits to 
numerous capitals. The impressive invitation program was equally successful. As one 
delegate noted, "Big machines win." 
Luxembourg invested in its campaign a much more modest budget, probably in the 
8 This amount was equivalent to USD 25 million as of April 1, 2013. 
9 See Press Office of the Prime Minister of Australia, transcript of press conference on September 26, 
2012, available at www.pm.gov.autpress-office/trancript-press-conference-26 . 
EFTA01074030

IS 
order of 1 million Euros in 2011-2012. This budget covered the organization of three 
seminars in Luxembourg in 2012 (seventy delegations were invited), but did not include 
staffing expenses. As with the other two candidates, the campaign budget also did not 
include the foreign minister's travels, which are considered part of the normal activity of 
the minister. 
Luxembourg only had a small dedicated campaign cell in the foreign ministry with one 
coordinator. No additional staff was sent to New York, but the mission staffing was 
progressively increased in 2012 so that the team expected to work on Security Council 
issues after the election would be close to capacity by October. 
As noted earlier, much of the campaign work lay on the shoulders of the foreign minister 
and the permanent representative in New York and on their personal interactions with 
their peers. Three special envoys had also been designated for the Caribbean, Africa, 
and the Pacific. 
Finland spent approximately 2 million Euros in 2010-2012 in its campaign. This budget 
did not include staff expenses, but covered funding provided to various UN trust funds 
for a range of projects and international conferences, the organization of two seminars 
in Finland in 2012, and administrative and travel expenses of the unit in charge of the 
campaign in Helsinki. 
The campaign unit, which reported directly to the foreign minister, comprised the special 
representative of the foreign minister, a deputy, a counselor, a young diplomat, and an 
assistant. Finland did not send additional staff to New York—where the permanent 
representative led the campaign—except for a press adviser (hired locally in summer 
2012) and two diplomats who were also appointed in summer 2012 in advance of the 
normal rotation process. 
The special representative of the minister made most of the visits to capitals. Only one 
special envoy, based in the Caribbean, was appointed and successfully campaigned in 
the region. Finland could also count on its substantial diplomatic network to relay its 
positions, although it is not clear how embassies were effectively involved in the 
campaign. 
The foreign minister kept up a busy schedule of weekly trips abroad and a number of 
visits to New York. Other political figures were enlisted to support the campaign, 
including the president of Parliament who visited Africa in 2011. 
Overall, Finland's financial effort was greater than Luxembourg's but not to a point 
where it could have made a substantial difference between the two European 
candidates. Moreover, some of the funding allocated by Finland to UN trust funds did 
not seem to have much visibility. In terms of organization, Luxembourg was probably 
more active in maintaining contact at the ministerial level. Finland also seems to have 
hesitated to involve its best-known standard bearers, Presidents Ahtisaari and Halonen, 
who played a significant role, as did President Niinist6, in the last stages of the 
EFTA01074031

16 
campaign. 
4. Tactics 
Many delegates emphasized that the defeat of Finland had been a surprise for them. 
Finland was long considered a favorite. It is not clear when the trajectories of the 
candidates actually diverged. Indeed, as one interviewee commented, "One of the 
difficulties of the campaign is that you do not know how things are actually going, and if 
anything is going wrong." Another delegate also exclaimed, "Some countries said to all 
three candidates that they were voting for them!" These uncertainties on voter intentions 
and on how campaigns are perceived make it more difficult for candidates to adapt their 
tactics. 
Australia had announced its candidacy in 2008 (later than the other two candidates) 
and started its campaign almost immediately. At that stage, Finland and Luxembourg 
had already received pledges of support from several countries but they had not tied up 
all loose ends, and—according to interviews-Australia quickly managed to gather a 
"decent support base" for its candidacy. 
Australia repeatedly checked pledges of support at all levels, following the so-called 
"Japanese model," 1° to make sure there was no disconnect between the capitals and 
New York, and even continued to campaign after commitments were confirmed. 
