theglobaljournal.net: Latest activities of group #08

"I Would Not Change It One Bit"

2011-12-02T10:29:52Z

Interview with Navi Pillay, High Commissioner, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR, Geneva:

Imagine that your organization didn’t exist and you were asked to invent it. What would you do? How would it be fundamentally different from what exists? What would be the differences regarding mandate, resources and objectives?

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which is the foundation of the modern human rights system, including my mandate, is a living document which has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties and human rights development worldwide. The UDHR is relevant both in times of peace and conflict, in established democracies and in societies suffering repression. No matter where you live, how much money you have, what colour or gender you are, what faith you practice or political views you hold, all the human rights in the Declaration apply to you, everywhere, always. The Universal Declaration and its progeny, the Covenants and other human rights treaties that have been adopted to provide a more detailed legal framework for implementation of the rights laid down in the Universal Declaration, clearly equate the importance of civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. At the UN Human Rights Office, we work for the full implementation of all these rights on the ground. This is the basis of my mandate and I would not change it one bit. It emboldens me to speak out when the need arises, with my words grounded in a document that was universally agreed upon 63 years ago by the international community of States. Over the years, the UN human rights office has increased its presence in the field, reaching out more and more and giving a voice to the people who need it the most. UN human rights presences away from headquarters are a strategic entry point for promoting and protecting human rights at the country level; preventing and reducing human rights violations; helping to strengthen national institutions and civil society; and mainstreaming human rights within the rest of the UN. More and more countries are also calling on us for technical assistance: for example giving assistance to build the capacity of civil society, train police, security services and judiciaries, advise on the drafting of laws and improvement of constitutions. These are a vital component of our work and an important part of our mandate.

To read the full interview, order a copy of the magazine.

(Photo © Evan Schneider / UN)

New Boundaries for Global Trade

2011-11-29T13:38:23Z

Interview with Pascal Lamy, Director General, World Trade Organization, WTO. Confronting the difficulties of closing the Doha Round, the WTO is under pressure to find a way to rebound. Handling the ‘wheel’ is one thing, but for Pascal Lamy some mechanical work should be done on the ‘engine’ and the ‘accelerator pedal’. The WTO is getting closer to its second life, the after-Doha, if the ‘Members’ want it:

You need to take into account that it was not long ago that the WTO did, in fact, not exist. We are quite a young organization having only come into business in 1995. Even the principle of global rules and a multilateral trading system dates back less than 70 years. Now consider why it was that this system and this organization were created: absent global rules, governments showed an unfortunate tendency to employ trade policies that were erratic, short-term oriented and driven by the political pressures of the time. Unpredictable and often hostile trade policies fanned commercial tensions that led, in turn, to a souring of foreign relations and quite often armed conflict. A system in which governments were required to implement transparent trade policies and were not permitted to discriminate against or among their trading partners was and is a good idea. The same is true for the creation of an organization charged with the responsibility for overseeing this system, for negotiating new rules to keep the system current and relevant, and for facilitating the resolution of the inevitable disputes that will arise between countries. So, the rationale for creating the trading system was sound. Does this mean that it is perfect? Certainly not. Most of our rules were agreed nearly 20 years ago and some date back to the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947. These rules need updating to reflect the commercial and geo-political realities of the 21st century. But change does not come easily at the WTO. Decisions require a consensus of the 153 members and in the Doha Round those 153 must agree on all 20 areas of the negotiations if they are to harvest accord on even one of them. Some believe that the decision-making process needs to be re-considered to make it more flexible. The consensus system will, and should, remain. But perhaps we could create the conditions where groups of countries could move ahead in some areas while others opt to remain outside certain agreements. This has happened before and it may represent an opportunity to advance the trading system in the future. Greater attention needs to be paid, as well, to developing ways in which the organization can better address areas which, while not strictly trade related, are affected by trade in one fashion or another. I’m speaking here of climate change and other environmental matters, of social issues and of development.

The system is flexible enough to accommodate changes to trade regimes that are created in other fora in the international arena, but uncertainty persists. There have been no clashes between WTO rules and global rules for, say, the environment or social standards, but the public perception is often that the trading system could be more friendly in these areas. What is clear as well is that even though the WTO provides significant benefits for developing countries, we need to do a better job of ensuring that trade delivers for these members –which comprise more than two-thirds of our membership.

