Home arrow Publications arrow A “NEW DEAL” FOR THE UNITED NATIONS - let’s try again!
A “NEW DEAL” FOR THE UNITED NATIONS - let’s try again! PDF Print E-mail
By Colum de Sales Murphy

The United Nations needs reform. And it needs entrepreneurship. We need also to reform the international political system. Finally, we need to reform human behaviour. Since, realistically, the latter two are not about to be reformed anytime soon, it is fitting  -  and urgent  -  that we look hard, again, at the United Nations. It is the only institution of its kind. Anyway, it ain’t going to go away, nor should it. It is, after all, family. We need far-sighted leadership. If they were alive today, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt might well say that the UN needs nothing less than a New Deal. And Republican Abraham Lincoln might ask whether this Union (of Nations) can long endure, a new organization “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”. But each president would be determined, surely, that the millions tragically killed in war  -  inspiration for the creation of the UN  -  have not died in vain.

They might well rail against bureaucracy. Yet each might also point out that the Great Powers have far larger bureaucracies that does the UN. (The budget of the Fire Department of the city of Chicago is larger than the regular budget of the little UN! To mix metaphors, this is no way to run a railroad). Moreover, it’s somewhat unjust to blame the vehicle when, so often, it is the drivers who are at fault. Still, since mortal danger lies ahead in this 21st century, and since the UN is the only such global institution we have, it’s understandable that we address the failings of the vehicle  -   its mechanics, its structure and its management.

Before talking of reform it is useful to say that the UN is little more than a reflection of the troubling state of the world. Like families, however, it can  -  and often needs to be  -  more than simply the sum of its members. It’s also useful to understand that gardening is a more useful metaphor than mechanics when one is talking international politics. One cannot shout “grow faster”  at the roses. Nature has its rhythms. But if one plants intelligently, one is rewarded with miracles. Since everything under heaven has its seasons, essential for the UN is the possibility of regular restructuring and planting  -  built into the system, as it were.

That being said, the urgency of reform needs to be better understood. In the fifth century B.C., it was Sparta (militaristic, secretive, enemy of human rights) that won the Peloponnesian War, as Thucydides tells us - and not because of Spartan genius but largely because of the mistakes made by Athens. In the latter part of the 20th century it was the West/Athens that won - largely because of both Western skill and Soviet ideology and mistakes. Score one loss for democracy but a re-match win for human rights.

New struggles now lie ahead of us, between East and West, North and South. These promise to be extremely urgent, dangerous, and like nothing the planet has ever seen before. It is essential that each side, and common sense, wins. It is in the interests  -  the absolute Core Interests  -  of each side, and all humanity, that violent solutions (and the most horrendous of wars) absolutely be avoided. It is not at all certain which “side” will “win”. The human family must win.

To take the East-West potential struggle first. China, as we all know, is an ancient civilization with much to teach the world. The Chinese are a great people with great talent and energy. Their long history is full of lessons for us. Meanwhile, the Western world feels it has contributed greatly to civilization and will go on contributing. We must absolutely ensure, in any East-West struggle, that neither side loses.

In such a dangerous, but potentially peaceful future, the United Nations is going to be dearly needed. In managing the future, we are going to need all the help we can get. The United Nations has a vital role to play in explaining one side to the other in a manner that allows each side to save face.

Before returning to this key element of the future let us say a few words about the North-South divide. Globalization is not something we decide or do not decide to have. It is here whether we like it or not. It is likely, however, to help different people at different speeds. Initially, it will deepen and widen the gulf between many of the poor and many of the newly rich. Just as the Industrial Revolution also created a new underclass that drew the attention of Karl Marx (and hence our modern Cold War), the new social inequalities stemming from globalization will bring new political instabilities that will need to be managed. Time to apply “globecraft” (a word we invented precisely for this at the Geneva School of Diplomacy).

Add the North-South cleavage to the growing East-West divide and we have a new formula for instability and great danger in the 21st century. Add to that again the dramatic damage we are doing to the only planet we have and the need for ever stronger international institutions and conflict resolution mechanisms becomes more, not less, urgent.

But first, the subject of reform. In an ever-flatter world President Franklin Roosevelt, were he alive today, might well assert that a new coalition of the powerful and the powerless is needed. President Lincoln might well point to bolder means of protecting freedom and the individual in ever-larger measure. As slavery mutates to new forms, he might well approve of the new UN Human Rights Council. But the union of nations itself must endure.

