Global Governance: Defining the United Nations' Leadership ... · Defining the United Nations’...

The Stanley Foundation’s Thirty-Fourth United Nations

of the Next Decade Conference

Global Governance: Defining the United Nations’

Leadership Role

Adare ManorAdare, County Limerick, Ireland

June 13-18, 1999

http://www.adaremanor.ie

http://stanleyfdn.org

Defining the United Nations’ leadershiprole in the emerging system of globalgovernance remains challenging. A

multiplicity of new international actors—states,multilateral institutions, businesses, non-governmental organizations—complicate theUnited Nations’ search for a fitting role in anew era of globalization. Global governance—humanity’s struggle to bring some sort of orderto an evermore interdependent, but still verychaotic world—seems impossible without anactive role by the world’s premier internationalorganization. Yet the nature of such a UN roleand the degree to which it will comprise ele-ments of leadership—vision wedded to theability to coordinate a coalition of interests—are by no means clear.

In recognition of this, the Stanley Foundationconvened its thirty-fourth annual conferenceon the United Nations of the Next Decade inAdare, Ireland. Participants were asked, first, tosketch out the emerging climate for global gov-ernance; second, to turn their attention to thetasks of global governance and where the Unit-ed Nations might exercise leadership; andthird, to draw a number of conclusions aboutthe actions and initiatives that must be taken tohelp the United Nations fulfill its leadershiproles. The challenge posed to the UnitedNations by the United States was also anunderlying theme of the entire conference.

The Current and Future Climate forGlobal GovernanceAdare conference participants defined aprofoundly changed climate for global gover-nance at the end of the twentieth century,

characterized by globalization and a new equa-tion of influence in the triad of governmentsand intergovernmental institutions, interna-tional business, and an emerging civil society.The dramatic proliferation of political actors,argued many in the group, brings with it theneed for new patterns of political leadershipand coalition-building. The group was also inagreement that a deep resistance to changeamong international institutions contrastsmarkedly to the agility of most internationalbusiness and nongovernmental organizations.

The Tasks of Global Governance and theUN RoleThe tasks of global governance have grownmore varied and complex in this age of global-ization. While problems of war and peaceremain front and center, the group underlinedthe need to address the many causes of insecu-rity in a more holistic fashion. The growing gapbetween the world’s rich and poor, the ongoingdestruction of the environment, and the contin-uing violation of human rights all pose moralchallenges in and of themselves, but they arealso now very much linked to internationalpeace and security.

The Adare conference examined various func-tional areas of activity by international organi-zations. In each, participants sought to identifywhich problems were of particular priority,what role the United Nations should have, andwhat its relationship to other organizations andactors should be.

On international peace and security, partici-pants focused on the challenge of intrastate

2

Executive Summary

conflict. They underlined the United Nations’unique role in post-conflict rebuilding (includ-ing peacekeeping and democratization) andemphasized that the United Nations shouldprovide both the collective use of force (byorganizations like NATO) with legitimacy andcoordinate humanitarian assistance, includingrefugee relief.

On economics and development, participantsconcentrated on the problems of globalization,both in terms of managing an evermore openworld economy and in contending with grow-ing income gaps between the world’s rich andpoor. They urged the United Nations to con-centrate on democratization as a necessary partof economic development, while setting normsand standards for reducing global poverty. Par-ticipants suggested that managing the globaleconomy should remain in the hands of theWorld Trade Organization and the BrettonWoods institutions.

On sustainability, the group saw a particularchallenge in getting businesses and NGOs towork closer together. The United Nations’ rolein convening conferences like Rio1 found sup-port, and many argued that the United Nationsshould play a more active role in implementingthe standards established by such conferences.

On protecting human rights and dignity, partic-ipants expressed particular concern about thedifficulty of reconciling human rights andhuman security with traditional notions ofnational sovereignty. They emphasized theimportance of the United Nations as astandard-setter, and they urged a greater role inimplementation through mechanisms like theUN High Commissioner on Human Rights andthrough active efforts at democratization. Atthe same time, they recognized that many

member states would be reluctant to activelysupport such an agenda and underlined theneed for NGOs to interact more effectively withmember states and the United Nations to bemore successful in this area.

Many in the group supported the notion thatthe United Nations should focus its efforts onfour core functions: international peace andsecurity, human rights, democratization, andhumanitarian assistance.

Needed United Nations’ Actions andInitiativesThe changing global context of governance andthe manifest problems of humanity at the turnof the millennium confront the internationalcommunity with the clear need to retool andrefocus the world’s premier internationalorganization. In the final sessions of the confer-ence, participants explored needed actions andinitiatives by member states and the UnitedNations and the manner in which these actionscould be most effectively encouraged. Anunderlying theme was that the United Nationsmust fit the international community in whichit exists. Reform for the sake of reform will notsuffice. Agreement must exist on UN roles andrelationships. While the participants identifiedkey areas where the United Nations seemedparticularly suited to play a strong role, theywere all of the opinion that without a renewedinternational mandate, this would not be possi-ble. Unless the world community is clear aboutwhat it wants the United Nations to do, theUnited Nations will be able to do very little.And unless the United States can resolve itsown internal ambivalence about its relationshipwith the United Nations, the world body willbe able to do even less.

Defining the United Nations’ Leadership Role

3

1The 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development.

The leadership question thus begins with thehealth of the organization itself. But internalleadership alone will not reanimate the organi-zation. Adequate funding is also key. Directionand funding are in turn directly dependent onthe members’ commitment and their clear artic-ulation of that commitment. Without an explicitmandate from its members, the United Nationswill flounder. In many ways, participants sawsuch a mandate as the sine qua non of a UNleadership role equal to the challenges of globalgovernance.

With a renewed mandate and reinvigoratedorganization, the United Nations would bewell placed to fill a variety of roles in the nextcentury. It will continue, as in the past, to playsome role as the superego of the world’snation-states, as a global conscience, while alsoserving as a forum for the coordination ofaction, however difficult actual implementationmay be. But the United Nations must also finda new leadership role among the multiplyingnumber of other international actors in terms ofmultilateral organizations, among the businessworld, and among the evermore powerfulvoices of international civil society. This leader-ship will likely take two forms: (1) a moreformal linkage of business and civil society intothe myriad deliberative bodies that make upthe UN system and (2) a less formal role asnetworker and clearinghouse through theorganization of international conferences andad hoc coordinating committees on specificproblems like post-conflict reconstruction orthe efforts to curb the use of child soldiers.

In examining the climate for global governance,the tasks to be met, and the specific initiativesand actions the United Nations could take toenhance its leadership role, the Adare confer-ence touched on a wide variety of issues and

4

Global Govenance

challenges to the United Nations and the globalcommunity. The deliberations pointed to aUnited Nations’ leadership role that, inessence, revolves around identifying the inter-ests of its various constituents and harnessingthem to an overarching set of common objec-tives. Constituencies will change, but theultimate purpose of global governance—stew-ardship for humanity and for the planet thatsustains it—will not. The United Nations andits Charter stand in support of these principles,and the conference was in agreement that theyremain valid and widely supported by theworld’s public. The challenge is to translate thissupport into a renewed mandate from theworld’s governments and the planet’s otherincreasingly powerful global actors.

