the united nations and the twenty-first century: the imperative for change€¦ · ·...

The United Nations and the Twenty-First Century: The Imperative for Change

Report of the Thirty-First United Nations of the Next Decade Conference

Sponsored by

The Stanley FoundationJune 16-21, 1996Convened at Salishan Lodge, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA

Executive Summary

The United Nations is currently engaged in a reform process that ismore urgent than any previous one. The urgency stems from a per-vasive lack of political and financial support from its members.Last year’s fiftieth anniversary celebration prompted several pri-vate studies on the future of the United Nations. The GeneralAssembly also created a series of working groups charged withdeveloping proposals for reform of the General Assembly, theSecurity Council, and UN finances, and for implementation of thesecretary-general’s agendas for peace and development. A separateworking group on the UN system as a whole is to report to theGeneral Assembly with a summary of the other working groups.

UNND report 96 7/31/97 1:51 AM

2

The ChallengeIs the United Nations important or not? If member states believethe United Nations can operate in ways that serve national inter-ests, it will become a greater focus of international collaboration. Ifnot, then the United Nations will continue to be treated poorly. Thefirst question becomes whether the United Nations is a politicalpriority for the international community.

About forty to sixty member states of the United Nations seem tobelieve it should be a priority, and they share a sense of urgencyabout the task for reforming the organization. Others are lessenthused either because they do not think the United Nations is inbad enough shape to merit the effort, do not sense the urgency(believing the United Nations’ finances are not as desperate as theyare), or basically like it the way it is.

If members decide to revitalize the organization, they will need toprovide four interrelated building blocks: a common vision for thefuture, political recommitment, a reasonable reform process, andadequate financial resources.

VisionWhen the UN Charter was signed in 1945 there was clear consen-sus on the organization’s role, but the world has changed dramati-cally since then. Member states need to contemplate how globaldevelopments have affected the relevance of the United Nationsand decide how it might be changed to better serve contemporaryneeds. They need to identify the kind of international organizationthey want and the specific agenda it should follow. Unfortunately,there is a profound lack of consensus on these most fundamentalissues, with much of the breakdown occurring along North-Southlines.

Participants at the United Nations of the Next Decade Conferencediscussed each of the United Nations’ major areas of operation:

Maintenance of International Peace and Security. Most participantssee the United Nations continuing its focus in this area, but theyrecommend that the organization pay greater attention to the rise


3

of intrastate conflict and complex humanitarian emergencies. Oth-ers, noting that security is increasingly thought to encompass morethan military security, believe the United Nations is excessivelypreoccupied with traditional forms of maintaining peace and secu-rity.

Economic Development. The United Nations needs to continuethis emphasis, and, some say, increase its efforts. In the l970s theUnited Nations was a major player in development aid, but overthe last two decades its role has become less important. Today theactive participation of private investors, nongovernmental organi-zations, and the Bretton Woods institutions are profoundly chang-ing the development assistance picture. In crafting a new visionand agenda for the United Nations, the UN development commu-nity will need to assess how to “add value” to the work of the pri-vate sector and international financial institutions.

International Law. Building international norms of behavior, set-ting standards, and negotiating international legal instruments areimportant functions that must be preserved and strengthened.Adding enforcement mechanisms such as ad hoc tribunals to pros-ecute war crimes and, possibly, a permanent international criminalcourt could advance the rule of law, although national sovereigntylimits how far the United Nations can go.

Leadership—The US RoleThe importance of a solid and predictable relationship between theUnited States and the United Nations was frequently emphasized.At present, the situation is poor. Many at the United Nations doubtthe sincerity of US intentions in the withholding of funds anddemanding of reform. Though there are real federal budget pres-sures, most believe the US nonpayment is politically, not economi-cally, driven.

It was suggested that the United States needs to clear the air aboutits intentions and take some extraordinary action that woulddemonstrate its commitment to the United Nations and to UNreform. One participant specifically proposed that the US secretaryof state convene a conference of the forty to sixty key countries


actively engaged in the reform discussion. This could create a posi-tive climate for reform and would signal to member states that UNreform is not business as usual for the United States.

It was also suggested that the political leaders of the middle pow-ers take more of a leadership role by investing sufficient time andresources to revitalize the United Nations. To date, they have beenrelatively disengaged.

The Process and Substance of ReformAlthough there is an intergovernmental reform process underwaythrough the working groups, participants discussed whether realreform could take place absent consensus on major substantiveissues. Their opinions differed on that question.

Most participants believe the working groups have contributed sig-nificantly, but may be reaching the end of their utility. Some saidthe groups should open up to input from groups outside the Unit-ed Nations. However, it was noted that while outside groupswould bring in new perspectives, they would not necessarily helpbring closure to the working groups’ tasks. Ultimately, it is up togovernments to reach agreement on reforming the United Nations’organs and operations.

The General Assembly. Although the General Assembly is the pri-mary deliberative organ of the member states, it has becomeincreasingly marginalized within the UN system in the last five toten years. A shorter agenda and more focused debate could helprevitalize it. Some participants suggested that the General Assem-bly take part in a broader debate on the United Nations’ strategicpriorities and its programmatic strengths and weaknesses. How toempower the General Assembly to do this, however, is far fromclear.

The Security Council. In recent years the Security Council hasincreasingly passed resolutions that are politically expedient butcannot be enforced for lack of resources, their basic impracticality,or lack of political will. The council’s work, some suggested, mightbenefit from a professional staff that monitors world events andalerts the Security Council when needed.

4


The Secretariat. The United Nations’ administrative organ needsto do fewer things better with less money. Among other problems,the Secretariat is poorly organized and, absent sufficient directionfrom the top, tends to delegate up. The United Nations’ extremelydetailed budget effectively proscribes the secretary-general fromtransferring funds and staff into priority activities. Additionally,member states engage in micromanagement of the Secretariat,harming integrity and professionalism. Ironically, while memberstates tend to become involved in the minutiae of departmentalmanagement, they give inadequate or contradictory policy guid-ance concerning the content of UN programs. Participants alsonoted that reform of the Secretariat requires a commitment to theprocess by the secretary-general.

Financial ResourcesThe current method of financing the United Nations is broken.Many member states are chronically late in paying their dues, orfail to pay them altogether. The United Nations is in its worst cri-sis to date. As of mid-1996, shortfalls in the regular and peace-keeping budgets are $830 million and $2.1 billion respectively, andUS arrearages account for the majority of the shortfall. The organi-zation is now being pushed to the limit of its resources and is onthe verge of insolvency.

Many participants agreed that what the United Nations needs ispredictable, not necessarily more, financing. Also, the GeneralAssembly and Security Council need to stop issuing unfundedmandates.

While some urge greater reliance on voluntary contributions orinnovative financing methods, most member states oppose achange from the assessments now levied to finance the UnitedNations’ core activities.

Energizing ReformThe working groups have performed a useful purpose, but theirenergy is sapped. Several things could breathe new life into thecurrent reform process:

• The five principal powers, along with key leaders of the non-aligned group, need to become significantly more engaged.

5


• A temporary moratorium on debating issues that requirereform of the UN Charter might help.

• The working groups could be consolidated and a determina-tion made whether some packaging of issues is desirable orpossible.

• The president of the General Assembly, whose term is ending,could call a meeting with the bureaus of the working groups toassess the progress, decide the next steps, and brief his succes-sor.

• Informal processes or mechanisms parallel to the workinggroups could also be created to exert needed pressure from theoutside.

Meaningful and lasting reform of the United Nations will require,at a minimum, a substantial investment of political will, compro-mise, patience, perseverance, and resources. It will also requireovercoming fears of loss of power and of the unknown. Memberstates still differ on what the United Nations should be and what itshould do. Until a political consensus is reached, no reform processwill result in lasting and effective change.

