Membership

Forum 2003: Address as Delivered by
Shashi Tharoor, Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, United Nations

Washington D.C.
May 19, 2002

Thank you very much for that generous introduction. [Joke]

It is most pleasant to be amongst friends and partners in Washington. We from the UN are so often confronted here with a cynically negative attitude about the UN. I once asked a distinguished Washingtonian what lay behind all the hostility towards the UN: was it ignorance or was it apathy? He replied: "I don't know, and I don't care." Which rather explains the problem. But all of you are here today because you want to know, and you already care. And I'm most grateful for the efforts of InterAction and its partners to bring us together.

[Hen and pig story]
I hope I can provide some insights from a United Nations perspective into the complex challenges of building global commitments in support of the United Nations and our NGO partners in our common humanitarian and development goals. Both development and humanitarian assistance are of course central to our common agendas, though we go about our work in very different ways.

I would like today to focus on three points. First, I would like to examine the conceptual underpinnings of the United Nations' role and your work as NGOs at a time when the very relevance of the United Nations is being challenged. I believe that our best response to our critics is to demonstrate why we are essential, through our ability and effectiveness in meeting the challenges before us.

Second, I am convinced that today's challenges can be undertaken successfully only if the United Nations deepens the remarkable partnerships that we now have with the NGO community. This is a longstanding collaboration between the UN and NGOs, tested repeatedly over the years, constantly evolving and changing. The great challenge before us today is how to secure the commitment of a divided world community to our efforts, at a time when Iraq has proved to be weapon of mass distraction.

Third, I would like to highlight some of the practical issues involved in this UN/NGO partnership, emphasizing the need for greater communication and coordination between the UN and its NGO partners. I will touch on how we are working together, and briefly review the many other relationships that we must nurture.

All three points will be woven through my remarks, but let me begin with the structure of our partnership. Most of your agencies and the Organization I represent emerged from the same impulses - a reaction to the horrors that had convulsed the world in the first half of the 20th century. In and after 1945, a group of far-sighted leaders were determined to make the second half of the century different from the first. They saw that the human race had only one world to live in, and that unless it managed its affairs more prudently, all human beings would suffer. Indeed, all might perish.

So they drew up rules to govern international behaviour, and they founded institutions in which different nations could co-operate for the common good. The keystone of the arch, so to speak, charged with keeping the peace between all nations and bringing all of them together in the quest for freedom and prosperity, was the United Nations itself. The UN was seen explicitly by visionaries like Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the only possible alternative to the disastrous experiences of the first half of the century.

The UN stood for a world in which people of different nations and cultures looked on each other, not as subjects of fear and suspicion but as potential partners, able to exchange goods and ideas to their mutual benefit. In this, the work of non-governmental organizations was vital, knitting together the strands of civil society just as the United Nations sought to forge together the bonds of intergovernmental co-operation.

Indeed, the partnership between the United Nations and civil society, the development and humanitarian-related NGOs in particular, has never been stronger. Our longstanding relationship has been reinforced by major trends in recent years.

For many reasons, the last decade has witnessed an upsurge in cooperation between the United Nations and civil society. The cycle of major United Nations conferences, counting on ever-growing input from NGOs, set an ambitious agenda for human development in the new century. The post-Cold War Security Council achieved unprecedented unity in its work. The adoption of the Millennium Development Goals - or MDGs as they are known in UN parlance - at the largest gathering in human history of Heads of State and Government - the Millennium Summit in September 2000, heralded a unique confluence of international political will. There is some public pressure to finally implement policies and programmes that would break the status quo of extreme poverty, endemic conflict and despair.

Today, however, there is growing concern that the post cold-war world might veer away from multilateral cooperation: the faltering unity of the Security Council, the North/South divide, the information technology gap, the alienation between cultures and generations and an upsurge in intolerance and aggression threaten the progress we have achieved.
Of particular concern to all of us gathered here, scarce resources continue to be diverted from social programmes to war and national security expenditures. The United Nations and its development partners are forced to re-channel human and financial resources from long-term development efforts to cope with humanitarian disasters caused in large part by man-made conflicts. These are the very resources that are essential to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals are implemented in the coming decade.
So you can imagine how I felt when, a few weeks ago, at the height of the debates in the Security Council about whether or not to authorize war on Iraq, a BBC interviewer rather glibly asked me, "So how does the UN feel about being seen as the 'i' word -- irrelevant?"

