By Detlef Palm
“Why and for how long will China need aid from UNICEF, given that it is the second largest economy in the world?”
“UNICEF should not, in its south-south cooperation, facilitate the dissemination of practices that are not based on human rights and do not align with internationally agreed norms and standards.”
“UNICEF’s mission is to help countries domestically, and not meddle with inter-country relations.”
These are some of the paraphrased questions and comments of the USA, on the draft UNICEF Country Programme Document for China. The USA have the largest budget for hiring interns to read CPDs, and hence have provided the most extensive observations. Eleven more countries cared to comment, a very high number by CPD commenting standards. Several commentators followed the lead of the USA. There are also a few voices who just want UNICEF to go ahead with what has been written. UNICEF has provided a response to all comments.
Next week, the China CPD will be approved on a no-objection basis by the UNICEF Executive Board. It will be a zoom-meeting, and Excellencies have been duly reminded to refrain from harassing, sexually or otherwise, anybody during the video conference.
One can simply regard the statements by member states as the extension of the usual tussle between superpowers, wannabe powers, bruised egos and ideologies. In the past, one would politely listen, ignore any snide remarks, tactfully rephrase a paragraph or two in the CPD and return to the business of the day.
Times have changed. The new environment has forced UNICEF to walk on eggshells and made it difficult for UNICEF to find satisfying answers. You may want to form your own opinion. Current or former UNICEF staff members know that these are the best responses that UNICEF diplomatically can provide under the constraints imposed by the outdated format of country programming, the unclear nature of the CPD, and lingering questions about UNICEF’s role.
Imagine to leave these constraints behind, and suddenly the answers present themselves easily.
The focus on the most vulnerable. The CPD is, originally, a document describing Government priorities for which it seeks financial and technical assistance from UNICEF. If the plight of children from ethnic and religious minorities is not a government priority, then it does not appear in the CPD. Meanwhile, there is some growing understanding that UNICEF has a role in influencing governments so that they get their priorities right. This is a political and possibly embarrassing process. It benefits from an in-country UNICEF presence, but cannot be part of a CP document.
Why does China need aid from UNICEF? China does not need money from UNICEF. It needs a trusted and critical partner who points out where China’s policies and practices do more harm than good for children and contravene globally accepted wisdom, or where more effort is needed. Because of this and its universal mandate, UNICEF needs to maintain a presence and some spending money to conduct analysis and research. It seems even China welcomes it. But according to some woolly Basic Cooperation Agreement that nobody really can remember and which is seemingly impervious to any modernization, UNICEF needs an aid programme to justify its in-country presence, no matter how tiny its programme budget compared to the GNP of the country.
Dissemination only of good practices that are relevant to children and meet human rights standards: A valid point. According to the UNICEF evaluation database, UNICEF conducted one evaluation in China during the past ten years. The evaluation reviewed a UNICEF intervention, not a large scale government programme or policy that would be ready for international propagation. If UNICEF were to help disseminate Chinese policy and practice, these should indeed be validated by UNICEF for their impact on children and compliance to human rights standard. Such validations should, perhaps, be a main business of UNICEF in China.
Supporting a domestic versus an inter-governmental agenda: The respective commentators – all of which hail from wealthy countries whose economies have come under threat - are dead wrong. Covid, the environment, cyber-threats and – ahem – peace are examples where problems can only be resolved through international cooperation.
Having looked at the UNICEF China website and some of its good reports, I am convinced that the UNICEF China office is doing valuable work. Because of its convoluted and unfathomable format, the Country Office Annual Report does not describe this well; it rather obfuscates the situation. The CPD, unnecessarily, forces UNICEF into contortions and makes it vulnerable to political capture. Our intent is virtuous and noble as ever, and it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to clearly communicate our changing role. But we need to get rid of the shackles of an outmoded aid paradigm. The Executive Board is the place to start.
Well articulated as always. These observations and suggestions are equally applicable to several other mid-income countries. Given the Courier font still in practice in official UN documents and the continued format of P11 form we could be waiting for a long time to see these changes (although your suggestions are internal to UNICEF).
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I recall Ann Veneman who had been US Secretary of Agriculture before becoming UNICEF ExDir, initially raised precisely some of these questions with me: "Why is UNICEF helping China...India...Russia...Brazil, "etc. citing they all had large economies (and were seen as competitors of the US by the Dept of Agriculture). As Deputy ExDir for Prograammes, I had to justify and defend continuing UNICEF cooperation in these and other middle-income countries, but AMV remained ambivalent about them, until she actually visited the countries and realized how the relatively small amount of UNICEF funding in these countries produced lots of good results.
ReplyDeleteSo, the questioning continues...but it is good have a healthy debate on such issues to ensure UNICEF support to middle income & even LMICs, countries continues to produce good results, especially in terms of policy impact.
China and other industrialized countries - especially those with central governments - have pockets of poverty and need guidance how best to address the issue. UNICEF's role is that of advocacy, rather than substantial program support and urging the respective ministries to enforce the Rights of the Child. Actually the NatComs are performing a similar function in the richer countries, reaching out also to their own children while raising funds..
ReplyDelete