6


Participants

Conference ChairRichard H. Stanley, President, The Stanley Foundation

RapporteursMarti Rabinowitch, Senior Program Adviser, Peace Program, TheJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Mary C. Theisen, Program Officer, The Stanley Foundation

ParticipantsMaurice Bertrand, Former Member, UN Joint Inspection Unit

Jakken Biørn Lian, Permanent Representative of Norway to theUnited Nations

David E. Birenbaum, Former Representative for United NationsManagement and Reform, United States Mission to the UnitedNations

Fredrik Wilhelm Breitenstein, Permanent Representative of Fin-land to the United Nations

Richard Butler, Permanent Representative of Australia to the Unit-ed Nations

F. Marian Chambers, Democratic Professional Staff, House Com-mittee on International Relations, United States

Joseph E. Connor, Under-Secretary-General for Administrationand Management, United Nations

Annette des Iles, Permanent Representative of the Republic ofTrinidad and Tobago to the United Nations

David J. Doerge, Vice President, The Stanley Foundation

Robert R. Fowler, Permanent Representative of Canada to theUnited Nations

7


Asda Jayanama, Permanent Representative of Thailand to theUnited Nations

Colin R. Keating, Permanent Representative of New Zealand tothe United Nations

Edward C. Luck, President Emeritus and Senior Policy Adviser,United Nations Association of the United States of America

Princeton N. Lyman, Assistant Secretary of State for InternationalOrganization Affairs (Acting), United States

Charles William Maynes, Editor, Foreign Policy

C. S. M. Mselle, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Administra-tive and Budgetary Questions, United Nations

Prakash Shah, Permanent Representative of India to the UnitedNations

Edwin M. Smith, Leon Benwell Professor of Law and InternationalRelations, University of Southern California

Ernst Sucharipa, Permanent Representative of Austria to the Unit-ed Nations

Brian Urquhart, Former Scholar-in-Residence, The Ford Founda-tion

John Weston, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom tothe United Nations

Juan Antonio Yáñez-Barnuevo, Permanent Representative ofSpain to the United Nations

Stanley Foundation StaffCarol Matthews, Conference Management DirectorSusan Moore, Conference Management AssociateKeith Porter, Producer, Common Ground

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. Participants attended as indi-viduals rather than as representatives of their governments or organizations.

8


9

Opening RemarksRichard H. StanleyPresident, The Stanley Foundation

Welcome to the Stanley Foundation’sthirty-first conference on the UnitedNations of the Next Decade. We are hereto explore the topic, “The United Nationsand the Twenty-First Century: TheImperative for Change.” Our task isdaunting.

Significant change in the United Nationsis indeed an imperative, something thatthe international community dare notavoid or evade. The shrinking worldcries out for effective global institutions.

At the same time, we perceive that the United Nations is today ingrave difficulty, in real danger of declining into irrelevancy as didthe old League of Nations. This drives the imperative for change.Yet the UN reform process is moving slowly and erratically. Thereis no certainty that it will yield positive results.

Our goal this week at Salishan Lodge is constructive dialogue thatwill add impetus to UN revitalization and give focus and energy tothe reform process. We will discuss both the process and the sub-stance of revitalization. Thus far in the UN reform debate, the pro-cess of change has received little attention. Yet the process selectedfor airing difficult issues and developing consensus will have amajor influence on who is involved, the level of attention, and theultimate outcome. And clearly, consensus on substance is a neces-sary precondition for actual change.

Need for Global InstitutionsEffective global institutions are essential as we approach the twen-ty-first century. The world has changed, becoming much moreinterconnected and interdependent. The role of the nation-state ischanged and changing. Many of its historical roles are beingassumed by transnational enterprises, organizations, and associa-tions. Even the most powerful nation-states no longer control their


own destiny. They, too, must collaborate internationally and cedeauthority and responsibility to global institutions.

The survival issues of the future are global, not national, in charac-ter. Problems associated with environmental degradation, popula-tion growth, migration, poverty, economic and social development,and depletion of natural resources are not defined by nationalboundaries. They must be addressed globally.

Similarly, economic, financial, and monetary issues have becomeglobal rather than national. Business enterprises are increasinglyglobalized. “National economy” has become an oxymoron. Theneed for global institutions in this area is well recognized,although most of the institutional development is outside the cen-tral United Nations. Recently, the new World Trade Organizationhas been created independent of the United Nations, supplantingthe General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Group of Sevenand the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developmenthave been significant economic institutions for many years. Theremaining Bretton Woods organizations—the World Bank and theInternational Monetary Fund—were established before the UnitedNations and continue to carry on their significant work in econom-ic, financial, and monetary matters. Although they are, technically,specialized agencies of the United Nations, they operate very inde-pendently and their linkage to the United Nations is remote atbest.

On the critical issue of international security, the United Nationshas been more heavily involved and has had numerous successes.The work of the United Nations has helped delegitimize interna-tional aggression. Today any nation attacking another can reason-ably expect international intervention, perhaps including militaryaction. The United Nations has also contributed greatly tostrengthening concepts of human rights and is moving towardmachinery and norms to deal with those who perpetrate crimesagainst humanity. While the United Nations deserves much creditfor this progress, it cannot be sustained or advanced by a UnitedNations weakened by lack of support or considered irrelevant.

The competence of individual nation-states to address these andother global issues is low and declining, underscoring the need for

10


effective global institutions. And the United Nations remains theonly institution with the universality and breadth to address globalproblems. Like anything else, if we don’t support and strengthen it,it will wither and die.

The United Nations in DifficultyAs we all know, the United Nations is experiencing tremendousdifficulties. First, it must rely on adequate member support. Whenthe members agree, the organization is effective. When they dis-agree or fail to provide legitimacy and support, it falters.

Today the United Nations’ member nations do not speak with onevoice on the role and priorities of the United Nations. They disre-gard the fact that the United Nations is a weak treaty organizationthat is no stronger nor more effective than the resolve and supportof its members. They give the United Nations impossible tasks,micromanage its operations, and ignore the need for support equalto the tasks assigned.

One obvious symptom of the lack of member support is the UnitedNations’ increasingly serious financial crisis. The organization hasproven to be creative in response to chronic late payments of duesfrom member states and in bridging cash flow shortages. It mayhave been too adept for its own good, because in some quarters,the Secretary-General’s admonitions to pay past dues have fallenon deaf ears. Today, however, arrearages genuinely threaten theUnited Nations’ viability as an organization. As of mid-May, mem-ber states owed over $2.8 billion to the United Nations—$1.1 billionto the regular budget and an additional $1.7 billion for UN peace-keeping operations. This has lead to depleted cash reserves, raidson peacekeeping accounts, ballooning accounts payable, and greatuncertainty about the extent to which the United Nations can fulfillits responsibilities.

At the same time, demands on the United Nations have increased.With the end of the Cold War, the United Nations was finally in aposition to fulfill its mission as originally intended, and the successof the United Nations in the gulf war further raised those expecta-tions. A new sense of cooperation emerged between former ColdWar adversaries resulting in a string of UN successes from El Sal-vador to Namibia. More recently, however, member states have

11


abused the United Nations; it has been used as a convenientdumping ground for intractable conflicts which member statesthemselves were unable to solve. Members hand these crises to theUnited Nations, but do not provide necessary resources or authori-ty to address them adequately. The United Nations becomes a con-venient scapegoat for the failed policies of nations and, in the end,loses credibility and erodes member nation support.

The United Nations is not well managed. Some argue that com-plaints about mismanagement and waste are based more onantipathy toward the United Nations than on any real problems inthe organization. While there may be some truth to that, it shouldnot be used to deflect legitimate concern about UN mismanage-ment. Today even ardent supporters of the United Nations are call-ing for new management practices. They see a selection process forprofessional posts that is overly political, member nation micro-management of the Secretariat, intergovernmental bodies that areunproductive or redundant, a Secretariat that is inefficient andoverly bureaucratic, and inadequate coordination between theUnited Nations and its specialized agencies, where lines of author-ity overlap and lines of communication are weak.

Finally, the world is in the midst of fundamental change, renderingthe UN structure increasingly obsolete. The United Nations isbased on the principle of sovereign equality of all nations. It wasdeveloped in a time when nation-states ceded little control overwhat they considered their internal affairs and sought to injecttheir national agendas into and maintain their influence over theUnited Nations. The founders based the structure on the assump-tion that threats to international peace and security would ariseprimarily between nation-states and that the victors of World WarII would continue as world powers. Today it is an organizationnoted for its insufficient transparency and unrepresentative,redundant, and extraneous organs. In the United Nations’ defense,it has often, as in the case of peacekeeping, acted creatively despiteits organizational limitations. However, if the United Nations is tofulfill the founders’ intentions, its structure must be updated.

This problem is particularly severe given the fundamental changesoccurring in the world. It is almost a mantra of the internationalcommunity to talk of globalization of trade and finance, of how we

12


have become a knowledge society where communications andinformation flow freely, of how nonstate actors and nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) increasingly influence global deci-sions. The problem is that the United Nations and its membersseem not to be listening. The United Nations has not responded tothese changes—at least not adequately. In a world where most con-flicts are now intrastate in nature, the United Nations remainsorganized to deal with interstate conflicts. In a world where eco-nomic globalization has created a host of influential nonstate eco-nomic actors, the United Nations remains state-centered. In aworld where NGOs and civil society are becoming more influen-tial, the United Nations has found no place for them.