To read the full interview, order a copy of the magazine.

Helen Clark Rethinks UN Development Program

2011-11-29T12:30:02Z

Interview with Helen Clark, United Nations Development Programme, UNDP Administrator and former Prime Minister of New Zealand:

As has been said many times about the UN itself, if the UN Development Programme did not exist, we would be forced to invent it. UNDP has programming in 177 countries and territories in the areas of poverty reduction, sustainable development, democratic governance, crisis prevention and recovery, gender, and HIV/AIDs. We also lead and manage coordination of the activities of the UN Development Group agencies. The change which must occur across our organization –and development organizations generally– is systemic and transformational change which sees the benefits of development widely shared. The aspirations, expectations, demands and, crucially, the self-confidence of developing countries are high. Around the world nations and their peoples want higher living standards, social services, and a clean environment. As we have seen in the Arab uprisings, there is also a great desire for human dignity and freedom, and for rights to be upheld. At this time more than ever, we at UNDP must be relevant to the fast changing development landscape, and meet the huge demands within budgets limited by the fiscal constraints many donors face. In the new environment, it is critical for UNDP to have the right staff in the right place at the right time, to be clear about its priorities, to be focused, and to obtain and communicate development results. Our change agenda is aimed at all of that.

To read the full interview, order a copy of the magazine.

(Photo © Paulo Filgeiras / UN)

The Hand of the Refugees

2011-11-25T12:20:05Z

Interview with Antonio Guterres, High Commissioner, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR

I am afraid it would be almost impossible to mobilize such a strong refugee protection foundation if it had to be invented today. Sadly, it often takes extreme tragedy to unite the world for the good of humanity. This is what happened after Europe’s most destructive war had left millions of people displaced – world leaders created the landmark Refugee Convention of 1951. Countries that signed it vowed to respect the right of individuals to seek asylum and refrain from returning refugees to places where their lives or freedom would be in danger. The recently created United Nations mandated UNHCR to protect and assist refugees and find durable solutions to their plight.

There are now more than 43 million people displaced by violence and persecution worldwide. More than 15 million of them are refugees, while the rest are displaced within their own countries. The nature of forced displacement has changed significantly over the past 60 years since the Refugee Convention was established. I would not want to change the Convention, or UNHCR’s mandate, but effective responses must be found to address issues such as mixed migration or human displacement as a result of climate change. As for resources, UNHCR depends to 99% on voluntary contributions, mainly from governments, but also from a growing number of private sector donors and individual supporters.

This absence of guaranteed funding puts us in a vulnerable position, and more financial predictability would certainly help our response, particularly in the forgotten crises that no longer attract media and donor attention. The needs of the people we care for around the globe are immense, and of course we would like to have more resources to be able to address them properly. Given the current global economic climate, I am deeply grateful for the high level of support we do continue to get – nearly 1.9 billion USD in voluntary donations in 2010, a record level that we may even end up exceeding again this year.

To read the full interview, order a copy of the magazine.

(Photo © Eskinder Debede / UN)

Everyone is Against Infection, Discrimination and Death

2011-11-23T16:06:44Z

Interview with Michel Sidibé, Executive Director, United Nations Programme on AIDS/HIV

I would have invented UNAIDS 30 years ago, when a coordinated global response could have prevented the epidemic that has come to define our era. Perhaps we would be out of business by now. The upside is that we are a 21st century UN organization. By which I mean that it is a unique network-based partnership governed by member states, UN organizations as well as civil society. This keeps us fresh and innovative. Our vision –Zero new HIV infections, Zero discrimination, Zero AIDS-related deaths– has inspired and galvanized the global community. We renewed our mission last year with an emphasis on uniting and mobilizing all partners, speaking out in solidarity with those most affected, and empowering agents of change with strategic information. We have become the world’s go-to organization for HIV strategy and policy. In other words, I think that we have many of the fundamentals just right. If I were to start from scratch, I would have done two things differently. First, I would have led the UN in the use of modern communication tools –earlier and more aggressively. Too often the UN is behind the curve of technological innovation. These tools not only generate efficiencies but also connect us to emerging thought and bottom-up learning and change. The Arab Spring has demonstrated the real utility of modern communications and that solely top-down approaches are neither appreciated nor sustainable. Second, I would have put a shelf life on the organization –to convey both the sense of urgency and “feasibility” of getting the job done. With upfront investments in the HIV response we can end the HIV epidemic.