He was about to go on when I interrupted him. "As far as we're concerned," I retorted, "the 'i' word is 'indispensable'."

It wasn't just a debating point. Those of us who toil every day at the Headquarters of the United Nations have become a little exasperated at seeing our institutional obituaries in the press.

The authorization (or not) of war is not the only gauge of the United Nations' relevance to any particular situation. Just four years ago, the NATO alliance bombed Yugoslavia over its Government's conduct in Kosovo, without the approval of, or even reference to, the Security Council. My interviewer's "i" word was heard widely in those days -- Kosovo, it was said, had demonstrated the UN's irrelevance. But the issue of Kosovo returned to the Security Council, not just when an unsuccessful attempt to condemn that bombing failed, but when arrangements had to be found to administer Kosovo after the war. Only the Security Council could approve those arrangements in a way that conferred international legitimacy upon them and encouraged all nations to extend support and resources to the enterprise. And only one body could be entrusted with the responsibility to run the civilian administration of Kosovo: the United Nations.

I am not suggesting that the UN will be offered, or would wish to take on, such a task in a post-war Iraq. Various ideas are being discussed these days about the "vital" role the UN may be called upon to play there. The nature of that role will depend upon what mandate the Security Council agrees to give us. [One of my favourite stories about the SC is of the American diplomat and the French diplomat... Whatever the Security Council works out will have to work both in theory and in practice.] But whatever the outcome, it is important to remember that this would not be the first time the United Nations was written off during a war, only to be found essential to the ensuing peace.

In penning the premature epitaphs for the UN it is important to keep in mind that the relevance of the United Nations does not stand or fall on its conduct on one issue alone.

No doubt that the decisions taken by the Security Council on Iraq are of vital importance to the UN's role in maintaining international peace and security and determining its role during this post-conflict period. But when this crisis has passed, the world will still be facing, to use Secretary-General Kofi Annan's phrase, innumerable "problems without passports", problems of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, of the degradation of our common environment, of contagious disease and chronic starvation, of human rights and human wrongs, of mass illiteracy and massive displacement.
These are problems that no one country, however powerful, can solve on its own. They are the shared responsibility of humankind. The United Nations exists to find solutions through the common endeavour of all States. It is the one indispensable global organisation in our globalising world. It has sometimes been too divided to succeed. But the United Nations, at its best, is a mirror of the world: it reflects our divisions and disagreements as well as our hopes and convictions.

The exact role that United Nations is to play in the post-war recovery and reconstruction in Iraq will be decided by the Security Council. The Security Council continues its deliberations on a resolution as I speak. The UN has not, of course, needed any additional authorization to continue our humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, in close partnership with NGOs. The Secretary-General is profoundly concerned that the well being of the Iraqi people be given priority attention throughout this country's ongoing ordeal. He is also working ceaselessly to restore the unity of the Security Council.
The Secretary-General has insisted that any role for the UN in Iraq, must be based on respect for the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq: the right of the Iraqi people to freely determine their own political future and control their own natural resources; the need to help the Iraqi people establish conditions for a normal life, and to put an end to Iraq's isolation from the international community; and the need for the UN to be given adequate resources for any tasks that it is asked to undertake.
The issues of independence and impartiality are central to both the United Nations and the NGO community in the sensitive area of humanitarian assistance. I commend the determination of the members of InterAction to stand by these principles, demanding a clear separation of humanitarian assistance operations from the military campaign both during and after the major fighting in Iraq.

The UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, Ramiro Lopes da Silva, has assumed the coordinating role in Baghdad working with 30 NGOs from France, Malaysia, Japan, Italy, Germany and the United States. We are now working with Caritas, CARE International, Direct Relief International, International Committee of the Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, World Vision - and many other major NGO actors. A large number of the NGOs working in Iraq in cooperation with the United Nations are members of InterAction.

Despite the enormous energy that is being poured into Iraq, our attention must also focus on the many other crisis situations in the world in which the UN and NGOs work together. Nation building proceeds fitfully in Afghanistan, the Balkans and East Timor. Twenty million refugees and displaced persons from Palestine to Liberia and beyond depend on the UN for shelter and succour. Decades of development in Africa are being wiped out by the scourge of HIV/AIDS, and the deadly combination of AIDS, drought and famine in parts of Southern Africa threatens millions.
We at the United Nations are acutely aware of these emergencies. You in the NGO community are acutely aware of these emergencies. We must work together to ensure the media, donor countries, and the public are mobilised to ensure an adequate international response.

Afghanistan, for example, is now largely absent from our TV screens and newspapers - a shift in focus that has occurred long before security and normality has returned for the Afghan people. The magnitude of the needs of this country remains immense.

The UN work in Afghanistan would simply be impossible without the cooperation of our NGO partners. Equally, though, our joint work would not be effective if our efforts were not well coordinated, and carefully planned, in conjunction with local authorities.

Such cooperation is now a reality worldwide. There is extraordinary coordination of humanitarian efforts between UN and NGOs that are part of InterAction, the largest alliance of US-based international development and humanitarian NGOs. I would like to particularly commend InterAction's Global Partnership for Effective Assistance, an initiative started in February 2002. Its aim is to save lives and build self-sufficiency by increasing development and humanitarian assistance, improving aid effectiveness, and building international partnerships.

The UN supports such efforts wholeheartedly. It shares InterAction's views that non-governmental organizations with experience on the ground are critical to achieving those goals and absolutely crucial in meeting the targets set in the Millennium Development Goals, especially in integrating them into meaningful and viable campaigns at the national and local levels. Yet, we all know that the resources needed to eliminate poverty, to bring girls into school, to promote health and clean drinking water, are not being made available at the levels required.

What can we do?
None of the MDG goals can be met without the support of ordinary people around the world, the informed publics who build and sustain the political will of their Governments. You, the members of InterAction, can inspire popular civil society campaigns and ensure that these global goals have an impact on the daily lives of people. And you can pressure governments to honour their commitments - because you are one of the most effective lobbying groups available to mobilize the needed resources and support for humanitarian work.

No one in the NGO community or at the United Nations wants to maintain a huge humanitarian response system. Our preferred business is development. It is profoundly disturbing to all of us to witness an unfolding conflict, knowing that years, even decades of economic and social development will be destroyed together with the lives and livelihoods of innocent people. Our only hope is that we can implement effective forms of intervention that enable us to move quickly out of emergencies and back to sustainable development.

Many NGOs now specialize in intervening in humanitarian emergencies. They are on the ground often before we are, providing essential early-warning information of impending crises and a deeper insight into the societies in which we must operate. We are not ashamed to admit that we can and do learn a great deal from NGOs. Let us talk to each other much more - at all levels, and on all issues.

For we have a great deal in common, and we are increasingly co-ordinating our responses. UN and NGO humanitarian staff face the same risks in the field - far too many relief and development workers have tragically lost their lives. The UN Security Coordinator works closely at Headquarters and in the field with InterAction on security issues to minimize these risks. Similarly, in peace-keeping, we have also developed innovative security and coordination procedures over several years of close work with NGOs in the field. The United Nations and our NGO partners have worked together to establish common policies and practices - for example, on the issue of the sexual exploitation of women and children by aid workers, on the education of girls and work for women in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. These models provide a solid basis for future work. Lenin used to say "there is no co-ordination without subordination". I believe the UN and NGOs can prove otherwise.

Today there are probably more than 10,000 NGOs working with the United Nations worldwide. The numbers are growing so fast that a definite number is elusive.

Fourteen hundred NGOs work with my Department of Public Information alone. Tens of thousands have played a key role in the world conference cycle and more continue to do so in follow up processes. Over 2,000 NGOs have consultative status with the United Nations through the UN Economic and Social Council. Many Departments, Specialized Agencies and Funds and Programmes also work independently with thousands of international, national and local NGOs, mainly through development and humanitarian operations in the field. Of the 30-odd major UN offices and agencies worldwide, there is not one that does not have an NGO liaison operation.