With lack of member support, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and thefact that the United Nations was designed for a world which nolonger exists, it is no surprise that the United Nations often failswhen called on to perform in today’s crises. The confluence ofthese trends makes this effort at revitalization different and moreurgent. A failure to change the United Nations now means theorganization may slowly slip further into inaction, inefficiency, andirrelevance.

The Reform ProcessToday nearly everyone agrees that something must be done toimprove the United Nations. National governments, NGOs, andindividuals are spending time and money to seriously examine UNimprovement. Unfortunately, while there is near unanimity amongthese groups that the United Nations should be revitalized, there islittle shared understanding of what this means and even less agree-ment about what should be done and how to build support forrevitalization by the public and at the highest levels of nationalgovernments.

UN reform is not a new topic. Almost from the day the Charterwas signed, there have been calls for reform and Charter changes.In fact, this conference series began with a focus on strengtheningthe United Nations. In 1965, immediately following the UnitedNations’ twentieth anniversary ceremonies in San Francisco, theStanley Foundation convened the first United Nations of the NextDecade Conference. Participants then, as now, were asked to movebeyond the short term and consider what kind of United Nationswould be necessary in ten years.

13


In 1965 conference participants called for a greatly strengthenedUnited Nations and a revised Charter. They recommended givinggreater powers to the General Assembly with a revised voting sys-tem appropriate to the strengthened United Nations, a strength-ened international court of justice empowered to interpret the UNCharter and decide all international disputes, a world developmentprogram, a permanent UN peace force and an effective UN inspec-tion system to supervise general and complete disarmament, a reli-able and adequate revenue system, universal UN membership, andsafeguards to prevent abuse of power by the United Nations whichincluded reserving to member states and their peoples those pow-ers not granted to the United Nations. Participants called for aCharter review conference to implement these changes.

Needless to say, the calls for revitalizing, strengthening, reforming,or changing the United Nations have continued over the years.Countless papers have been written, meetings have been con-vened, and various working groups have considered many familiarproposals regarding financing the United Nations, changing thecomposition of the Security Council, streamlining the Secretariat,finding an effective role for the Trusteeship Council, reenergizingthe General Assembly, and other matters. While much of this workhas been creative and thoughtful, with few relatively minor excep-tions these calls have gone unheeded and the United Nations hasmuddled through from year to year.

The current reform efforts began with a high level of expectation.Leadership and support by influential members, combined with arecognition of the critical need for revitalization, promised realchange. It was anticipated that consensus reform proposals wouldbe tabled, perhaps implemented, by the time of the UnitedNations’ fiftieth anniversary. The pace of the current workinggroups is uneven. There is no assurance that significant consensusproposals will be presented this fall at the fifty-first GeneralAssembly. There is scant evidence of involvement of the highestlevels of national leadership in the reform process. It seems to belagging.

Why is this? There is no lack of ideas. Many revitalization propos-als have been advanced and discussed. While nearly everyonetalks about it, is there real commitment for revitalization? Are the

14


15

highest levels of national government sufficiently involved in andleading the revitalization process? Let us recall that the UnitedNations was originally conceived at the highest level with peoplelike Roosevelt and Churchill intimately involved. Is there a com-mon vision of what reform means? Or are there fundamental dif-ferences in philosophy and approach which are not beingaddressed? Is there sufficient political will to address these issues?

My biggest concern is that the commitment to the current UNreform effort has not yet reached a critical mass and level of atten-tion that will propel a successful outcome. I fear that, as themonths go by, the United Nations will continue to be left to mud-dle through, becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Energizing the ProcessHow can the reform and revitalization process be energized? Ihope that this can be done without a major crisis or collapse.

At this stage, there is no common vision on what should be done.Questions regarding what should be the core functions of the Unit-ed Nations, what should be the role of principal organs, what pow-ers and authority should be ceded to the United Nations, theextent to which the United Nations should have financial supportindependent of voluntary national contributions, what should bethe United Nations’ decision processes including voting and trans-parency, and what should be the authority of the secretary-generaland the structure of the Secretariat are all involved in this discus-sion. Ideas on these and similar subjects are divergent.

We might start by asking in broad terms what kinds of duties aglobal organization should perform and what criteria we shoulduse to measure a successful reform. Should an international orga-nization serve people or nation-states? What authority and autono-my are we prepared to give it? To what extent should it focus oninternational peace and security? On environmental protection andeconomic development? On human rights and humanitarian mat-ters? On building and strengthening international norms?

How will we know whether or not we have been successful? Whenthe organization is more democratic or its operations more trans-parent? When it is more efficient and less expensive, or when more


reliable financing mechanisms are established? When programmat-ic redundancies have been identified and removed, or when certainorgans are entirely eliminated? Once we have reached a commonunderstanding, we will be able to discuss more effectively therange of specific proposals to strengthen the United Nations.

What process is needed to develop a common vision? Is the presentworking-group process sufficient or does it need to be augmentedor modified? Can change be agreed and implemented through theexisting structure of the United Nations or should it be bypassedwith a United Nations Charter review conference called in accor-dance with Article 109 of the Charter? If member nations areunable to develop a common vision for radical change, to whatextent can change be implemented by the Secretariat and willmember states support or permit this? How can leadership be gen-erated for the revitalization process?

ConclusionWhen we reach a common vision for the United Nations, agree onproposals to strengthen the United Nations, and establish a processfor achieving these, we will be able to create a more vital UnitedNations. We will go nowhere, however, if we skip over the funda-mental, and probably most challenging, task of building a commonvision for the United Nations. If we do, the United Nations willcontinue to be a dumping ground and scapegoat for the failures ofnation-states. It will continue its trajectory toward irrelevance andcollapse.

The world today differs greatly from that of the past. Yet the chal-lenge to reform and revitalize the United Nations remains. Let us,during the next five days, set out together on a new ambitiouspath. Let us strive not merely to tinker with the United Nations,but to create a new vision for the organization, one unconstrainedby past limitations, equal to the challenges of the twenty-first cen-tury, and embraced by a common understanding of the future. Ilook forward to our discussions.

16


17

Conference Report

The United Nations and the Twenty-First Century: The Imperative for Change

Over the years scholars, experts, and policymakers have repeated-ly studied and analyzed how to make the United Nations functionmore effectively. Six major reform efforts have been mounted sincethe organization was created more than fifty years ago. Some wereclearly more successful than others. The current reform effort isimbued with a greater sense of urgency, primarily because it hasemerged in the wake of difficulties of a substantially more seriousnature than what the United Nations has confronted in the past.The United Nations now suffers from a pervasive lack of politicaland financial support by member states. Some member statesregret the organization’s seemingly inadequate responses to inter-national crises. The United Nations’ effectiveness is hampered byorganizational mismanagement and an institutional structuredesigned for another era. Perhaps most debilitating to the UnitedNations is the sheer magnitude of its financial crisis—it has alreadysignificantly compromised the United Nations’ ability to deliverservices traditionally provided to the world community. Altogeth-er, these systemic problems have placed reform high on the UnitedNations’ agenda.

The fifty-year anniversary of the founding of the United Nations,celebrated in l995, provided an impetus to assess the performanceof the organization by groups outside the United Nations. Varioustask forces and commissions, from both the public and private sec-tors, evaluated the health of the United Nations and produced aplethora of studies and recommendations regarding how toimprove the organization. Within the United Nations, however, thecurrent reform effort came about with less fanfare. With the end ofthe Cold War, there was growing optimism that the United Nationscould fulfill its original purposes. At the same time, several coun-tries began to lobby openly for a change in the composition andvoting power in the Security Council. Then in 1995 the UnitedStates unilaterally decided to reduce its share of peacekeepingcosts. In response to these developments, the General Assembly


established a series of open-ended working groups charged withdeveloping detailed proposals for reform of the General Assembly,the Security Council, and UN finances, and for better implementa-tion of the secretary-general’s agendas for peace and development.The General Assembly also created a special working group onstrengthening the UN system as a whole whose task is to prepare areport for the General Assembly summarizing the proposals madeby all the working groups. The report is to be presented to the Gen-eral Assembly in the fall of 1996.

