By: Dr Andrej Umek
On 30 December 2025, authors Uroš Esih and Jure Kosec published an article in Delo titled “Slovenia Has Gained Foreign‑Policy Prestige.” The article is full of praise for Slovenia’s policy in the United Nations Security Council, yet it does not answer the two essential questions: with whom exactly has Slovenia supposedly gained prestige, and whether Slovenia’s positions in the Security Council have actually benefited the Republic of Slovenia. In what follows, I would like to offer brief answers to these two questions. I believe that the answers should form the basic guidelines of Slovenia’s foreign policy.
The modern world is far too politically divided for any foreign policy to enjoy prestige with everyone. Therefore, we must ask ourselves with which group of countries it is in Slovenia’s interest to build foreign‑policy credibility. At least for me, the answer to this question is unequivocal: the countries of Central Europe, with which we are connected both in the EU and in NATO. Slovenia was also elected to the Security Council as the representative of these countries. This raises the question of whether Slovenia in the Security Council represented the majority position of these states, or at least a position with which they could partially agree. Unfortunately, the answer is no. In these countries, Slovenia has not increased its foreign‑policy standing. On the contrary, one could say that the prevailing feeling was that they had been played. This is all the worse because these states are, for the most part, our partners in international alliances.
When we speak of the benefits Slovenia was supposed to gain from its membership in the Security Council, we primarily have economic benefits in mind. Therefore, we must ask how Slovenia’s actions in the Council were viewed by our most important economic partners. It is no secret that these are Germany, Austria, Italy, and the United States. According to media reports, not one of them agreed with Slovenia’s policy in the Security Council. Thus, this policy did not benefit us economically in the slightest. I would even say it harmed us significantly. Instead of expanding our economic cooperation, it narrowed it. I am convinced that the marked slowdown in Slovenia’s GDP growth last year is also a consequence of this misguided policy. How great the economic damage truly is will only become clear in the coming years.
Since Slovenia’s policy in the Security Council served neither to increase prestige and trust among our partners nor to advance our country’s economic interests, the logical question is what the goals of Slovenia’s Security Council policy actually were, if any. At first glance, it appears to have been complete chaos. But upon closer analysis, I gained the impression that Slovenia’s policy in the Council aimed at a kind of “return to the communist paradise” and the well‑known non‑aligned policy of that era. This reminded me of the economic policy of Dr Golob’s government and its measures over the past year, which I would describe as a form of quiet, soft nationalisation. We must recognise, or at least we should, that for small countries like Slovenia, foreign policy is an indispensable element of economic and development policy. This is especially important in a time of accelerated technological innovation and the widespread use of robotics and artificial intelligence.
Let me conclude by stating that Slovenia, through its actions and its policy in the Security Council, has not increased its prestige, certainly not among the countries that matter most to us, our partners. For an article placed so prominently in Delo, I would have expected a far more objective analysis of Slovenia’s policy in the United Nations Security Council.