COMMISSION COMMUNITY

Mary Robinson
United Nations Association of the United States
NATIONAL FORUM ON THE UNITED NATIONS
Plenary Session on the Relevance of the United Nations
Washington, DC - June 26-28, 2003

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to be here in Washington to participate in this National Forum on the United Nations. I would like to thank William Luers for inviting me and everyone at the UN Association of the US for organizing this important event.

In preparing my remarks for today, I have been reflecting on my last speech as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in New York on 9th September last, when I addressed the NGO Annual Forum at the General Assembly on “Rebuilding Societies Emerging from Conflict: A Shared Responsibility”. The United Nations has suffered quite a battering since then. Today, we are asked to reflect on its relevance in a changed world.

There is no need to be too defensive. For all its shortcomings, the UN is as relevant now as it was when created. A recent telling example can be found in the SARS epidemic. It has proved once again – if proof were necessary – that strong and effective global institutions such as the United Nations World Health Organization are essential to act in ways which complement and protect national governments. Led by Gro Brundtland, WHO coordinated global responses to the outbreak of the epidemic in terms of quarantine requirements and diagnosis. Laboratories were mobilized in 13 countries to identify the new virus and devise a diagnostic test. This broke the normal pattern in which laboratories compete against each other for commercial advantage – as has been the case with HIVAIDS. That SARS is now off the front pages shows that the international response has been quite effective.

Yet as we all know, some influential voices here in the United States argue that while the UN may still be relevant in addressing humanitarian crises or assisting developing countries, it is not up to the challenge of confronting today’s threats to peace and security. President Bush made this point of view unmistakably clear when he said to the UN General Assembly in September of last year that the UN's failure to confront Iraq would cause the world body to "fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society."

The scene was so different in the General Assembly just two years earlier. The adoption of the UN Millennium Declaration provided a sense of promise and shared commitment to international law and institutions at the start of the 21st century. But just one year and three days after this historic Declaration was adopted, the terrible events of September 11, 2001 shook the United States and the world. Since that day, the renewed commitments which ushered in the new century have been overshadowed by the threats of terrorism, by fears and uncertainties about the future and by questions about the viability of open societies joined by international norms and values.

Some believe that multilateralism and international law are no longer relevant in a post 9/11 world. They contend that everything that has happened since that day of horrific violence is unprecedented – that new threats to domestic and international security require new strategies and new coalitions.

With the war in Iraq led by a coalition of the willing, and the rebuilding of that country under the control of the occupying powers, the international system’s legitimacy and relevance have been put to yet another test.

In these worrying times, let us draw strength from the spirit that was present at the creation of the UN – a time which was no less fraught with uncertainty about the future than our own. Yet the conviction then was so different. Consider the words of US President Harry Truman in his address in San Francisco to the closing session of the UN Conference, exactly 58 years ago this week.

Speaking about the UN Charter, he said:

“You have created a great instrument for peace and security and human progress in the world. The world must now use it! If we fail to use it, we shall betray all those who have died in order that we might meet here in freedom and safety to create it. If we seek to use it selfishly--for the advantage of any one nation or any small group of nations--we shall be equally guilty of that betrayal. The successful use of this instrument will require the united will and firm determination of the free peoples who have created it. The job will tax the moral strength and fibre of us all.

We all have to recognize-no matter how great our strength--that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please. No one nation, no regional group, can or should expect, any special privilege which harms any other nation. If any nation would keep security for itself, it must be ready and willing to share security with all. That is the price which each nation will have to pay for world peace. Unless we are all willing to pay that price, no organization for world peace can accomplish its purpose.

And what a reasonable price that is!

”What should the UN Charter’s opening words - “We the peoples of the United Nations” mean today? Who speaks for whom in an increasingly interconnected yet divided world? How can people play a meaningful role, both through their local communities and through global networks, in taking forward the commitment to international institutions and the international legal framework which was affirmed by government leaders in the United Nations Millennium Declaration? If we want globalization to work for all the world’s people - the overall priority identified in that Declaration – then multilateralism and respect for international law, in particular, international human rights law, must work as well.

In my view, it wasn’t the inability of the Security Council to reach consensus on how to deal with the situation in Iraq, damaging as it was, that has posed the most serious threat to the future of the United Nations. There is something more fundamental that needs to be addressed. Namely, how do we ensure that the institutions of international governance, established more than 50 years ago, are seen today by the people of the world to be legitimate, accountable, transparent – democratic?

The question of international legitimacy has, I believe, taken on a new relevance in the context of the lack of security and continuing political instability in Iraq. There are more voices calling for a stronger United Nations involvement there. President Truman’s words should guide us – we must use to the full the “great instrument for peace and security and human progress in the world”.

These challenges to the legitimacy of the UN and other global governance institutions can be seen at three levels:

First, at the macro level of governance: globalization has shifted power from national to global levels with global institutions ill equipped to deal with current realities. Governance of the UN is still stuck in the geopolitics of 1945 and for it to be effective in a new world, it must be addressed.

Second, at the meso level of policy making processes: while there have been positive attempts to engage civil society, and thus enhance transparency, legitimacy and participation, there still remain several defects both with the content and context of global policy making processes.

Finally, at the micro level of operations: there is still much to do by all sides to operate more effectively and to meet goals even within the limitations of flawed governance and flawed policy making parameters.
Will the normative global system that restored peace and security after the Second World War be seen by future generations as an idealistic dream that was unable to respond to the realities of a changing international landscape? Or will it instead be reformed and adapted to remain the essential foundation of a more just and secure world based on respect for the international rule of law? The answer, of course, will depend on the choices we make, the priorities we set and the values we seek to uphold.

During my travels to over 80 countries as High Commissioner, I found that people believed overwhelmingly in the importance of the UN. They recognized the vital work that its agencies and programs carried out in protecting refugees and improving public health, in supporting democratic development and seeking peaceful solutions to conflicts.

But I also found great skepticism. People viewed UN resolutions, declarations and treaties as commitments that are routinely ignored by governments or worse still, selectively implemented to benefit the strong at the exclusion of the weak. They felt that all the fine words about protecting human rights, eliminating poverty and ensuring sustainable development were only paper promises and that the UN was unable to hold its member states accountable for the commitments they had made.

Over recent months I have had opportunities to speak to a wide range of audiences here in the United States, including influential legal audiences such as the American Society of International Law and the American Law Institute. I have urged the importance of engagement by the United States in the international rule of law through support for the ICC, for the broader framework of international human rights law including economic, social and cultural rights, and the value of a broader approach to human security as advocated by the Commission on Human Security in its recent report “Human Security Now”. The views I have heard are not, of course, a scientific survey, but I have been genuinely encouraged by the interest and responsiveness of those audiences to these issues.

We shouldn’t forget that in some aspects of international law, real progress has been made. For example, governments take seriously the rules of the international trading system, despite growing concerns about lack of global fairness, and in the resolution of international trade disputes. This is in no small part because the US has been fully engaged - both as an architect of the system, and as a party to a number of the disputes. Since 1995, 65 cases have been brought against the US, with findings in 22 cases that there had not been full compliance with WTO rules. In most of these cases, the US has already acted effectively to change its practices – setting an important example to other countries.

There has also been major progress in developing international criminal law, and the administration of criminal justice, first through the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, currently trying former President Milosovic, and then through a second international tribunal to prosecute acts of genocide committed in Rwanda in 1994. The Convention against Torture makes the investigation and prosecution of torture a treaty obligation for states parties, who now include the US. It requires states to exercise universal jurisdiction over acts of torture – a provision most spectacularly applied by the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, when it ruled against Augusto Pinochet’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution in relation to the torture of political opponents while he was President of Chile.

Today, the new International Criminal Court builds on these achievements. The Court is an institutional recognition that certain crimes - because of their nature - affect the entire international community, and where they cannot be prosecuted by domestic courts, an international court must have jurisdiction. 139 states have signed, and so far, 89 have ratified the treaty and the Court is now meeting at The Hague.

It is a matter of great regret to supporters of the Court that the US is not engaged in this great legal enterprise, that there is no US judge, and that the decisions which will shape the Court’s legal and procedural character for the duration of this new century are being taken without America. More seriously, the renewal earlier this month by the Security Council, at the insistence of the Bush administration, of a one-year exemption from ICC jurisdiction for American troops involved in UN-authorized military operations, and the pursuit of bilateral agreements seeking to immunize US citizens from ICC scrutiny, risk undermining the legitimacy of the Court by bringing about a two-tiered system of justice. It is ironic that the country leading a war on terror is weakening the very institution which a recent New York Times editorial described as “a US ‘ally’ in its efforts to prevent the globe’s most serious crimes and bring to trial those who commit them”.

A key challenge for the UN is to find new and innovative ways of developing greater accountability for the decisions its member states make. This challenge cannot be met by the Secretary-General or the secretariat alone as important as they are in pushing for results. It cannot be imposed on any one state by another. Some say change is only possible if the structures of the UN itself, such as the Security Council, are reformed. These are important issues that should and are being discussed.

But I believe more can be done in the short term by drawing on the combined voice and influence of civil society at every level – local, national and international – in holding governments accountable for the commitments they have made under the UN.

The need for greater involvement of civil society in the work of the organization has been a priority for some time now. In his initial UN reform proposals in 1997, Secretary General Kofi Annan noted that "civil society constitutes a major and increasingly important force in international life", but, he continued, “...Yet despite these growing manifestations of an ever more robust global civil society, the United Nations is at present inadequately equipped to engage civil society and make it a true partner in its work".

I saw for myself the growing importance of civil society during my time as High Commissioner. When I began my term, there was already a sophisticated network of groups around the world with a long track record in promoting human rights and speaking out on behalf of victims. I cannot count the number of times that these human rights activists provided me with valuable insights and information.

But I also witnessed the emergence of a powerful movement for change through which civil society groups in every region were using the tools of the legal commitments governments have made, under the six core international human rights instruments, to foster a deeper democratic discourse. For example, a sophisticated, literate women’s movement world-wide is increasingly using the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and its optional protocol to pin governments to their legal commitments under this treaty.

Another example can be seen in how the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is being used by civil society in a growing number of countries to provide analysis of government spending on health care, education and access to clean water among other issues. Earlier this month I traveled to Thailand to participate in the launch of ESCR-Net, an international network on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This new network has brought together social movements and non governmental organizations working in human rights, development and the environment world wide all committed to connecting concrete local struggles for social justice with international standards and mechanisms for advancing human rights.

An international study just released by SustainAbility in partnership with the UN Global Compact and the UN Environment Program titled, “The 21st Century NGO: In the Market for Change” notes that increasing numbers of NGOs are making strategic decisions to engage with business and governments in efforts to achieve shared objectives. The report identifies some concern that this could compromise the independence of NGOs and leave them open to criticism that they are “selling out”. I believe, however, that some of the larger international human rights NGOs, such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, who have recognized the importance of developing strategies to implement economic, social and cultural rights, are well positioned to illustrate that involvement of NGOs in wider partnerships can be independent, rigorous and principled.

The new project I have been developing since leaving the UN – the Ethical Globalization Initiative – seeks to build on this approach to civil society involvement in policy making at the national and international level. Our aim is to seek in a low-key, targeted way, to be a promoter of good practices or model projects of how human rights approaches can help produce ethical policies and processes at the national and global level. We also plan to be a “chorus leader,” linking local activists and networks with academics and policy development, which together can produce the analysis and recommendations needed to influence decision makers at different levels in government, international organizations, the business sector and civil society.

To give an example, an issue we have identified to be tackled from a human rights perspective is health, access to life saving treatments and HIV/AIDS. Before going any further, allow me to say that I welcome President Bush’s decision to give US leadership in the fight against AIDS. The commitment of $15 billion by the US government over the next five years to fight AIDS abroad through support to the Global AIDS Fund and other projects is vitally important and will set an example for other wealthy nations to follow. The President was right when he said in his State of the Union address that in an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear the words - 'You've got AIDS. We can't help you. Go home and die'.

One of the first projects on this issue that we are developing in the Ethical Globalization Initiative, in cooperation with the Center for Research on Women, the International AIDS Trust and the Center for the Study of AIDS at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, is to engage with African parliamentarians, beginning with a meeting in Botswana this September, to reduce women’s vulnerability and to combat stigma in the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa.

We hope to build greater understanding among African government leaders and AIDS experts that the disease could be more effectively addressed by emphasizing the extent to which it is also a women’s rights issue both from the perspective of women as victims of the disease as well as primary caregivers for the sick and orphaned. As one slogan has put it – “The best investment in an AIDS vaccine is an investment in protecting women’s rights”.

We are also developing, in cooperation with the Respect Group in Europe, a new Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights. It aims to involve senior business leaders from multi-national corporations in a consultative process with different stake holder groups to better define the extent of business responsibilities for human rights, particularly in countries facing problems of extreme poverty and deficient governance. Our aim is to support businesses committed to promoting human rights and avoiding practices which may lead to rights violations, while recognizing – indeed emphasizing - that the primary responsibility for human rights protection remains with governments.

But as we speak about the many worthy activities that diverse groups are carrying out in every part of the world, we also shouldn’t forget that the global civil society movement today faces strong criticisms.

The new study on 21st Century NGOs emphasizes the importance of ensuring higher levels of transparency and disclosure around funding and effectiveness. It predicts that additional transparency and accountability will become prerequisites for NGO success in entering the mainstream through partnerships and will be crucial for retaining their position of trust. Others resent that trust and seek to undermine the influence of NGOs.

The backlash, particularly within this country, against the multilateralism of the UN and international mechanisms and standards is also being reflected in an assault on NGOs. Many of you will have read of a recent conference here in Washington entitled “Nongovernmental Organizations: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few” organized, as it happens, by two powerful NGOs! As a keynote speaker put it “The world is no longer divided between realists and idealists, but those who favor liberal internationalism and others who favor democratic sovereignty.” NGOs, perceived to be liberal internationalists, came under sweeping attack – and do so on a new website called “NGO Watch” which seeks to monitor their activities.

A more productive approach to these questions is being pursued by the Geneva based International Council on Human Rights Policy – which has produced a draft report titled “Deserving Trust: Issues of Accountability for Human Rights NGOs”. The report notes that

“as governments are showing less willingness to be accountable to international institutions, and when transparency, consistency, and political accountability at international level appear to be weakening…NGOs have a choice in the way they respond: they can follow the example given by their governments, ignoring calls to become more accountable; or they can acknowledge that it is precisely in difficult times like this that it is important for NGOs to reset standards, and force states to again be accountable — not least by demonstrating accountability themselves.”

The Council welcomes comments on the draft which is available at www.ichrp.org.

Another serious concern I feel it necessary to address is that attacks on the impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian NGOs threaten the future of multilateral, neutral and impartial humanitarian action. Firstly, we saw, in Afghanistan, US military carrying out “humanitarian programmes” - often in civilian clothing yet carrying weapons - as part of a hearts and minds campaign, and thereby threatening the safety of neutral humanitarian action.

And just recently, the head of USAID, Andrew Natsios, has reportedly told US NGOs which have received USAID money to promote humanitarian and rehabilitation projects in Iraq that they are, in essence, an arm of the US Government.

Such actions dilute and distort a commitment to the fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality. They transform humanitarian programmes into extensions of military campaigns. This endangers the lives of humanitarian workers – be they UN or NGO – and compromises the work of NGOs and the UN agencies with whom they work.

It is vital therefore that the UN take a more active role in defending the integrity and independence of NGOs which are working in support of the goals of the UN: peace, development, human rights, environmental protection, women’s rights and so on.

In the particular case of Iraq, the UN needs to recognize just how much its interests and those of humanitarian NGOs are inextricably intertwined. For both, there is an absolute imperative to ensure that neutrality and impartiality continue to be central values ensuring universal application of humanitarian principles. Humanitarian action cannot and must not be an extension of a political or military struggle, however well intentioned. We must ensure that we retain the right and the ability to reach all those in need regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. I urge the UN system to recognize that defending space for NGOs is vital for defending its own future.

As many of you will know, as part of the next phase of his reform program, the Secretary-General recently established a panel of eminent persons, chaired by former President of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso, to take stock of the Organization’s experience in interacting with civil society and to recommend improvements for the future in order to make the interaction between civil society and the United Nations more meaningful.

As President Cardoso stressed in his initial paper for consideration by the panel:

“A vibrant and forceful national civil society, working together with government, far from weakening democracy and good governance, increases the national resources invested in social development and strengthens the country's voice in global issues.”

He also pointed out the growing recognition “that collaboration and partnership involving multiple actors increases the available stock of ideas, capacities and resources to deal with a given problem.” I would encourage the UN Association of the US to provide the Cardoso panel with your support and recommendations – setting out your vision of how the UN should work with citizens and organizations as the panel carries out its work over the remainder of the year.

The United Nations needs the voices and resources of civil society now more than ever before. That begins with each one of you and your roles as ambassadors for the UN in your own communities and through your own professional and personal networks. In taking on these duties, we should remember Eleanor Roosevelt’s words about human rights: "Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world."

Thank you.

HOME | BACK