1. More than 30 organizations comprise the UN Development System (UNDS). Virtually all are members of the UN Development Group (UNDG), but comprise a ‘system’ in name only since each operates autonomously. Many, therefore, set aside the word ‘system’ in favor of ‘family’, because the UN is, in that sense, a bit dysfunctional. Each organization guards its independence fiercely, even though most report to the General Assembly and many are under the authority of the Secretary General. Funding patterns are the prime cause of atomization. As core resources havestagnated, all UN organizations have pursued ‘extra-budgetary’ funding for operational activities, often from the same donors, in reality thus chasing what, in reality, are earmarked (specifically assigned) monies.*
*: With 80% of resources being non-core (not contributed by member states), it is not unfair to characterize the members of the UNDS as sub-contractors. Has the UN come to resemble a consultancy firm–essentially an adjunct to bilateral (country-to-country) and other multilateral assistance? The more UN organizations serve as the agents of funding sources, the more rapidly will they be marginalized by those sources of funds. Bottom line is that UN agencies should not be distracted by indiscriminately following donor money.
2. Importantly, on the other hand, the United Nations is an under-appreciated source of development wisdom. It is no exaggeration that many UN ideas have ‘changed the world’ –human rights (HR) not the least of them. The UN has attracted some of the most creative minds laboring in the development vineyards.
3. Therefore, discussions of reforming the UN should rather be about ‘how’ and not ‘whether’, more and more, aiming at greater synergy around HR principles. Why? Because competition among UN organizations works against them coming together under the key HR paradigm. They wrongly perceive they have had more to gain in visibility, resources and reputation by going it alone.
4. But by going it alone, the UN agenda continues to reflect the outmoded North–South theater that began with the rapid decolonization process of 50 years ago, for sure aided by the dubious wisdom of sectoral summitry in the last 25 years.
5. The top-down approach of the above theater has divided the complex development process into sectoral silos: fix the economy, boost the social sector, and manage the environment. Any effort at integration within the existing disparate and disputed system is to be welcomed, but the proliferation of integrated approaches often involves additional transaction costs, as organizations establish cumbersome coordination arrangements with little benefit, either to themselves or to recipient countries. The sectoral approach inevitably creates orphans, importantly such as democratic governance and HR.Moreover, thisleads to situations where responsibilities are expressed in terms of fulfilling human needs, or ‘developmental requirements’, but not in terms of society’s obligation to respond to the inalienable rights of individuals. Demanding such rights, we know, empowers people to demand justice as a right, not as charity, and gives communities a moral basis from which to claim international assistance where and as needed. (Kofi Annan, 1998)
6. Both democratic governance and HR are left out when focusing on sectors. Why? Because they are considered politically ‘toxic’ in consensus-seeking-UN-gatherings.But the United Nations better, once and for all, focuses on assisting countries to comply with global HR norms and conventions that UN member states, have agreed-to (and ratified), but for which compliance remains more than elusive.
7. When the UN convenes key working groups to work on important development problems, these bodies unfortunately too often comprise mainly non-specialist diplomats. In by-now-classical-UN-tradition, these working groups will favor continuity over originality and innovation; and they will endorse a set of goals within which all existing UN organizations can find their place and defend acquired turf and mandates. All organizations will thus find a way to fashion their future programs within this framework, leading us to expect a replication of development assistance as delivered since the 1960s. But is ‘more of the same’ what the world needs? A UN system that continues to be ineffectivelydevelopment-assistance-driven? …when traditional forms of aid are not working?** The focus should rather be on the quality of domestic governance, on institutions and ultimately on respecting HR, no?
**: “When the conditions for development are present, aid is not required. When local conditions are hostile to development, aid is not useful, and it will do harm if it perpetuates these conditions”. (Angus Deaton)
8. No use to continue following myriad technical assistance avenues with limited impact; the UN should pursue its comparative advantages, i.e., keeping its role in peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance, in building inclusive institutions of justice, HR and sound governance,in short, ‘promoting the values, principles, norms and standards of the United Nations Charter…and…supporting member states to integrate these international norms into national policies’ (Ban Ki Moon) [I would add ensuring compliance with the same; always raising the issue of compliance!].
9. The UN must return to being the custodian of universal norms and standards, primarily human rights and then technical standards. Above all, it is to be foremost people-centered and driven by its founders’ vision to promote freedom from want and freedom from fear.***
***: In 2012,the UN launched a global electronic platform called ‘The World We Want’. Based on over a million responses, the main message received was ‘a call for a new agenda built on human rights, and universal values of equality, justice and security”. Calls for better governance underpinned many of the calls made. Intriguingly, there was a strong call to not only capture the momentum generated by the MDGs, but also to bring in additional areas and principles from the MillenniumDeclaration from which the MDGs were simplistically excerpted. [It is now clear the UNhas notused the results of this poll in the now completed intergovernmental process formulating the new post 2015 development agenda!]. But the call from the public the world over for a people-centered approach is unmistakable.(All the above adapted from S. Browne and T.G. Weiss)
So, is the UN we want right for the world we want?
10. This issue is often discussed and debated at far too high a level of abstraction, and just about always, using complicated jargon. The discussion generally does not unequivocally relate to the realities on the ground. But the question of focus might not be a matter of either-or, but of both. What is clear is that the UN will not go away in the foreseeable future; it will be a key actor and it will have potential influence over the states and state agents who will continue to have a lot of influence over the lives of people where they live. But we just said that the UN has, up to this point, been on the road to continuing acting following its old manners –having much less beneficial impact than what it might have on development matters. Bottom-up, top-supported has not worked. There is still a shocking lack of well-demonstrated and well-communicated models of living well together, adaptable to different circumstances and contingencies. We all, hopefully, retain the hope that the UN has something to offer to this effort into the future. It is time to put much more attention on the myriad bottom-up processes. (David Parker)
ClaudioSchuftan, HoChi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org