|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
One of the topics under The UN,
Alone and
UNacountable The Millennium
Project (disappointing so far, see Lack of a strategy), and
the Global Compact
hypocrisy (a success?, a public relations game?, a UN
sell-out?), and the UN Convention against
Corruption (too new to assess yet) have already been
discussed in this subsection. But there are many other new fields of
engagement as the UN continually expands its policy horizons. A few of the major and most
surprising efforts are noted here.
For
decades real UN action in many areas was hampered by Cold War tensions and
insistence on "national sovereignty" principles. But in 1998
Secretary-General Annan stated that: "Only
universal organizations like the United Nations have the scope and
legitimacy to generate principles, norms and rules that are essential
if globalization is to
benefit everyone."
Kofi A. Annan, "Partnerships for
global community: Annual report on the work of the organization 1998",
United Nations, New York, 1998, p.
81.
In 1998 Mr. Annan
commissioned a strange book which argued that the UN (actually it relied
mostly on the work of the UN system technical specialized agencies) had
played a large but unrecognized role in global commerce. Its unusual tenor
can be gained from its introductory and concluding
statements: "There is a popular conception
that the United Nations system is not particularly central or salient to
the functioning of the global economy. This is a misconception because
many UN bodies generate norms and rules (or regimes) that are crucial to
order and openness in the international commercial system
… In a very real sense, the UN
system has picked up the torch of global collaboration from a host of
statesmen and industry officials … [who were active] over the century
prior to the birth of the UN system. … In concluding
… It is important … that the
profound contributions of UN bodies to commercial order and openness are
understood and publicly recognized.
International businesses need to support the many UN institutions
that facilitate their global activities. and … to defend … [them] from attacks that
undercut their ability to contribute … [and] to come to the defence of UN
institutions from criticisms that fail to recognize their very real
contributions."
Mark
W. Zacher, The United Nations and global commerce, UN Department of
Public Information, United Nations, New York, 1999, pp. 10-11,
55. The 2000-2001 period
was already filled with the energetic work on the UN Millennium Project
Goals, the Global Compact, and work on developing the UN Convention
against Corruption. But in
2002 Secretary-General Annan accelerated the process still further and
faster with his "agenda for further change" and with a whole new range of
UN "partnership" activities." " … The need for a strong
multilateral institution has never been more acutely felt than it is
today, in the era of globalization. … Much has already been achieved.
… The United Nations has been in the
forefront of the battle to eradicate poverty and fight the HIV/AIDS
pandemic. … [Reforms are] improving the Organization's … peacekeeping and
peace-building operations, and it has responded well to novel and
unexpected challenges in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and Timor-Leste. The United Nations is showing
greater coherence, and its disparate elements are working better together.
Fruitful partnerships have been built with a wide range of non-State
actors. In short, the
Organization is evolving with the times. It is more efficient, more open
and more creative." "Strengthening of the United Nations: An agenda for further change: Report of the Secretary-General, UN document A/57/387 of 9 September 2002, "Summary," "Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization", UN document A/57/1, 2002, "Partnerships", paras. 203-229, "Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization", UN document A/58/1, 2003, "Partnerships", paras. 219-248, and "Towards global partnerships", General Assembly resolution 58/129 of 19 February 2004.
The UN may not have
been more effective, and was probably becoming less coherent, but it
certainly was being creative and opening partnerships -- or new roles --
almost everywhere. A most
surprising new field was proposals for the UN to become a "global taxman",
which began in 2001 and speeded up in 2003: "Declaring no task more urgent
than rescuing a billion people in the world from 'abject and dehumanizing
poverty,' the United Nations has come up with dozens of ways to finance
the economic development of poorer countries. An extensive report issued on
Tuesday on behalf of Secretary General Kofi Annan offered no fewer than 87
remedies, many aimed at attracting more private investment and promoting
trade to offset declines in foreign aid. The 64-page report broke ground in
calling for a study of the potential for international cooperation on tax
matters, including tax evasion. …
Nitin Desai, the under secretary
general for economic and social affairs, said the report formed the basis
for further discussions leading to an international conference on
development financing in March 2002. … The report noted that the worlds
of finance and development meet through the system of saving and
investment. An estimated $7.5
trillion was saved or invested last year, of which $1.7 trillion went to
developing countries. But the
net transfer to wealthy countries amounted to $450 billion, three-fourths
of which was absorbed by the United States." Christopher S. Wren, "The UN offers 87 remedies to help poor
nations develop", New York Times, February 4, 2001.