ChairRichard H. Stanley, President, The StanleyFoundation

RapporteurAndrew B. Denison, Faculty Associate, Departmentof Political Science, University of Bonn

ParticipantsJohn Bolton, Senior Vice President, AmericanEnterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Barbara Crossette, United Nations Bureau Chief,The New York Times

Graciana del Castillo, Visiting Professor,Department of Economics, Columbia University

Mathe Matthews Diseko, First Secretary,Permanent Mission of the Republic of South Africato the United Nations

Robert R. Fowler, Permanent Representative ofCanada to the United Nations

Samuel R. Insanally, Permanent Representative ofthe Republic of Guyana to the United Nations

Frank Ashcroft Judd, Member, House of Lords,United Kingdom

Abraham Katz, President Emeritus, United StatesCouncil for International Business

Edward C. Luck, Executive Director, Center for theStudy of International Organization, New YorkUniversity School of Law and the Woodrow WilsonSchool of Princeton University

Charles William Maynes, President, The EurasiaFoundation

Lucia Mouat, Journalist; Former United NationsCorrespondent, The Christian Science Monitor

William R. Pace, Executive Director, WorldFederalist Movement and Institute for Global Policy

Mohamed A. Sahnoun, Special Envoy of theSecretary-General in Africa, United Nations

Kamalesh Sharma, Permanent Representative ofIndia to the United Nations

Ernst Sucharipa, Permanent Representative ofAustria to the United Nations

Danilo Türk, Permanent Representative of theRepublic of Slovenia to the United Nations

Brian Urquhart, Former Under-Secretary-Generalfor Special Political Affairs, United Nations

Joan D. Winship, Vice President, The StanleyFoundation

William B. Wood, Principal Deputy AssistantSecretary for International Organization Affairs, USDepartment of State

Douglas C. Worth, Secretary General, BusinessIndustry Advisory Committee to the Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD)

Justin B. Zulu, Special Representative to the UnitedNations and Director, International MonetaryFund Office at the United Nations

Stanley Foundation Staff Susan Moore, International Programs AssociateKeith Porter, Senior Radio Producer, CommonGroundElaine Schilling, International Programs Assistant

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. Participantsattended as individuals rather than as representatives of theirgovernments or organizations.


5

PARTICIPANTS

Richard H. StanleyPresident, The Stanley Foundation

Welcome to theStanley Foun-dation’s thir-

ty-fourth conference onthe United Nations ofthe Next Decade. Annu-ally since 1965, we havegathered policy profes-sionals in an informalnonattribution environ-ment to explore variedtopics dealing with theUnited Nations andextending the rule oflaw.

This year our topic is “Global Governance:Defining the United Nations’ Leadership Role.”We have three goals. First, we will hone ourunderstanding of the climate for global gover-nance in the changing world of the new millen-nium. Next, on the premise that intergovern-mental organizations, including the UnitedNations, should focus their work in areas ofcore competency, we will explore global gover-nance needs in various areas and seek to defineoptimal leadership roles for the UnitedNations. This will likely include assignmentsand partnering relationships between the Unit-ed Nations and others. Finally, we will recom-mend actions and initiatives to help the UnitedNations fulfill its leadership roles.

Global GovernanceAs we begin, a common understanding of theterm governance will be helpful. For our

discussions here, let me suggest that we use thedefinition developed by the Commission onGlobal Governance.

Governance is the sum of the many ways indi-viduals and institutions, public and private,manage their common affairs. It is a continuingprocess through which conflicting or diverseinterests may be accommodated and coopera-tive action may be taken. It includes formalinstitutions and regimes empowered to enforcecompliance, as well as informal arrangementsthat people and institutions either have agreedto or perceived to be in their interest.

This definition is broad, but it accurately recog-nizes the multiplicity of participants and thecomplexity of the interactions involved.

Global governance includes traditional govern-ments and intergovernmental organizations(IGOs). It includes economic and marketentities such as multinational corporations,commercial and trade activity, and the globalcapital market. It includes nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) and citizen movements,which have come to be called civil society. Itincludes global mass media and communica-tion. All of these interact to form the intricatetapestry of global governance.

This week we are primarily interested in dis-cerning the optimum leadership role for theUnited Nations amidst the many threads of thistapestry. But to do this, we must understandthe nature of the tapestry and the present andfuture climate for global governance.

6

Opening Remarks

The Climate for Global GovernanceThe global governance climate has changedgreatly since the United Nations was estab-lished. The United Nations was constructed ona base of national sovereignty. It assumed analliance of the powerful—the winning allies ofWorld War II. That alliance proved illusoryand, particularly since the end of the Cold Warten years ago, the sovereign power and author-ity of the nation-state has been eroding.

The geopolitical system is increasinglytempered and moderated by a burgeoningglobalization of information, communication,markets, finance, networking, and businessactivity. Widespread democratization focusesattention on the needs of people rather thanstates. New nonstate actors abound, includinga civil society which is both robust and irrever-ent and business enterprises motivated bymarket and profit. Traditional national powerand sovereignty are increasingly complement-ed by market forces and the networking of civilsociety. Command and control hierarchies areless and less effective, and they are being sup-planted by management systems that fosterinvolvement and empowerment.

These continuing changes mean that globalgovernance is not the exclusive domain ofnational governments and IGOs. That domainremains essential, because it is only in it thatlaws can be enacted and enforced. It is only init that taxes and regulations can be imposed.Yet, the market domain and the informationand networking domain are also essentialparts. Each domain complements and moder-ates the others. The Report of the Commissionon Global Governance captured this newparadigm as follows:

Effective global decision making thusneeds to build upon and influence deci-sions taken locally, nationally, andregionally, and to draw on the skills andresources of a diversity of people andinstitutions at many levels. It mustbuild partnerships—networks of insti-tutions and processes—that enableglobal actors to pool information,knowledge, and capacities and to devel-op joint policies and practices on issuesof common concern.

In some cases, governance will rely pri-marily on markets and market instru-ments, perhaps with some institutionaloversight. It may depend heavily on thecoordinated energies of civil organiza-tions and state agencies. The relevanceand roles of regulation, legal enforce-ment, and centralized decision makingwill vary. In appropriate cases, therewill be scope for principles such as sub-sidiarity, in which decisions are taken asclose as possible to the level at whichthey can be effectively implemented.

As the commission report states, global gover-nance “...will strive to subject the rule ofarbitrary power—economic, political, or mili-tary—to the rule of law within global society.”

Before leaving this subject, let me offer fiveobservations and concerns. First, a primarydriving force toward this new climate is theglobalization of information, communications,values, ideas, norms, and knowledge. Technol-ogy is making access to information andknowledge much more widely available thanever before. We are rapidly moving from a situ-ation where only a few could disseminateinformation to the many, making it possible to


7

control information flow, to a situation wherenearly everyone can communicate to and withthe many. Global interconnectedness isexploding.

Second, information and knowledge are vital“soft” resources which will, in the long run, bemore important than traditional “hard”resources of land, capital, raw materials, etc.While traditional resources are generally “zero-sum” in nature (e.g., if one gains, anotherloses), there is growing evidence that “soft”resources can produce “positive sum” out-comes that benefit the many. This shouldencourage collaboration and cooperation.

In their 1999 publication, The Emergence ofNoopolitik, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt ofthe National Defense Research Institute use theterm noopolitik to describe a new form ofstatecraft which they argue will come to beassociated with the rising importance of theinformational realm and the need for wiseinformation strategies. They suggest:

Noopolitik is foreign-policy behavior forthe information age that emphasizes theprimacy of ideas, values, norms, laws,and ethics—it would work through“soft power” rather than “hard power.”Noopolitik is guided more by a convic-tion that right makes for might, than bythe obverse. Both state and nonstateactors may be guided by noopolitik; butrather than being state-centric, itsstrength may likely stem from enablingstate and nonstate actors to work con-jointly. The driving motivation ofnoopolitik cannot be national interestsdefined in statist terms. National inter-ests will still play a role, but they maybe defined more in society-wide than

state-centric terms and be fused withbroader, even global, interests inenhancing the transnationally net-worked “fabric” in which the playersare embedded. While realpolitik tends toempower states, noopolitik will likelyempower networks of state and non-state actors. Realpolitik pits one stateagainst another, but noopolitik encour-ages states to cooperate in coalitionsand other mutual frameworks.

Third, effective leadership in this new climaterequires investment in relationships andinstitutions of networking and collaboration.These must be durable and resilient—built overtime. They require patterns of understandingand trust. They are a necessary part of thetapestry of cooperation and governance. Forgovernments, this means support of andinvestment in multilateralism and robustmultilateral institutions.

Fourth, those who fail to recognize and act inaccordance with this new governance para-digm endanger their abilities to lead andparticipate effectively. Excessive preoccupationwith national or organizational sovereignty,unilateralism, and isolationism are unlikely tobe successful strategies for the future.