Australia stepped up its efforts in the last two years of the campaign, with the strongest 
outreach phase in the last six months "to seal the deals." In the end, Australia's election 
in the first round seems to have been a surprise to the Australians themselves, who—
before the vote—had carefully been asking for support for the second ballot. 
Having declared its candidacy in 2001, Luxembourg quietly exchanged support with 
other delegations when opportunities arose and took steps to strengthen its UN profile 
and international networks. Luxembourg started its actual campaign in 2008 with more 
systematic exchanges of votes with European and other states. 
According to delegates, compared to Australia—a regional power with global reach—
and to Finland—a Nordic candidate with strong UN credentials—Luxembourg was 
generally considered as the least likely to succeed. To use the terminology of American 
politics and sports, Luxembourg was seen as the "underdog." But it progressively 
managed to establish strong credibility and finally put pressure on its two other 
competitors in the last months of the campaign. Luxembourg—like Australia—
intensified its efforts in the last six months before the elections. One delegate observed, 
"Luxembourg and Australia were very involved until the end, very present at all levels, 
very creative, very consistent, reminding others at all times of their candidacy but 
10 Japanese diplomats are said to use a score card with six columns that identify the pledges of each 
country as given by six officials (the head of state, the prime minister, the foreign minister, the permanent 
representative in New York, the ambassador in Tokyo, and the campaign coordinator). A pledge is 
registered only once all six officials confirm they will vote for Japan. If only one does not confirm, the 
Japanese go back to the beginning, and ask all six to confirm again. 
EFTA01074032

17 
without being too insistent." 
Finland had declared its candidacy in 2002 and—like Luxembourg—exchanged 
support with other states when possible. However, its campaign only started in earnest 
in 2009, a few months after its two competitors. Having been endorsed by the Nordic 
states, Finland first waited until Iceland, which was the Nordic candidate for the 2008 
elections to the Security Council, had completed its own campaign. It then waited until 
its full campaign team was in place in summer 2009. 
In hindsight, it appears that the delay in launching a full-fledged campaign may have 
cost Finland a few votes. According to interviews, some of Finland's traditional partners 
were apparently unaware of its candidacy and had already pledged their support to 
Australia and Luxembourg before Finland approached them. 
The general perception is that, once launched, the Finnish campaign was at first very 
effective. Finland's initiative with Turkey on the issue of mediation gave good visibility to 
its permanent representative to the UN, and so did his leading role in the preparation for 
the UN conference on the least developed countries in Istanbul in May 2011. The 
mission in New York organized successful events for representatives to the UN and 
creatively mobilized corporate sponsoring to make up for the relatively modest 
resources dedicated to outreach. The quality of the two retreats—one on mediation and 
the other one on peacekeeping—organized by Finland in 2012 was appreciated. 
Finland's special envoy in the Caribbean enlisted substantial support from CARICOM. 
Several interviewees expressed their positive appreciation. One delegate noted, "The 
permanent representative of Finland did so many things. It is hard to know what more 
he could have done." Another delegate commented, "Luxembourg and Finland both did 
a great job at campaigning. They all had an invitation program, receptions, visits by the 
foreign minister; it was like 50-50, no mistake, an excellent job." 
The question remains whether these achievements, and Finland's trust in its good UN 
record, led the Finns to compete less actively in the last phase of the campaign, at a 
moment when their competitors intensified their outreach. 
Some believe that the Finnish campaign "peaked too soon." According to one delegate, 
"In 2010, the Finns were doing all the right things, like the initiative on mediation, but 
this came too early and the outcome was not as good." Several delegates suggested 
that Finland's focus on mediation and peacekeeping—two very broad themes—did not 
allow for a concentration of efforts on specific groups of countries. 
Other interviewees consider that Finland "was not seen to be as proactive as the two 
other candidates to get votes." A delegate indicated to IPI that "the Finns were in the 
lead until the beginning of summer 2012, and then doubts emerged about the number of 
votes they were getting." 
