Latest activities of group #08"I Would Not Change It One Bit"2011-12-02T10:29:52Z<p><img style="vertical-align: top;" src="/s3/cache%2F18%2Fce%2F18ceb73a33f0b99182347678a12dae75.jpg" alt="Navi Pillay, OHCHR" width="580" height="525" /></p> <blockquote> <p>Interview with <strong>Navi Pillay, </strong>High Commissioner, Office of&nbsp;the High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR, Geneva:&nbsp;</p> </blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #800000;">Imagine that your organization didn&rsquo;t exist and you were&nbsp;asked to invent it. What would you do? How would it be fundamentally&nbsp;different from what exists? What would be the differences regarding mandate, resources and objectives?</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which is the foundation&nbsp;of the modern human rights system, including my mandate,&nbsp;is a living document which has inspired a rich body of&nbsp;legally binding international human rights treaties and human&nbsp;rights development worldwide.&nbsp;The UDHR is relevant both in times of peace and conflict, in&nbsp;established democracies and in societies suffering repression.&nbsp;No matter where you live, how much money you have, what&nbsp;colour or gender you are, what faith you practice or political&nbsp;views you hold, all the human rights in the Declaration apply&nbsp;to you, everywhere, always.&nbsp;The Universal Declaration and its progeny, the Covenants&nbsp;and other human rights treaties that have been adopted to provide&nbsp;a more detailed legal framework for implementation of the&nbsp;rights laid down in the Universal Declaration, clearly equate the&nbsp;importance of civil and political rights on the one hand and economic,&nbsp;social and cultural rights on the other. At the UN Human&nbsp;Rights Office, we work for the full implementation of all these&nbsp;rights on the ground.&nbsp;This is the basis of my mandate and I would not change it one&nbsp;bit. It emboldens me to speak out when the need arises, with&nbsp;my words grounded in a document that was universally agreed&nbsp;upon 63 years ago by the international community of States.&nbsp;Over the years, the UN human rights office has increased its&nbsp;presence in the field, reaching out more and more and giving&nbsp;a voice to the people who need it the most. UN human rights&nbsp;presences away from headquarters are a strategic entry point&nbsp;for promoting and protecting human rights at the country level;&nbsp;preventing and reducing human rights violations; helping to&nbsp;strengthen national institutions and civil society; and mainstreaming&nbsp;human rights within the rest of the UN.&nbsp;More and more countries are also calling on us for technical&nbsp;assistance: for example giving assistance to build the capacity&nbsp;of civil society, train police, security services and judiciaries,&nbsp;advise on the drafting of laws and improvement of constitutions.&nbsp;These are a vital component of our work and an important&nbsp;part of our mandate.</p> <p style="text-align: right;">To read the full interview, order a copy of the <a rel="nofollow" href="">magazine</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: left;">(Photo &copy; Evan Schneider / UN)</p>New Boundaries for Global Trade2011-11-29T13:38:23Z<p><img style="vertical-align: top; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="/s3/cache%2F13%2Fa0%2F13a0aa52de78ef1e4e0ecc87565d1817.jpg" alt="Pascal Lamy, WTO" width="385" height="580" /></p> <blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;">Interview with Pascal Lamy, Director General,&nbsp;World Trade Organization, WTO.&nbsp;Confronting the difficulties of closing the Doha Round, the WTO is under&nbsp;pressure to find a way to rebound. Handling the &lsquo;wheel&rsquo; is one thing, but&nbsp;for Pascal Lamy some mechanical work should be done on the &lsquo;engine&rsquo; and&nbsp;the &lsquo;accelerator pedal&rsquo;. The WTO is getting closer to its second life, the after-Doha, if the &lsquo;Members&rsquo; want it:</p> </blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #800000;">Imagine that your organization didn&rsquo;t exist and you were&nbsp;asked to invent it. What would you do? How would it be fundamentally&nbsp;different from what exists? What would be the&nbsp;differences regarding mandate, resources and objectives?