To read the full interview, order a copy of the magazine.

From an Environmental Program to a World Organization?

2011-11-22T12:14:03Z

by Achim Steiner, United Nations Under-Secretary General and Executive Director, UN Environment Programme

2012 marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) as a result of the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment of 1972.

The four intervening decades have seen a sharp rise in global awareness of environmental issues, and over recent years a growing understanding of the link between environmental sustainability and sustainable development.

Over the 40 years there has also been a series of landmark treaties, many of which were negotiated under the auspices of UNEP ranging from the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer to ones covering trades in hazardous wastes, chemicals and biodiversity. But there is acknowledgement, backed by science, that despite all that has been achieved the scale of the response to environmental challenges has not kept pace with the velocity of environmental change. Many also acknowledge that UNEP still remains, in a sense, the custodian of hopes and dreams and ‘work in progress’ rather than the finished item. The focus now is on Rio+20, taking place in Brazil next June, 20 years after the Earth Summit of 1992. Two central themes have been chosen for Rio+20: one, “green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” reflects the emerging consensus that an economic model able to serve the needs of seven billion people, rising to nine billion people, needs to factor in the multiple benefits of clean energy to sustainable transport and the real value of nature and natural resources in order to deliver growth and social outcomes including decent jobs for the young and the unemployed or under-employed. The other theme –“the institutional framework for sustainable development”– underlines the urgency to reform the international architecture within which UNEP sits, in order to scale-up and accelerate delivery across a suite of sustainability challenges. Within this debate discussions are now taking place on a potential reform and strengthening of UNEP, including transforming it from a UN programme into an organization. The question is, would such a political investment in terms of effort and time, bear fruit? Would it empower the world’s environment ministers and entitle them to higher levels of authority and support? How would such an organization differ from the status quo in terms of federating a fresh and decisive response to the multiple challenges the world is facing? Would it merely be a grand but ultimately hollow political gesture to a planet and a people in peril?

To read the full article, order a copy of the magazine.

The Shift of Power

2011-11-18T15:40:03Z

Interview with Francis Gurry, WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) Director General.

Imagine that your organization didn’t exist and you were asked to invent it. What would you build? How would it be fundamentally different from the existing organization? What would the differences be regarding mandate, resources and objectives?

First of all I should acknowledge all that has been done collectively in the organization. As that has taken place over the course of more than 100 years, it’s quite a successful example of international cooperation when you look back. So I couldn’t, and wouldn’t wish to, change that history. Now, of course, we are in a very different world from the one of 1880, so naturally one would organize things differently.

What are the major changes? Well, I think the first set of changes is to do with globalization - the increased capacity for the movement of people, goods, services and ideas, and the technologies that facilitate that movement. The second area of change is around information and communication technology, including social media, which means that all organizations communicate internally and externally in a vastly different manner from the way in which they did previously. The third major change has been the redefinition of the roles of private and public sectors over the course of the last 120 years. ‘Who does what’ has changed considerably, as well as the relative power of the public and private sectors. Nowadays it is quite common for corporations to possess much more economic power than many States. Fourthly, there has been a shift in the balance of power with respect to the control of information. Once, we thought that elected governments possessed the information to enable them to take decisions, and we expected them to decide. Now of course, with the Internet and the democratization of information, this assumption is no longer valid. A lot more people have a lot more information, and the consequent changes in public and private roles are very significant. Another major difference between now and the 1880s is the vast change in the geography of economic and technological production.

What do all these changes mean with respect to the design of this organization? I would say a couple of things: substance and modality. As for substance, throughout this period there has been an increase and expansion of the knowledge component in production, and this means that innovation and creativity have become much more important. Perhaps WIPO should now make innovation its primary focus, become the World Innovation Promotion Organization rather than the World Intellectual Property Organization. This is not incompatible with the original mission, where IP was the instrument and principal public policy concerning information. There are other routes to innovation than just intellectual property – although intellectual property remains the core. As for modality, the means through which influence is exerted, the changes mean that we have to take into account the multi-stakeholder process to a greater extent than the traditional Westphalian system would suggest. In our present world you cannot deal with policy through States alone. We need to take into account the shifts in power. The balance of power in information control has changed; the balance of economic power has changed. There are a lot of changes; they are terrifying changes for some people and for some states, but we have to acknowledge this evolution. So, the new framework has to involve multi-stakeholders.