Finland did continue its efforts in the run-up to the election. Between the opening of the 
EFTA01074033

I8 
session of the General Assembly—at the end of September—and the election in 
October, high-level Finnish personalities, including former Presidents Ahtisaari and 
Halonen, came to New York to meet with other member states. However, this effort at 
the end of the campaign, when voting instructions were being sent to the delegations, 
did not suffice to regain the ground that had probably been lost only a few weeks 
before. 
It is difficult to guess how many commitments each candidate had gathered before the 
vote. Australia was elected with 140 votes in the first ballot, and one can assume that 
the total number of pledges that it had received was in the 150 - 160 range. According 
to interviews, Luxembourg seems to have had slightly less than 160 pledges the day 
before the vote, including around 110 written pledges. Also according to interviews, 
Finland seems to have had approximately 145 pledges before the election. The number 
of pledges one year before, in summer 2011, was approximately 100, and at one point, 
Finland may have had as many as 130 written commitments. However, at the time of 
the vote—given the number of pledges Luxembourg had reportedly received—the gap 
between the two European candidates was probably too wide for Finland to catch up. 
The usual estimate to assess a state's chances at the UN is that candidates should 
discount 10 percent of the written commitments they receive and 20 percent of oral 
commitments.11 Compared to this traditional formula, Finland suffered an unusual loss 
of votes which were pledged but did not materialize in the ballot. Numerous delegates 
emphasized the inherent uncertainties of assessing the values of commitments. As one 
interviewee noted: "One can never exclude disconnects between capitals and New 
York. Are all the permanent representatives informed of what is agreed in the capitals? 
Do they consider they are bound by a tie-up agreed several years ago by a government 
which is not in place anymore? In the end it's the ambassador who votes, in secret, and 
the relationships he or she has with the permanent representatives of the candidates 
will determine his or her vote." 
It also appears that Finland did not have a "second ballot strategy" and it had not 
solicited support for the second round the way Australia and Luxembourg had. As one 
delegate indicated, "Commitments used to be for the whole election, it appears that now 
they are only for the first ballot." 
Finland's campaign was clearly focused on the first ballot. There was a perception 
among Finnish officials and diplomats that campaigning for the second ballot could 
backfire and be interpreted as a sign of a lack of confidence. There was also the idea 
that asking for support for the second ballot was an implicit recognition that delegates 
could vote one way in the first round and the opposite way in the second round with no 
other reason than an electoral agreement. 
Some interviewees consider that the lack of a second ballot strategy was a major cause 
of Finland's defeat. It is possible that some delegates perceived Finland's attitude as a 
See David M. Malone, "Eyes on the Prize: The Quest for Nonpermanent Seats on the UN Security 
Council" Global Governance 6, No. 1 (2000): 3-23. 
EFTA01074034

19 
sign of a lack of motivation to win votes. However, it is doubtful that it really mattered in 
the end. Luxembourg had already received 128 votes in the first round and needed only 
one more to win in the second. As one delegate put it, "Luxembourg was so close; the 
momentum in the room prevailed." 
5. Ideologies and Attitudes 
What emerges from interviews conducted for this study is that policies matter in UN 
electoral campaigns, but the competitive edge comes from bilateral relations or joint 
interests. 
Several delegates considered that the key to success depends on the ability of 
candidates to exchange support for elections to other UN bodies. "Exchange of votes is 
what matters most," said one delegate. "This is a market place." Others insisted on the 
way countries assess requests for support from candidates in the light of their own 
interests: "Instructions come from capitals and capitals take into account realpolitik. 
They look at the bilateral relations, the level of development aid, and consult with 
influential members at the UN." 
States determine their vote based on what best matches their direct interest. To use the 
formula coined by a former British ambassador in New York,t2 the United Nations serve 
as "a great clearing house of foreign policy," and electoral campaigns are probably 
where this is most evident. 