Recognizing the huge expectations that are being raised by these partnerships, the Secretary-General recently appointed a high-level panel of eminent persons on UN/Civil Society Relations, chaired by the former president of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. By early next year, this panel is expected to report on the many ways that the UN interacts with civil society, particularly NGOs, and provide recommendations as to how to deepen these partnerships, and replicate those that work well.

This growing relationship is exciting and, arguably, holds the key to the continued effectiveness of the UN in todays's world. All of you in InterAction embody the conviction that it is simply not realistic to think only in terms of your own country. Global forces press in from every conceivable direction. We are all being influenced by the same tides of change. People, goods, ideas and services cross borders and cover vast distances with ever greater frequency, speed and ease. We are increasingly connected through travel, trade, the Internet; what we watch, what we eat and even the games we play.

In such a world, issues that once seemed very far away are very much in your backyard. What happens in South America or Southern Africa - from democratic advances to deforestation to the fight against AIDS -- can affect your lives here in the United States. And your choices here - what you buy, how you vote -- can resound far away. As someone once said about water pollution, we all live downstream.

This interdependence generates a host of new and urgent demands. Towns and villages have their planning boards, fire departments and recycling centres. Nations have their legislatures and judicial bodies. Our globalizing world also needs institutions and standards.
I am not talking about world government; such an idea is neither practical or desirable in today's world. I mean laws and norms that countries negotiate together, and agree to uphold as the "rules of the road". And I mean a forum where sovereign states can come together to share burdens, address common problems and seize common opportunities. That forum is the United Nations.

Global challenges demand global solutions. Our jobs depend not only on local firms and factories, but on faraway markets for the goods they produce. Our safety depends not only on local police forces, but on guarding against the global spread of pollution, disease, illegal drugs and weapons of mass destruction. When the tragic horror of 9/11 hit the United States, it was the UN Security Council that passed two vital resolutions which provided the international framework for the global battle against terrorism.

The fact is that the United Nations does help establish the norms that the United States too would like to see the world live by. People and nations around the globe retain the hope of strengthening the foundations of stability, and uniting around common values. The United Nations, for all its imperfections, real and perceived, has built up unique experience, much of it in partnership with NGOs. It has brought humanitarian relief to millions in need, and helped people to rebuild their countries from the ruins of armed conflict. It has fought poverty, protected the rights of children, promoted democracy and raised the profile of environmental issues. In the name of our common humanity, we need to build on that experience.

No, we are not perfect. As Dag Hammarskjöld, the UN's remarkable second Secretary-General, put it, the United Nations was not created to take mankind to paradise, but merely to save humanity from hell.

As it attempts to do so, the United Nations provides an indispensable forum to bring states together to tackle the great problems of our time. There is no doubt that multilateralism has made the world a safer and better place for states and peoples alike. We must work together to ensure that people understand the many ways in which the global interest is the national interest; how the individual interests of states are often more effectively pursued in concert with others; and how a rule-based international order will provide each member with greater security and greater prosperity.

Dag Hammarskjold once described the United Nations as an adventure, a new "Santa Maria", to use the name of Columbus' ship, battling its way through many a storm. But, he said, on the shore there were people who blame the storm on the ship. Five decades later, the metaphor sadly still holds true. The UN continues to sail in uncharted waters, but it is blamed for the squalls that assail it. Yet, if we continue to be guided by the compass of our determination to live in a world governed by shared values and common rules, and to steer together in the multilateral institutions that enlightened leaders of the last century have bequeathed to us, then indeed we can explore the hopes of the UN's founding fathers, and fulfil the continuing adventure of making this century better than the last. [Adam and Eve story.]

I am enormously gratified to know we have partners like you to face these challenges together.
[Indian night/dawn story]

There has been many a dark night for humanity in the century that has just passed - let us work together for a new dawn in the new century.

Thank you.