Against this background, in June of 1996 the Stanley Foundationconvened the thirty-first conference on the United Nations of theNext Decade at Salishan Lodge on the Oregon coast, bringingtogether a mix of high-level international policymakers and expertsto discuss UN reform and revitalization. In attendance were vari-ous permanent representatives to the United Nations includingseveral who lead some of the General Assembly high-level, open-ended working groups on reform. The goal of the meeting was toassess the current reform effort and to consider how to achievemeaningful progress toward UN revitalization in both the shortand long terms.

The Revitalization ChallengeAs one participant commented, either the “UN is important or itisn’t.” If member states believe the United Nations can operate inways that serve national interests, it will become a greater focus ofinternational collaboration. If not, then the United Nations willcontinue to be treated, another participant colorfully noted, as “astray cat to throw bricks at.” Thus the first question becomes

18

Rapporteurs Marti Rabinowitch andMary C. Theisen

The rapporteurs prepared this report fol-lowing the conference. It contains theirinterpretation of the proceedings and isnot merely a descriptive, chronologicalaccount. Participants neither reviewed norapproved the report. Therefore, it shouldnot be assumed that every participant sub-scribes to all recommendations, observa-tions, and conclusions.


whether the United Nations iseven a political priority of theinternational community. Doesanyone care? Do a sufficientnumber of people perceive theUnited Nations as an institutionworth the political and capitalrequired to reshape it? Is it mere-ly a dumping ground for prob-lems the international communi-ty refuses to confront? Are statesnow inwardly focussed to adegree that they no longer recog-nize common interests? Are thecurrent political and administra-tive problems of the UnitedNations temporary? If not, canthey be corrected or are theybeyond repair? Is the currentdebate on management reformsconcealing a deeper skepticismover the utility of multilateralcooperation?

Enthusiasm for reform is mixed.On the one hand, revitalizing theUnited Nations appears not be apriority for some member statesbecause, quite simply, the organi-zation may not be viewed as“bad enough” to merit theinvestment. Had member statesfelt a compelling need to reformthe institution, one participantasserted, “they would have doneso by now.” Some member statesmay also feel no urgency becausethey fail to recognize the fullextent of the current crisis; theybelieve the United Nations canmuddle through its cash flow

19

The UNND conference features informal, round-table discussion sessions and ample opportunityfor individual conversations and social events ina relaxed setting.


problems and political setbacks as it has in the past. Finally, thereare some member states so attached to the power, perks, andmoney they currently derive from UN membership that they wishto preserve the system as it is; for such states, reform will not be apriority until it promises alternative rewards.

On the other hand, there is a core group of forty to sixty memberstates who do, in fact, share a sense of urgency. The United Nationscannot solve all of the world’s problems, but, for these memberstates, the United Nations is worth preserving for what it hasaccomplished and what it could accomplish in the future. TheUnited Nations has aided the international community through itsprograms and diplomacy. It has served and can continue to serveserious geopolitical and socioeconomic purposes. It has built con-stituencies for global problems and has provided a vehicle for ame-liorating global rivalries as power relationships among nationsshift. It is a convenient arena to address issues that nations cannot,or will not, confront on their own and is the only established forumwhere the governments of the world can interact on an equal foot-ing. With the demise of the Cold War, there was a sense of opti-mism that member states would be able to improve and strengthenmultilateral collaboration and cooperation. Some believed it wouldbe possible to achieve at last the original goals of the Charter; i.e.,to advance the cause of international peace and to improve thehuman condition.

However, should member states decide to save the United Nationsand to craft an organization which is responsive to today’s globalproblems, they will need to provide the necessary and interrelatedbuilding blocks. They will need to work cooperatively to develop a

common vision for the future of the organiza-tion and to adopt an agenda that reflects thatnew vision, to generate both leadership andsolid political recommitment to the UnitedNations, to agree on a reform process that isreasonable and doable, and to secure and main-tain adequate financial resources. Withoutvision, leadership, a plan, and funding, the cur-rent UN reform effort will not deliver thechanges needed for the survival of the organiza-tion.

The UnitedNations...has

served...seriousgeopolitical andsocioeconomic

purposes.

20


A Common VisionThe first building block of reform is to reach con-sensus on the basic purpose and goals of theorganization. The need to rally around a commonvision and clear agenda was addressed repeated-ly throughout the conference. When the UNCharter was signed in San Francisco in l945, aclear consensus existed. The nations of the worldwere committed to creating an organization thatwould help prevent another world war and avoidanother global depression. The language of theCharter reflected this consensus, identifying thepurpose of the organization as “to maintain international peaceand security” and “achieve international cooperation in solvinginternational problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humani-tarian nature.” The Cold War, however, thwarted the realization ofthese goals.

Moreover, the world has changed enormously since 1945. Colonial-ism and bipolarity are no longer part of the geopolitical landscape.The enduring threat of nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponsand the growing trade in conventional arms represent enormousdangers. Causes of conflict are increasingly intrastate, rooted inethnic and religious differences and in economic inequalities andpolitical injustices. World population has skyrocketed; an estimat-ed eight billion people will inhabit the planet by 2025 and morethan 95 percent of that increase will occur in the poorest communi-ties. The globalization of production, trade, and investment hasdramatically increased the extent to which national economies areintegrated. National boundaries have become increasingly porouswith ideas, technology, and people as well as drugs, crime, terror-ism, and disease. The mix of players on the global stage nowincludes global corporations, nongovernmental and citizen organi-zations, state and local governments, regional organizations, andthe media. And advances in communications and transportationhave revolutionized the way people interact. Each new develop-ment has created its own set of problems, rendering the fulfillmentof the Charter’s lofty purposes much more difficult.

Member states need to contemplate how these global develop-ments have affected the relevance of the United Nations and

The first build-ing block:consensuson the basicpurpose andgoals of theorganization.

21


decide how the organization might be changed to better serve con-temporary needs. The governments of the world need to identifythe kind of international organization they want and the specificagenda it should follow. Unfortunately, there is a profound lack ofconsensus on these most fundamental issues plaguing the currentdebate over UN reform and revitalization. Serious differences ofopinion exist regarding the role of the United Nations in today’sworld. Much of the problem is rooted in a lack of meaningful dia-logue among member states, particularly between the North andSouth. This veritable breakdown in communication between Northand South is rooted in a deep sense of mistrust and a keen aware-ness of the growing disparity between rich and poor. It is a dividethat runs deeper than the East-West conflict. If a meaningful dia-logue were possible on the purposes of the United Nations, itmight, some participants speculated, build bridges that would beimportant beyond the United Nations.

Maintenance of International Peace and Security. Traditionallythe United Nations has played a role in the maintenance of interna-tional peace and security, and most participants agreed it shouldcontinue to serve this function. At the same time, they recommendthat the organization pay greater attention to the rise of intrastateconflict and complex humanitarian emergencies. Moreover, in theabsence of meaningful military capability, the United Nationsneeds to decide whether to significantly enhance its conflict pre-vention and conflict resolution capability. Member states mightresist this, fearing unwarranted intrusion into their internal affairs.It was also cautioned that, even if there is general agreement that a

significant problem exists, it does not follow thatthe nations of the world would be willing or ableto do anything about it. Other participantsbelieved the United Nations was excessively pre-occupied with the role of maintaining interna-tional peace and security to the detriment of othergoals established in the Charter. One participanteven argued that overly ambitious notions of theUnited Nations as world policeman, preservingpeace and security, are not realistic and should becast aside altogether.

It was noted as well that security is increasinglythought to encompass more than military securi-

22

Seriousdifferences ofopinion existregarding the

role of theUnited

Nations intoday’s world.


ty; it has become grounded in a concern for thesecurity of people as well as the security of states.Nonmilitary threats to human security are thosethat affect whole populations, cross national bor-ders, cannot be defeated by military means, andrequire international cooperation in order to besolved. Any list of these global issues includesenvironmental and population problems, infec-tious diseases, refugee migrations, narcotics, andinternational terrorism and crime. If the UnitedNations is to be effective in fostering peace andsecurity, as security is now understood, it willnecessarily need to address these new dimen-sions.