However, if policies may not be the best way to win support, they may in some cases 
contribute to the loss of votes. This is probably why all three candidates preferred to 
adopt a prudent profile on issues that they knew might be controversial. They carefully 
prioritized consensus-driving topics and generally avoided more difficult themes. 
Australia was aware that its political proximity to the United States and its own 
positions on the Middle East could be considered as weaknesses by large segments of 
the UN membership. It had also drawn the lessons from its failure in 1996 and from 
Canada's failure in 2010,t3 and it worked to limit possible damage to its candidacy. In 
their dialogue with countries of the Middle East, Australian diplomats apparently 
emphasized issues of agreement, while acknowledging differences. Several delegations 
also observed subtle evolutions in Australia's voting pattern on the Palestinian issue at 
the General Assembly. 
Luxembourg—which is traditionally seen as favoring consensual views—did not seem 
to have any particular issues that would raise concerns among voting countries. 
12 Sir David Hannay interviewed by the New York Times, December 16, 1996. 
13 To explain Australia's failure in 1996 commentators usually point out the poor relationships of 
Australian permanent representative Richard Butler with his peers as well as several of Canberra's 
foreign policy positions, including on climate change. For Canada's failure in 2010, they usually mention 
Ottawa's positions on the Middle East and on ODA issues. 
EFTA01074035

Finland focused its messages on its UN record, 
without shying away from its values—abstained 
some of its priorities that are more divisive at 
women's rights. 
The question remains whether these issues and 
by the Nordics may have played against Finland. 
its profile as a problem-solver, and—
from putting too much emphasis on 
the UN, such as the rule of law or 
other positions traditionally promoted 
Several delegates were skeptical about this possibility and indicated that, in their view, 
Nordic positions on human rights and other issues had played less of a role against 
Finland than the actual merits of its two competitors. Many delegates stressed that 
Australia, Finland, and Luxembourg were all seen as "Western" or "mainstream" 
candidates, and that "despite the fact that all three pretended to be different and except 
for their take on Middle East issues, there was no real difference in their policies." 
Interviews also showed that the image of Nordic countries is generally positive at the 
UN. Several delegates observed, "The Nordics have an excellent image and are well 
respected. They are among the largest donors to the UN. These are countries which 
have no hidden agenda and want to help." Another delegate noted: "The Nordic card 
remains a good card at the UN, probably better than the EU card which is seen as a 
second tier of the most powerful states. But the Nordics need to do more bilaterally and 
they need to advertise it better. The Nordics used to be seen as countries of social 
democracy, closer to the developing world than the United States or the Soviet Union or 
other European countries. But the world has changed. Their image is not so strong 
anymore. Developing countries have their own models." 
On the other hand, a number of delegates, in particular among the Group of 77 (G77) 
countries, also expressed frustration at attitudes that, they believed, are sometimes not 
respectful enough of cultural differences. This was particularly the case, according to 
some delegations, with issues related to women's rights or freedom of expression. As 
one delegate put it, the "Danish cartoons saga reflected badly on all the Nordic 
countries." 
One delegate explained: "We have difficulties with the Nordic attitude on social and 
human rights issues. The Nordics impose their definitions, which sometimes are not 
acceptable to Islamic countries. Other EU members may think the same, but the 
Nordics are in the lead; they are more vocal. We want them to understand that there are 
different views, other cultures, and that the UN is not only Western. You cannot achieve 
your goal and make the others feel bad." 
It is difficult to assess if these views had actual consequences in terms of votes. 
However, in discussing Finland's candidacy, several delegates did indicate during 
interviews their reservations on the profile of Nordic states at the UN and their 
preference for more "modest" candidates. One delegate noted: "Luxembourg was seen 
as the underdog, a modest country, not one that imposes its views among the Western 
countries. Being the small one among the West, Luxembourg was considered to be 
EFTA01074036