</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">You need to take into account that it was not long ago that the&nbsp;WTO did, in fact, not exist. We are quite a young organization&nbsp;having only come into business in 1995. Even the principle of&nbsp;global rules and a multilateral trading system dates back less&nbsp;than 70 years. Now consider why it was that this system and&nbsp;this organization were created: absent global rules, governments&nbsp;showed an unfortunate tendency to employ trade policies&nbsp;that were erratic, short-term oriented and driven by the&nbsp;political pressures of the time. Unpredictable and often hostile&nbsp;trade policies fanned commercial tensions that led, in turn, to&nbsp;a souring of foreign relations and quite often armed conflict.&nbsp;A system in which governments were required to implement&nbsp;transparent trade policies and were not permitted to discriminate&nbsp;against or among their trading partners was and is a&nbsp;good idea. The same is true for the creation of an organization&nbsp;charged with the responsibility for overseeing this system, for&nbsp;negotiating new rules to keep the system current and relevant,&nbsp;and for facilitating the resolution of the inevitable disputes that&nbsp;will arise between countries.&nbsp;So, the rationale for creating the trading system was sound.&nbsp;Does this mean that it is perfect? Certainly not. Most of our&nbsp;rules were agreed nearly 20 years ago and some date back to&nbsp;the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in&nbsp;1947. These rules need updating to reflect the commercial and&nbsp;geo-political realities of the 21st century. But change does not&nbsp;come easily at the WTO. Decisions require a consensus of the&nbsp;153 members and in the Doha Round those 153 must agree on all&nbsp;20 areas of the negotiations if they are to harvest accord on even&nbsp;one of them. Some believe that the decision-making process&nbsp;needs to be re-considered to make it more flexible. The consensus&nbsp;system will, and should, remain. But perhaps we could&nbsp;create the conditions where groups of countries could move&nbsp;ahead in some areas while others opt to remain outside certain&nbsp;agreements. This has happened before and it may represent an&nbsp;opportunity to advance the trading system in the future.&nbsp;Greater attention needs to be paid, as well, to developing&nbsp;ways in which the organization can better address areas which,&nbsp;while not strictly trade related, are affected by trade in one fashion&nbsp;or another. I&rsquo;m speaking here of climate change and other&nbsp;environmental matters, of social issues and of development.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The system is flexible enough to accommodate changes to trade&nbsp;regimes that are created in other fora in the international arena,&nbsp;but uncertainty persists. There have been no clashes between&nbsp;WTO rules and global rules for, say, the environment or social&nbsp;standards, but the public perception is often that the trading&nbsp;system could be more friendly in these areas. What is clear as&nbsp;well is that even though the WTO provides significant benefits&nbsp;for developing countries, we need to do a better job of ensuring&nbsp;that trade delivers for these members &ndash;which comprise more&nbsp;than two-thirds of our membership.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000000;">To read the full interview, order a copy of the <a rel="nofollow" href="">magazine</a>.</span></p>Helen Clark Rethinks UN Development Program2011-11-29T12:30:02Z<p><img style="vertical-align: top;" src="/s3/photos%2F2011%2F11%2F65e42d1e4de44956.jpg" alt="Helen Clarke, UNDP" width="405" height="270" /></p> <blockquote> <p>Interview with <strong>Helen Clark, </strong>United Nations&nbsp;Development Programme, UNDP Administrator&nbsp;and former Prime Minister of New Zealand:</p> </blockquote> <p><span style="color: #800000;">Imagine that your organization didn&rsquo;t exist and you were&nbsp;asked to invent it. What would you do? How would it be fundamentally&nbsp;different from what exists? What would be the&nbsp;differences regarding mandate, resources and objectives?</span></p> <p>As has been said many times about the UN itself, if the UN&nbsp;Development Programme did not exist, we would be forced to&nbsp;invent it. UNDP has programming in 177 countries and territories&nbsp;in the areas of poverty reduction, sustainable development,&nbsp;democratic governance, crisis prevention and recovery, gender,&nbsp;and HIV/AIDs. We also lead and manage coordination of the&nbsp;activities of the UN Development Group agencies.&nbsp;The change which must occur across our organization &ndash;and&nbsp;development organizations generally&ndash; is systemic and transformational&nbsp;change which sees the benefits of development&nbsp;widely shared.