Finally, a discussion of the global governanceclimate would be incomplete without mentionof the “elephant” that is in the tent. The UnitedStates is conflicted about its role in the world. Itis in tension between a unilateral and a morecollaborative multilateral posture. While it pro-fesses cooperation, it too often seeks to controlthe terms of that cooperation. As of today, June14, the United States is only 200 days awayfrom losing its vote in the UN General Assem-bly due to nonpayment of dues. Anotherelement of the governance climate is how the

8

Global Govenance

United Nations’ host country will treat it in thetwenty-first century.

This, then, is the global governance climate forthe future. Our challenge this week is to under-stand it and to define those areas in which theUnited Nations can most effectively play aleadership role. To do this, we will exploreseveral functional areas including: peace andsecurity, commerce and economics, povertyand development, sustainability, and promo-tion and protection of human dignity.

Peace and SecurityPeace and security are central purposes—per-haps the primary motivation—for establishingthe United Nations. The United Nations hashad significant successes in peacemaking, intraditional peacekeeping where there has beena negotiated peace to keep, and in humanitari-an assistance.

However, the nature of conflict has shiftedfrom classic international wars of aggression toa pattern of intransigent intrastate civil warsand ethnic conflicts. The world is grapplingwith whether, how, and when to intervene inthis type of conflict. The Article 2 Charter limi-tation on intervention in matters within the“domestic jurisdiction” of a nation is beingweakened by growing support for internationalintervention in cases of war crimes, genocide,crimes against humanity, and egregioushumanitarian suffering. The principle of indi-vidual accountability for war crimes, initiatedat the Nuremberg trials, is gradually beingaffirmed with establishment of war crimes tri-bunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda;the negotiation of the standing InternationalCriminal Court; and most recently, the indict-ment of Slobodan Milosovic, the first suchaction against a sitting head of state.

Yet, there is no reliable system of internationalsecurity today. Too often, inconsistent stan-dards are applied. Some situations are ignoredwhile others receive attention. Too often, deci-sions have been reactive and late. Too often,decisions made with good intentions havefailed because of muddled mandates andgrossly inadequate resource commitment. Toooften, the supposed alliance of the powerfulhas turned into a coalition of the willing,sometimes with and sometimes without UNendorsement. Too often, might makes right andprinciples of international law are ignored.

Another central reason for creating the UnitedNations was arms control and disarmament.Yet, the world is much more heavily armedtoday than it was at the close of World War II.Proliferation of weapons of mass destructionremains a major concern. Conventionalweapons loom large in international commerceand are distressingly abundant in areas of con-flict. Military expenditures divert neededresources from alleviation of poverty, develop-ment, and sustainability.

How should the world handle issues of peaceand security? How can the growing body ofinternational law and conventions be suitablyenforced with fairness and justice? Whatshould we learn from the current Kosovoexperience? How can arms control and disar-mament progress be promoted? How can theinternational community make peace and secu-rity decisions more wisely? How can thesedecisions be enforced more effectively? What isthe appropriate role for the United Nations? forregional organizations? for others?

Commerce and EconomicsIn his address to the closing meeting of theFifty-First Session, UN General Assembly


9

President Razali Ismail observed that “...theUnited Nations seems relegated to dealing onlywith the ‘soft’ issues and not the ‘hard’ issuesof economics.” This seems to be an accurateassessment.

The Bretton Woods institutions are specializedagencies of the United Nations. But, through-out their history, they have operated quiteindependently and have encouraged the Unit-ed Nations to concentrate on “social” aspects ofdevelopment. In 1995, the World Trade Organi-zation (WTO) was established independent ofthe United Nations, supplanting the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade. It was givensignificant authority to deal with internationaltrade issues. The Group of Seven/Eight and theOrganization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) have significant roles incoordinating fiscal and monetary policies of themajor industrialized nations. The EuropeanUnion imposes such policies on its members.

Within the United Nations, attention to com-merce and economics is focused in the GeneralAssembly, the Economic and Social Council(ECOSOC), and the Secretariat. These havebeen uneasy about their marginal role. In the1970s there was significant debate in theGeneral Assembly about establishing a “NewInternational Economic Order.” ECOSOC hasmade periodic efforts to raise its profile. Lastfall, Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposedthat the United Nations should have a “seat atthe table” when a new global “financialarchitecture” (to deal with the Asian financialturmoil) was developed so the poor and thedispossessed would be represented.

Civil society is increasingly active on commerceand economic policy issues. As one example,last year ’s NGO response to the WTO’s

proposed Multilateral Agreement on Invest-ment resulted in reassessment of the proposal,the outcome of which is not yet clear.

Continuing economic globalization raisesquestions about the need for new roles andactivities at the global level. As transnationalmergers and consolidations occur, will newmeasures be needed to temper excesses of car-tels and monopoly? Will free-market capitalismpress enterprises toward transparent account-ing systems, and push governments towardeliminating barriers to foreign ownership andabandoning mercantilism? Will more work beneeded on issues like safety nets, workingconditions, and environmental standards?

What should be the nature of UN involvementin commerce and economics? What is the opti-mal interaction between governments, otherIGOs, enterprises, and civil society? What rolesare appropriate? Should changes be made?

Poverty and DevelopmentPoverty is a significant cause of conflict. Sus-tainable development programs—includingtechnical assistance, loans, and developmentgrants—are intended to alleviate poverty, dis-ease, hunger, illiteracy, and environmentaldegradation.

This is a daunting challenge. The World Bank isthe central IGO in this area. It and the variousregional development banks provide technicalassistance and finance significant developmentactivity. The Global Environmental Facility,established in 1991, adds capability to dealwith environmental issues and opportunities.The United Nations Development Programmeleads UN development work. Various UN spe-cialized agencies provide significant technicaland other assistance. Bilateral assistance also

10

Global Govenance

supports development. Much developmentwork is delivered through contract arrange-ments with NGOs and enterprises, whobecome the direct service providers.

The UN world conferences of the 1990s helpedfocus attention on and chart strategies fordevelopment for the next century. Strategy 21,published in 1996 by the Development Assis-tance Committee of OECD, focused on six keygoals: reduce by half the proportion of peoplein extreme property by 2015; achieve universalprimary education in all countries by 2015;eliminate gender disparities in primary andsecondary education by 2005; reduce the mor-tality rates for infants and children under fiveby two-thirds and the mortality rates for moth-ers by three-fourths by 2015; provide access toreproductive health services for all individualsof appropriate age by 2015; and implementnational strategies for sustainable developmentby 2005 to ensure that the current loss of envi-ronmental resources is reversed globally andnationally by 2015.

World Development Indicators show great dis-parities in development progress. In the 1998World Development Indicators, World BankGroup President James D. Wolfensohn statedthat the countries that have succeeded indevelopment “...have done so by sustainingeconomic growth, investing in their people,and implementing the right policies. But as therecent difficulties in East Asia warn, good andopen governance that builds a social consensusis equally important.” The importance of eco-nomic growth is underscored by the recentWorld Bank estimate that the Asian financialcrisis has pushed 200 million people intopoverty.

Private-sector direct foreign investment indeveloping countries has grown rapidly, and is

now several times the total developmentinvestment through intergovernmental pro-grams. This private direct foreign investmentseeks areas of economic opportunity whichmay or may not be areas of development need.While it contributes to per capita incomegrowth in developing countries, it does notreplace the need for targeted intergovernmen-tal development assistance.

Through NGOs, civil society is increasinglyvocal on development and fiscal policies. Struc-tural adjustment practices have been heavilycriticized for not adequately consideringhuman issues. The Jubilee 2000 proposals forforgiveness of poorest nations’ debts areencouraging reevaluation of developmentpolicies.

What should be the UN role in promotingdevelopment and alleviating poverty? Whatare appropriate roles for national governments,the private sector, civil society, and other IGOs?Should the United Nations undertake rolesbeyond the social aspects of development?

SustainabilitySustainability includes survival issues that willdetermine whether this generation can contin-ue to meet its life needs while preserving theability of future generations to do so as well.For human life on this planet to be sustainable,the world’s environment must be adequatelymaintained and protected, the earth’s naturalresources must be preserved and reused so thatresource depletion does not inhibit survival,unsustainable consumption patterns must beaddressed, and world population must bestabilized.