Economic Development. Almost all participants agreed that theUnited Nations should continue to emphasize economic develop-ment among its members. Many of today’s conflicts are caused byinequality and poverty which are persistent destabilizing forces. Asdisparities increase between those who prosper and those whobarely survive, the Charter’s goals to ensure “social progress andbetter standards of life” remain elusive. In this vein, some partici-pants strongly advocated the primacy of development over tradi-tional peace and security issues. In the l970s the United Nationswas a major player in development aid but over the last twodecades its role has become less important. Today the active partic-ipation of private investors, nongovernmental organizations(NGOs), and the Bretton Woods institutions is profoundly chang-ing the development assistance picture. In crafting a new visionand agenda for the United Nations, the UN development commu-nity will need to assess how to “add value” to the work of the pri-vate sector and international financial institutions. Traditionalnotions of development assistance are inadequate in a world whereprivate investment and other nongovernmental economic involve-ment have become increasingly influential. As one participantcommented, the United Nations should be setting ground rules forthe process of globalization and for the economic management ofdevelopment.

Concern was also expressed about the practice of conditioningdevelopment aid on the achievement of the United Nations’ goals

23

...security

...has becomegrounded in aconcern for thesecurity of peo-ple as well asthe security ofstates.


of promoting democracy, protecting human rights, and establish-ing good governance. According to one participant, aid is an issueof survival and as such should not be conditioned on whether acountry is democratic. Others disagreed, arguing that a central pur-pose of the United Nations is to encourage democratic, social, andpolitical development as well as economic development. The chal-lenge is to devise ways to improve people’s lives while preservingtheir freedom.

International Law. There was also considerable support aroundthe table for continuing the UN role in the advancement of interna-tional law. Building international norms of behavior, setting stan-dards, and negotiating legal treaties and other agreements amongnations are important functions that must be preserved andstrengthened. Institutions that seek to enforce compliance, such asthe International Court of Justice and the ad hoc tribunals createdto prosecute war crimes committed in Rwanda and the formerYugoslavia—as well as the proposed permanent international crim-inal court, should it become a reality—were all viewed as impor-tant means of enhancing the rule of law globally. Some argued thatadherence to the principle of sovereignty limits what the UnitedNations can do, particularly in the face of political disagreements.At the same time, however, it was noted that nations continue tocede sovereignty to international institutions on particular issuesor problems in order to share in the resulting good and with theunderstanding that all will be treated fairly and equally.

Leadership and Commitment Developing a common vision regarding the basic purpose andgoals of the organization, and actually realizing those goals, clearlywill not be easy. Accordingly, the UN reform and revitalizationeffort will also be dependent on strong leadership from member

states and the secretary-general, as well as solidpolitical recommitment by member states to theorganization. A political commitment to multi-lateralism—a commitment that moves beyondwords to encompass deeds—was seen as critical.As participants noted, however, political com-mitment to the United Nations is soft. A numberof middle powers and developing countries havecooled toward the organization; but it is the lack

24

UN reform...will also be

dependenton strong

leadership....


25

of support from the United States that is the mostserious problem at the moment.

US Leadership. The importance of a solid andpredictable relationship between the UnitedStates and the United Nations was frequentlyemphasized. Some argued that change in the sys-tem will simply not be possible without US lead-ership and US commitment. The long period overwhich the United States has withheld funds fromthe organization has created a deep sense of frustration throughoutthe United Nations, and there is much suspicion about US inten-tions. The United States’ refusal to pay its dues is also viewed ashampering the reform effort. Despite the United States’ promise topay $1 billion in past dues to the organization this year and the USMission’s detailed proposals for UN reform, questions remainabout the true nature of US intentions. In short, are they honorableor not?

Several other circumstances complicate the US picture. The countryis presently in the midst of a divisive internal debate over politicalpurposes and the kind of global leadership role it will exercise inthe years ahead. In reassessing its place among nations, US involve-ment in the United Nations has been subjected to increasing scruti-ny. The US presidential election has both intensified this internaldebate and polarized the dialogue between the administration andthe US Congress, plunging most issues, including US support forthe United Nations, into the maelstrom of partisan politics. In lightof the US domestic political environment, tense US-UN relationsmay be attributable not so much to US frustration over the UnitedNations’ performance in recent years as to the highly politicizedand frequently hostile interplay within the executive and legislativebranches of the government. The US-UN relationship is also onshaky ground because of the serious budgetary crisis that has pre-occupied the administration and Congress. It was noted that theUnited States’ foreign affairs budget, from which the United Statesfunds the UN regular budget and peacekeeping activities as well asother international organizations, is slated for a one-third reductionin funding over five years—from $21 billion to $14 billion. Partlybecause there is no consensus on political objectives, these bud-getary pressures have shaped and will continue to shape the US

The UnitedStates’ refusalto pay its duesis viewed ashampering thereform effort.


26

government’s choices with respect to the United Nations in theforeseeable future. What is certain, according to one participant, isthat these numbers will make it impossible for the United States tofund the United Nations at the levels it has in the past.

Notwithstanding US federal budget pressures, most participantsperceive US arrearages as a political problem, not economic. Thecontinuing nonpayment of past dues is viewed not as a conse-quence of budget cutting in Washington, DC, but a reflection of apervasive lack of support for the United Nations and its programs.By mid-1996, 74 percent of the budgetary shortfalls of the UN regu-lar budget and 50 percent of the peacekeeping budget wereattributable to US arrearages. Several participants variously charac-terized this refusal to pay—which, ostensibly, is designed to compelthe United Nations to reform itself—as “negative leadership” and“assertive unilateralism,” irritating friends and foes alike. Altogeth-er, the shortfalls have sparked a budget crisis within the UN systemunsurpassed in its severity, obliging the United Nations to borrowextensively from the peacekeeping account to prop up the Secre-tariat and a myriad of UN programs and agencies. Many partici-pants agreed that this failure to pay may have serious consequencesfor the world leadership position of the United States. It was sug-gested that the United States needs to clear the air about its inten-tions and take some extraordinary action that would demonstrateits commitment to the United Nations and to UN reform. One par-ticipant specifically proposed that the US secretary of state convenea conference of the forty to sixty key countries actively engaged inthe reform discussion. This has the potential of creating a positiveclimate for reform and it would signal to member states that UN

reform, is not business as usual for the UnitedStates and that the United States intends to play aleadership role.

Given the current political stalemate within theUnited States and its apparent inability to lead, theimmediate question becomes how to generateleadership in the short term and rekindle the need-ed commitment to the United Nations. As severalparticipants commented, the United Nations wascreated at a time when governments were lookingfor ways to prevent world wars and the best and

Shortfalls havesparked a

budget crisiswithin the

UN systemunsurpassed in

its severity....


27

the brightest were actively involved. There wasstrong, high-level leadership behind the initiative.That level of leadership unfortunately does notexist today, and yet it will be crucial to save theorganization. It was suggested that the middlepowers assume a greater leadership role—if notpermanently, then at least in the short run. It wasalso suggested that principals from memberstates’ national governments invest sufficient timeand resources to UN revitalization. Thus far, theyhave been relatively unengaged in the process.Others hoped that through the process offocussing attention on ways and means of solvingtoday’s concrete global problems, the international communitymay be able to generate new leadership and commitment.

The Process and Substance of Reform Participants then turned their attention to the process and sub-stance of reform. They assessed the current reform effort, particu-larly the progress of the open-ended working groups, andexplored specific problems and issues concerning the GeneralAssembly itself, the Security Council, the Secretariat, and the officeof the secretary-general. There was considerable agreement thatthe process of reform was as important as the substance. Partici-pants also discussed what could be reasonably expected withrespect to the pace of reform. The United Nations’ reform initiativeneeds a road map with a clear, easily recognized destination. Theworking groups, which represent the only existing intergovern-mental process, must come to closure on what is doable anddemonstrate that progress is being made in addressing functionalinadequacies throughout the UN system.

There was disagreement whether concrete steps to reform theorganization could be taken without prior agreement on a com-mon vision of the purposes of the United Nations. Some partici-pants felt it would be impossible to reform the United Nationswithout achieving political consensus on substantive issues first.What the United Nations is attempting to do now, one participantobserved, is define its purpose through the reform process. Thiswas seen as misguided; in the absence of consensus, negotiationson the details of reform will continue to have the potential to slip

...principalsfrom memberstates...[should]invest sufficienttime andresourcesto UNrevitalization.


28

into doctrinal debates. Instead, ifthe agenda is right and leadingmember states are committed, theSecretariat and other UN organswill more readily submit toreforms.

Others disagreed, asserting thatthe absence of an organizingvision need not prevent changefrom being made where it can inthe short term. The recommenda-tion to solve substantive issuesbefore launching reform assumesthat the United Nations is capableof reforming itself through onecomprehensive reform plan, asthough reform were an event, notan evolutionary process. In fact,through the long history of UNreform, only incremental struc-tural changes have been possibleand none occurred in the contextof a grand design. To the extentnotions of sovereignty have notevolved quickly enough to allowmember states to radically changethe nature of their internationalcommitments, incrementalchange is preferable. In the end,regardless of the energy put intoit, each wave of reform activityresulted in only a few changes inthe operations and structure ofthe organization. Given this per-spective on UN reform, memberstates should not view modest,incremental reforms as insuffi-

The format of the conference stimulates thinkingand helps develop relationships that enhanceunderstanding.


cient; nor should incremental reforms be viewedas an indication that the United Nations lacks acommon vision.

The Working Groups. Participants assessed theprogress of the high-level working-groups. Theyagreed on the need to open the process to theoutside and discussed whether the working-group process should be supplemented withadditional informal mechanisms to energize thegroups and serve as a catalyst for closure.

Most felt the working groups have already accomplished whatthey could. While their effectiveness at defining the issues and nar-rowing differences should not be minimized, consensus, for themost part, has eluded them. Many substantive issues inhibitingclosure can only be solved at the highest levels of governments.Further complicating the process is the fact that some memberstates have adopted positions described as nonnegotiable, particu-larly with respect to the United Nations’ role in development, theexpansion of membership of the Security Council, and the scale ofassessments. Most agreed that the group working on the financialsituation of the United Nations will remain at an impasse until theUnited States either pays or commits to paying its arrearages. Simi-larly, consensus in the working group on equitable representationon the Security Council may not be achieved until certain politicaldecisions are made at higher levels. The progress of the workinggroup on strengthening the UN system (or, as one participantnamed it, the “mother of all working groups”) received mixedreviews. One participant viewed the deliberations of this last groupas duplicative of the proceedings of the Fifth Committee (adminis-trative and budgetary) of the General Assembly and suggested thatthe Fifth Committee take over its responsibilities. A clear majoritywas reluctant to rely on the Fifth Committee for such an undertak-ing. Most participants agreed that this reform is not routine; theissues are exceedingly sensitive, and reform cannot be treated asbusiness as usual.

Some participants questioned whether the open-ended nature ofthe working-group process has impeded consensus-building.Working groups of 185 countries might be democratic to the point

29

Most felt theworking groupshave alreadyaccomplishedwhat theycould.


30

of being inefficient. The inclusive nature has made it cumbersomeand has led to an “enormous amount of repetition” in debate.There is also the tendency of groups of member states to focus ontheir “common denominator” positions, not unlike what occurs inGeneral Assembly debates. This proclivity for “groupism,” someparticipants believed, has regrettably caused blocks of memberstates to talk past one another all too frequently. One participantsuggested that the working groups be replaced by smaller repre-sentative committees whose membership would be appointed bythe General Assembly. Others opposed this proposal, maintainingthat, although the inclusive nature of the working groups has notfacilitated consensus-building, there is no other politically feasibleapproach. In this view, smaller groups are no substitute for open-ended ones. The openness may be difficult to manage, but it is theonly politically legitimate way to talk about UN reform.

While the working groups have, on balance, contributed to the UNreform process, most agreed the process has become wearisomeand closure is doubtful. However important they are to the reformprocess, the working groups are not sufficient. Most agreed itwould be beneficial to supplement the working-group process withinput from groups outside the United Nations. A few participantssuggested holding hearings for the public where interested NGOswould have formal input to the deliberations. Exposure to outsideobservation could discourage posturing within working groupsand limit the use of unhelpful negotiating tactics and even place

needed pressure on groups to work more coop-eratively. An added benefit, one participantnoted, would be a much greater awareness andeven legitimization in the eyes of the public ofwhat the reform groups are doing.

Some participants cautioned that opening theworking-group process to the public could back-fire; people might become even more disenchant-ed by what they see, further undermining public

support for the United Nations. Others argued that it is unrealisticto expect that by opening up the process, the working groups willbe better able to arrive at consensus; only governments can makethe necessary decisions, and the extent to which the civil societycan influence those decisions varies from country to country. In the

Howeverimportant theyare...the work-ing groups arenot sufficient.


31

end, the true test of the working-group processwill be whether they can come to closure. Mostagreed that outside pressure will be critical.

The General Assembly. Although the GeneralAssembly is the primary deliberative organ of themember states, it has become increasinglymarginalized within the UN system in the lastfive to ten years, especially with respect to theUnited Nations’ peacekeeping activities. This marginalization hasoccurred largely to the benefit of the Security Council. The memberstates, the secretary-general, and the Secretariat tend not to engagethe General Assembly in constructive ways and, as a result, the Gen-eral Assembly’s impact on policy decisions has diminished. Partici-pants suggested ways the General Assembly could be resuscitatedand regain its relevance. To bring the secretary-general in closer con-tact with the General Assembly, one participant recommended thatthe parliamentary tradition of “question time” be introduced allow-ing the General Assembly regular opportunities to question the sec-retary-general about his or her policies and activities. The GeneralAssembly might also open its annual sessions with a “State of theUnion” address by the secretary-general, followed by a responsefrom the permanent representatives. Hopefully, this would generatesome meaningful debate and provide useful policy guidance to thesecretary-general.

Most participants also agreed that General Assembly agendas aretoo crowded. Certain issues are discussed in plenary sessions yearafter year with little or no resolution. One participant expressedamazement that the General Assembly was able to accomplish any-thing given this “blizzard of words.” It was suggested that such top-ics be dropped from the General Assembly’s agenda to conservetime and resources and to enhance both its credibility and influenceon policy. Instead of “free-for-all” agendas, the General Assemblymight schedule a limited number of thematic debates. For example,in the fall of 1996 the General Assembly might hold a structureddebate on UN reform. The topic obviously would be timely and theimportance to the organization unquestionable. If the idea of the-matic debates is adopted, a few participants suggested that the Gen-eral Assembly could become an alternative to the seemingly endlessarray of UN-sponsored international conferences. This would

...only govern-ments canmake thenecessarydecisions....


enhance the visibility of the General Assembly while demonstrat-ing to the public a concern for cost savings. Others resisted thisidea, arguing that international conferences serve a number ofimportant educational and consensus-building objectives and thatan improved process for selecting topics and sites needs to beestablished.

Some participants suggested that the General Assembly take partin the broader debate on the United Nations’ strategic prioritiesand its programmatic strengths and weaknesses. Ideally, the Gen-eral Assembly should be involved in evaluating the mandates ofthe programs which it has created over the years, prioritizing thosethat are important and identifying those that merit termination orchange. How to empower the General Assembly to do this, howev-er, is far from clear. One participant suggested the creation of anindependent “clearinghouse” or commission to assist with theevaluations and to make suggestions for consideration by memberstates.

The Security Council. Participants discussed needed changes inthe operations of the Security Council. In recent years the SecurityCouncil has increasingly passed resolutions that are politicallyexpedient but cannot be enforced for lack of resources or because

of their impracticality. A fair number of SecurityCouncil resolutions concern matters that manybelieve do not merit the attention. Perhaps moreimportant, the Security Council often neglects toseek compliance with its resolutions. In earlierdays, Security Council resolutions carried greatpolitical weight, now they are greeted by memberstates with considerably less interest. Altogether,these practices undermine the impact and credi-bility of Security Council activities. Participantsattributed part of the problem to the fact that theSecurity Council lacks a professional staff thatconsistently monitors world events and alerts theSecurity Council when needed. With adequatestaffing, the Security Council should be able topass resolutions that are better informed andthereby more compelling. It was suggested thatthe now defunct Military Staff Committee assume

Somesuggested that

the GeneralAssembly take

part in thebroader

debate on theUnited

Nations’strategic

priorities....

32


the duties of a professional advisory staff to theSecurity Council as a whole. Others suggestedthat the secretary-general’s military staff publiclyprovide military information and advice to theSecurity Council prior to the council’s taking deci-sions on military matters.

Participants also discussed the need for a mecha-nism to coordinate activities throughout the UNsystem for a strategic plan for the organizationand for minimizing duplication of efforts. TheUnited Nations is a vast structure with manyorgans, agencies, programs, committees, andresearch groups. No single entity monitors theactivities of all. Currently, the Fifth Committee hasoversight authority, but its influence has been minimal at best. Thegreatest risk associated with creating a new UN coordinating bodyis that system-wide coordination would become an end in itself.Member states must be vigilant that any coordinating body isestablished for better management, not micromanagement.

The Secretariat. In this time of financial constraints and soft politi-cal support, participants believed it urgent that the Secretariat focuson doing fewer things better and with less money. Currently, theSecretariat’s effectiveness is stymied by poor management and “toomuch structure.”

Organization and Management of the Secretariat. Departments andtheir personnel need to be rationalized and reorganized alongstrategic lines to rid the organization of duplication and waste andto improve the Secretariat’s efficiency. The Secretariat staff’s ten-dency to delegate everything upward inhibits timely action andwould be unnecessary if direction from the top were clearer. It wasbelieved that most of the staff would be eager to accept greaterdirection from the top manager. Without a clear expression by thesecretary-general of his or her managerial intent for the Secretariat,any agenda for reform will be incomplete.

Several participants urged that the secretary-general’s flexibility tomanage Secretariat personnel and the budget be expanded. Present-ly, the secretary-general does not have the authority to transfer per-

Participantsdiscussed theneed for amechanism tocoordinateactivitiesthroughoutthe UN sys-tem....

33


34

sonnel or funds into priority activities. The regular budget isextremely detailed, precluding the transfer of funds betweensalaries (which now consume 70 percent of the UN budget) andnonsalary expenditures. The regular budget should have fewer lineitems and each should relate to overall funding of programs, notthe details of the expenditures. Inflexibility in the use of resourcesties the hands of the secretary-general and, ultimately, underminesthe work of the United Nations.

Participants also discussed the merits of creating a deputy secre-tary-general post to serve as second-in-command with overallmanagement responsibility. The deputy secretary-general wouldact as the resource manager of the UN system, freeing the secre-tary-general to concentrate on international diplomacy. Whilesome fully supported the idea and saw in it many possibilities, oth-ers expressed strong reservations. Some were concerned that creat-ing the post could spawn more political infighting at the UnitedNations. It was cautioned that, were the deputy secretary-generalto work exclusively on management and administration, somestates would most likely insist on the creation of an additionaldeputy secretary-general post for economic and social issues as

well, since economic development is their priori-ty. Eventually, some speculated, pressures couldmount for the creation of three deputy secretaries-general—one each for administrative, economicand social, and political issues—and for a systemof equivalencies in their appointments. Addition-ally, it was feared that the creation of one or moredeputy secretaries-general could harm the opera-tions of current UN agencies because the directorsgeneral of such agencies would be tempted tofocus their energies on lobbying for the deputysecretary-general positions. Others were con-cerned that a deputy secretary-general for man-agement would undermine the authority of thesecretary-general and relieve him or her ofaccountability, or simply would be ineffective inimproving the United Nations’ management.

Severalparticipants

urged that thesecretary-general’s

flexibility tomanage

Secretariatpersonnel and

the budgetbe expanded.


35

Relations Between the Secretariat and Member States. Good relationsbetween the Secretariat and member states are crucial for thereform process. Until these intergovernmental relations areimproved, efforts to reform the structure and operation of the UNsystem, including the Secretariat itself, will befutile. Unfortunately, their relations continue tobe dominated by a mentality of us vs. them. Lackof accountability on the part of Secretariat staffand member states’ penchant for micromanage-ment are the most significant problems. Duringthe Cold War the Secretariat was “horriblymanipulated” by member states and marked by asystem of vast patronage. One participant charac-terized their relationship as that between “masterand servant” where the Secretariat would letitself “get bullied.” Whatever the cause, it is clearthat a culture has developed where integrity andprofessionalism are in short supply and member-state micromanagement has increased. The only solution is todemand greater professionalism and to institute a system of gen-uine accountability. The challenge between the member states andSecretariat would be to return to a better balance in their relations.The Secretariat should not be treated as an extension of govern-ments’ national policies; member states should respect the fact thatthe Secretariat reflects the interests of the UN system as a whole.The secretary-general, it was noted, could play a significant role insetting the appropriate tone to the relations between the Secretariatand the secretary-general.

The Secretariat also lacks sufficient policy guidance. Theoretically,the Secretariat is charged with implementing policies createdthrough dialogue between the member states and the secretary-general. Ironically, while member states tend to get involved in theminutiae of departmental management, they give inadequate orcontradictory policy guidance with respect to the content of UNprograms. As a result, the Secretariat does not have a clear direc-tion on what the member states hope to achieve from the variousprograms, and the current review process has little impact on thecontent of UN programs. Member states need to clarify their policydirection to the Secretariat.

Good relationsbetween theSecretariatand memberstates arecrucial forthe reformprocess.


The Secretary-General. It is axiomatic that the UN system cannot berevitalized and reformed without the active leadership and solidcommitment of the secretary-general. As the United Nations’ chiefoperating officer, the secretary-general is in a position to shape theagenda of the organization; foster consensus-building; and garnerthe support from member states, the General Assembly, and his orher own Secretariat staff. Some participants were of the opinionthat, with respect to UN reform issues, the current secretary-gener-al has remained relatively aloof, noting that, to date, he has had lit-tle meaningful interaction with the working groups despite the factthat his presence has been greeted with “anticipation and enthusi-asm.”

It was pointed out that the secretary-general does possess theauthority to institute certain reforms of—indeed, even vastly reor-ganize—the Secretariat without the involvement of member states.Changes which do not require revisions of the UN Charter techni-cally can be made by the secretary-general. The secretary-generalhas already instituted some changes which the General Assemblyhas accepted, such as slimming departments. But much more couldbe done.

Financial ResourcesThe last building block for UN reform and revitalization is tosecure reliable and adequate financing. The United Nations todayrelies on both assessed and voluntary contributions by its memberstates. While the UN regular budget and peacekeeping activitiesare funded through member-state assessments, which are based oneach state’s ability to pay, UN specialized agencies receive a signifi-

cant portion of their funds through voluntarycontributions. Under the current financing sys-tem, fifteen major donor countries supply 85 per-cent of UN funds. There is little disagreement thatthe system is inadequate and rife with problems.Many member states are chronically late in pay-ing their dues, or fail to pay them altogether,which has subjected the United Nations to fre-quent financial crises through the years. TheUnited Nations is in its worst crisis to date. As ofmid-1996, shortfalls in the regular and peacekeep-ing budgets are $830 million and $2.1 billion

The lastbuilding block

for UNreform...is to

secure reliableand adequate

financing.

36


respectively, and US arrearagesaccount for the majority of theshortfall. The organization is nowbeing pushed to the limit of itsresources and is on the verge ofinsolvency.

Many participants agreed thatwhat the United Nations needs ispredictable, not necessarily more,financing. As one participantstated, “There must be a betterway for the member states toinfluence the United Nationsother than through money.” Inthis connection, participants dis-cussed the close links betweenthe planning and budget process-es. One participant observed thatthere are two models of securingpolitical controls over the execu-tive: first, the corporate model,where appointees are given aplan and a budget and are heldaccountable for the performance;and, second, the socialist model,where there exists a parallel polit-ical entity functioning alongsidethe executive monitoring theexecutive throughout implemen-tation. The United Nations’ cur-rent budget process resemblesthe socialist model with memberstates scrutinizing the budgetdecisions of the Secretariat, oftenintervening late in the budgetplanning process. Although thecorporate model might be prefer-able, it would be difficult to insti-tute in the political environmentof the United Nations. In any

37


event, ways must be found to reasonably integrate the planningand budget processes. For example, member states might providethe Secretariat with more guidance at the preliminary stages of thebudget process to minimize misunderstandings and disagreementslater.

The financial problems of the United Nations, particularly of theSecretariat, are also exacerbated by the tendency of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council to issue unfunded mandates.The General Assembly approves, on a regular basis, mandateswhich the Secretariat is unable to fulfill without additional fund-ing. (The mandates are so numerous that the Secretariat has haddifficulty merely counting them!) The Security Council also issuesunfunded mandates, primarily calling for UN involvement inexpanded or additional peacekeeping activities, without ensuringthat additional resources are made available to implement them.This unfortunate practice puts financial pressure on other parts ofthe UN system and, ultimately, undermines the credibility of theorganization.

There was also some discussion of greater reliance on voluntarycontributions as distinguished from assessments. While some pro-gram activities benefit from significant voluntary contributions, inthe end it is assessed contributions which provide the essentialbase for ongoing financial stability. Suggestions have been maderegarding alternative sources of funding, but most member statesare strongly opposed to such schemes. Thus financing remains aproblem, and the situation is unlikely to improve in the absence of

political commitment by member states to theorganization.

