Your UN Statement Doesn't Matter Unless You Understand This
You're fighting for speaking time while I'm calculating votes. Here's the mathematical reality that decides every HRC resolution.
Good morning!
You walk into the United Nations thinking it's about passion and principles.
Right?
You've got your talking points ready.
Your moral arguments polished.
I stopped doing that. All I have right now is a spreadsheet.
In 5 minutes you’ll realize you're playing house while the UN is playing chess.
The Math Behind Every Resolution
Let me use this as an example: The Human Rights Council.
HRC resolutions aren't won with speeches. After having done 60 thematic and country-specific resolutions I’ve learned that they're won with math.
I keep a running list of potential abstentions, question marks, and grey areas. The grey area is bigger than it's ever been. States that used to vote predictably now sit in the middle, waiting to be approached with an offer.
Every resolution comes down to numbers.
Can we get to consensus?
Who will abstain? Who's a question mark?
Most never ask these questions. Thinking a statement with a bit of lobbying is sufficient and then pray to Mary, Joseph and Mozes for good results.
Your Google Sheet Is Your Battle Map
I use Notion and in Notion I have what looks like a matrix with all 193 UN member States. It's not glamorous, but it's my multilateralism dashboard.
For each State, I track:
If they co-sponsored the resolution in the past
What they did during UNDRIP voting
Whether they're current HRC members
If they're penholders on other resolutions
To which “Group of Friends” they belong
To which negotiating group they belong
To which “micro interest” group they belong (More about this later)
Even their main USP
This isn't academic research. (I’m not a fan of academics btw)
This is intelligence to inform strategy to influence decision-making.
I came to this approach as I got fed up with always having to accept the unknown.
Don’t get me wrong.
There are always unknown unknowns in diplomacy, but I didn’t want to settle for what I call the “activist approach” which is basically throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping that something will stick.
So I moved to Geneva, and in my second year I started gathering datapoints.
Datapoints are different from the 8 variables I track above.
When you know that State A abstained on UNDRIP but is willing to work on language on cultural heritage for Indigenous Peoples provided you only use treaty language, you've got a data point.
When you see State B is penholder on an environmental resolution, stays quiet during Indigenous resolution negotiations but champions your FPIC language, that tells you something too.
When you see a pattern of State C speaking and State D, E, F always following, that’s another datapoint.
With all these datapoints.
The math starts making sense.
The Influence You Can't See
Here's what many miss: The action isn't just in the room.
States consult with their capitals. Duh. The diplomat sitting across from you might agree, but their capital has the final say. They've got a higher-level overview. They can override everything with one “instruction.”
States that aren't even present have influence (i.e. United States).
Observer States have influence too.
You can have consensus during voting while several States disassociate from specific paragraphs. You don’t see it in the press release but it’ll impact negotiations.
These are some of the power dynamics that are invisible until you start tracking them.
Why This Matters for Indigenous Peoples
You need to understand this reality. We've spent decades making moral arguments to people playing mathematical games.
The UN system runs on data points, not passion.
Passion is good, but it's even more powerful if you have the data.
The matrix, like any map helps you go from A to B, and when you can predict who will abstain before they announce it, you've got leverage. But, I don’t advise you to walk into the HRC with a spreadsheet in your hand and study it in Room XX during plenary.
When you know which delegations to target and socialize ideas at capital level before the informals even begin, you're operating at the right altitude.
Keep on fighting for attention. Once you have that, this tactic is to help you fight for influence. Why? Attention gets you speaking time. Influence gets you outcomes.
Like I said before, the difference is in the math.
It's in knowing that State X will follow State Y's lead.
It's in understanding that the EU meets on Tuesday mornings
It's in realizing that half the negotiation happens before anyone enters the room.
It worked in Geneva and I’ve used it in UNFCCC negotiations, and am using it in the BBNJ negotiations (and several other secret projects I’m working on).
Before You Go
If you want to influence decision-making, start building your own data systems.
Track patterns. Map relationships. Understand the math.
If you're not, understand that this is the level where decisions get made.
This is how power actually works in these spaces.
Your morally sound statements matter. Definitely.
But they matter more if you understand the math underneath to support them.
The spreadsheet isn't just a tool. It's a weapon.
And until you're using it, you continue to rely on your gut feeling and assumptions.
Stop having them, start gathering data.
See you next week!