Madeleine Albright had several benevolent thoughts about the
UN[1]. These confirm that we are in fact a not-so-huge bunch of
jolly-good fellows worth of some investment, not at least because we normally
provide legitimacy and take care of the irking development problems of nations.
And we don’t really create serious problems for the homeland.
At first I was pleased with the thumps up.
But then I was getting second thoughts:
Are we supposed to be the uncontroversial, undemanding tool for countries –
especially for those who finance the toolbox – to support their own agenda and
peace of mind? Are we here primarily to deliver generously provided development
aid to deserving countries and – perhaps – the people who are poor?
I thought we are the platform on which those with valid claims and those with a
duty can sort out their relationship. I thought we are there to mediate between
countries, including between the poor countries and the rich. And we are there
to facilitate, also at country-level, the dialogue between the excluded and the
included, the marginalized and the privileged, the vulnerable and the strong so
that consensus on claims, duties and accountabilities can be established.
Anyone with money can throw money at a problem. Many can design and implement
capacity building programmes. But in order to advise on the claim-duty
relationship, to help codifying them into global or national policies,
legislation or plans, you need to be non-partisan and you need to stick to the
internationally agreed sets of standards, norms and human rights conventions.
You probably need to be the UN.
[1] A colleague drew my attention to this issue of foreignpolicy.com. The thoughts include, among others:
The UN has not become irrelevant, even in the wake of the US occupation of Iraq;
Relationships between the UN and the US are not at all at an all-time low;
Political correctness trumps at the UN, and there is occasional need for the US to break political china;
The UN is not a huge bureaucracy.
(10 October 2003)