"For those who worry the United
Nations doesn't already deal with enough red tape, the UN General Assembly
began discussing a proposal to set up an international tax
organization. Enough to chill the hearts of
shady criminals and opponents of bureaucracy alike, the proposal was first
spelled out by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a report earlier this
year. He recommended that an existing
25-person committee be expanded and upgraded to an 'intergovernmental
body' -- in other words, an international group along the lines of other
UN agencies like UNICEF and UNESCO.
The assembly began considering the
proposal as part of a two-day 'high-level dialogue' on how to finance
international development that will feature officials from the World Bank
and other key trade and financial
institutions. 'This is not something that would
write tax codes or set global taxes' … [a UN information officer] told AFP. 'But there are a lot of sloppy,
messy tax issues out there.'" "UN mulls role of global taxman', AFP, October 29, 2003. [Note:
It should be noted that most of
the UN Secretariat officials and diplomatic missions involved in
[sloppy, messy?] pontificating on this grand global tax initiative have
never paid any taxes in their entire lives, because they work outside
their home countries.]
Although such
discussions are still in their early stages, there are obviously
tremendous ramifications for global commerce, national tax policies,
taxpayer interests, and UN financing, with enthusiasm on the UN side and
many doubts appearing elsewhere. The creation of an International Tax
Organization (ITO), among other possibilities, envisions a UN Economic
Security Council (ESC) with the same standing on international economic
matters that the Security Council has with regard to peace and
security. A Secretariat
report, and various critiques, on these grand matters are already
available. "Report of the High-Level Panel on Financing for Development", with "Letter" of the Secretary-General, UN document A/55/1000 of 26 June 2001, esp. pp. 27-28. Bruce Zagaris, "U.N. report calls for new spirituality: The creation of two organizations to aid international tax enforcement", Tax Notes International, July 23, 2001, and Daniel J. Mitchell, "The UN tax?", Heritage Foundation, December 22,2003. [Note: the quite detailed 2001 analysis is available at www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/zagaris-un/zagaris-UN.html ]
The tax discussion
also revives memories of the "Tobin tax", first proposed by the Nobel
economic laureate James Tobin in 1978. It would impose a very small
percentage charge on speculative "spot" transactions in the global foreign
exchange market, which amount to some $1.5 trillion a day. The proposal is promoted by NGOs
and parliamentarians who believe it would provide multiple economic and
social benefits, but business argues that it could seriously disrupt
international commerce.
Conservative estimates are that the tax could yield from $150-$300
billion a year. The UN
estimates that the worst forms or poverty and environmental destruction
could be wiped out for around $225 billion a year. Robin Round (of the Halifax Initiative, a group of Canadian NGOs) "Stop speculation by supporting a 'Tobin Tax' on international financial transactions", in Wayne Ellwood, The no-nonsense guide to globalization, New Internationalist, Oxford (UK), 2001, pp. 124-130. [IO
Watch would only note that it
appears that the UN is intended to administer these enormous "Tobin tax"
sums. In light of the alleged multi-billion dollar
scandals in the far, far smaller and UN-administered Iraq oil-for-food
programme that have emerged in 2003-2004 (see discussion of that topic in
the very next subsection) and overall weak UN financial management and
oversight, entrusting it to
administer any gigantic Tobin tax revenues sounds disastrous.] But the UN also has
many other "fish to fry." One of them is the extraordinarily complex issue
of human cloning. "The General Assembly on Tuesday
ducked for a year a polarizing debate over human cloning that has set the
Bush administration against allies like Britain and large parts of the
world's scientific community. All 191 members of the United
Nations agree on a treaty that would prohibit the cloning of human beings
but are divided over the issue of whether to extend a ban to stem-cell and
other research known as therapeutic cloning. Opponents of total prohibition say
that it would block valuable research and medical advances
… The United States lost a UN
struggle to pass a complete ban last month when a substitute measure
postponing the debate for two years passed the assembly by one
vote. Science associations and societies
flooded UN headquarters with petitions, e-mail and messages of alarm
…" Warren Hoge, "UN Assembly puts off debate on human cloning", International Herald Tribune, December 10, 2003. Another sweeping topic
is control and oversight of the Internet. "After two years of preparatory
talks, this week's first round on the United Nation's World Summit on the
Information Society should
not have been contentious.
