UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA
FACULTY FOR SOCIAL SCIENCES
COUNTRY REPORT
Source: CIA The World Factbook
Author: Iva Likar (21018709)
Mentor: Zlatko Šabič, Ph.D.
Course: International Organisations
Ljubljana, May 2008
Agenda Item No.1: Child Malnutrition
This was a very important topic to Sweden, since health interventions comprise more
than 30 percent of all Swedish humanitarian assistance. Sweden has lately contributed to
the World Bank for the poorest countries and to the African Development Fund, where
the Swedish Government has successfully pushed for a policy for more efficient use of
development assistance funds and clearer reporting of results. Since similar objectives
were followed by many other states, Sweden did not have any difficulties defending its
position.
Sweden formed a coalition and pursued its goals together with Denmark and Switzerland,
and later also decided for the cooperation within European Union. Both of these decisions
turned out to be very positive. On one hand, Sweden shared very similar objectives with
Denmark and Switzerland and was thus stronger when defending its objectives within the
EU, and on the other, the positions between the EU member states were quite similar as
well, so the proposals, created by the coalition, were already widely accepted and really
represented the views of all EU countries.
The resolution on Child Malnutrition was the result of a joint draft, made by EU member
states and GDC Child Malnutrition Committee. The mergence of EU and GDC drafts was
a very positive decision and the resolution was at the end adopted with consensus, which
can be understood as an assurance that the resolution will in deed be implemented. The
final resolution also contained several Swedish objectives, like the importance of
cooperation at bilateral, regional and global level, UN Development Goal to halve world
poverty and hunger by 2015, education and empowerment of girls and women, the role of
agriculture and the notion that the developed countries should serve as advisors, give
economic support, provide knowledge and technical assistance.
At the end it was obvious that the resolution had been well-prepared and Sweden was
therefore not hesitating in supporting it. Adopted resolution will have a great impact on
child malnutrition. Firstly, in the sense of gradual amelioration and containment,
2
however, hopefully at some point in the future, the problem of child malnutrition will be
entirely eradicated.
Agenda Item No.2: International Sanctions – a review
It was made clear already at the first session that this topic would be the most difficult
task, since almost all countries had different views on how to ensure the effectiveness,
efficiency and humanness of sanctions.
Sweden has long advocated more effective and efficient use of sanctions for peaceful
influence and has played an important role in several projects on targeted sanctions, both
alone, and in cooperation with Germany and Switzerland. Also through the latest
negotiations, Sweden successfully worked together with Denmark, Germany, Switzerland
and other EU countries, with the aim of creating several proposals about how to improve
the UN Sanctions Regime. Also the representatives of Israel, Russia and the United
States had been invited to a few EU meetings and the results were quite positive,
especially in the sense of making common arguments on the topic, which were later
presented to the GDC Sanctions Committee.
The draft resolution on International Sanctions was elaborated by the GDC Sanctions
Committee, yet the outcome was not satisfactory for many countries. Numerous
amendments were then proposed and at that moment one could realize that consensus
would be very difficult to reach. A great effort had been made through lobbying and
informal meetings, where GDC, EU countries and other representatives succeeded in
reaching several agreements and package deals, nevertheless, most of the amendments
had to be left for the voting session.
Sweden and the other EU countries shared the same opinion on how to vote on different
amendments. Furthermore, Sweden was very successful with its own amendment, which
had been passed immediately and is now in the third clause of the preambulary party of
the final resolution.
3
The outcome of the negotiations is perhaps not ideal. However, regarding the
atmosphere, this was the best possible outcome, therefore Sweden voted for the
resolution, which was at the end adopted, unfortunately without consensus. The final
resolution might seem to be general, however, it contains some important changes, so if
implemented correctly, it could contribute to the improvement of UN Sanctions System.
Agenda Item No.3: Environmental Refugees
The issue of environmental refugees was also very important topic to Sweden, since the
environment in general will be one of the most important issues during Sweden’s EU
Presidency in 2009.
Denmark, Germany and Sweden formed a special group within the EU member states,
which was assigned to deal with the issue of environmental refugees. With regard to this,
common objectives of EU countries on environmental refugees were created and were
later used as a basis in the EU Draft Convention. However, GDC Environmental
Refugees Committee prepared another draft, which was very concrete, therefore the EU
countries decided to work together with GDC on the draft resolution. Especially the
representative of Germany made some excellent proposals, which really contributed to
the improvement of the GDC draft. Sweden thought the draft was really well-done and
appreciated all the efforts of Malaysia and Germany.
However, Sweden was very surprised to find out that it was the only EU country, which
supported the definition of environmental refugees, prepared by the GDC. Nevertheless,
Sweden could not follow other EU countries on this matter, since Swedish Government
strongly believes that the definition of environmental refugees will significantly
contribute to the their official recognition, which will consequently result in finally
solving the problem of environmental refugees. However, in the end the General
Assembly was able to find mutually acceptable solution for the definition and later the
clause with the provisional definition was passed in the resolution. Besides this being a
4
success for Sweden, two Swedish amendments were also passed in the resolution without
any objections, namely the 3rd and 12th paragraph of the preambulary part of the final
resolution. However, the differences in opinions on several other issues seemed too large.
As a consequence, also this resolution was not adopted with consensus. Besides the
majority of the developing countries, Sweden was the only EU country to vote for the
resolution, since it was in conformity with Swedish priorities and objectives, while other
EU countries abstained. Sweden regrets that other EU member states did not support the
resolution, but could not do more to change their opinion. Hopefully, this will not have
any significant negative impact on the implementation of the resolution.
Environmental refugees need an international recognition and the Committee for
Environmental Refugees will only bring the best results, when based on support and
contributions from all the UN member states.
5