Twelve member-states from the Western Europe and Other States Group, and the European Union have submitted in writing their concern regarding the UNICEF CPD for Syria.
First, it kept me wondering whether board members from the Middle East, Asia or Africa do not read draft CPDs? Having slept over it, I conclude that board members care little about CPDs, as long as they do not have to commit their own money.
Second, I got puzzled by Norway categorically asking UNICEF to align their programmes with the United Nations Strategic Framework for Syria while France, the UK, the Netherlands, the USA and Denmark express serious concerns about it. The latter do not want to see a UNICEF CPD based on a flawed Strategic Framework.
In the view of the critics, the Syria UN Strategic Framework does not comply with UN Security Council Resolution UNSC 2254, which was unanimously adopted. For those not familiar with the matter, the Resolution asks for an inclusive political process leading to a solution of the conflict, which should be the first step in the recovery of Syria. It also led to a document on the Parameters and Principles of UN Assistance in Syria. It states that: Only once there is a genuine and inclusive transition negotiated by the parties, would the UN be ready to facilitate reconstruction. Unless you are an anarchist, you would expect UN agencies to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions and their own principles.
Third, all commentators are concerned about the analytical quality of the CPD, which omits to mention the armed conflict as the main reason for the suffering of Syrian people. This really got me going, not least because UNICEF administrators seem hard at work to articulate the famously termed ‘development-humanitarian-peace-nexus’. I am not convinced that one can work towards peace when one does not acknowledge the existence of conflicts.
UNICEF has replied, but word smiting doesn't solve the fundamental dilemma: UNICEF was created to finance the development activities of governments. In its essence, the CPD is a request by the government asking for money. As UNICEF offices have taken it upon themselves to write the CPDs, they have to align not only with universal Conventions and homegrown Strategic Plans, but also with Government wishes. UN reform dogma has it that national priorities as expressed in national plans and ownership by government are the primary concerns of UN assistance – no matter how despotic the head of state and his government.
I know former colleagues who have turned their back on UNICEF because of the requirement to align under such conditions. Detractors always argued that the Executive Board will not agree to anything else.
With key members of the Board now sufficiently agitated, the Board session on the Syria CPD is a good opportunity to point at the deficiencies of the outmoded construct of CPDs, which is confusing everyone. This is a good time to start the discussion. After all, the UN is about ‘we the people’ and not ‘we the heads of state’.
Footnote: Much was made about a footnote in the draft Syria CPD, stating that “The Government of Syria does not accept the document titled Parameters and Principles of UN Assistance in Syria“. Meanwhile, the footnote has been changed to “The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic was not consulted on the Parameters and Principles of UN Assistance in Syria". This is a brilliant diplomatic move, but does little to solve the fundamental dilemma and the obsolescence of the CPD concept.
More Insights from Outside the Bubble
Detlef can be contacted via detlefpalm55@gmail.com
Thanks, Detlef! The UN and UNICEF, at country level, as a sidecar with money for projects driven by governments, is making our organization irrelevant. UNICEF should support projects and policies in accordance with the observations and recommendations of the UN Committee on the rights of the child, regardless of governments priorities. In all countries there are organizations believing in the principles and values of the CDC and they should be our counterparts, not those who govern -not for children- but to win next elections.
ReplyDeleteThanks Bernt, 👍👍👍
ReplyDeleteI was always under the impression that UNICEF would assist national governments’ priorities where they aligned themselves with UNICEF priorities, such as the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. If they didn’t agree, UNICEF had every right to decline their support.
ReplyDeleteDon’t tell me that some UNICEF Country Offices simply passed the money on for dubious political projects, unchallenged ?
Upon joining UNICEF in 1976, one of the first things I heard was that UNDP had accepted the recommendations (Jackson et al) that it should accept whatever priorities any particular country's planning commission dictated. I feel that any UN agency should be entitled to have its own reason for existence and its policies.
ReplyDeleteHow can UNICEF aid children on both sides of civil strife/war, if it's only following the priorities of the government of the day. Way back in time I noticed there were staff in UNICEF that seemed to feel that it should become more like UNDP in adhering more closely to government and local political favorite themes.
I felt that would be (or was) a mistake.