&nbsp;The aspirations, expectations, demands and, crucially, the&nbsp;self-confidence of developing countries are high. Around the&nbsp;world nations and their peoples want higher living standards,&nbsp;social services, and a clean environment. As we have seen in&nbsp;the Arab uprisings, there is also a great desire for human dignity&nbsp;and freedom, and for rights to be upheld. At this time more&nbsp;than ever, we at UNDP must be relevant to the fast changing&nbsp;development landscape, and meet the huge demands within&nbsp;budgets limited by the fiscal constraints many donors face.&nbsp;In the new environment, it is critical for UNDP to have the&nbsp;right staff in the right place at the right time, to be clear about&nbsp;its priorities, to be focused, and to obtain and communicate&nbsp;development results. Our change agenda is aimed at all of that.</p> <p style="text-align: right;">To read the full interview, order a copy of the <a rel="nofollow" href="">magazine</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: left;">(Photo &copy; Paulo Filgeiras / UN)</p> The Hand of the Refugees2011-11-25T12:20:05Z<p><img style="vertical-align: top;" src="/s3/cache%2F69%2F71%2F69717d92bb4c2869ad63957c13636bf5.jpg" alt="Antonio Guterres, UNHCR" width="580" height="387" /></p> <blockquote> <p>Interview with <strong>Antonio Guterres, </strong>High Commissioner,&nbsp;United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR</p> </blockquote> <p><span style="color: #800000;">Imagine that your organization didn&rsquo;t exist and you were&nbsp;asked to invent it. What would you do? How would it be fundamentally&nbsp;different from what exists? What would be the&nbsp;differences regarding mandate, resources and objectives?</span></p> <p>I am afraid it would be almost impossible to mobilize such a&nbsp;strong refugee protection foundation if it had to be invented&nbsp;today. Sadly, it often takes extreme tragedy to unite the world&nbsp;for the good of humanity. This is what happened after Europe&rsquo;s&nbsp;most destructive war had left millions of people displaced &ndash;&nbsp;world leaders created the landmark Refugee Convention of&nbsp;1951. Countries that signed it vowed to respect the right of individuals&nbsp;to seek asylum and refrain from returning refugees to&nbsp;places where their lives or freedom would be in danger. The&nbsp;recently created United Nations mandated UNHCR to protect&nbsp;and assist refugees and find durable solutions to their plight.</p> <p>There are now more than 43 million people displaced by&nbsp;violence and persecution worldwide. More than 15 million of&nbsp;them are refugees, while the rest are displaced within their own&nbsp;countries. The nature of forced displacement has changed significantly&nbsp;over the past 60 years since the Refugee Convention&nbsp;was established. I would not want to change the Convention,&nbsp;or UNHCR&rsquo;s mandate, but effective responses must be found&nbsp;to address issues such as mixed migration or human displacement&nbsp;as a result of climate change.&nbsp;As for resources, UNHCR depends to 99% on voluntary contributions,&nbsp;mainly from governments, but also from a growing&nbsp;number of private sector donors and individual supporters.</p> <p>This absence of guaranteed funding puts us in a vulnerable&nbsp;position, and more financial predictability would certainly help&nbsp;our response, particularly in the forgotten crises that no longer&nbsp;attract media and donor attention. The needs of the people we&nbsp;care for around the globe are immense, and of course we would&nbsp;like to have more resources to be able to address them properly.&nbsp;Given the current global economic climate, I am deeply grateful&nbsp;for the high level of support we do continue to get &ndash; nearly 1.9&nbsp;billion USD in voluntary donations in 2010, a record level that&nbsp;we may even end up exceeding again this year.</p> <p style="text-align: right;">To read the full interview, order a copy of the <a rel="nofollow" href="">magazine</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: left;">(Photo &copy; Eskinder Debede / UN)</p>Everyone is Against Infection, Discrimination and Death2011-11-23T16:06:44Z<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="/s3/cache%2Fe8%2Ffe%2Fe8febb14fa7fe99d3f82d68b0c0715c6.jpg" alt="Michel Sidib&eacute;" width="380" height="507" /></p> <blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;">Interview with Michel Sidib&eacute;, Executive Director,&nbsp;United Nations Programme on AIDS/HIV</p> </blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #800000;">Imagine that your organization didn&rsquo;t exist and you were&nbsp;asked to invent it. What would you do? How would it be fundamentally&nbsp;different from what exists? What would be the&nbsp;differences regarding mandate, resources and objectives?