The good news is that Mr/Mrs EveryGuy is ready to join a new coalition - because he/she knows that this new globalization business has not been trickling down in equal measure and at the same pace for all. The machinery of international diplomacy needs an overhaul. The world body is overdue for its 100,000 kilometres service. But the vehicle itself is as desperately needed as ever. And Mr/Mrs EveryGuy deserves more than hitch-hiking.

The main bodies of the United Nations are the Security Council and the General Assembly. The virtues and flaws of each have been scrutinized for decades. The Security Council needs, of course, to be enlarged. As candidates for a permanent seat, different countries have been discussed, among them Brazil, Mexico, Japan, India, Germany, the European Union, and so on. In the General Assembly, ways and means have been examined to prevent the Assembly from being only a talk shop. Its virtues are actually quite clear: it is the one place on the planet where every country, no matter how small or weak, can make its voice heard.

But efficiency and good management, well, that’s another matter. One easily imagines that Presidents Roosevelt and Lincoln would be in favour of both. They might well, though, have different ideas of the size and nature of staff needed for good governance and the enlarging of democracy’s world-writ. But they could easily agree that the UN’s top diplomat needs also to be an entrepreneur. Better still, the Top Diplomat should be both leader and manager.

The entrepreneurial qualities of creativity, far-sightedness, people-skills, business savvy and adaptability will be sore needed in the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. He or she should know about start-up programmes, budgets, managing in difficult times, and a hundred others things quite apart from, and in addition to, the skills required of a leader and a diplomat. All this and a visionary diplomat too? Yes, in an increasingly dangerous and ever-flatter world, others need not apply! We cannot have a UN chief that is all hat and no cattle.

Roosevelt and Lincolnesque skills, in other words, are needed again to return the United Nations to the vision of the world body’s founding fathers.

Founding mothers too. Eleanor Roosevelt’s visionary work resulted in one of the greatest documents ever produced by the human race in all of its millions of years on this unique blue-white planet: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The inspirational sources of the Universal Declaration were legion: from Eastern ideas of harmony and peace to the thinking of European philosophers, British and French writers. A very large influence indeed  -  perhaps the largest  -  was the Constitution of the United States of America, another extraordinarily valuable and significant document in the long march of humankind from barbarity to civility. And the values of the Universal Declaration remain a beacon for the poorest and most marginalised of this same planet’s burgeoning population. It will be surprisingly easy to get these underprivileged to join the benefits of a New Deal that is fairer for all.

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself” said Roosevelt when he launched his attack on the Depression. In a time of terrorism and wars against terrorism the words of President Roosevelt are more relevant than ever. The world must not be panicked by terrorism into forgetting the values of democracy that traditionally won support for the United States itself around the world.

Let’s be clear. Protecting democracy by violating human rights is a consequence of fear. The Constitution of the United States, indeed the whole central meaning of the United States, is about being fearless. In war and peace such leaders as President Roosevelt, President Lincoln and Prime Minister Churchill were fearless.

What then might a New Deal for the United Nations look like?
 