The UN world conferences and related initia-tives have focused attention on environment,population, resource needs, and related social


11

issues. Agenda 21, an ambitious program forenvironment and development includesnational plans responsive to identified needs.Environmental concerns have been incorporat-ed into treaties that include national commit-ments on pollution, emissions, and naturalresources. The UN Population Fund has doneexcellent work on population for many years.

The biggest challenges in this area are commit-ment and resources. Sustainability requiresacting now to preserve the future. The humanspecies is not very good at this. We are far bet-ter at responding to the immediate. A crisis thatmay be a generation away receives scantattention.

What is the appropriate role for the UnitedNations on sustainability? How can commit-ment and resources be mobilized? How cantreaty commitments be coordinated andmonitored? What should be the roles of otherorganizations?

Promote and Protect Human DignityThe Universal Declaration of Human Rightshas been a major force in promoting and pro-tecting human dignity. Since it was written,significant strides have been made in establish-ing respect for human rights. There is growingacceptance that national governments cannotlegitimately use claims of sovereignty as adefense against gross violations of humanrights. Yet, continuing work is needed.

NGOs have played a significant role in moni-toring and calling attention to human rightsviolations. The greatest progress has beenmade in the so-called first generation—civiland political—rights. Work continues on social,economic, and cultural—second generation—rights. The International Labor Organization

12

continues its work of many years on labor andemployment standards. Conventions have beendeveloped on such issues as racial discrimina-tion, torture, genocide, the rights of the child,and elimination of all forms of discriminationagainst women. The United Nations has estab-lished special representatives in areas ofcurrent concern, such as children and armedconflict and violence against women.

The United Nations has also had a major role inhumanitarian and refugee work. Various highcommissioners and special representativeshave carried responsibilities of monitoring,calling attention to difficulties, and mobilizingand coordinating relief and humanitarianefforts. Again, resource availability is often alimitation. As one recent example, the reliefresources available for Kosovo refugees havebeen inadequate.

As noted earlier, the two special war crimes tri-bunals and the new International CriminalCourt contribute to protection of human digni-ty against war crimes, genocide, and crimesagainst humanity.

How do we assure continuing progress in thepromotion and protection of human dignity?What should be the role of the United Nations?How does this intersect with national preroga-tives? How should NGOs be involved? Whatabout treaty regimes and other IGOs?

Role of the United NationsThe United Nations is at a critical juncture.Within and around it there is unease and toolittle sense of direction. There is fear that theorganization is being circumscribed and that itmay be suffering creeping irrelevance.

Global Govenance

Secretary-General Kofi Annan is encouragingefforts to overcome these difficulties. He hascalled for a Millennium Assembly next year tofocus the United Nations for the next century.He is seeking “workable objectives and institu-tional means for the United Nations to meet thechallenges of human solidarity in the yearsahead.”

With universal membership, the UnitedNations is well postured as a convener, as afacilitator of global standard-setting, and as aglobal meeting place. These are significantstrengths in the new climate for global gover-nance, where open, inclusive, and participatorycollaboration among public and private entitiesmust be the pattern. The United Nations mustbecome a narrower and deeper organization,working in its areas of comparative advantage.The challenge is to define roles and relation-ships and to develop an optimal division oflabor together with partnerships among tradi-tional government and intergovernmentalorganizations, economic and market entities,civil society, and global mass media andcommunications.

Well done, this interactive collaboration willsucceed in weaving the rich tapestry of globalgovernance that is needed in this era of inter-connectedness. It will promote peace, security,freedom, and justice for this and future genera-tions. I look forward to our discussions.

13


Introduction

The United Nations’ leadership role in theemerging system of global governanceremains undefined and problematic. A

multiplicity of new international actors—states,multilateral institutions, businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—compli-cate the search for a fitting role for the UnitedNations in a new era of globalization. Globalgovernance—humanity’s struggle to bringsome sort of order to an evermore interdepend-ent, but still very chaotic world—seems impos-sible without an active role by the world’spremier international organization. Yet thenature of such a UN role and the degree towhich it will comprise elements of leadership—vision wedded to the ability to coordinate acoalition of interests—are by no means clear.

In recognition of this, the Stanley Foundationconvened its thirty-fourth annual conference ofthe United Nations of the Next Decade inAdare, Ireland, bringing together a diversegroup of participants, each having many yearsof concrete experience, observation, and sub-stantial knowledge of the United Nations andinternational affairs. Conference objectiveswere ambitious. Participants were asked, first,to sketch out the emerging climate for globalgovernance; second, to turn their attention tothe tasks of global governance and where theUnited Nations might exercise leadership; andthird, to draw a number of conclusions aboutthe actions and initiatives that must be taken tohelp the United Nations fulfill its leadershiproles. These three areas make up the body ofthe conference report below.

It should, at the outset, also be said that thechallenge posed to the United Nations by theUnited States was an underlying theme of theentire conference. Even as the world changesaround it, the relationship between “theelephant in the tent” and the “global circus”comprises a crucial aspect of any thinkingabout the United Nations’ leadership role. See“The Elephant in the Tent” (pp. 16-17) for anexamination of the specific nature of thischallenge.

The Current and Future Climate for Global GovernanceProfound upheaval in the international systemconfronts the United Nations with a radicallynew operating environment. Ramifications ofthe Cold War’s end continue to reverberatearound the world. A new dispensation of powerand influence has not yet taken hold. At thesame time, the information revolution is trans-muting the pattern of human interaction acrossthe planet—economically, but also, and perhapseven more dramatically, politically, and cultur-ally. International organizations—among whichthe United Nations enjoys pride of place for itsuniversality and, perhaps, its moral authority—have been tossed asunder by this tide of trans-formation. Seeking to channel change into con-structive directions, the United Nations andother intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)continually see their ability to foster orderamong the chaos threatened by their inability toadapt fast enough to have any influence at all.

Technology and economic gain may be the driv-ing forces of globalization, but the spread ofdemocracy and its younger sister, civil society,

14

Conference Report

have created the political climate for global gov-ernance. “Governance,” not “government,” itshould be noted, in recognition that the diffu-sion of power within and among states andother actors makes centralized control increas-ingly unwieldy. “Governance” also because thesovereignty of nation-states, while changing, isby no means at an end. What is clear is thatglobalization has made governance more com-plex, at the national as well as the internationallevel. The dramatic proliferation of politicalactors brings with it the need for new patternsof political leadership and coalition-building.

Thus the challenges confronting the UnitedNations as it enters the next millennium aremanifold and fast changing. Changing too arethe United Nations’ possibilities for influencingand coordinating in this new global environ-ment. Participants attending the Adare confer-ence sought to identify the climate in which theUnited Nations operates as a first step towardidentifying the role of the United Nations in theemerging system of global governance. Theysought to define the various facets of globaliza-tion and international interdependence, andthen examined the new (and enduring) chal-lenges to multilateralism and internationalcooperation. They looked more specifically athow global business, international civil society,and the nation-state are shaping and being

shaped by globalization.And they concluded withan examination of theemerging roles and rela-tionships of internationalorganizations, both globaland regional, recognizingthat governmental andintergovernmental institu-tions often have less incen-tive to adapt than eitherbusinesses or NGOs.

Globalization and InterdependenceGlobalization drew mixed reviews from the par-ticipants. They portrayed it as both an opportu-nity and a challenge. They saw globalizationproceeding at breakneck speed in the economicsphere, while the political, or at least institution-al, sphere lagged behind. One participant evennoted that fragmentation—in the guise ofregionalization and local empowerment and,more negatively, ethnic nationalism—had anequally powerful influence on global events.Some spoke of globalization being akin to ElNiño—falsely blamed for everything—whileothers argued that globalization was indeed par-ticularly harsh on weak and underdevelopednation-states, a point also made in the UNDevelopment Programme’s (UNDP) 1999Human Development Report, published shortlyafter the conference. While relative emphasisvaried, in the end there was consensus that glob-alization necessitated not only a “level playingfield, but also some attention to condition of theplayers.” The group largely saw global gover-nance—both in terms of the playing field andthe players—as lagging behind globalization,and there was broad consensus that the UnitedNations should have a significant, but as yetundefined, role in “bridging the gap.”


