Editor's Note: Fritz Lherisson responded to Kul Gautam's post of 13 October "Quo vadis UN@80?". We would normally post a comment under the original article, but due to the length of Fritz's response, we are posting it separately. Click on the link above to see Kul's article.
Such a long time I haven't heard from you. It is indeed thoughtful of you to share with me your article in IPS Quo Vadis UN@ 80 that I have read with great interest. I am sorry to react only now. I like the title. I want to warmly congratulate you for these candid reflections on the UN namely its failures and the causes, the challenges it faces in today’s world highlighting as well its importance as a multilateral institution but that needs to transform itself and the way it works to remain relevant. You have critically examined the complexities of UN and come up with a view towards the future namely UN evolving role in a new world that requires hard reforms, renewed vision and mission, restructuring and accountability. You were able in a skillful way to balance criticism with hope. This deserves our congratulations.
Your reflection triggers a sentiment that many people around the world are also feeling as UN is celebrating its 80th anniversary. One can say the contrast between the UN aspirations in 1945 and the current situation in today’s world is indeed stark. As you said the UN charter promises peace, democracy, development, human rights and international cooperation. But today wars rage in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan; they are still conflicts in Myanmar, gangs’ warfare in Haiti. Democracy is a vain word in many countries; human rights are violated every day like the restrictions on women rights imposed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Likewise, climate change, migration and inequality are the ills of today’s world.
While one recognizes as you said that there have been some modest achievements in some areas namely: I/ setting of global goals ( MDGs, SDGs) that provide a vision for development and progress ii/ humanitarian relief and iii/peace keeping missions but not all I must say like those in Rwanda, Haiti and DRC where a UN peace keeping mission has been since 1961 right after its independence and it is still there.
Unfortunately, these success stories are overshadowed by the UNSC veto power of the P5 members. In the area of development permit me to say that UN contribution in my opinion is modest mainly because of a lack of commitment and accountability by some recipient governments. In sum Kul we live in a tumultuous world where wars and conflicts persist , human rights are routinely violated and inequality endures in the absence of social justice.
Given these shortfalls many people feel that “UN has not evolved fast or boldly enough to rise to the challenges of today’s world”. The credibility of UN is seriously being questioned. The world has changed. The UN of 1945 must change as it has shown its inability among others to prevent conflicts and stop wars- some of them triggered off and supported by some of the veto powers of the UNSC. What hypocrisy! One can say that the UN charter is being violated by its P5 members of the Security Council and no sanction like expulsion is in place. A serious dilemma of the UN.
I entirely agree with you Kul that UN as a multilateral institution is very much needed. But a new UN. The world has changed. The UN of 1945 that has not seen over the past years any transformation or alteration of direction must change with a new vision, mission, strategy, objectives, and priority areas of work that will lead to its restructuring and repositioning. In sum a UN fitted to the realities of the new world; a UN fit for purpose I must say. This would be a strong message to the public in general and the donors that UN is transforming itself and the way it does business. In sum a UN better focused to address the challenges of the changing world and deliver results. In my opinion this is what the UN @80 should have delivered of course with a broader participation and longer consultation. A missed opportunity I must say.
I recall that you have made on several occasions an appeal to the UNSG to be more proactive elevating his subtle diplomacy focusing on humanitarian assistance to more visible shuttle diplomacy reaching out to the more influential leaders to reaffirm the UN credibility. However, as we have noted your calls are not heard. As a result, for example UN was not invited to participate in the negotiations that have led to the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel. UNSG was invited with other leaders of the world to the signing ceremony of the agreement by the four negotiators in Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt. In my opinion UNSG could have been given the opportunity as Head of the UN to sign not the agreement itself but as a witness of the signatures. Furthermore UNSG was assigned a seat far away hidden behind other participants. What a disgraceful way to treat the Head of UN. It should be recognized in passing that there have been before several UNGA resolutions calling for a ceasefire In Gaza but they were blocked at the UNSC by one of the P5. A pity for the UN indeed, the result of procrastinations and power play among the P5 members of UNSC particularly these three: China, USA and USSR. The veto power I should say is the Achilles’ heel of the UN that should disappear in a new UN. It is everyone’s wish.
