Purposes, Politicization and Pitfalls of Diplomatic Gift-giving to the United Nations

Viewed objectively, diplomatic gift-giving to the UN may appear to be non-reciprocal, in that the donor does not receive a tangible gift of equivalent value from the organisation. Yet it is clear that a significant majority of states have concluded that worthwhile benefits nonetheless accrue from this practice, writes LORAINE SIEVERS. 

Evidence of this is found in the statistic that more than 140 of the UN’s 193 Member States have given at least one gift. However, the fact that approximately 50 countries have not done so suggests that gift-giving to the UN is regarded by the diplomatic community as optional, and not essential to developing a respected profile at the organisation, SIEVERS writes in ‘Purposes, Politicisation and Pitfalls of Diplomatic Gift-giving to the United Nations’ published in the The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.

Within the broad range of cultural activities carried out by Member States, it is virtually impossible to isolate the impact of a particular gift. Nonetheless, decor and furnishings given to the UN may have a longer-lasting effect than an expensive reception or concert which, once over, may soon be forgotten. Norway’s donation of the Security Council Chamber, and its later renovation, have been sources of enduring prestige. These were highlighted as part of Norway’s campaign for a 2021-2022 seat on the Council, and in fact Norway’s campaign logo was the stylised heart of the chamber’s decorative fabric.

In some instances, gift-giving to the UN can be an equaliser. A small state may donate a relatively inexpensive handicraft which, because of its uniqueness and workmanship, may gain more positive attention than another state’s costlier gift. One fairly modest donation which is widely appreciated comes from the island of Palau (population 17,900). It is a 1.5-meter wooden eel which narrates a story through intricate carvings on both sides and has been deemed worthy of display in the high-traffic area outside the Trusteeship Council.

In other instances, gift-giving can accentuate inequalities. The Capital Master Plan renovations created opportunities for redecorating the Delegates Lounge, the Security Council Consultations Room and an adjacent area, but these projects fell well outside the reach of smaller states and rather were financed, respectively, by the Netherlands, the Russian Federation and Turkey.

Overall, it would be too narrow to conclude that states evaluate their own, and others’, gifts to the UN solely on the basis of direct national gain. Each gift to the organisation adds to the collective backdrop of the daily formal and informal conversations which take place there. As Michael Adlerstein, chief architect of the Capital Master Plan, has observed: ‘The delegates enjoy the collection. It is their art, and it is their house’.

Sievers, L. (2021). Purposes, Politicisation and Pitfalls of Diplomatic Gift-giving to the United Nations, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 16(1), 110-119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-BJA10065