15

The rapporteur prepared thisreport following the conference. Itcontains his interpretation of theproceedings and is not merely adescriptive, chronological account.Participants neither reviewed norapproved the report. Therefore, itshould not be assumed that everyparticipant subscribes to allrecommendations, observations,and conclusions.

Rapporteur Andrew B. Denison.

...globalizationhas madegovernance more complex, at the national as well as theinternationallevel.

Challenges to MultilateralismParticipants then turned attention to interna-tional cooperation and international organiza-tions, identifying challenges from a variety ofdirections. In regard to the UN system, anumber of participants saw the New York-based organization facing one of its gravestcrises. At the same time, numerous participants

emphasized that “organizations can only be asstrong as their members allow.” In this context,many criticized the short-term preoccupationsof the larger states, with their preference forunilateralism and coalitions-of-the-willing.Here, the United States, heavily indebted toUnited Nations, drew withering fire as thedeadbeat dad of the international system.

16

Global Govenance

The Elephant in the Tent: The United States and the United Nations

The singular importance of the United Statesto the development of global governanceand to the role of the United Nations is

uncontested. The overwhelming influence of theUnited States results from the current distributionof power in the international system and from theunique historical role of the United States in push-ing for the establishment of the organization andin shaping the Charter principles upon which it isbased. Recognizing the disproportionate impact ofUS decisions on the United Nations, participants atthe Adare conference were particularly critical ofthe United States for undermining the capacity ofthe United Nations to fulfill its true potential. Thegroup saw the arrears problem as the most glaringconfirmation of US hostility toward the UnitedNations, but many argued that the US $1.6 billiondebt to the United Nations (over half of the $2.9billion owed by all member states) was a symptomof a larger problem.

Some defined this problem as simple arrogance:“The United States thinks that because it standstaller, it can see further and should thus controlany organization it belongs to.” Others pointed toa deep-seated distrust of government in the UnitedStates, whether at the national or the internationallevel. In the end, the group came to the conclusionthat it was a fundamental ambivalence towardmultilateralism in general, and the United Nations

in particular, that plagued US relations with theUnited Nations.

While public opinion polls have consistentlyshown strong US support for the United Nations,this support, as one participant observed, “is amile wide and an inch deep.” As such, it is easy forstrong-willed interest groups and single-issuepoliticians in Congress to commandeer US policyin support of their crusade against the UnitedNations or in favor of unrelated issues.

While the Clinton administration is favorablydisposed toward the New York institution, mostparticipants saw the administration as not willingto invest much political capital in support of theUnited Nations. Other foreign policy objectiveshave higher priority. At the same time, the admin-istration finds itself frequently turning to theUnited Nations to back its policies, whether in Iraqor the former Yugoslavia.

Criticism of US behavior toward the UnitedNations was combined with the argument that theUnited States could gain much from an investmentof money and vision in the organization. Oneparticipant even spoke of the possibility of theUnited Nations becoming the United States’“pearl,” if only the commitment were there. Morenegatively, there was also the warning that ifWashington did not use its ascendancy to strength-en the United Nations now, it could be in troublewhen other powers rise. Agreeing that the USproblem was less hostility toward the UnitedNations than indecision and ambivalence about


17

There was widespread agreement that withoutfunding, international organizations—like anyform of government—would come to naught.There was, however, little or no support foradding another layer of government—withpowers to tax and intrude—that could as easilyerode as it could enhance individual liberties.All agreed that UN leadership was very much

a function of attitudes within nation-statestoward international organizations.

The Kosovo crisis provided a timely example ofhow difficult it is for international institutionsto reconcile effectiveness and legitimacy. Whilesome were critical of NATO for not formallyseeking UN Security Council approval of

the organization, the group underlined the impor-tance of the United States engaging in a seriousdebate over what it really wants the UnitedNations to do.

More immediately, the United States needs toresolve the arrears problem if any progress is to bemade on improving the US-UN relationship. Bythe same token, this is required before the UnitedNations can find a more solid footing in anyemerging system of global governance. In this con-text, a brief, sharp debate ensued as to whether theUS Congress had the legal authority to abrogate itscommitments originally made under the UN Par-ticipation Act. Specifically, could the United Statesunilaterally insist on lowering its obligations to theUnited Nations from 31 percent of peacekeepingcosts to 25 percent and from 25 percent of the gen-eral budget to 20 percent? This is one of the condi-tions of the so-called Helms-Biden packagedesigned to pay US arrears in turn for the UnitedNations meeting specific US demands on reform.

While the exact legal ramifications of the US posi-tion were not settled, nearly all participants agreedthat the United States was paying a high politicalprice for its position. Not only was the US positionundermining its credibility in the United Nations,participants were in broad agreement that the USstand is also beginning to damage relations withWashington’s closest allies. In this context, anotherparticipant argued that US allies should do moreto pressure the United States to pay up—instead ofhiding behind the US obstructionist stance withtheir own inaction.

Should the United States remain in arrears to theUnited Nations through the end of 1999, the groupsaw it quite likely that the General Assemblywould deny the United States voting rights in thebody. A number of participants warned that evenif Helms-Biden passed, its conditions and its sig-nificantly lower estimate of the amount actuallyowed might still lead the General Assembly todeny the United States voting rights. While somein the group agreed that such a sanction would bean appropriate response to US behavior, othersfeared that might cause an anti-UN backlash in theUnited States, thus further damaging US-UN rela-tions. As one participant noted, “whether UNadvocates like it or not, the UN needs the US morethan the US needs the UN.” It was this reality thatleft the group so unsettled about the future of theUnited Nations.

Indeed, there were many who argued that oncethe arrears issue was settled, it would be impor-tant to reduce UN dependence on the UnitedStates, at least in the financial area, by reformingthe assessment process to spread the burden moreevenly. One participant even argued that all veto-wielding members of the Security Council shouldpay the same amount. In the end, there was con-sensus that no matter how much the United Statespaid, it would still wield disproportionate influ-ence over the organization. Without US support,there would be very little in the way of UNleadership.

—Andrew B. Denison

18

Global Govenance

operation Allied Force, others argued that aveto from Russia or China would have harmedthe organization more. All were impressed byNATO public relations, “able to spin everydefeat into a victory, while the UN spins everyvictory into a defeat.”

The Global Triad: Business, Civil Society, andthe Nation-StateParticipants noted that international businessand civil society are changing the equation ofglobal influence—often at the expense of thenation-state. They emphasized that businessglobalization must be seen not only in terms ofproduction and markets but also in terms ofpolitical power. The challenge is thus toharness the interest of business to the task ofglobal governance—with all agreeing that goodbusiness requires good government andstability.

The proliferation of NGOs, both national andinternational, has also had a profound effect onthe climate for global governance and theopportunities for UN leadership. By and large,

the group saw the emer-gence of an internationalcivil society as a positivedevelopment. There waseven talk of a “new diplo-macy” where citizens’groups play a dominantrole in achieving interna-tional agreement on suchthings as the Land MineConvention or the Inter-national Criminal Court.At the same time, partici-pants did not welcome allaspects of the new inter-

national civil society, particularly on the pointof democratic accountability. One warned of a

new “transnational parochialism,” with NGOs“acting globally, but thinking locally.” Indeed,many NGOs oppose moving toward greaterglobal governance.

So do many nation-states, which are often lessthan enthusiastic about erosion of their sover-eignty and transferring any of it to global insti-tutions. Participants agreed that while the Unit-ed Nations is founded on the principle of the“sovereign equality of all its members” (Art.2.1), the nature of sovereignty is changing:national governments must increasingly sharepower with both strengthened internationalinstitutions and local and regional govern-ments seeking greater autonomy. At the sametime, one participant also argued that it wouldbe “dangerous to view nation-states as venaland international organizations as noble.” Theworld, he maintained, remains organizedaround nation-states and there can be no globalgovernance without recognizing this fact.

The Proliferation of International Institutions The tasks of international organizations havenot always been made easier by their growingnumbers. Not infrequently, it is competition,not cooperation, that characterizes their inter-action. While flexible coordination of effort hasgrown in importance, many internationalorganizations remain inflexibly mired in thepast. Participants noted that the capacity forsuch organizations to change lags far behindthat of both international business and NGOs.The United Nations, too, is having a difficulttime defining its proper relationship with otherorganizations. Participants warned of redun-dancy and inefficiency among the plethora ofinternational governmental organizations(IGOs), but they also underlined that a widervariety of organizations provided valuable flex-ibility in a fast-paced world. Yet many argued

The UnitedNations is

having a difficulttime defining

its properrelationship

with other organizations.


19

“gadfly,” reminding other IGOs of particularnorms and standards.

The group observed that intergovernmentalorganizations are generally most effective inestablishing norms and standards—in thewords of one participant, “arm’s length gover-nance.” On actual implementation, by contrast,many shortcomings remain. The strengths ofthe United Nations lie inits universality and itscredibility as a represen-tative of the “internation-al community,” its role instandard-setting, theforum it provides for dis-cussion. These are, how-ever, also its weaknesses,in that consensus amongits members is difficult toachieve, large gaps per-sist between standardsset and standards imple-mented, and endlessdebate erodes credibility.Several participants alsosaw the proliferation of UN Security Councilresolutions in recent years (683 from 1945 to1990, 668 from 1990 to 1999) as a disturbingsymptom of discussion at the expense of action.

In sum, participants defined a profoundlychanged climate for global governance at theend of the twentieth century, characterized byglobalization and a new equation of influencein the triad of governments and intergovern-mental institutions, international business, andan emerging civil society. The group was alsoin agreement that a deep resistance to changeamong international institutions contrastsmarkedly with the agility of most internationalbusiness and NGOs.

that the challenge of coordinating the variousinstitutions should not be overlooked, for thiswas very much a question of “who wascoordinating whom.” Even within the UnitedNations’ family, there is much parochialismand bickering.

The relative role of regional and global institu-tions was also a source of ambivalence, withmany pointing to the advantages of subsidiarityand encouraging regional solutions to regionalproblems. Others, however, argued that region-al organizations were often overwhelmed bysuch problems, particularly in Africa.

On economics and trade, the Bretton Woodsinstitutions, World Bank, and InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF), as well as the WorldTrade Organization (WTO), play a key role inmanaging the global economy. Most partici-pants thought the United Nations, by contrast,can be most effective as an honest critic and

The International Criminal Court treaty conference wasmarked by a high level of NGO involvement.The NGOsresponsible for this sign outside the conference site favored thecourt’s creation.

PH

OT

O B

YK

EIT

H P

OR

TE

R

Participantsdefined aprofoundlychanged climatefor globalgovernance atthe end of the twentiethcentury....

The Tasks of Global Governance and theUN RoleThe tasks of global governance—the challengesthat bring the international community togeth-er to forge common solutions—have grownmore varied and complex in this age of global-ization. While problems of war and peaceremain front and center, their nature has cometo be seen as more diverse. Security, whethernational or human, has taken on a broader con-notation. The growing gap between the world’srich and poor, the ongoing destruction of theenvironment, and the continuing violation ofhuman rights all pose moral challenges in andof themselves, but they are also now very muchlinked to international peace and security. The

importance of security,human dignity, and envi-ronmental protection donot, however, displacethe evermore-global pur-suit of material well-being—the desire tomake a buck and live thegood life. Ironically, itseems that more mun-dane economic motiveshave done as much forglobal governance as thehigher values of peaceand justice. Many confer-

ence participants saw the WTO, as well as theIMF and the World Bank, as leading the waywhen it comes to pooling national sovereigntyand funding global development.

In the economic sphere, as in other functionalareas and regions, many specialized institu-tions have developed to address specific prob-lems. Yet the United Nations, with its universalmembership and overarching ambitions, hassought a role across the entire spectrum of

global challenges—sometimes effectively andsometimes not. The Adare conference exam-ined various functional areas including peaceand security, commerce and economics, pover-ty and development, sustainability, and humandignity. In each, participants sought to identifywhich problems were of particular priority,what role the United Nations should have, andwhat its relationship to other organizations andactors should be.

International Peace and SecurityArticle 1 of the UN Charter begins by definingthe organization’s purpose: “to maintaininternational peace and security.” It was thusappropriate that the participants began theirdiscussion of the tasks of global governance bylooking at issues of war and peace. In thiscontext, discussion focused on the role of theSecurity Council, which the Charter gives “pri-mary” (but not exclusive) responsibility for the“maintenance of international peace andsecurity” (Art. 24).

Despite this Charter tenet, problems of legiti-macy, effectiveness, and selectivity underminethe Security Council’s credibility. In terms ofSecurity Council legitimacy, one participantwarned “against assumption that internationalpeace and security can be legislated.” On effec-tiveness, another observed: “multilateralismcan be the sister of isolationism if toothlessinstitutions are tasked with keeping the peace.”Regarding selectivity, there was agreement thatcooperation in the Security Council remainshighly political and thus focused on specificcrises at the expense of others. In sum, withoutunanimity among the Permanent Five (veto-wielding) members, the Security Council cando little.

With these limitations in mind, many agreedthat the Security Council should focus on

20

Global Govenance

“...multilateralismcan be the sister of

isolationism if toothless

institutions aretasked withkeeping the

peace.”

giving legitimacy to the collective use of forceand not seek to employ forces directly. Whilesome saw the long-term advantages of a UNrapid deployment force, many thought this toomuch for the moment. Nevertheless, one par-ticipant argued that subcontracting enforce-ment to regional organizations like NATOwould cause the “tail to whack [sic] the dog.”Another noted that even with nineteen standbyagreements earmarking national forces for UNuse, the United Nations was not able to puttogether a military operation to prevent theRwanda genocide. The general conclusion wasthat the UN culture was uncomfortable withenforcement, whether military or through eco-nomic sanctions (the efficacy of sanctions beinghotly debated within the group). As such, theUnited Nations should focus less on ChapterVII (“Action With Respect to Threats to thePeace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts ofAggression”) than on Chapter VI (“Pacific Set-tlement of Disputes”), particularly with regardto peacekeeping operations.

Even on peacekeeping, one participant argued,members often use it as a “fig leaf for their owninaction, and then a scapegoat when things gowrong.” In this context, another argued thatwith civil wars the most common form ofarmed conflict, the United Nations has becomemore involved in post-conflict rebuilding with-in states. Cambodia provided many valuablelessons on how the United Nations can play avital role in democratization, particularly inregard to institution-building and the organiza-tion and monitoring of elections. The UnitedNations is now similarly challenged in Kosovo,where it is moving from humanitarian assis-tance (primarily organized by the UN HighCommissioner for Refugees) to support fordemocratization. In this context, many arguedthat intervention in domestic affairs (like Koso-vo) remained uncharted territory and that it

was better to proceed ona case-by-case basis thanto develop a general setof guidelines. As far asconflict prevention, thegroup generally agreedthat the problem was lessa lack of early warningthan a lack of the politicalwill to respond before acrisis hit the front pages.While many complainedthat much more wasspent on military forcethan conflict prevention,others argued that the deterrent value of mili-tary force was in itself a form of prevention.

As such, the group acknowledged that thelegitimacy bestowed by the United Nations onthe use of force was valuable, but dependenton all too infrequent consensus in the SecurityCouncil. On peacekeeping and post-conflictreconstruction, the United Nations was seen tohave much more potential, particularly in thearea of democratization and humanitarianassistance, but only if it could organize thefinancial wherewithal to actually have animpact. Many criticized the international com-munity’s tendency to toss a crisis into thehands of the United Nations, and then refuse toprovide the money or the peacekeepers to dothe job.

Trade and Investment; Poverty and Development Conference participants chose to address tradeand investment at the same time as povertyand development, arguing that the economiesof the rich world and the poor world wereinextricably linked. Many of the conferenceparticipants also acknowledged that one of theworld’s most pressing long-term problems was


21

Many criticizedthe internationalcommunity’stendency to tossa crisis into the hands of the UnitedNations....

that only 20 percent of the world’s people liv-ing in the highest income countries has 86 per-cent of the total gross domestic product (GDP).

As such, the “level playing field” of the sortsought by the WTO must be complemented byefforts to “improve the condition of the play-ers.” Many were critical that Official Develop-ment Assistance (ODA) was no where near the0.7 percent of GDP standard set by the UnitedNations, but others argued that ODA has oftenbeen overrated. Consensus existed that ODAmust become more targeted, and that the Unit-ed Nations should lead an effort to focus oneducation and information access. The UnitedNations should also seek to include the privatesector in this effort, since private direct foreigninvestment greatly exceeds ODA.

More generally, the United Nations should con-tinue to remind the IMF, the World Bank, andthe WTO that an open global economy can onlyprosper if development and poverty are alsoaddressed. Indeed, one participant noted thatthe United Nations had succeeded in movingthe IMF to enlarge its focus beyond growth toinclude equity and income distribution. TheUnited Nations should not, however, seek tobecome a full and formal participant in thoseorganizations. And, argued another partici-pant, the United Nations should be carefulabout getting caught up in “the anti-growth,anti-market trap.” Much UN economic analy-sis, he argued, is regrettably of this tenor. Therewas, however, widespread agreement that theUN Conference on Trade and Development did

22

Global Govenance

The Kosovo crisis is an example of how difficult it is for international institutions to reconcile effectiveness and legitimacy.

AP

/WID

E W

OR

LD P

HO

TO

outstanding analysis on international flows ofdirect foreign investment.

The United Nations’ leadership role in alleviat-ing poverty and underdevelopment foundwidespread support, though there was alsorecognition that this was an area of stiff compe-tition among various international organiza-tions. Participants pointed to the UnitedNations’ leading role in setting certain stan-dards, such as 0.7 percent of GDP in foreign aidand that bodies like the UNDP are importantinterlocutors for poor countries. The UNDP hasalso been effective in teaching small businessskills, empowering women, and engaging inother grassroots activities. While some partici-pants hoped the United Nations could movebeyond norm-setting to actually implementingits various agendas, others felt this might createfalse expectations. Instead, they felt the UnitedNations should become more agile andeffective in the areas where it is already under-taking development assistance, includingemergency humanitarian assistance. At thesame time, others argued that with bad govern-ment increasingly identified as a main sourceof underdevelopment, a greater UN role insetting standards for good government wasneeded. The United Nations, they maintained,should have a leading role in pressuring for thedevelopment of democracy.

SustainabilityOn environmental sustainability, the groupunderlined the importance of the UnitedNations as a standard-setter, but many alsoargued for a more active role in bringing aboutmultilateral environmental agreements withbinding commitments. The United Nations’role as convenor of treaty conferences, such asthe 1992 UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment (Earth Summit) in Rio, found

broad support. The result-ing Agenda 21 and Com-mission on SustainableDevelopment, many felt,were good examples ofinternational norm-settingbased on broad consensus—though some mechanism forreviewing compliance wasneeded. Such conferencesalso provide a useful meet-ing point for businesses and NGOs, even ifmuch bad air remains between the two. Also,one participant underlined the importance oflinking the environmental and trade agendasmore closely—more effectively than is nowbeing done.

While a number of participants saw an impor-tant role for the UN Environmental Programmein helping Third World environmental groupsorganize, others noted the troubles the Nairobi-based organization was having with corruptionand its overemphasis on big projects.

Promotion and Protection of Human Dignity Human rights, human dignity, and now humansecurity have been an important and centralaspect of the United Nations since its founding,but particularly after the adoption of the “revo-lutionary” Declaration on Human Rights in1948. “What is the purpose of global gover-nance if not human dignity,” asked one of theparticipants. Yet the United Nations has had adifficult time with this issue, for promotion ofhuman rights often clashes with the sovereignrights of governments. This difficulty reflectsthe fact, argued another participant, that theUnited Nations is the “last bastion of nationalsovereignty.” While the United Nations haslong had a role in raising consciousness on thisissue—whether in the area of women’s rights,


23

“What is thepurpose ofglobal governance if not humandignity?”

children’s rights, or those of ethnic minorities—it has most often done so on general terms.Implementing or protecting rights in specificcountries often has been beyond its bailiwick,not least because of Article 2.7 of the Charter,which prohibits the United Nations from inter-vening in matters of “domestic jurisdiction.”Addressing human rights indirectly throughthe promotion of democratic institution-build-ing and the organization of elections has beenmore successful.

Nevertheless, the growing influence of globalpublic opinion and the increasing activism ofinternational NGOs on this issue have created anew balance of power. The establishment of aUN High Commissioner for Human Rights in1992, the war crimes tribunals, and negotia-tions of the International Criminal Court attestto this. Nevertheless, as participants observed,UN funding and membership enthusiasm forprogress in this area remains limited. When itcomes to implementation, most felt NGOswould continue to be at the forefront of newinitiatives, with the United Nations taggingalong behind.

In discussing the varioustasks of global gover-nance, the participantslargely agreed that theUnited Nations shouldfocus on what it doesbest. As such, they iden-tified four specific core

areas, where the United Nations’ strength liesin both standard-setting and in some modicumof implementation: international peace andsecurity, democratization, human rights, andhumanitarian assistance.

Needed United Nations’ Actions and InitiativesThe changing global context of governance andthe manifest problems of humanity at the turnof the millennium confront the internationalcommunity with the clear need to retool andrefocus the world’s premier internationalorganization. In the final sessions of the confer-ence, participants explored needed actions andinitiatives by the member states and the UnitedNations and the manner in which these actionscould be most effectively encouraged. Anunderlying theme was that the United Nationsmust better fit the international community inwhich it exists. Reform for the sake of reformwill not suffice. Agreement must exist on UNroles and relationships. While the participantsidentified key areas where the United Nationsseemed particularly suited to play a strongrole, they were all of the opinion that without arenewed international mandate, this would not

24

Global Govenance

Much deadwoodhinders the

organization’sflexibility.

The United Nations has longed played a leadership role inalleviating poverty and underdevelopment. This is now anarea of stiff competition among various internationalorganizations.

UN

/DP

I PH

OT

O

be possible. Unless the world community isclear about what it wants the United Nations todo, the United Nations will be able to do verylittle. And, unless the United States can resolveits own internal ambivalence about its relation-ship to the United Nations, the world body willbe able to do even less.

The leadership question thus begins with thehealth of the organization itself. It must betaken seriously as an effective, well-functioningtool of international diplomacy if it is going tohave any role in coordinating the myriad oforganizations and actors that have taken up thechallenge of global governance. One essentialfactor for the health of the organization is inter-nal leadership; that is, getting all of the dis-parate members of the UN family to stand insupport of a common purpose as articulated bythe Security Council, the General Assembly,and the secretary-general. This, in itself, will beno easy task. Much deadwood hinders theorganization’s flexibility. Many participantssuggested that its overage staff (averaging 49)are not up to the challenges of globalization.Moreover, strong leadership is automaticallysuspect to many, if not all, of the organization’s185 members.

Regardless, internal leadership alone will notreanimate the organization. Adequate fundingis also key. All the noble intentions in the worldcan only go so far without money—whichsome members still refuse to provide. Thisoccurs even though the United Nations’ budget($2.6 billion in 1997) is a bit more than that ofthe US state of West Virginia ($2.4 billion in1997). Direction and funding are in turn direct-ly dependent on the members’ commitmentand their clear articulation of that commitment.Without an explicit mandate from its members,the United Nations will flounder. In many

ways, participants sawsuch a mandate as thesine qua non of a UNleadership role equal tothe challenges of globalgovernance.

Such a discussion of arenewed mandate could, according to the par-ticipants, be guided by the following elements:

• A recommitment to the purposes and princi-ples of the UN Charter

• A greater role for the mid-size powers andthe European Union

• A move to focus UN efforts on four corepolitical functions: international peace andsecurity, democratization, human rights, andhumanitarian assistance

• A sharper definition of the linkage betweenthese core issues and other international chal-lenges, and between the United Nations andother international actors on these matters

• Better coordination with other internationalorganizations on making the globalization ofthe world economy politically, socially, andenvironmentally sustainable

• Some sort of UN crisis response force,whether drawn from national militaries orconstituted as a standing UN force

• An effort to balance the one-nation, one-votesystem with a decision-making procedurethat reflects the relationship between power,influence, and responsibility

• A discussion on limiting the veto to ArticleVII (peace enforcement) matters; even if this


25

...the UnitedNations shouldfocus on what it does best.

is eventually rejected, it will put the problemof the veto under a spotlight

• A realignment of Security Council member-ship to reflect current geopolitical realities

• A revision of the United Nations’ system offinance with the aim of avoiding overdepen-dence on any one country—one possibilitywould be equal contributions by all veto-wielding members

• A sharpening of the United Nations as aninstrument in the service of its members, butwithout entirely undercutting its responsibili-ty for the planet as a whole

• A redefinition of the United Nations’ relation-ship with the United States in a way thatallows US power to be harnessed to theglobal agenda without unnecessarily under-mining US freedom of action

Several participants proposed that one possiblesetting in which to renew the United Nations’mandate would be the upcoming MillenniumAssembly; others were less sanguine about thisvenue.

Several concrete proposals aimed at reinvigo-rating the United Nations in terms of organiza-tional effectiveness also came up in the finalsessions. In this discussion, many emphasizedthat box-shifting, cost-cutting, and hiringfreezes do not alone make for reform. Indeed,some argued that the US-backed zero-growthbudget is little more than a gambit to destroythe United Nations. The following recommen-dations found widespread support in thegroup:

• Foster a sense in the UN system that coher-ence and unity of purpose is more important

than the specific agendas of the various sub-organizations

• Streamline General Assembly debate; limitagenda items so as to provide more focus andavoid redundancy

• Provide the Security Council with better staffsupport and better information on globalcrises

• Make better use of the principle of electedmembers to the Security Council by allowingreelection of those that best contribute “to themaintenance of international security and theother purposes of the organization”(Art. 23)

• Seek to engage civil society and internationalbusiness on a common global agenda (tocounterbalance less internationalist nation-states)

• Professionalize UN public relations

• Enhance the quality of dialogue betweendeveloped and developing states

• Reduce micromanagement and fixation ontechnical questions in the committees

• Improve human resource management—keep staff small and agile, so as to betteradapt to changing issues

With a renewed mandate and reinvigoratedorganization, the United Nations would bewell placed to fill a variety of roles in the nextcentury. It will continue, as in the past, to playsome role as the superego of the world’snation-states, as a global conscience, while alsoserving as a forum for the coordination ofaction, however difficult actual implementationmay be. But the United Nations must also find

26

Global Govenance

a new leadership role among the multiplyingnumber of other international actors (includingother IGOs), among those in the businessworld, and among the evermore-powerfulvoices of international civil society. This leader-ship will likely take two forms: (1) a moreformal linkage of business and civil society intothe myriad deliberative bodies that make upthe UN system and (2) a less formal role asnetworker and clearinghouse through theorganization of conferences and ad hoc coordi-nating committees on specific problems frompost-conflict reconstruction to efforts that curbthe use of child soldiers.

ConclusionIn examining the climate for global governance,the tasks to be met, and the specific initiativesand actions the United Nations could take toenhance its leadership role, the Adare confer-ence touched on a wide variety of issues andchallenges to the United Nations and the globalcommunity. The deliberations pointed to aUnited Nations’ leadership role that, inessence, revolves around identifying the inter-ests of its various constituents and harnessingthem to an overarching set of commonobjectives. Constituencies will change, but theultimate purpose of global governance—stew-ardship for humanity and for a planet thatsustains it—will not. The United Nations andits Charter stand in support of these principles,and the conference was in agreement that theyremain valid and widely supported by theworld’s public. The challenge is to translate thissupport into a renewed mandate from theworld’s governments and the planet’s otherincreasingly powerful global actors.


27

28

Global Govenance

1999 United Nations of the Next Decade participants


29

30

Global Govenance

Participants were asked, first, to sketch out theemerging climate for global governance; second,to turn their attention to the tasks of global gov-ernance and where the United Nations mightexercise leadership; and third, to draw a numberof conclusions about the actions and initiativesthat must be taken to help the United Nationsfulfill its leadership roles.

Lively Adare discussions yielded signifi-cant consensus on a number of mattersthat should be considered and acted

upon by national and international leaders. Letme underscore a few of these, adding myobservations and concerns.

First, the climate for global governance is radi-cally changed from that of even a decade ago.The nation-state and intergovernmental institu-tions no longer hold an exclusive franchise ongovernance. Participants talked of a globaltriad—business, civil society, and the nation-state. Governance at all levels, today and forthe future, necessarily requires interactionbetween these three complementary domainsand contribution from each. This puts newdemands on, and requires new skills for, lead-ership. Those who fail to understand and act inaccordance with this new governance environ-ment are out of touch, and ultimately will beunsuccessful in efforts to lead. There are stilltoo many whose leadership is ineffectivebecause they think disproportionately in termsof heirarchy, command, and control.

The conference focused on defining the UnitedNations’ leadership role for the future. There isgrowing consensus that the United Nationsmust become “narrower and deeper” and con-ference participants supported this. The UnitedNations cannot do everything, and its energiesand resources should be concentrated in areaswhere it has comparative advantage. Partici-pants identified four of these: internationalpeace and security, democratization, humanrights, and humanitarian assistance. In themonths ahead, UN bodies, member states, the

Millennium Assembly, NGOs, and many otherelements of the global triad will be working tooptimize UN focus and direction. These fourareas are on the table for that discussion.

Next, it is far too easy to talk about what theUnited Nations should do and the initiatives itshould take without recognizing that theorganization can do only what its members willallow and support. Too often, member statesand national leaders still use the UnitedNations as a “fig leaf” to mask their own pauci-ty of ideas and commitment on resolvingintractable problems. This is both disingeniousand nonconstructive.

Finally, conference discussions provided anoth-er telling confirmation that the United States isabdicating an unprecedented opportunity forworld leadership. While US business has neverbeen more involved in the global marketplace,and while US civil society increasingly tran-scends national boundaries, US governmentand political organizations remain conflictedand ambivalent. They are unable to agreewhether this country should act as “the big kidon the block,” bullying others into doing whatwe want, or whether the United States shouldlead by working with others to build the rule oflaw, strengthen multilateral institutions, andshare the burdens of global governance. As aresult, the US-UN relationship is badlystrained. Our reputation and our ability to leadand influence even traditional friends are beingsullied by indecision, unpredictability, and fail-ure to honor legal obligations. The “elephant”must decide what role it will play in the “tent,”and the sooner, the better.

31

Chairman’s Observations

The Stanley Foundation is a private operating foundation that conducts varied programs andactivities designed to provoke thought and encourage dialogue on world affairs and directedtoward achieving a secure peace with freedom and justice.

Programs engage policymakers, opinion leaders, and citizens interested in solving problems and find-ing opportunities that present themselves in an increasingly interdependent world. Areas of particularinterest are: global peace and security, US international relations, sustainable development, humanrights, the United Nations, global education, and the expansion of policy deliberations to includewider public representation.

Activities include:• Round-table, off-the-record conferences and meetings for policymakers and other experts

• Citizen programs for educators, young people, churches, professional associations, civic groups, andeducational institutions—often held in collaboration with other nonprofit organizations

• Production of Common Ground, a weekly public radio program on world affairs

• Publication of the monthly magazine World Press Review

• Publication of conference reports

The Stanley Foundation welcomes gifts from supportive friends. The foundation is not a grant-makinginstitution.

Other InformationMost reports and a wealth of other information are instantly available on our Web site: stanleyfdn.org.

Single copies are available free. There is a small postage and handling charge for multiple copies orbulk orders. For more information contact the publications manager.

The Stanley Foundation209 Iowa AvenueMuscatine, IA 52761 USATelephone: 319·264·1500Fax: 319·264·[email protected]

32

The Stanley Foundation

http://commongroundradio.org

http://worldpress.org

http://reports.stanleyfdn.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.stanleyfdn.org

http://stanleyfdn.org

Global Governance: Defining the United Nations' Leadership ... · Defining the United Nations’...

Documents

Transcript of Global Governance: Defining the United Nations' Leadership ... · Defining the United Nations’...