The Universal Mandate
by Detlef Palm
A new office in Greece. The Convention on the Rights of the Child still not ratified by the USA. Is UNICEF a charity, or human rights organization? What is the role of volunteers, and that of Natcoms, beyond raising funds? Read the latest insights from outside the bubble.
If you feel enraged, misunderstood, or want to add your support, please leave your comment below in the Comments section. This will lead to a much faster exchange of thoughts than if you send an email. However, if you do prefer sending by email please do not address your message to the entire network via "allmembers". Instead address Detlef at detlefpalm55@gmail.com and copy the editors inbox at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com
Dear Detlef,
ReplyDeleteThank you for preparing the second in your series on “Outside the Bubble” and no, nothing in it is enraging but I have a few comments.
The first sentence under “Trick and Treat” should read “UNICEF Is trying to be too many things to too many people.”
The very fact that we are spending time reminding ourselves what UNICEF is and what it does represents the real problem.
Next, when we say “Governments want to be in tune with global standards and experience and those who do not want to be in tune should be authoritatively told that they should,” we delude ourselves on two levels. On the first level, cash-strapped governments will pretend to be in tune with what we call global standards and experience in order to get program funds.
And in any case, what are these global standards and experience? Allow me to illustrate with a program that is outside UNICEF but from which it becomes obvious that what we see as global is not global at all. With the Bamako Initiative, the “global standard” was to include women in program committees. Not only did the idea not go down well with both men and women, when we finally humbled ourselves sufficiently to listen to them instead of authoritatively telling them so, we discovered that women have better ways than committees to influence community decisions.
On the second level, when we try to tell governments what to do, authoritatively or otherwise, what have we become? And governments do not take kindly to being told just because we hold the purse strings, a case of the one who pays the piper dictating the tune, a problem that you highlighted in the first part of this write-up.
I could go on but I will desist and simply say that policy does not photograph well and yet when Directors both at regional and headquarter levels visit, they want to see “projects” and take pictures for the annual report. Which is it, projects or policies?
Ebun Ekunwe
Dear Ebun, many thanks.
DeleteOf course, governments need to decide themselves whether they want to adopt a recommended policy or standard or not. We do not want them to pay lip-service; as argued in the previous paper (Rethinking UNICEF), any self-respecting government would do what the majority of their constituents want them to do - that is why UNICEF should enter the political discourse.
As for the Global Authority: Also development happens by trial and error; what seems an irrefutable truth at one time, may be considered wrong in the light of new scientific discoveries or experience. The Covid response is a good example.
There is a difference between 'Global Authority issues', and some recommendations on how to go about their implementation. In the case of 'women in programme committees', we might have been wrong, also because we were not the Global Authority on Women or on the elimination of gender discrimination. There are other experts who hopefully know better. And, yes, listening has never been our greatest strength.
But we can certainly speak as a Global Authority when, our advice is backed by an almost global consensus; for example that children should not be imprisoned, children of migrants and refugees should go to school and fathers should get actively involved in raising their young children.
Detlev, Very well written and thoughtful expose. Will it reach a wider audience beyond the XUNICEF group? It sure deserves a discussion within UNICEF itself.
ReplyDeleteI retired 25 years ago and have not kept up with UNICEF doings, except when reported by our Update. I noticed though on Facebook that the US Committee now calls itself UNICEF USA which would give it a mandate beyond advocacy and fundraising. Some of their public service spots promote child health, education etc. in the US, which might be the way to go also for other committees. It probably is up to the ExBoard to widen the NatComs' mandate.
Keep up reaching out of the bubble!
Horst.
Thank you Horst,
Deleteyes, there is a shift also within some UNICEF Committees; many now emphasize the rights of children. I think the Dutch Committee (UNICEF Netherlands) is for example very clear that UNICEF is aiming for structural change in those mostly distant countries. And Covid has indeed turned the attention of many Natcoms also on marginalized children in their own countries.
Detlef
From Ramesh Shrestha
ReplyDeleteThanks, Detlef for sharing your ‘The Universal Mandate’, second instalment on ‘Outside the Bubble’.
I joined UNICEF in 1982 as a national office in Nepal and have seen continuous evolution of UNICEF during these ensuing decades with a widening mandate accompanied by growth in its budget. In your second instalment you focused on the role of UNICEF National committees.
During early days Natcoms were simply an ATM for UNICEF. I am not aware of much programmatic links or works between UNICEF and Natcoms. As countries ‘develop’ and achieve economic affluence UNICEF offices were closed and Natcoms were established such as in Singapore, South Korea, etc. The assumption is that once these countries achieve a ‘developed’ status they can take care of their children on their own with their own technical expertise and finances. I have heard numerous times in RMTs, many mid-income countries ‘graduating’ and were on the way to establishing Natcoms. How many actually ‘graduated’ I don’t know.
That was the past. Fast forward to the 1990s, with the global ratification of CRC the role of UNICEF broadened to assist countries in implementation of CRC with whatever UNICEF can assist with. As the CRC is global then came the issue of Western democracies, thus the discussion on roles of UNICEF and Natcoms.
In the minds of many westerners, UNICEF is funded largely by the ‘West’ and hence should not be in the business of ‘telling us’ what to do. The US is the epitome of this ideology. You have mentioned that US still has not ratified the CRC, which was signed possibly just to fulfil the wishes of Mr. Grant during his last days. In the minds of many US lawmakers UNICEF is just another useless UN parasite surviving on US funds. Why would the US listen to UNICEF? My guess is that the US will possibly take CRC seriously only if and when UNICEF US will be headed by some super senior Politicians such as ex-President Carter of ex-VP Al Gore, or maybe even ex-President Bush.
Is UNICEF a human rights organisation?
People are confused partly because there is OHCHR promoting HR issues and then there is UNHCR and even ILO with considerable overlapping agendas and issues. While for people like you and me promoting CRC has become the core agenda of UNICEF evolved after 1990 UN convention on Child Right, but for many it is still a UN agency assisting downtrodden and poor and displaced and refugees everywhere.
Coming back to Natcoms, if UNICEF wants to use Natcoms as an arm of UNICEF to promote Human Rights it requires a global shift in its structure and relationship. The idea of self-sustaining (self-financing) UNICEF offices also has to be rethought through. Natcoms must then have the best technical staff, beyond the greetings card sales persons. This calls for major structural changes in the concept and funding of Natcoms. That would also mean one size fit all policy of UNICEF’s global guidelines has to be abandoned. Here I am also slightly confused; are you suggesting human rights in totality or CRC?
In all western countries they have their own standards and practices and monitoring mechanisms in all issues including related to human rights. How will Natcom interface with the government agencies? Western countries send their experts for monitoring these issues to third world countries. How will they feel about someone else doing this in their countries?
At the moment the US issues global reports on Human Rights violation – pinpointing faults at countries. Many countries consider this to be exaggerated and politicised with some fighting back while others simply ignore. UNICEF of course will not have to go that far but would simply work with national governments to ensure that human rights standards are honoured and maintained.
Are there issues of children’s rights violation in Western countries that require UNICEF engagement? If we are talking about just refugee children as you mentioned the solutions will have to be different.
Cheers
Ramesh