</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">I would have invented UNAIDS 30 years ago, when a coordinated&nbsp;global response could have prevented the epidemic that&nbsp;has come to define our era. Perhaps we would be out of business&nbsp;by now. The upside is that we are a 21<span>st </span>century UN organization.&nbsp;By which I mean that it is a unique network-based&nbsp;partnership governed by member states, UN organizations as&nbsp;well as civil society. This keeps us fresh and innovative.&nbsp;Our vision &ndash;Zero new HIV infections, Zero discrimination,&nbsp;Zero AIDS-related deaths&ndash; has inspired and galvanized the&nbsp;global community. We renewed our mission last year with an&nbsp;emphasis on uniting and mobilizing all partners, speaking out&nbsp;in solidarity with those most affected, and empowering agents&nbsp;of change with strategic information. We have become the&nbsp;world&rsquo;s go-to organization for HIV strategy and policy. In other&nbsp;words, I think that we have many of the fundamentals just right.&nbsp;If I were to start from scratch, I would have done two things&nbsp;differently. First, I would have led the UN in the use of modern&nbsp;communication tools &ndash;earlier and more aggressively. Too&nbsp;often the UN is behind the curve of technological innovation.&nbsp;These tools not only generate efficiencies but also connect&nbsp;us to emerging thought and bottom-up learning and change.&nbsp;The Arab Spring has demonstrated the real utility of modern&nbsp;communications and that solely top-down approaches are neither&nbsp;appreciated nor sustainable. Second, I would have put&nbsp;a shelf life on the organization &ndash;to convey both the sense of&nbsp;urgency and &ldquo;feasibility&rdquo; of getting the job done. With upfront&nbsp;investments in the HIV response we can end the HIV epidemic.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">To read the full interview, order a copy of the <a rel="nofollow" href="">magazine</a>.</p>From an Environmental Program to a World Organization?2011-11-22T12:14:03Z<p><img style="vertical-align: top;" src="/s3/cache%2F93%2F81%2F9381de0c2f49419c95a455ba4d3f1570.jpg" alt="Achim Steiner plants a tree" width="580" height="387" /></p> <blockquote> <p>by Achim Steiner,&nbsp;United Nations Under-Secretary&nbsp;General and&nbsp;Executive Director,&nbsp;UN Environment&nbsp;Programme</p> </blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span>2012 </span>marks the 40<span>th </span>anniversary of the establishment&nbsp;of the UN Environment Programme&nbsp;(UNEP) as a result of the UN Stockholm Conference on the&nbsp;Human Environment of 1972.&nbsp;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The four intervening decades have seen a sharp rise in global&nbsp;awareness of environmental issues, and over recent years a&nbsp;growing understanding of the link between environmental sustainability&nbsp;and sustainable development.&nbsp;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Over the 40 years there has also been a series of landmark&nbsp;treaties, many of which were negotiated under the auspices&nbsp;of UNEP ranging from the Montreal Protocol on substances&nbsp;that deplete the ozone layer to ones covering trades in hazardous&nbsp;wastes, chemicals and biodiversity. But there is acknowledgement,&nbsp;backed by science, that despite all that has been&nbsp;achieved the scale of the response to environmental challenges&nbsp;has not kept pace with the velocity of environmental change.&nbsp;Many also acknowledge that UNEP still remains, in a sense, the&nbsp;custodian of hopes and dreams and &lsquo;work in progress&rsquo; rather&nbsp;than the finished item. The focus now is on Rio+20, taking place&nbsp;in Brazil next June, 20 years after the Earth Summit of 1992.&nbsp;Two central themes have been chosen for Rio+20: one, &ldquo;green&nbsp;economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty&nbsp;eradication&rdquo; reflects the emerging consensus that an economic&nbsp;model able to serve the needs of seven billion people,&nbsp;rising to nine billion people, needs to factor in the multiple&nbsp;benefits of clean energy to sustainable transport and the real&nbsp;value of nature and natural resources in order to deliver growth&nbsp;and social outcomes including decent jobs for the young and&nbsp;the unemployed or under-employed. The other theme &ndash;&ldquo;the&nbsp;institutional framework for sustainable development&rdquo;&ndash; underlines&nbsp;the urgency to reform the international architecture within&nbsp;which UNEP sits, in order to scale-up and accelerate delivery&nbsp;across a suite of sustainability challenges. Within this debate&nbsp;discussions are now taking place on a potential reform and&nbsp;strengthening of UNEP, including transforming it from a UN&nbsp;programme into an organization. The question is, would such&nbsp;a political investment in terms of effort and time, bear fruit?&nbsp;Would it empower the world&rsquo;s environment ministers and entitle&nbsp;them to higher levels of authority and support? How would&nbsp;such an organization differ from the status quo in terms of federating&nbsp;a fresh and decisive response to the multiple challenges&nbsp;the world is facing? Would it merely be a grand but ultimately&nbsp;hollow political gesture to a planet and a people in peril?</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">To read the full article, order a copy of the <a rel="nofollow" href="">magazine</a>.</p>The Shift of Power2011-11-18T15:40:03Z<p style="text-align: justify;"><img style="float: left; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" src="/s3/cache%2Fc5%2F55%2Fc55520608fc8c98570e1be323624a178.jpg" alt="Francis Gurry" width="146" height="220" /><span style="color: #7f0a0a; font-style: italic;">Interview with Francis Gurry,&nbsp;WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) Director General.</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #800000;"><strong>I</strong><strong>magine that your organization didn&rsquo;t exist and you were&nbsp;</strong><strong>asked to invent it. What would you build? How would it&nbsp;</strong><strong>be fundamentally different from the existing organization?&nbsp;</strong><strong>What would the differences be regarding mandate, resources&nbsp;</strong><strong>and objectives?</strong></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">First of all I should acknowledge all that has been done collectively&nbsp;in the organization. As that has taken place over the&nbsp;course of more than 100 years, it&rsquo;s quite a successful example&nbsp;of international cooperation when you look back. So I couldn&rsquo;t,&nbsp;and wouldn&rsquo;t wish to, change that history. Now, of course, we&nbsp;are in a very different world from the one of 1880, so naturally&nbsp;one would organize things differently.&nbsp;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">What are the major changes? Well, I think the first set of&nbsp;changes is to do with globalization - the increased capacity for&nbsp;the movement of people, goods, services and ideas, and the&nbsp;technologies that facilitate that movement. The second area&nbsp;of change is around information and communication technology,&nbsp;including social media, which means that all organizations&nbsp;communicate internally and externally in a vastly different manner&nbsp;from the way in which they did previously. The third major&nbsp;change has been the redefinition of the roles of private and public&nbsp;sectors over the course of the last 120 years.&nbsp;&lsquo;Who does what&rsquo;&nbsp;has changed considerably, as well as the relative power of the&nbsp;public and private sectors. Nowadays it is quite common for corporations&nbsp;to possess much more economic power than many&nbsp;States. Fourthly, there has been a shift in the balance of power&nbsp;with respect to the control of information. Once, we thought&nbsp;that elected governments possessed the information to enable&nbsp;them to take decisions, and we expected them to decide. Now&nbsp;of course, with the Internet and the democratization of information,&nbsp;this assumption is no longer valid. A lot more people have&nbsp;a lot more information, and the consequent changes in public&nbsp;and private roles are very significant. Another major difference&nbsp;between now and the 1880s is the vast change in the geography&nbsp;of economic and technological production.&nbsp;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">What do all these changes mean with respect to the design of&nbsp;this organization? I would say a couple of things: substance&nbsp;and modality. As for substance, throughout this period there&nbsp;has been an increase and expansion of the knowledge component&nbsp;in production, and this means that innovation and creativity&nbsp;have become much more important. Perhaps WIPO should&nbsp;now make innovation its primary focus, become the World&nbsp;Innovation Promotion Organization rather than the World Intellectual&nbsp;Property Organization. This is not incompatible with the&nbsp;original mission, where IP was the instrument and principal&nbsp;public policy concerning information. There are other routes&nbsp;to innovation than just intellectual property &ndash; although intellectual&nbsp;property remains the core.&nbsp;As for modality, the means through&nbsp;which influence is exerted, the changes&nbsp;mean that we have to take into account&nbsp;the multi-stakeholder process to a&nbsp;greater extent than the traditional Westphalian&nbsp;system would suggest. In our&nbsp;present world you cannot deal with policy&nbsp;through States alone. We need to&nbsp;take into account the shifts in power.&nbsp;The balance of power in information&nbsp;control has changed; the balance of economic&nbsp;power has changed. There are a&nbsp;lot of changes; they are terrifying changes for some people and&nbsp;for some states, but we have to acknowledge this evolution. So,&nbsp;the new framework has to involve multi-stakeholders.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">To read the full interview, order a copy of the <a rel="nofollow" href="">magazine</a>.</p>Where Will the Next Black Gold Party Be?2011-11-15T11:01:36Z<p><img style="vertical-align: top; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="/s3/cache%2F92%2F21%2F922159f45beb1af5e09c4ae856ce88d4.jpg" alt="Van der Hoeven" width="389" height="580" /></p> <blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;">Maria van der Hoeven, a former economics minister in the Netherlands, took&nbsp;over as Executive Director of the International Energy Agency in September.&nbsp;She is taking over amid concerns that the I.E.A. is losing relevancy because&nbsp;emerging energy giants like China are not members, and following a rare&nbsp;public split in June within the OPEC about whether to raise production levels&nbsp;in response to unrest in Libya.</p> </blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #800000;">Where in the world do you see the greatest risks&nbsp;for energy companies and for national energy&nbsp;strategies?</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Middle East and North Africa regions are already&nbsp;responsible for around 35 percent of the world&rsquo;s oil&nbsp;output and, more importantly, they are expected to&nbsp;meet the vast bulk of predicted future growth. The&nbsp;recent turmoil has added to uncertainty about the&nbsp;pace of investment in the regions&rsquo; upstream industry&nbsp;- how quickly will production capacity expand&nbsp;and, given rising domestic energy needs, how much&nbsp;of the expected increase in supply will be available&nbsp;for export ? Our 2011 World Energy Outlook, to be&nbsp;presented on November 9th, will look at the implications&nbsp;of any possible shortfall in upstream investment&nbsp;in the Middle East and North Africa countries.&nbsp;Meanwhile the events at Fukushima this year raised&nbsp;serious questions about the longer-term prospects for&nbsp;nuclear power in Japan and elsewhere. We will also&nbsp;use our 2011 Outlook to examine the implications of &nbsp;any reduction in nuclear investment. Such a reduction&nbsp;would certainly make it more difficult for the&nbsp;world to meet the goal of stabilizing the rise in temperature&nbsp;at 2 degrees Centigrade.&nbsp;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #800000;">What does the new energy map look like from your&nbsp;office in Paris?</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">I think that different countries and different regions&nbsp;will continue, quite justifiably, to vary in their energy&nbsp;balances due to differences in endowments, geography,&nbsp;economic patterns, and political and social&nbsp;values. Even in oil and gas, that geography is varied&nbsp;and regional. While U.S. shale gas may dominate the&nbsp;gas story in North America, lack of American export&nbsp;capacity means that it will not dominate the market in&nbsp;Europe, where piped conventional gas will continue&nbsp;to play a major role. Another example is the international&nbsp;oil market. It is too large to be dominated by&nbsp;one source. Increased Iraqi production, for example,&nbsp;will have to make up for declining mature fields in the industrialized world. But it will compete with other&nbsp;new conventional and unconventional production&nbsp;elsewhere.</p> <p style="text-align: right;">To read the full interview, order a copy of the <a rel="nofollow" href="">magazine</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: right;"><span style="color: #999999;">By James Kanter</span></p>Bring Both Developed and Developing Countries Together2011-11-15T10:54:58Z<p><img style="vertical-align: top;" src="/s3/cache%2F12%2Fb0%2F12b0a54bb7615ff362efcfeda7268a04.jpg" alt="Supachai Panitchpakdi" width="580" height="387" /></p> <blockquote> <p>Interview with Supachai Panitchpakdi,&nbsp;Secretary General, United Nations Conference&nbsp;on Trade and Development, UNCTAD.</p> </blockquote> <p><span style="color: #800000;">Imagine that your organization didn&rsquo;t exist and you were&nbsp;asked to invent it. What would you do? How would it be fundamentally&nbsp;different from what exists? What would be the&nbsp;differences regarding mandate, resources and objectives?&nbsp;</span></p> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong>The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development&nbsp;(UNCTAD) was formed in 1964 to address the needs of developing&nbsp;and least developed countries in relation to trade and&nbsp;development, and those needs remain relevant today. The world&nbsp;has changed beyond recognition since UNCTAD&rsquo;s formation,&nbsp;but we are still searching for a solution to the perennial problem&nbsp;of underdevelopment and the role that trade can play in&nbsp;accelerating the development process. This has meant continuously&nbsp;changing the focus of the organization and adapting to&nbsp;the needs of its member States in line with the changing global&nbsp;economic conditions. In the last three decades there has been a&nbsp;proliferation in the number of organizations dealing with trade&nbsp;and development issues and assisting developing countries&nbsp;in export promotion. However, none of them are intergovernmental&nbsp;like UNCTAD with a membership of 194 countries, and&nbsp;none have a mandate from the General Assembly to address&nbsp;the issues of trade and development in an integrated manner,&nbsp;that is, together with investment, finance, technology and sustainable&nbsp;development. Nor do they have the capacity or mandate&nbsp;to combine the three pillars of work, namely: research and&nbsp;analysis with a view to providing developing countries with policy&nbsp;advice; intergovernmental machinery to build consensus&nbsp;on pertinent and emerging issues within its broad mandate;&nbsp;and technical cooperation to assist countries at the national&nbsp;level. Therefore, if UNCTAD did not exist, we would have had&nbsp;to invent it in its current format of work and mandate as there&nbsp;is still the need for an intergovernmental forum to bring both&nbsp;developed and developing countries together to create a common&nbsp;understanding of how trade and the related policies can&nbsp;help developing countries achieve inclusive development and&nbsp;fight poverty.</p> <p style="text-align: right;">To read the full interview, order a copy of the <a rel="nofollow" href="">magazine</a>.</p>New Global Journal Issue in Europe and in the US2011-11-11T10:04:36Z<p><img style="vertical-align: top;" src="/s3/cache%2Ff1%2Fdb%2Ff1dbd32f2bad238f0995cefb72b96cbf.jpg" alt="The Global Journal Issue #08" width="580" height="398" /></p> <blockquote> <p><span>I</span>magine that your organization did not exist and you were&nbsp;asked to invent it. What would you do? How would it be fundamentally&nbsp;different from what exists? What would be the&nbsp;differences regarding mandate, resources and objectives?</p> </blockquote> <p>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:</p> <ul> <li>Helen Clark - United Nations Development Programme</li> <li>Joseph Deiss - former President of the 65th Session of the General Assembly</li> <li>Francis Gurry - World Intellectual Property Organization</li> <li>Antonio Guterres - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugeers</li> <li>Michel Jarraud -&nbsp;World Meteorological Organization</li> <li>Pascal Lamy - World Trade Organization</li> <li>Supatchai Panitchpakdi - UN Conference on Trade and Development</li> <li>Navi Pillay -&nbsp;Office of&nbsp;the High Commissioner for Human Rights</li> <li>Michel Sidib&eacute; -&nbsp;United Nations Programme on AIDS/HIV</li> <li>Achim Steiner - United Nations Environment Programme</li> </ul> <p>You can see the full table of contents&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" href="../../magazine/">here</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: right;">To read the full interviews, order a copy of&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" href="">the magazine</a>.</p>