It is agreed that a restructured UN with a new vision and mission is needed in today’s world but with a different leadership. The new UN would require a leader -man or woman – with vision , courage, proven diplomatic and negotiating skills and politically savvy. Someone with a strategic mind capable of seizing opportunity when it arises, proven diplomatic and negotiating skills and not afraid to give his/her views to political leaders and members of the UNSC if it continues to exist after the reform. In this regard I am thinking of the interventions of these two UNSGs :
i/ the courage of Dag Hammarskjold who in the case of the Congo Kinshasa political crisis in 1961 right after independence with the rebellion of leaders of different provinces threatening the secession of the country with resulting bloodshed. He took the decision to travel to Congo to negotiate peace with the belligerents and avoid the secession of the country despite the firm opposition of a P5 member of the UNSC. That was leadership and courage at their best. Unfortunately, he has lost his life as his plane crashed while landing at the airport. Don’t ask me who was behind this terrible incident.
Ii/ The other example of diplomacy and courage is the role played by UNSG U Thant in the Cuban missile crisis intervening with both Presidents Kennedy and Khrushchev using his diplomatic and negotiating skills and also the weight of UN at that time and thus averted a nuclear war between Russia and USA.
These are striking examples of proactive leadership, diplomacy, courage, vision, commitment, good understanding of politics and negotiating skills; qualities required from UNSG in general.
Finally, Kul UN is celebrating its 80th anniversary in a world full of challenges different from those of 1945 and expectations for tangible results. Looking back with hindsight not much was accomplished. As mentioned above a real restructuring of UN based on the definition of a renewed vision of the world and its mission is required to reposition UN and make it fit for purpose in today’s world.
As regards UN@80 in my humble opinion it appears that the work done has just scratched the surface to come up with a proposal given the financial problem facing UN in general . No vision, no mission, no goal, no strategy and priority areas of work that would have led to a new UN relevant to today’s world with a look toward the future were defined.
My apologies Kul, to extend so much in my reaction to your article that has inspired me to go at such length. It was the fault of the title Quo Vadis UN@80.
Warm regards
Fritz
Given these shortfalls many people feel that “UN has not evolved fast or boldly enough to rise to the challenges of today’s world”. The credibility of UN is seriously being questioned. The world has changed. The UN of 1945 must change as it has shown its inability among others to prevent conflicts and stop wars- some of them triggered off and supported by some of the veto powers of the UNSC. What hypocrisy! One can say that the UN charter is being violated by its P5 members of the Security Council and no sanction like expulsion is in place. A serious dilemma of the UN.
I entirely agree with you Kul that UN as a multilateral institution is very much needed. But a new UN. The world has changed. The UN of 1945 that has not seen over the past years any transformation or alteration of direction must change with a new vision, mission, strategy, objectives, and priority areas of work that will lead to its restructuring and repositioning. In sum a UN fitted to the realities of the new world; a UN fit for purpose I must say. This would be a strong message to the public in general and the donors that UN is transforming itself and the way it does business. In sum a UN better focused to address the challenges of the changing world and deliver results. In my opinion this is what the UN @80 should have delivered of course with a broader participation and longer consultation. A missed opportunity I must say.
I recall that you have made on several occasions an appeal to the UNSG to be more proactive elevating his subtle diplomacy focusing on humanitarian assistance to more visible shuttle diplomacy reaching out to the more influential leaders to reaffirm the UN credibility. However, as we have noted your calls are not heard. As a result, for example UN was not invited to participate in the negotiations that have led to the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel. UNSG was invited with other leaders of the world to the signing ceremony of the agreement by the four negotiators in Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt. In my opinion UNSG could have been given the opportunity as Head of the UN to sign not the agreement itself but as a witness of the signatures. Furthermore UNSG was assigned a seat far away hidden behind other participants. What a disgraceful way to treat the Head of UN. It should be recognized in passing that there have been before several UNGA resolutions calling for a ceasefire In Gaza but they were blocked at the UNSC by one of the P5. A pity for the UN indeed, the result of procrastinations and power play among the P5 members of UNSC particularly these three: China, USA and USSR. The veto power I should say is the Achilles’ heel of the UN that should disappear in a new UN. It is everyone’s wish.
It is agreed that a restructured UN with a new vision and mission is needed in today’s world but with a different leadership. The new UN would require a leader -man or woman – with vision , courage, proven diplomatic and negotiating skills and politically savvy. Someone with a strategic mind capable of seizing opportunity when it arises, proven diplomatic and negotiating skills and not afraid to give his/her views to political leaders and members of the UNSC if it continues to exist after the reform. In this regard I am thinking of the interventions of these two UNSGs :
i/ the courage of Dag Hammarskjold who in the case of the Congo Kinshasa political crisis in 1961 right after independence with the rebellion of leaders of different provinces threatening the secession of the country with resulting bloodshed. He took the decision to travel to Congo to negotiate peace with the belligerents and avoid the secession of the country despite the firm opposition of a P5 member of the UNSC. That was leadership and courage at their best. Unfortunately, he has lost his life as his plane crashed while landing at the airport. Don’t ask me who was behind this terrible incident.
Ii/ The other example of diplomacy and courage is the role played by UNSG U Thant in the Cuban missile crisis intervening with both Presidents Kennedy and Khrushchev using his diplomatic and negotiating skills and also the weight of UN at that time and thus averted a nuclear war between Russia and USA.
These are striking examples of proactive leadership, diplomacy, courage, vision, commitment, good understanding of politics and negotiating skills; qualities required from UNSG in general.
Finally, Kul UN is celebrating its 80th anniversary in a world full of challenges different from those of 1945 and expectations for tangible results. Looking back with hindsight not much was accomplished. As mentioned above a real restructuring of UN based on the definition of a renewed vision of the world and its mission is required to reposition UN and make it fit for purpose in today’s world.
As regards UN@80 in my humble opinion it appears that the work done has just scratched the surface to come up with a proposal given the financial problem facing UN in general . No vision, no mission, no goal, no strategy and priority areas of work that would have led to a new UN relevant to today’s world with a look toward the future were defined.
My apologies Kul, to extend so much in my reaction to your article that has inspired me to go at such length. It was the fault of the title Quo Vadis UN@80.
Warm regards
Fritz
thanks for this wisdom Fritza and Kul - i am days away from retirement. The UN is nearly irrelevant these days and very far from being "fit for purpose". We have extremely mediocre UNRCs "leading" even less mediocre teams of UN agency Reps - with a few exceptional people in the mix - but largely full of mediocre people steeped in nepotism and full of themselves. It is like a ship is sinking and the UNRC (or on a bigger ship - the SG) is the captain and he is somehow fixated on where the violin player is sitting vs the cello and what kind of music goes best with the happy hour drinks. The SHIP IS GOING DOWN - will we land in a lifeboat and find our way to safety - or just become chum for the sharks. As we cut 1000s and 1000s of posts in UNICEF and elsewhere in the UN - we are gutting the crew of the ship - maybe the most functional crew members whom we really need are losing their job - while the ones with more stripes on their uniform are protected - but they no longer know how many scoops of coal it takes to fire up the engine or how to read a compass or what to do when the ships toilet is clogged. We are adrift - we need to find that lifeboat - and charter our way back to dry land - and re-think about our journey.
ReplyDeleteThat is a stark assessment of the situation, regrettable it might be quite accurate. Would it be appropriate if we asked ourselves how we got here? Every professional development worker must have seen, a quarter of a century ago, that development aid did not achieve its goal. Almost all countries in Africa, where most UN's development work took place, were falling further behind the rest of the world. One did not need any expertise in development economics to figure out that Africa's share of the global GDP was shrinking. After all, GDP per capita is the key indicator for development. We were clinging to micro indicators to justify our existence, rather than standing up and saying: THIS DOES NOT WORK.
ReplyDelete