Energizing the Reform ProcessAs noted, the open-ended working groups haveperformed a useful purpose: they have engaged anumber of countries in serious debate on reform,identified the major problems, and helped clarifynational priorities. But it is also clear that thereform process has bogged down and fatigue hasset in. Several participants expressed concern thatthe groups might give up and settle for too little.The work of the groups is taking much time away

38

...assessedcontributions

provide theessential base

for ongoingfinancialstability.


from normal business, and there will be a tempta-tion to declare victory prematurely. Pressure isbuilding for them to come to closure to demon-strate that something has been accomplished.

Nearly everyone around the table agreed that theworking groups, and the reform process general-ly, must be energized. There is a strong sense that,if only for the short term, a catalyst is needed toregenerate enthusiasm for change and to reach anagreement on some package of reforms. Making it clear that thisparticular reform effort is more than business as usual will beextremely important. Linkages are needed between the workinggroups, and serious dialogue is required to determine if there aretrade-offs that can be made. It is time to begin the negotiating pro-cess.

The five principal powers, along with key leaders of the non-aligned group, need to become significantly more engaged. A firststep, one participant proposed, is for states to declare a temporarymoratorium on debating issues that require reform of the UNCharter, such as reform of the Security Council; Charter revisionswould be far too difficult at this stage. Instead, states should focuson areas where there is agreement and identify what specific actionis possible. In this regard, it was suggested that the workinggroups be consolidated and a determination made whether somepackaging of issues was desirable or possible.

The General Assembly, the secretary-general, and member statescan make considerable progress in the short run in assessing whichUN programs are effective and which are not. This assessment willrequire developing a better understanding of the limitations ofinternational institutions and identify which global problems mostappropriately lend themselves to international solutions. Thisquestion is best answered before programs are consolidated andtasks assigned to the various UN programs. Given the broad rangeof activities the United Nations is involved in, this dialogue willtake time and money.

Participants generally agreed that, even in the absence of a newpolitical compact or vision for the organization, actions can betaken in the short run to jump-start the reform process. For exam-

39

The fiveprincipalpowers...needto becomesignificantlymore engaged.


ple, it was suggested that the president of the General Assembly,whose term is ending, call a meeting with the bureaus of the work-ing groups to assess the progress, to decide on the next steps, andto brief his successor. The primary benefit would be to draw thegroups together in a new format without creating problems oflegitimacy and transparency. A consolidated working group mightthen work toward crafting preliminary reform packages thatwould integrate compromises made among the groups. Workinggroups where consensus-building is no longer possible might bebrought to closure.

Informal processes or mechanisms parallel to the working groupscould also be created to exert needed pressure from the outside aswell. What such alternative processes might be and how theymight relate to the intergovernmental working-group process needdevelopment. Some suggested that the working groups hold publichearings where interested parties would have formal input into theprocess. Others advocated televising working-group discussion tothe public at large. Whether such hearings or televised debateswould generate greater pressure for reform is arguable, but mostparticipants seemed to agree that opening the process up to out-sider deliberation would be highly beneficial to the reform process.

In the long term, the real challenge will be to achieve consensus onthe substantive agenda of the organization. Without a discussion offundamentals and the development of a new political compactamong member states, true revitalization of the organization willbe impossible. Steps could be taken to begin to lay the groundworkfor full-scale discussions of basic UN goals and objectives. Mostparticipants agreed that a lasting and meaningful reform of theinstitution depends on the resolution of four key issues: the com-position of the Security Council and its relations with the GeneralAssembly, the scale of assessments, the role of the Economic andSocial Council and of development concerns broadly within theUnited Nations, and the functioning of the Secretariat. Ultimately,the UN system might be restructured in ways that ensure its con-tinuing relevance to the world it serves. In the well-functioningUnited Nations of the future, there would be the means to permitongoing self-evaluation by existing UN entities and ongoing over-sight and evaluation of programs by member states. Member stateswould be encouraged to give more and better policy direction to

40


the United Nations. They might also routinely publicize the manysuccess stories of the United Nations, informing home constituen-cies of the specific ways that UN programs and forums haveadvanced the security of people as well as states. Member statesmight encourage public debate of complex global issues and cre-ative thinking about the legitimate role of intergovernmental pro-cesses in fostering collaborative solutions to global problems. Asone participant noted, the United Nations is an evolving organiza-tion not subject to categorical judgements. The United Nations isnot an exercise in world government, but it does represent the onlymeans that states have to encourage the development of a worldcommunity based on the rule of law and practical accommodationamong global powers.

ConclusionMeaningful and lasting reform of the United Nations will require,at a minimum, a substantial investment of political will, compro-mise, patience, perseverance, and resources. It will also requireovercoming fears of loss of power and of the unknown. Memberstates still differ on what the United Nations should be and what itshould do. Until a political consensus is reached, no reform processwill result in lasting and effective change. Member states will needto reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the United Nations.They should identify its comparative advantages vis-à-vis otherinstitutions and concentrate its resources where it can be success-ful. The current UN situation is, in the words of one participant,“serious, but not yet fatal.” It is in the doldrums and the trajectoryis perilous, but most agreed there is indeed hope. Only with a seri-ous, thoughtful political dialogue among states regarding theappropriate role of the organization can the organization be trulyrevitalized.

41


Chairman’s Observations

Lively Salishan discussions confirmed that substantive UN changeremains elusive. To date, the capitals of member states most inter-ested in reform are not sufficiently engaged. Impetus from outsidethe United Nations is needed to energize the process to a successfulconclusion.

The General Assembly working groups are making useful contri-butions toward reform. They have defined issues, explored alterna-tives, and clarified differences. Yet they are having great difficultycoming to closure, particularly on vexing intergovernmental mat-ters. The 1996 General Assembly should extend the working-groupeffort one additional year, instructing them to come to closure andsubmit final recommendations to the 1997 General Assembly. Theadditional time is needed to generate external impetus, includingengagement of the capitals of major member states.

The United States has largely failed to provide leadership to thereform process. It is conflicted about its post-Cold War world role.Should the United States use its superpower status to deal unilater-ally for the most part with the rest of the world, imposing its willfrom time to time, or should it emphasize collaboration with oth-ers, seeking to strengthen the rule of law through effective globalinstitutions? Because of this internal conflict, the United States islargely abdicating leadership on UN change, antagonizing friendsand allies in other countries, and jeopardizing its credibility.

In order to provide reform leadership, the United States will firsthave to satisfy the international community on its financial supportof the United Nations. Having done this, the United States couldconvene major donors and other interested parties to encourageresolution of the most difficult intergovernmental issues and workto broker a reform consensus.

Failing such US engagement, a coalition of interested middle-power countries is the best hope for UN reform leadership. Effec-tive international institutions are essential in today’s interconnect-

42


ed and interdependent world. No nation’s abdication of leadershipshould be allowed to be a permanent impediment to needed UNchange.

Current prospects for meaningful UN change do not match thebeauty of the Oregon coast. Yet a secure peace with freedom andjustice demands effective global institutions. This warrants contin-uing efforts and attention.

43


The Stanley Foundation

The Stanley Foundation is a private operating foundation that con-ducts varied programs and activities designed to provoke thoughtand encourage dialogue on world affairs and directed towardachieving a secure peace with freedom and justice.

Programs engage policymakers, opinion leaders, and citizens inter-ested in solving problems and finding opportunities that presentthemselves in an increasingly interdependent world. Areas of par-ticular interest are: global peace and security, US international rela-tions, sustainable development, human rights, the United Nations,and the expansion of policy deliberations to include wider publicrepresentation.

Activities include:• Round-table, off-the-record conferences and meetings for poli-

cymakers and other experts.• Congressional programs.• Citizen programs for educators, young people, churches, pro-

fessional associations, civic groups, and educational institu-tions. These activities are often held in collaboration with othernonprofit organizations.

• Production of Common Ground, a weekly public radio programon 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-making institution.

Related PublicationsMaking Peace With the Future: The United Nations and WorldSecurity, Report of the Thirtieth United Nations of the NextDecade Conference, June 1995, 40pp.

US-UN Relations, Report of a Vantage Conference, September1995, 32pp.

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

The Stanley Foundation216 Sycamore Street, Suite 500Muscatine, IA 52761-3831 USATelephone (319) 264-1500Fax: (319) 264-0864Internet: [email protected]


the united nations and the twenty-first century: the imperative for change€¦ · ·...

Documents