To read the full interview, order a copy of the magazine.

Where Will the Next Black Gold Party Be?

2011-11-15T11:01:36Z

Maria van der Hoeven, a former economics minister in the Netherlands, took over as Executive Director of the International Energy Agency in September. She is taking over amid concerns that the I.E.A. is losing relevancy because emerging energy giants like China are not members, and following a rare public split in June within the OPEC about whether to raise production levels in response to unrest in Libya.

Where in the world do you see the greatest risks for energy companies and for national energy strategies?

The Middle East and North Africa regions are already responsible for around 35 percent of the world’s oil output and, more importantly, they are expected to meet the vast bulk of predicted future growth. The recent turmoil has added to uncertainty about the pace of investment in the regions’ upstream industry - how quickly will production capacity expand and, given rising domestic energy needs, how much of the expected increase in supply will be available for export ? Our 2011 World Energy Outlook, to be presented on November 9th, will look at the implications of any possible shortfall in upstream investment in the Middle East and North Africa countries. Meanwhile the events at Fukushima this year raised serious questions about the longer-term prospects for nuclear power in Japan and elsewhere. We will also use our 2011 Outlook to examine the implications of any reduction in nuclear investment. Such a reduction would certainly make it more difficult for the world to meet the goal of stabilizing the rise in temperature at 2 degrees Centigrade.

What does the new energy map look like from your office in Paris?

I think that different countries and different regions will continue, quite justifiably, to vary in their energy balances due to differences in endowments, geography, economic patterns, and political and social values. Even in oil and gas, that geography is varied and regional. While U.S. shale gas may dominate the gas story in North America, lack of American export capacity means that it will not dominate the market in Europe, where piped conventional gas will continue to play a major role. Another example is the international oil market. It is too large to be dominated by one source. Increased Iraqi production, for example, will have to make up for declining mature fields in the industrialized world. But it will compete with other new conventional and unconventional production elsewhere.

To read the full interview, order a copy of the magazine.

By James Kanter

Bring Both Developed and Developing Countries Together

2011-11-15T10:54:58Z

Interview with Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary General, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was formed in 1964 to address the needs of developing and least developed countries in relation to trade and development, and those needs remain relevant today. The world has changed beyond recognition since UNCTAD’s formation, but we are still searching for a solution to the perennial problem of underdevelopment and the role that trade can play in accelerating the development process. This has meant continuously changing the focus of the organization and adapting to the needs of its member States in line with the changing global economic conditions. In the last three decades there has been a proliferation in the number of organizations dealing with trade and development issues and assisting developing countries in export promotion. However, none of them are intergovernmental like UNCTAD with a membership of 194 countries, and none have a mandate from the General Assembly to address the issues of trade and development in an integrated manner, that is, together with investment, finance, technology and sustainable development. Nor do they have the capacity or mandate to combine the three pillars of work, namely: research and analysis with a view to providing developing countries with policy advice; intergovernmental machinery to build consensus on pertinent and emerging issues within its broad mandate; and technical cooperation to assist countries at the national level. Therefore, if UNCTAD did not exist, we would have had to invent it in its current format of work and mandate as there is still the need for an intergovernmental forum to bring both developed and developing countries together to create a common understanding of how trade and the related policies can help developing countries achieve inclusive development and fight poverty.

To read the full interview, order a copy of the magazine.

New Global Journal Issue in Europe and in the US

2011-11-11T10:04:36Z

Imagine that your organization did not exist and you were asked to invent it. What would you do? How would it be fundamentally different from what exists? What would be the differences regarding mandate, resources and objectives?

In its November-December issue, The Global Journal asked the above questions to the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and ten United Nations (UN) Execs:

Helen Clark - United Nations Development Programme
Joseph Deiss - former President of the 65th Session of the General Assembly
Francis Gurry - World Intellectual Property Organization
Antonio Guterres - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugeers
Michel Jarraud - World Meteorological Organization
Pascal Lamy - World Trade Organization
Supatchai Panitchpakdi - UN Conference on Trade and Development
Navi Pillay - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Michel Sidibé - United Nations Programme on AIDS/HIV
Achim Steiner - United Nations Environment Programme

You can see the full table of contents here.

To read the full interviews, order a copy of the magazine.