  1. New powers need to be vested in the Secretary-General. He/she needs sometimes to be able to speak for the General Assembly when the General Assembly is too divided to speak well for itself. The Secretary-General, in addition to his/her other duties, needs to be a stronger spokesperson for the General Assembly, for the smaller and weaker of this world.
  2. The Secretary-General needs to be a good manager as well as a good diplomat. He/she should have proven experience in managing - skills that go beyond the mere symbolic or the simple bureaucratic heading up of an office or department. For a new UN, A Top Bureaucrat as Top Diplomat would be deadly.
  3. The New Deal would see a new championing of the very poor and the very weak by a new version of the office of the Secretary-General. In the US historical experience, as with minorities in many countries, African Americans often felt more secure and more protected by federal rather than by state or local government. The weaker members of the United Nations should be able to feel better protected by the Secretary-General than they would by relying on the General Assembly alone. As Secretary-General he/she should have the special powers necessary to redress the balance of the General Assembly versus the Security Council.
  4. The devolution of global responsibilities from UN New York to international agencies in the UN family of organizations should be encouraged. It is, in any case, a more or less natural trend that organizations like the World Health Organization and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees have ever-increasing expertise and freedom to deal with problems in their own bailiwick.
  5. The link between the UN Secretary-General’s office and those of the directors of organizations in the UN family should be strengthened. Weaker, poorer and less-well represented countries can then even better make their case to, say, the World Health Organization. They might thus strengthen their case for assistance in the struggle against HIV/AIDS, for example, knowing that their voices have a direct avenue into the UN Secretary-General’s office also.  
  6. In New Deal fashion, the most powerful actors in the UN must ally themselves now with the weakest. This means enlargement of the Security Council to reflect new realities. It also means, not curtailment of the General Assembly, but the transfer of some of its powers to the Secretary-General. This would make for a slightly less exclusive club in the Security Council and a stronger champion of the General Assembly in the office of the Secretary-General. For issues of a certain magnitude the Council members would still be at the centre of events and comfortable behind their solid veto powers.
  7. In an increasingly globalizing world those who feel left out - whether the vast majority of innocents or the tiny minority of would-be terrorists - need to feel more included. This is a matter of  a) justice and b) direct national security concern. Those few, in various parts of the world, who are tempted to turn to terrorism always feel a sense of “otherness” and exclusion. Their better inclusion is both morally correct and a provider of greater world safety. Fear and exclusion of the “other” is not the way of democracies. It cannot be the way of the UN. It is not the way of safety against terrorism. It is not the Roosevelt or Lincoln way.
  8. It is well that the human rights machinery of the UN is being over-hauled. The over-hauling is long overdue. The United States, by pushing this, has a chance to make the UN more responsive and fair in the face of human rights violations. Its best chance, too, is to show by example what human rights protection means. If it is true that “children can be told little but shown a lot” then the rest of the world will not accept that the Great Powers of the world simply spin their own stories better. And the rest of the world are not children to be lectured to anyway.
  9. The UN is no longer a conference operation situated in a few headquarters locations. With 80,000 peacekeepers in the field, the UN has more than twice as many civilian staff as are employed at Headquarters in New York. The UN is now a dispersed network. With such changes a radical overhaul of the culture and systems of the Secretariat is even more urgently needed. The role of the Deputy Secretary-General needs to be redefined to cope with the needed changes.
  10. Certain key administrative changes need to be made. These include:- creation of the post of Chief Information Technology Officer; creation of new secretariat recruitment policies; the better use of cost/benefit analyses; a shortening of the budget cycle  -  including giving greater budgetary discretion to the Secretary-General; smaller and more workable decision-making processes; and creation of a UN change management capacity. This latter point will be instantly understood by any entrepreneur in the world. And less understood by bureaucrats.

In this regard  -  establishing a change management capacity  -  the UN is certainly not the only organization in need. Every national government has the same problem with its (often very large) bureaucracies. The instinct of the bureaucrat is to entrench himself or herself, to master existing procedures and then settle into a comfortable routine, even if that routine is one of steady hard work. The instinct of the entrepreneur is to instil in staff the same excitement for growth and the pursuit of excellence as he himself or she herself feels. 

It for this reason that, in both politics and in successful organizations, the metaphor of gardening is superior to the metaphor of mechanics. A successful organization will be one in which growth, change and a flowering of good ideas is always possible. The granting of easy tenure and life-long personnel contracts can be deadly to any organization.

In all of this, a confusion in the mind of the public needs to be cleared up: what exactly is the UN anyway? It needs to be better explained and understood that the UN wears different hats. Just as an individual  -   in one and the same person  -   may be father, brother, neighbour, son, carpenter, church goer, and voter, so too the UN is different things, wearing different hats.. The United Nations is, as we just wrote, a bureaucracy, a corporation, a secretariat. It is also a reflection of world political realities, a place where the representatives of every state in the world gather. They debate, they decide. Then it is for that secretariat - a different entity with a different hat - to find the ways and means of implementing these imperfect decisions. Above all, the UN is an organization that must strive to be more than the sum of its parts. As a family is more than the sum of its members, so too the UN must be a living, growing centre of international harmony - a repository of the hopes of billions of people. Hence the need for a change management capacity, itself capable of change and healthy growth.