Rather than demonstrate a harmony of global interconnectedness,
however, the conference revealed serious divisions in the way the
governments of rich and poor nations think about the
Internet. The first stumbling block was the
attempt to address the "digital divide", the inequality of access … in
developing countries compared with the rich world. …
The second big bone of contention
was how to run the internet's addressing and numbering domains … currently
controlled by a private body …
Some countries believe the co-ordination of the internet's core
infrastructure should be placed on a more multilateral footing
… With no clear solution, the
summit's declaration called for the establishment of a UN working group to
develop … [governance policies] in time for the summit's second round in
Tunisia in 2005. A fudge, in short. But is is a positive sign that
countries are discussing how to run the internet, since it requires global
solutions to its problems." "Internet governance: Swiss fudge: Rich and poor nations are squabbling over how best to run the Internet", The Economist, December 13, 2003.
Still another UN grand
initiative involves plans for a much more comprehensive UN approach to
global "civil society". "[In Febuary 2003] … U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan … appointed a panel of 12 eminent persons to
assess the role of civil society and find ways to strengthen its future
relations with the United Nations. … In a series of recommendations,
the Cardoso panel has [now] called for the creation of a new U.N.
under-secretary-general to head an Office of Constituency Engagement and
Partnerships that will liaise between civil society and the world
body. Jim Paul of Global Policy Forum …
welcomed the proposal to appoint a senior official to handle relations
with NGOs. … Still he remained guarded about
his support for the proposal … The U.N.'s Global Compact … is to
be incorporated into the proposed [OCEP] … The [Cardoso] report admits that
many in civil society are concerned about … [that]. [But the report says that
multinationals']
'constructive engagement through the Global Compact [allows the UN]
to monitor accountability and
responsibility.' The panel recommends the creation of a U.N. fund 'to enhance the capacity of civil society in developing countries.' The U.N. Secretariat has been encouraged to seek contributions from [various sources] … extra-budgetary funds of about 40 million dollars could be raised …" Thalif Deen, Politics: UN plans to boost NGOs come under scrutiny", ipsnews.net, June 21, 2004. Yet amid all these
broad-scale new activities, other much more urgent matters consistently
and insistently intrude on UN policy-making capacities and
intentions. Just two will be
cited here: "The head of [the International
Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei] … said Friday that the illicit
trafficking of nuclear-related material and equipment had grown so
widespread that it amounted to a Wal-Mart for weapons-seeking countries.
… … [He] said he was taken aback
during a recent trip to Libya by the scale and complexity of the black
market, through which Libya obtained material and blueprints for nuclear
weapons designs. … [He acknowledged that] … neither
the atomic energy agency nor the intelligence branches of the big
countries have a grip on the extent of nuclear
trafficking. 'The system is under a good deal
of stress,' he said. 'We need
to take this seriously.' … many experts …[believe that]
nuclear proliferation is looming as the next big security
threat.." Mark
Landler, "Trafficking in nuclear arms called widespread", International
Herald Tribune, January 24-25, 2004.
"The Security Council has
unanimously approved a resolution to keep chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons out of the hands of terrorists. … The 15-to-0 vote followed months
of negotiating and redrafting to win over … [some reluctant members.]
… The resolution compels all 191 UN
members to draw up legislation and strengthen laws to prevent terrorists
and black market agents from being able to [obtain, build or use such
weapons.] The measure asks countries to
report on their compliance within six months, and it establishes Security
Council monitoring for two years. No specific enforcement power was
included in the resolution, although UN rules allow for sanctions against
noncooperating countries." Warren Hoge, "Security Council passes ban on weapons for terrorists", International Herald Tribune, May 2, 2004. All this "sloppy,
messy" mix (to use the UN officer's characterization of tax issues above
in the October 2003 article) of grand new initiatives and pressing needs
-- Millennium Development
Goals, the Global Compact, the new UN Convention against Corruption,
global taxes, human cloning, Internet oversight, civil society needs,
nuclear weapons proliferation, keeping weapons out of the hands of
terrorists, to name only a few -- would be a very tough task for
the most efficient and well-organized public decision-making body. For the UN, it is a case of
tremendous overload, verging on breakdown. Four central elements
of this trend must be noted.
The first is the following two very acerbic but valid assessments
of present UN capacities for decisive, high-quality decision
making: "On the first day of what was
billed as the Millenium Summit last September in New York, Kofi Annan …
welcomed the assembled dignities from 147 countries …. with a banquet and
the proposing of a toast to 'You [who] have the authority to speak for,
and the ability to transform, the lives of six billion
people.' The flattery was extravagant ….
but it was cheerfully received (strong applause, complacent nods) and for
three days and three nights the dignities gave speeches, ratified
treaties, glanced at documents, signed declarations of blameless principle
in favor of human freedom and the biosphere.
…. Our twenty-first-century faith in
scientific miracle gives rise to the hope of 'transnational institutions'
capable of managing the world's affairs with the sangfroid of the late ….
emperor Caesar Augustus. …. the front page news …. mocked
the presumptions of omnipotence
-- civil war in
Colombia and Sierra Leone, famine in Ethiopia, a mob with machetes
murdering three U.N. officials in West Timor (on the same day that Kofi
Annan was raising his glass of congratulatory champagne), civil war in
Chechnya and Sri Lanka, floods in India and six men arrested for
cannibalism in Tanzania." Lewis
H. Lapham, "Cleopatra's nose", Harpers Magazine, November
2000, pp. 9-11. "During [the 1990s I spent some
time] .… in stately European palaces with diplomats, parliamentarians and
multilateral men who used the word 'modalities' a lot, and we'd discuss
the post-Cold-War international order. …. Far from mastering events, the
poor souls …. found history moving in unfathomable directions. Their careful negotiations ….
often had nothing to do with reality. …. [The UN deliberations on
reconstruction of Iraq] …. face a series of tortuous problems: it's
neighborhood building in all its granular
specificity. But the talk at the Security
Council is 8,000 miles above all that. …. There are lofty and vapid
formulations about moving from the 'logic of occupation' to the 'logic of
sovereignty.' …. The more you look at the Security
Council negotiations, the more they resemble one of those horrible
divorces in which the children get ignored because the parents are caught
up in the psychodrama of each other's perfidies. …. …. we need to focus on serving the
Iraqis first, second and last.
We don't need to get caught up in a distracting round of lofty
debates among the world's …. Metternichs, who treat the Iraqi people as
pawns in their great game power struggles." David Brooks, "All the lofty policy talk ignores Iraqi's needs", International Herald Tribune, September 24, 2003. Second, that the above
comments are not "out of line" is validated by Mr. Annan's own call for
radical UN reform in September 2003. "President George W. Bush's turn
to the United Nations for help in Iraq was a welcome, if belated,
recognition that global policing can acquire legitimacy only through
multilateral endorsement. But
the record of the major political bodies of the UN -- the General Assembly
and the Security Council -- has little to show that this is the place to
find that sort of legitimacy in the 21st
century. The General Assembly is usually
mired in speechmaking. The
Council is increasingly perceived as an antiquated relic of the cold war.
These are not just the sentiments of neo-conservatives in Washington: they
were voiced by … [Secretary-General] Kofi Annan. In an unusually candid reported on
September 8, Annan challenged the UN to make radical reforms." "Restructuring the UN", International Herald Tribune, September 22, 2003.
Third, the UN has
always had the age-old bad-government habit of wanting to "throw money at
problems" rather than recognizing its fundamental fiduciary responsibility
for the wise and prudent management of the resources entrusted to it. IO
Watch believes that this pattern continues on in the UN not only because
of habit and inertia but because -- harsh but true -- it keeps the UN
baronial structure in business and even expanding. "Iraq gets …[the headlines and the
most] aid money. … But there are other crises that crave attention, many
involving far worse suffering.
So this week the UN issued a list of 21 forgotten disasters and
appealed for $3 billion to alleviate them. … The only way to raise money, the
UN reckons, is to lump … [the countries concerned] together …
The UN complains that donors ,,,
tend to have … [their favorites].
True enough. … … The UN's own list shows a hint
of bias, too: it asks for $305m for the Palestinians, but only $187m for
Congo, though the death toll from Congo's war is more than 1,000 times
greater than that during the intifada.
… Since the UN never gets all
the money it wants for disaster relief, some of its officials hint that
donations should be compulsory.
In a press release this week, for example, it mused that 'many humanitarians would like to
see aid evolve from a free-floating act of kindness to an arrangement
based on law.' It
is not obvious that this is a
good idea. … [Money should
go] where donors … want it to, not where unselected bureaucrats
choose." "A United Nations appeal: Forgotten disasters", The Economist, November 22nd 2003. [emphasis added.] Fourth and finally, a
recent article from the UN's public information chief indicates that UN
officials too have noticed that the old "trust us to save the world,
today" approach is not working, whether it is based on Mr. Annan's
personal choices for action or an informal canvassing of UN
officials. "'Iraq,' [Secretary-General] Annan
noted ruefully, 'has sucked out all the oxygen and distorted the
international agenda.'
This has been true, of course, for some time -- at least since
January 2003 when Annan held a press conference to cover 16 different
issues on his global agenda and every question addressed to
him was about Iraq. In response to the gap between
what we at the United Nations thought the world should care about and what
the media covering our work preferred to focus on, my colleagues and I
came up with a list last May of the top 10 stories we felt were not
getting enough media attention. … My team consulted every UN
department and agency … A list of over 60 issues emerged.
… But why go on? None of the top-flight
international journalists who
turned up at my press conference to launch the list actually wrote about
our list. … We know we are making the smallest
of dents in the public consciousness, but we could not forgive ourselves
if we didn't try." Shashi
Tharoor, "The critical news stories you never read", International Herald
Tribune, July 14,
2004. [emphasis added.] IO Watch believes that
the grand lack of focus and muddle of UN initiatives and programmes
described above is a very grave problem. It is not a matter of the themes,
all of which are worthy and many of which are life-or-death matters. It is also not a matter of UN
staff or programmes, which usually try to do their best. But it is a matter of careless,
lazy, and self-indulgent decision-making which must become far wiser and
more responsible. A specific proposal
for much more responsible, reasoned, responsive, and ongoing UN decision
making and priority setting for the global agenda was
proposed almost two decades ago.
New proposals and new perceptions add critical elements of wise use
of societal talents and careful analysis to attempt to determine where the
scarce global resources made available to combat global problems can
produce the greatest tangible benefits for mankind. This hard task, which
obviously cannot avoid controversies and the inevitable politics, still
has vastly more potential
than the present "sloppy, messy" UN mix, and seems vastly more
transparent and reasoned. It
is discussed further, as A true global strategy, under the
concluding substantive section of this archive on Answers: A starting
point. |
|||