One thing is certain: the world itself will go on changing. A central problem (of course!) is that life is not fair: some actors are more powerful than others. In the UN, and in the world itself, a vast difference in power separates the Great Powers from the newest, tiniest micro-state. But a common mistake is to assume that it must, therefore, be the babble of voices from small countries that is the irritant and the central problem. History shows that it is the behaviour of the larger powers that calls for the most self-discipline. It is for them to show the way. Their actions are much studied. So it is for them to set an example. It is wise for them to do the most to sustain international institutions, to be the constant gardener -   loyal, far-sighted, respectful of change. And wise.    

The rest of the world must clearly see policies from the Great Powers, towards disputed areas, that are more even-handed; policies on trade around the world that are fairer towards the weak, policies towards economies and the universal drive for prosperity that are about more than simply a wild economic growth that destroys the environment. Civilized and sensible policies - policies that will attract support - need to be fairer and seen to be fairer. Indeed, fairer distribution of wealth is a world priority in terms of war and peace. Gated communities that not only separate the rich from the poor but that treat the poor as forever destined to stay outside the gates are a danger to all citizens. Such exclusion is not the message of the Statue of Liberty. Americans would, nowadays, be very surprised to know how seriously Lady Liberty’s message is still taken around the world. In many ways, more seriously and with more hope than ever. To shut out others is to shut out their hope. It’s all a matter of true confidence in the open society. Of fearful, gated communities, let us say, as Mr. Reagan might, “tear down this wall!”.

Both Franklin Roosevelts, husband and wife, can be imagined as saying that fear is the main thing to be feared, a fear that pushes aside human rights and civil liberties for all in the war against terrorism. And that a handicapped UN, like the handicapped President  himself, pending new medicines of reform, is no bar to its continuance at the centre of political life  -   a fighter for peace, human rights, social justice, and even that document, unequalled in all of history, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights   -  much based, as we said, on the US Constitution. To positive thinking about the future we need only add then the hopeful, but

realistic, note that the UN is not only a reflection of world realities, it is also quite “curable” if we have the political will and the managerial skills.

As to reforming the UN, well, that must become an ongoing and perpetual exercise. Such is life. An organization, like the human body itself, needs constant exercise - needs a constant infusion of faith and a regular workout for its mind and muscles. UN reform must be with us. And UN reform will remain ahead of us. We have no choice but to begin working out with the UN, daily. And to keep using and strengthening the world body, year after year, decade after decade. The alternative is far too dangerous.

Since its inception the UN has saved millions of lives. It may one day save us all from either blowing ourselves up or blowing up the planet itself. In many years in the field, I have myself seen so many tireless UN workers, struggling to help war victims, famine victims, poverty victims, torture victims. Such spirit in action is the very best of the human race. And they  -  these workers, who should know, believe in the UN. Why should we do less?

We need a UN that is lean and fit, disciplined and sure, clear as to what is good and what is evil. We must also see the shades of grey and how things look to the other fellow.

That other signatory of the Atlantic Charter that gave conception to the UN, Winston Churchill, observing such dedicated UN workers in the cause of peace and justice, might well write of them today that “never in the field of human conflict  … have so many owed so much to so few”.

As for that great American Abraham Lincoln, I have no trouble imagining him stricken by the immense number of casualties of World War II and declaring “that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that course for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain … and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

It was President Franklin Roosevelt who, with a stroke of his pen, changed the name “Associated Nations” to “United Nations”. Abraham Lincoln would have instantly understood. And understood that such a union, to endure, needs change -  not an abandoning, but a new infusion of faith. 

President Kennedy might add: “Ask not what the United Nations can do for you. Ask what you can do for the United Nations”.

Having done so much to create it, Franklin Roosevelt would have wanted the United Nations to survive. As a war leader and founding father he would have wanted the UN to learn, to adapt, to grow to maturity. He would certainly not give up. His courage would forbid that. He would welcome reform and constant UN renewal. Great leaders, as well as normal parents, do not abandon their children because they are but half grown.

Those who have actually seen war know that the UN is essential. So let’s imagine a Roosevelt-style UN New Deal.  The founding fathers, the UN itself, and the people of the world, deserve it.


Colum de Sales Murphy is the President of the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations.
He was an officer of the United Nations and the international community for more than thirty years
and served the cause of peace in a number of wars.
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]

Quotes

I read this gripping book through at one sitting. lt is a devastating, but also humane and poignant indictment of the failure of the great powers and the international community over Bosnia. Brilliant! — Brendan Simms, Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge University. Author of Unfinest Hour : Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia.