Global Diplomacy_ the United Nations in the World B

1. Global Diplomacy: the United Nations in the World
[MUSIC] Welcome to MOOC on the history and future of the United Nations, here at the Center
for International Studies and Diplomacy as well as University of London. Over the last decade
we've developed a innovative research group on this very subject that is engaged UN Secretary
General, UN agencies, and international organizations and academics around the world. On
topics including disarmament, gender studies, and the history and future of war crimes in
particular. You're welcome to look at our publications and also a range of interactive audio-visual
material on our website. In the meantime, I hope you will enjoy this MOOC and get as much out
of it. Taking it as we have in showing our research of that of our colleagues to you. [MUSIC]
Read me first
Read Me First
The format of this MOOC is a little different from other online courses you may have encountered
so far. Central to the course are peer interactions, through which you will communicate, reflect
upon, and improve your work together with your fellow learners, emulating the real-world
negotiation experience. Our approach represents a constructivist mode of learning, underpinned
by the belief that every single student on the course has the capacity to positively enhance the
programme. Given the global and diverse composition of the student body, you will have the
opportunity to interact with peers from different cultural and professional backgrounds while
learning from them and helping them learn from you also.
You will be presented with a series of videos nonetheless. These videos are a series of
interviews with those with expertise knowledge of diplomatic practice. These videos are a key
part of your learning resource to support the discussions you will have with your peers.
About the Assessments:
Each week will have a peer marked assessment. The week 6 assessment is optional, and for
those looking to develop an interest in the topic further.
● What does it mean to provide feedback?
In each e-tivity, you will be asked to provide evaluations (i.e. Response) on the work of your
peers in the Peer Reviews. This is as important as the individual Task submission. We will be
using the Peer Review tool for this process, which will distribute at random submissions amongst
the student body. In providing your evaluations on the content of your peers' submissions,
remember to be fair and balanced; you will be able to contribute to your collective success.
● What should I look for when evaluating a fellow student's submission?
Given the nature of the subject and tasks of this course, we steer away from a pre-defined
evaluation checklist. Instead, we use purposely-broad criteria here.
The criteria rest on your evaluation of whether your peer has made a genuine attempt to
address the Task element of the e-tivity.
Importantly, you do not need to be in agreement with the opinions expressed by your peer
to consider a genuine attempt.
The Peer Review process consists of two parts:
First, it involves verifying whether the work at hand is a genuine attempt at the task (to be
marked as '1') or gobbledygook (such as an incomplete text, irrelevant filler or spam; to be
marked as '0').
Second, and more importantly, you are asked to provide a short comment (at least 50 words).
When you are making your comment, you should take into account whether and to what extent
the work you are assigned to evaluate 'makes sense' to you. Again, you do not have to 'agree'
with it to be in a position to consider it valid. You may well be out of your field, but you are in a
position to apply a qualitative judgement about the cogency of their response.
● What if my work is criticised?
Dealing with feedback can be a challenge for anyone – from those at the earliest stages of their
academic journeys to esteemed professors. Sometimes it can be hard to hear that the work you
have dedicated yourself to has not been received well. Do not take it to heart. That can be
difficult, we know, but feedback can make a valuable contribution to enhancing your work by
encouraging you to reflect on your previous line of thinking. Please also watch the 'How to Work
with Criticism' video below for some further thoughts on feedback.
One thing you can do, and we absolutely encourage you to do, is to make the most of the
Discussion Forums. The forums are there for you to have a free-style discussion about each
e-tivity task with your colleagues before you submit it. Testing the water before diving in, if you
like, so you can have a go without consequence. You can 'try' as many times as you wish in the
forums before you choose one to submit. It also constitutes a rich pool of examples, where you
can benefit from reading how others think about Global Diplomacy.
Course Outline
On the Global Diplomacy - UN MOOC we will introduce and develop your understanding of
The United Nations, its practice, principles and past application. We will use a series of
learning materials including videos and readings and most importantly discussion forums, to
ensure you address the learning outcomes below.
After completing the course learners will have:
1. The ability to demonstrate a critical understanding of the nature and development of
The United Nations, drawing on a variety of relevant contributing disciplines in the broad field
of International Studies.
2. An understanding of changes in diplomatic practices and procedures and the
relationship of those changes to contemporary politics.
3. A sound grounding in both theoretical and empirical approaches to debates
surrounding the United Nations so that students have been exposed to the skills needed to
analyse global diplomacy.
Learners will develop the following intellectual skills:
• A theoretically and historically informed understanding of international diplomacy,
broadly conceived.
• To develop the ability to think critically, with reference to theoretical and empirical
(historical and/or contemporary) content about international studies and diplomacy
Learners will develop the following transferable skills:
• To analyse, evaluate and reflect critically on information received.
• To develop and present new ideas coherently and concisely extracting key elements
from complex information.
• To identify and solve problems, selecting and applying competing theories and
methodologies appropriately.
• To gather, organise and deploy data and evidence to form balanced judgements and
to develop and support critical argument and policy recommendations.
• To present written feedback and constructively engage with it.
• To engage in lateral thinking across different academic disciplines, types of
arguments, evidence and methodologies.
• To work creatively, flexibly and co-operatively with others and to delegate
responsibility.
• To assess and evaluate own and other’s work constructively.
In engaging with our Global Diplomacy: the United Nations in the World MOOC you will be in
position to continue your studies with CISD's MA in Global Diplomacy. Further details
available here.
For information we in the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, have
a number of other MOOCs on Coursera you may be interested in:
Global Diplomacy: Diplomacy in the Modern World , Global Energy and Climate Policy and
Understanding Research Methods
General Readings
The section below contains Readings and Videos you might find useful throughout the
MOOC.
These are provided as reference material for you to use as you require.
1.) Why Is The United Nations Still so Misunderstood? By Simon Jackson and Alanna
O'Malley
2.) Bertrand, Maurice “The UN as an Organization: A Critique of its Functioning.”
2.)How to make the United Nations fit for purpose in a new globalisedera by Rosa Freedman
3.) Five challenges for the UN in 2015 By Matine Edwards and Brandon Kotlow
4.) UN Documentation Research Guide - a link to a full library of information for you to view
as you wish.
5.) Women and the U.N Charter
View:CHART of the UN: This chart gives a picture of the interlocking nature of the United
Nations system of organizations
UN Today - Introduction
[MUSIC] Well, this week we're going to be looking at the fundamental question of what is the UN
today? Of course, it means many different things to different people if you are receiving food
assistance in some desperate part of the world, is very different that if you're a diplomat from
United Kingdom say on her three-year term in the main building of the East River in Manhattan.
[MUSIC]
What is the UN Today?
Well, I think the UN is an organization looking for its second wind. I think it was badly damaged,
you might say left for dead in 2003, when Bush and Blair decided to go to war. Not only despite
Security Council vetoes, but actually the absence of a majority in the Security Council. That's sort
of left it irrelevant, weakened, its credibility weakened, reduced in scope. But now we have a new
Secretary General coming in. It's a more promising period. We have new leaders in most of the
P5 countries. And the hope is that the UN can restore some robust role in the world.
>> If you look at the UN charter, it will gives you issue of I mean peace and security plays a very
big role in what the UN was funded for. Also development and human rights. Now, this was more
than 70 years ago but they are still very relevant today. Issues of peace and security are still very
relevant. Development is a very big issue. Human right's a very big issue. Previously, these three
aspects used to be looked at individualistically. But now you find out that they're so much
interwoven, I mean in our world. >> But the United Nations is a body which brings together 193
nation states. It's also a potential structure for reconciliation and force for good for intervention
potentially when there are international or regional problems.

2. The United Nations also serves as a venue and a political arena, a place where diplomacy's
conducted, where policy is conducted. >> I do think that despite its many ups and downs, and
periods of apparent irrelevance as global conflicts between big powers has sidelined it. It has
retained an indispensability for many groups of countries, particularly smaller and newer ones
who look at it as crucial to their own legitimacy. But above all, look at it as a place you can take,
either problems of security or longer run global problems of climate change and development,
which can't be any more sorted on a bilateral basis. And so that indispensability of having a
multilateral forum which can serve all these purposes and provides that sort of universal forum
for all is, I suspect with us for keeps, even if it's status and authority will widely fluctuate
depending on the state of broader international relations. >> Well, it's the only multilateral
organization we have. So if we didn't work with the United Nations, we wouldn't have many other
options. It represents most of the world, if not all the world. There are some imperfections with
the Security Council and its lack of representivity. But otherwise, the United Nation's a universal,
international organization and there are many programs in the UN and specialized agencies that
are truly multilateral. So although there are many challenges and difficulties, we have to make it
succeed because we have no other choice. [MUSIC]
The UN Today: what is it?
This section presents a selection of readings giving a range of outlooks on the topic. You
should read number one to answer the assessment question but we recommend reading as
widely as possible.
1.) Madeleine K. Albright Foreign Policy - a discussion of the modern United Nations from
the perspective of former US Secretary of State
2.) UN website, Welcome to the The United Nations
3.) Chris McGreal, 70 years and half a trillion dollars later: what has the UN achieved? , The
Guardian Monday 7th September 2015.
4.) Nile Gardiner and Baker Spring, Reform the United Nations, The Heratige Fundation.
5.) Ted Galen Carpenter, Putting the United Nations on Notice, CATO Institute
6.) Does the UN Still Matter? in UN 2030:Rebuilding Order in a Fragmenting World, The
Hon. Kevin Rudd 26th Prime Minister of Australia
7.) U.N. Time Line
8.) War TIme UN
Watch: 2016 United Nations Year in Review
Watch: “The United Nations Explained:”
Watch: Address by Jacob Zuma, President of the Republic of South Africa at the general
debate of the 69th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations (New York, 24-30
September 2014).
Watch: Address by Danilo Medina Sánchez, President of the Dominican Republic, at the
general debate of the 69th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations (New
York, 24-30 September) as he discusses the importance of public education in promoting
equality and eradicating poverty
Watch: US Looking at UN with Fresh Eyes. As the United States takes over the presidency
of the UN Security Council in 2017, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley told reporters that
the US administration is looking at the UN with “fresh eyes.
Where did the UnitedNations come from,
and why ? - Introduction
[MUSIC] This week, we are looking at where the United Nations came from, and why. And
sometimes, a fresh look at the history can give us new insights into the UN and its possibilities
today. For example, some of our students here at the Center looked at how gender equality,
women's rights, got into the UN charter in the first place in 1945. And they found out that it was a
Brazilian woman, Dr. Bertha Lutz, who should get all the credit and the fame and the glory, and
not Eleanor Roosevelt and other Anglo-Americans. And this is an example of how researching,
the work we do in the Center, can help inform our understanding of the UN as it is today.
[MUSIC]
Where did the UN come from and why?
The UN, which might more properly be called the United Nations Organization, grew out of the
United Nations, which was the alliance that defeated fascism in Japan in the second World War
and the idea of an organization was an attempt to preserve the peace by keeping and being the
wartime grand alliance. That was Roosevelt's notion. And Roosevelt having been a close
bystander of the creation and failures of the League of Nations as a cabinet officer under
Woodrow Wilson and as a failed Wilsonian Vice Presidential candidate in 1920 was looking to
create a more sustainable organization which was more in keeping with the realities of world
power which wouldn't be like the league, something which could pass worthy resolutions which
were unenforceable and ignored.
And I think when you take a democratic peoples through a horrendous war that has killed millions
of people and wrought destruction, you want a covenant that we're not going to go to war again
so easily, that we've put up some road blocks that will slow down the rush to war and provide
alternative diplomatic mechanisms for preserving the peace. Or if finally reduced to that collective
security measures for acting against the aggressor rather than all out each against all war.
>> You're a world leader. You're facing incredible devastation at home. Lots of people are hungry.
People are displaced. Why on Earth would you come up with some sort of airy-fairy institution
that's supposed to promote peace? But actually, when you put the UN into its context and you've
done a lot of work on this. And you see it as something that was part of a wartime alliance. I think
it makes much more sense because then, it isn't just some sort of idealistic institution becomes a
very pragmatic response to war. It's a way of binding countries permanently into this wartime
alliance, creating a set of rules for them to observe and a much more sort of promising platform
for peace. I think it was very important to see it as that sort of pragmatic response. So it's not just
about the ideals, it's also about saying, what are the costs of war? And what are the costs of
compromise and cooperation? And clearly there was a very, I think smart calculation made, that
compromise and cooperation would be much better. >> Well, the UN really emerges quite literally
out of the ashes, out of the ashes of World War II. And out of the ashes is really of the failure of
the League of Nations earlier. There was,I think, an emotional and political need not to repeat
that experience of world war which we'd seen twice within a generation. >> We got the UN,
obviously, out of the brutal circumstances of the Second World War, a war which made many
statesmen and politicians realize that they'd taken the world to the brink. And this in a sense was
the institution that came out of that, and the fact that over many decades since people have
occasionally considered it and quickly given up the prospect of strengthening the UN by charter
change. The fact it's not happened shows what a disruptive moment 1945 and the end of the
second World War was. You were able to dream as visionaries of a possible world of multilateral
structures which before and since has seemed unrealistic. It took that war purportedly to end all
wars to make statesmen reach the leap if you like of imagination to do something as bold as the
UN. [MUSIC]
How does the UN Security Council work -
Introduction
[MUSIC] Well, this week we are looking at power in international politics. And in particular, the
role of the P5 members of the UN Security Council. How they got their power? How they
exercise it? And what they may do with it in the future? [MUSIC]
How does the UN Security Council work?
Going back to how the UN was formed I think there was a very conscious attempt to avoid some
of the mistakes that led to the failure of the League of Nations, the UN's predecessor body. So
one of the problems with that body was that the big powers of the day could simply just ignore it.
And the UN's designers, as it were, made a real attempt to give them an incentive to stay, and
that incentive was permanent membership of the Security Council and the power of veto. They
also kept the Council quite small. Anyone who's tried to make a decision with say, 15 friends or
30 friends will know that it's much easier, the smaller the number, to get a decision. So there was
some design elements that were supposed to avoid deadlock and hopefully lead to good
solutions. In practice how the UN Security Council's working day, I think I would look at in three
different ways. The first is how it is perceived. The second would be, whether it's actually able to
make a decision, And the third is the impact on the ground. So in terms of how it's perceived, I
think there is no question that it feels outdated, it doesn't reflect the power structures that we
have today. Can we really say that France is a bigger power than India, or the UK is a bigger
power than Japan, Germany? I think there's a lot of, Good reasons to reform the Council to make
sure that it's still seen as legitimate. But I worry that a bigger Council or a changed Council, I
worry whether that's actually the answer to making it work better. If you look at the states that are
supposed to be given seats, that feel like they were to be given seats, India, Japan, Germany,
Pakistan, and so on. If you look at how they actually vote when they are on the Council, I'm not
sure they're always the most progressive, and they're not always in favor of action. >> Most
people typically think of UN Security Council as vetoes, a la Russia vetoing resolutions against
Assad. Or there's a long history of vetoes being used, and if they are implemented then they can
directly effect how things happen, whether there's a cease fire, whether there is a withdrawal of
belligerent forces.
>> Well, I think it worked just the way it was designed to work, in a way, that, although
Roosevelt's early vision was not a bipolar world, not a cold war, but keeping in being the grand
alliance and the four policemen, they wouldn't have had all these detailed discussions about veto
power if they thought it was going to work all that smoothly. So veto power was meant so that the
great powers, and the great powers of that time, and it's been frozen in time since then, could
protect their extended interest, their sphere of influence from international intervention, which

3. was Quid Pro Quo for their accepting an international body with Chapter VII enforcement powers
at all. If people felt, if American leaders, but this could apply as well to Russian leaders or
Chinese leaders, felt that there were advantages to a solution which achieved international
consensus and support over unilateral or coalition of the willing solutions, that would make them
go in another direction. But their perception now is that there are very few offsetting advantages.
And this has to do with the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the UN system in the eyes of their
political publics. >> On the Security Council, yes, it needs to pass, maybe up its game, there's
need for reform. The argument of reform is still ongoing in relation to, and I think perhaps you
find out that the Commission on Human Rights was reformed to the Human Rights Council. I
mean, UNDP in relation to development, also perhaps maybe needs a little bit of pepping up. But
the Human Rights Council, because of the major role in relation to peace and security. Now for
example, I mean it's a very, it's a political body. And in relation to human rights and things like
that, they don't want to do human rights a lot. >> Yes. >> Because of the sensitivity. I mean, if
themselves don't want to give the Security Council the, I mean, the freedom to really engage
itself into, I mean, human rights issues in 1945. >> Mm-hm. >> When the United Nations was
established. It was based on that the Security Council was established. I think there's a need for
particular relation to defer to, I mean and relation and the power dynamics of the world have
changed. I mean the developing world, I mean African countries, Asian countries, play a very big
role in world affairs now, so there's a need for, I mean, a big reform in that regard. To create
much more inclusive model altruism, which will actually help in making the US Security Council
much more effective in it's rule, as I mean, as a council that looks after I mean world peace and
security. >> Security Council is in many ways a mirror of the world it seeks to govern. When that
world is broadly harmonious, the Security Council is able to act with some forcefulness against
the world's more minor conflicts. When the big powers are rampaging against each other, one
casualty is the Security Council. And so up until 1989 the Security Council was a fairly powerless
place. There were few exceptional moments when Russia just chose as the Soviet Union not to
participate and where China was briefly represented by Taiwan. In those times there was
occasionally a decisive action by minority of permanent members such as in the Korean War, but
more usually, there was gridlock. There was then a period from 1989, with the fall of the Berlin
Wall, through to the early years of this century, when there was a relatively harmonious time in
the Council. And they were able to turn their minds to solving conflicts in Africa or taking on some
of the more difficult long-term conflicts in the Middle East. And, anything seemed possible, and
the Security Council began to aggregate power under itself. It started involving itself in
humanitarian work, which it had not done before. It even had debates on public health issues like
AIDS, HIV/AIDS, and it was a golden age in a sense. But as American-Russian relations have
soured, and as China has started to be feared by others on the council, as a potential global
rival, we've seen that brief decade or so of harmony be replaced by, in many ways, in Security
Council terms, a new Cold War. >> It was based on the situation after the last war. And the world
has changed dramatically. So we must have better representation, and for the international
community to have confidence in these decisions. [MUSIC]
Human rights in international politics? -
Introduction
[MUSIC] Well, this week, we're looking at the role of human rights in international politics in the
United Nations. Are human rights universal? Do they matter in power politics? Why are they in
the UN charter in the first place? And are they just an invention of western intellectuals? [MUSIC]
Human rights in international politics?
I don't deal directly with human rights, but the principles that apply International Humanitarian
Law and Humanitarian Principles for Delivery of Aid.
Very much a kin, which is impartial, a neutral response, we don't take sides on the belligerents,
we help all people in need.
The primacy of our focus is on people in need, the beneficiaries and we also use the Hippocratic
idea of do no harm, so our processes, our aid, should not have any adverse effects. And I had a
General Kennedy, of the US Marine Corps, who'd worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, many difficult
places. And he'd initially complained about UN or International Humanitarian principles, and at
his retirement speech, he was saying that the principles are the only thing that enable you to do
your work. And this is a guy who'd been a three star general in command of numerous
responses in numerous conflicts. And had come to understand that the humanitarian agencies
are not a means to implement a political agenda, but that the impartial helping of people in need
according to a principled action
was the most credible response the UN could make.
>> Within the United Nations, the Human Rights Council is responsible for the overall promotion
and protection of human rights system. And within the Human Rights Council, there are different
organs by which they do this. And one of the important mechanisms is what is called the special
procedures mechanism. And within the special procedures mechanism, independent expats are
appointed. And we also have working groups of special appointees.
Independent expats are appointed under the Human Rights Council agenda. It can either be
under agenda four, which relates to monitoring of the human rights situation in different countries.
We have about 14 mandates in that regard, country specific. Then there could be also mandates
on what we call item ten of the agenda which relates to engaging with respective governments,
engaging with the governments to build capacity and to provide technical assistance. But without
the presence of the United Nations or not actually based on special procedures mechanisms.
Things could be far, far, far worse. >> In what way? >> I mean in many ways, there's a phrase
usually used within the United Nations in relation to this. They call it, well, they use the phrase,
protection by presence.
Protection by presence in the sense that, I mean, when the independent exparts come into the
country, it's a big issue. I mean, all international press follows it. The government is aware, it is
concerned, it wants to make sure that it cleans up its acts. It ensures, I mean and they engage.
And also the independent experts are able to get information, I mean confidentially, from civil
society organizations on the ground. >> Yes. >> So it gives a picture of the real situation going
on. And when the interactive sessions, the Human Rights Council occur, the individuals states,
their respective states are confronted with these facts. I mean, so it makes a big difference, it
makes a very, very big difference in relation to the fact that, I mean, people who are victims of
human rights violations have somebody to talk to. Who then brings it back within the international
community for people to really know what is happening on the ground. >> The UN has had
tremendous difficulties with human rights from the very beginning. The human rights principles
and standards of the UN were.
probably developed more significantly by Eleanor Roosevelt as the head of the first American
delegation on this in the late 40s. And it was an ambitious agenda which drew heavily on
America's own ambitions in the human rights field and it was already a big involvement of
American civil society around Eleanor Roosevelt. And in that way the standards have always had
a western stamp on them, and a sort of western aspirational ambition to them which is often even
not being matched by the west own actions. And hence the very correct allegations of hypocrisy
when it comes to the Middle East and many other places as well. But it is foundational for the UN
to press for the Human Rights of people around the world. The challenge as an interstate
organization. Is where and how hard can it press, without undermining the whole interstate
architecture of the institution. If you push countries so hard that they withdraw from the UN,
you've lost its real legitimacy and power that comes from its universality. If you don't press them
enough you're properly charged with double standards and allowing states to get away with
behaviors that fall below the standards of the charter. So it's a constant balancing act, and my
own view is, the UN's probably never going to get it right. And that it's very dependent on
franchising out a lot of human rights advocacy and lobbying and name calling to civil society. To
NGOs who can act more freely and when they do, ring pressure to bear on the UN mechanisms,
to be more rigorous and to stand out more clearly for these things. But to say the prime movers
are in my view, likely to remain civil society in this space. It's going to remain critical to brand
international humanitarian interventions as UN or Red Cross. Because these are the the brand
names that carry the force of international humanitarian law behind them with all the demands on
competence not to attack them to allow them the space provide relief to civilians in a non-political
way. But behind that brand name, under the bonnet, we're going to see a huge amount change
because we've got two sort of related things happening. One, a hugely more professionalized
group of NGOs, groups like Mesas Frontier or Save the Children or Oxfam, many others. Who
have become more of cost effective international delivers of assistance often than the UN.
They're just lower costs, nimbler, the rest. But they need that UN badge to operate under. And
then secondly, we've seen the rise of local civil society. So if we look, for example, at the conflict
in Syria, it is Syrian White Helmets, Syrian nationals themselves, who are being really the last
mile of the relief effort. The ones who've gone into Aleppo or other War-torn cities and rescued
people, delivered assistance to them in situ etc. And so I think we're going to see a lot more
localizing of humanitarian action. And a lot more deployment of very competent
non-governmental relief organizations to support that. And the UN stepping back a bit more to be
the protector, the funder, the standard setter, the franchisee of all of this, but with a lower
operational presence itself. >> International law, it's a fragile thing, whether we're talking human
rights or anything else.
It doesn't have the sovereign enforcement built in that domestic sovereign law does. So
essentially they're normative declarations that everybody sees an interest in subscribing to, but
not necessarily following. And no one can hold them too it. I think that's particularly true of human
rights law and convention that's top down. I think when you can create human rights standards, a
sort of template, for countries to adopt into their own law, you have a stronger international
human rights regime. Coming back to the UN, we have the Human Rights Council which was
supposed to be some kind of reform, but really repeated the problems of its predecessors. How
do you have an organization of states monitoring the observance of human rights by states?
When states are typically the main violator or threats to human rights. It's not very promising
structurally. It's hard to see within the United Nations organization how you get around that. But
certainly, when you have things like, regions nominating regional blocks, nominating regional
members. And that no threshold that a country has to pass in its own performance. Other than
accepting review to be a member of the Human Rights Council. You're reinforcing some of the
worst anti human rights tendencies of your chief human rights body. The commissioner can be
an attempt to get above that. >> I think it's quite an interesting story because on the one hand
you have over the last 70 years development of this system of human rights that really does bind
every country. Every single UN member state has ratified at least one human rights treaty most
have signed up for more. You have independent human rights experts, you have a human rights
council, you have a very, I think, savvy network of NGOs, and of people, who want to claim their
rights, who think they're important. Who use everything that the UN has put out there in terms of
laws and tools who use that to challenge there governments and sometimes have success. But
the UN doesn't have powers of enforcement, it can advise, sometimes it can criticize, it can make
recommendations. But implementation is left to states. That means that it becomes political. So
whether or not states would like to really challenge Saudi Arabia on their human rights record,
will depend on their overall relationship with Saudi Arabia. Equally, internally whether states
guarantee their citizens rights is part of a much broader process. It's not sort of, we've signed up
to a human rights treaty so we'll make it happen. And you can see that in countries including the
UK where there's been a very I think an increasingly negative debate on human rights that has
even lead people themselves to question their value. So I think we are at a very interesting point
where we see lots of development on the one hand, great strides in areas such as LGBT rights.
And a real backlash, back-sliding on the sort of taboo around torture for security reasons,
backsliding on women's rights, especially reproductive rights. And a real challenge to the very
concept of human rights made by populists. [MUSIC]

4. Human rights in international politics? -
Reading
The United Nations and Human Rights:
The term “human rights” was mentioned seven times in the UN's founding Charter, making the
promotion and protection of human rights a key purpose and guiding principle of the
Organization. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights brought human rights into the
realm of international law. Since then, the Organization has diligently protected human rights
through legal instruments and on-the-ground activities
Promoting respect for human rights is a core purpose of the United Nations and defines its
identity as an organization for people around the world. Member States have mandated the
Secretary-General and the UN System to help them achieve the standards set out in the UN
Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To do so, the UN System uses all the
resources at its disposal, including its moral authority, diplomatic creativity and operational reach.
Member States, however, have the primary responsibility for protecting human rights of their
populations.
Prosecuting War Crimes
Watch: What Is Human Rights? A UN-produced video designed to stimulate thought on the
meaning of Human Rights
Watch: Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), at
the opening of the Commission on the Status of Women (Fifty-ninth session)UN Human Rights
Webpage
Read: Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with
different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was
proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General
Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all
nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it
has been translated into over 500 languages.
Read:UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples
Watch: 911th Security Council Meeting: Peace and Security in Africa The Security Council
adopted its first resolution addressing Boko Haram’s presence in the Lake Chad Basin,
expressing concern about the protection needs of civilians affected by terrorism, at its 791th
meeting.
Watch: A History of LGBT Rights at the UN
Watch:Michelle Bachelet, President of Chile, speaking during Special Session of the UN Human
Rights Council
Addressing a special meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2017,
Chilean President stresses the importance of multilateralism and the work of the 47-member
body.
Primer of Relative Power in International institutions
http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Powell%201991.pdf
https://bc.sas.upenn.edu/system/files/Gartzke_03.04.10.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/#ThuImpPow
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6971&context=penn_law_review
The question of human rights in international politics
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/30/human-rights-in-the-context-of-international-relations-a-critical-ap
praisal/
https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C14/E1-35-03-01.pdf
UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/UNDRIPManualForNHRIs.pdf
http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/politics/research/readingroom/Dunne-goodhart-chap04.pdf
How does the UN respond to crises? -
Introduction
[MUSIC] Well, this week we're going to be looking at emergency help. How does the UN respond
to emergency crises in countries where there is no emergency phone number to ring?
How can the UN do better than it's done in the past, in say Srebrenica or Syria? And indeed, do
these failures mean that the UN has been completely incompetent in dealing with humanitarian
crisis in its history? [MUSIC]
How does the UN respond to crises?
So I think what the UN does, that's very important. Not just in the humanitarian field but in general,
is set the framework. So you can't have lots of companies or NGOs or states operating without any
idea of what a principle, the humanitarian principles, should be. What the ground rules are. What
kind of frameworks they're observing in terms of human rights, best practice involving local
communities, and so on. And ultimately, to whom are they accountable. Well, it started out being
bad and then it got worse. It started out being the bad state of affairs that the United Nations
conceived as a world peace, world order organization, was reduced to being an international relief
organization, a sort of supplementary International Red Cross in emergencies. It got worse when
you had things like the cholera episode in Haiti where the UN actually brought natural disaster in
giving relief of a natural disaster. But I think they're connected. I think that the lowering of the
morale or the prestige of the United Nations trickles down through all its operative bodies. I think if
there was an esprit and a prestige to be maintained and a political consensus of the P5 behind the
larger organization, perhaps it could clean up the Implementation Act more readily. The private
sector's criteria for helping is different and would be different than an international organization. You
don't want to introduce brand name advantage or profit-making opportunities or balancing of costs
and risks into these operations. We are, after all, try to represent at least a minimal degree of
international humanity and decency, and I think this is the organizational way to do it. You look at
probably hundreds of thousands of North Koreans would have starved to death without the World
Food Organization. I suppose the counterargument is if they-- enough of them had starved to
death, they would have overthrown their regime and that might have been a good thing, but I don't
do that kind of moral calculus when people's lives are at stake. I think that, you know, from relief
organizations in Europe after the Second World War, through Palestine, through North Korea,
through enumerous-- innumerable disasters, these organizations have been lifesavers and have
operated where, in their absence, there might have been nothing else and people would have died
in large numbers. At the end of the day, the UN Security Council veto can stop any UN action, and
a Security Council resolution can also enable action. It's not always negative. If you look at like an
Ebola response, the resolution that was crafted enabled a regional response for the Ebola-affected
countries that enabled a lot more flexibility with the UN to respond. The UN is always invited by a
country that's affected by disaster to participate. The UN is a political entity, and it's a product of the
member states. So it's a fait accompli that the vested interests of the member states drive the help.
If you look at – and this also goes to budget. The Director-General of WHO has made it very clear
that, as a result of the Ebola outbreak, WHO needed to look at improving its operational capacity –
the ability to detect outbreaks, unusual events going on, do really strong risk assessments with
ministries of health, and then to have an institutional response that can ensure that when countries
need technical support in the area of outbreaks, that WHO is ready to support them. Because I
think the other thing that's important with WHO, that's perhaps a bit different to some of the other
UN agencies is that we work hand-in-hand with the ministries of health. Because of the structure of
the organization, WHO's role in the field is to support the ministries of health. Strangely, the big
success during the Cold War years at the UN was in the humanitarian field. It was a period where
there was gridlock on politics at the international level, but a space allowed to protect the civilian
victims of conflict or natural disasters. And that space was governed by international humanitarian
law or principles, the Geneva Conventions, you know, the refugee conventions, etc., and was not
subject to political interference from the UN Security Council by common standing or
understanding. And it's only really in the post-1989 years that a more activist, briefly more united,
Security Council intruded into this space on the grounds that putting some real political punch
behind issues of humanitarian intervention would secure more help more speedily, and that same
political punch could be applied to try and find solutions to these problems because, you know, a
perennial concern is you help people but you keep them in a state therefore of suspended
animation. You're helping them in refugee camps or somewhere else, but you're freezing a
longer-term solution to the problem. And so, you know, allying the humanitarian intervention with
the political side of the UN, to try and secure a solution, seemed at the time that the Security
Council was working more collectively and effectively together to be a good idea. Subsequently, as
the Security Council has fallen out with itself again, it's become a real handicap to effective action.
How does the UN respond to crises? -
Reading
UN Funds, Programmes, Specialized Agencies and More:
The UN system, also known unofficially as the "UN family," is made up of the UN itself and many
affiliated programmes, funds, and specialized agencies, all with their own membership,
leadership, and budget. The programmes and funds are financed through voluntary rather than
assessed contributions. The Specialized Agencies are independent international organizations
funded by both voluntary and assessed contributions.
Read: "About UN Funds, Programmes, Specialized Agencies and More.
Watch: The Intro video for UN 2013 South-South Development Expo: For the first time since its
inception,the annual Global South-South Development Expo in 2013 was held in the South. The
Expo brought together high-level policymakers, solution providers, solution seekers and solution
supporters at UNEP's Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, from 28 October-1 November. It provided
a forum to showcase and exchange scalable, replicable and innovative South-South
development solutions that have significant development impact on-the-ground.
Watch: Address by His Excellency Ollanta Humala Tasso, President of the Republic of Peru, at
the general debate of the 69th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations (New
York, 24-30 September 2014)as he talks about the UN post-2015 development agenda.

5. Watch: Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme( UNDP), at
the 3rd Plenary meeting of the 3rd International Conference on Small Island Developing States
(SIDS) ( Samoa 2014)
Videos: "The UN in Action:
a series of short feature video stories produced by the UN reporting on the work of the United
Nations and its Agencies around the world:
Watch: http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unia/
Read:MÜller, Joachim, “United Nations System Coordination: the Challenge of Working
Together” Müller argues that the systemic barriers to UN system coordination are considerable.
Agreements, if any, are reached at the lowest common denominator and result in considerable
transaction costs. Rather than coordination, it appears the consolidation and merging of the
fragmented UN mandates and structures is a precondition for efficient action.
Where next for the UN? - Introduction
Well this week, we're going to be looking at what's next for the UN. One of the key areas that we
look at in the center is the vexed issue of disarmament, our controls on the world's armaments
possible? And if they are, how might we go about it? This is going to be one of the key issues on
the agenda of the UN with the new Secretary-General Guterres and the new leaders from many
of the P5 countries. People of course often write off the UN, maybe the UN doesn't have a future,
but we may recall that one of the former Secretary-General's Kurt Waldheim was discovered
accused of having been a Nazi war criminal and what greater blow that can that be for an
organization than to find out that the head of it is in fact, represented the previous arch enemy.
So perhaps if the UN could survive Kurt Waldheim then the UN can survive anything, but we
need to look at these issues in more detail and from a variety of perspectives.
Where next for the UN?
[MUSIC]
One of the issues, I mean the use of the veto is one of the hindering, I mean in relation to
Aleppo, I mean it's one of the hindering factors. And this is sadly, I mean don't throw away the
bath water with the baby. You don't throw the baby out with the water, I mean, you can all see
because of this. I mean what's the alternative? The important thing is to reform it. To remove the
veto? >> We live in an era where there's very significance demographic change, some quite
significance political instability and complex. So if anything that need for a source of policy, how it
responds is going to continue and might even be magnified. In terms of changes to the political
structure, to the U.N. Security Council, perhaps making the General Assembly more important.
There doesn't seem to be any great appetite for that. And it's significant, I think that now we're
beginning to see the recession of the nation states some critic of what have been going in terms
of globalization, global institutions. And it's almost, that if some of the proponents of those ideas
can't really be powered to give the UN a kicking. The UN rather avoid some these criticisms that
perhaps the EU or NATO are, and that's probably an indication of weakness. >> There have
been long periods when the UN has had really quite limited relevance, but it always is the case
that you can look at this institution from if you like, the top down or the bottom-up. And by the top,
I mean the big powers who have been in their own ways always pretty casual use of the UN.
They've chosen from the menu of things the UN can do in a very selective, often hypocritical way,
whereas the smaller countries looking up so to speak have always seen the UN as a vital
institution for their protection and their rights. It's the one place the UN General Assembly, where
their voice can be raised as loud of that as the United States, or Russia, or China.
And so, it has a huge source of moral legitimacy and a huge reservoir of historic sympathy. And
many countries, because there were only 48 when the UN started and it's now 193. Many of
those new members came to independence through a process of decolonization in which the UN
was instrumental. So they look at the UN as very much part of the history of
their independence and nationhood and sovereignty. So it's got a much greater reservoir of
support than may look the case from London or Washington with the slightly supercilious
selective view of the utility of the organization. But if the US or other big powers choose to all but
pull out of it, cut their funding, go to other places to mediate problems. Then, it is obviously
extraordinarily weakened, and what does weakness lead to? When the US didn't join the League
of Nations, having nevertheless been a founder, it wasn't that the League of Nations failed
because of that, it failed because it was subsequently unable to stop a war.
And so, I think American or other sort of withdraw from the institution would be a body blow.
The death blow would come if it leads to a new, generalized global conflict of some kind. >>
So the UN can provide a framework for accountability which ultimately does need to be about
states and people. >> Yes. >> So people need to know that there's something behind that.
And also, I think the second hesitation I would have is how quickly we can get to that stage.
The UN is still a vital lifeline for millions of people around the world. And I am not sure that I
can think of even a consortium of organizations that can easily step into the breach.
So what I think needs to happen is a transition. The UN needs to recognize where it is really
adding value, and in my view, it is creating the framework, creating the space, providing
opportunities for partnerships, providing opportunities for funding. But recognize that increasingly,
direct delivery so the real provision of service is on the ground or coordination of aid, etc., can
come from local organizations from bigger NGOs and from the private sector. And I think there's
a need for us to stop thinking like this because the UN is horrendously overstretched and under
funded. Some agencies, The World Food Programme, they have to raise every year, all of their
funding, they don't get a sort of handout from governments. It's all voluntary funding. They have
to fight for it. That makes it really, really difficult to plan. And if an unanticipated emergency
comes along, that mean it that mean, they're screwed. And the UN can say no, it can't say well
we're not going to deal with drought and this hell, sorry, you were all tied up in Syria. It doesn't
work like that. There's still that expectation. So I do think we need to think much more creatively
about how the UN works and how it can step back from certain things. >> So you're quite
optimistic about the future of the UN? You don't think its time to shop up shop and have a shut up
shop and have a coalition of democracies, instead after all UN is full of fairly obnoxious
dictatorships and absolute monarchies. How do we reconcile that with the values that you and I
might hold dear? >> I mean, I suppose that's sort of the point to the UN, of course. If you start
excluding people, what's the point of having this cozy club where everyone agrees and we just
talk to each other? The whole purpose of the UN is to engage everyone. You're not going to
reduce the incidence of war if you're just hanging out with your friends, for want of a better
phrase. But I think also, what are we going to put in its place?
I talked about 15 transition on the humanitarian side. There are some functions that you cannot
easily give to anyone, mediation, conflict resolution, who is the honest broker there? If we were
to start from scratch.
I'm not sure that the current set of world leaders that we have, have the imagination or the sense
of urgency that leaders did in 1945 to create an organization. We haven't really been able to
design anything better and you can see that in the fact that although there are all these regional
organizations and different groups, you still look to the UN for that ultimate seal of legitimacy. So
the climate agreement has to go the UN, an agreement in development has to go to the UN. No
member state has left the UN, not even North Korea, they all want to engage. So I think it's still
fulfills a really, really important function.
As the only universal platform we have, as the center of norms and standards and as the
provider of with goods and services. But it does need to change. And I think we have a real
opportunity with the new secretary general who was selected I think in the most open and
transparent process in the UN's history. I'm proud to say UNA, you played a real role in that. He's
got a real opportunity to set a much more realistic vision for the UN. That doesn't mean he
shouldn't be ambitious, but it means really look at where the UN can add value. For me, that's in
peace and security terms, more UN action and mediation, conflict resolution, peace keeping,
peace building, stepping back a bit from the development and humanitarian assistance provision
which others can do. >> I mean, to be optimistic, or maybe a little bit of forced optimism, I think
that Trump's desire to have America pay less of the bill for international operations might
translate into a preference for doing things multilaterally than unilaterally. And therefore,
recognizing the value of the UN as a multiplier of dollars and effectiveness and letting it operate.
It might it get a little complicated when it comes to paying UN dues, but not necessarily. I think
that Marine Le Pen has a very ambitious agenda, but certainly getting out of the EU and NATO,
but I haven't the UN particularly on that list. Because France's P5 seat is a representation of a

6. recognition of a defeated France as a great power and of the eternal glory of France, and I doubt
that she's against that.
The Chinese and the Russians obviously cherish their seats and the vetoes that come with them.
And the recognition of their great power status. So it's all negotiable. It's a tough world we're
moving into. And most of the leaders you mentioned are more nationalist than their
predecessors. And the UN is about internationalism. So not to minimize the challenges, but it's
all in what Trump would call the art of the deal except it's a Secretary General Gutierrez who's
got, have to do the dealing. [MUSIC]
Where next for the UN? - Reading
Where next for the United Nations?
Read: “The Way Forward for the UN System:
Read: Guterre, Antonio, “ My Vision for Revitalizing the United Nations:
Read:http://www.cfr.org/international-organizations-and-alliances/united-nations-future-global-go
vernance/p29122
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1948-04-01/regional-systems-and-future-u-n
Read: Guardian Article:" Does The United Nations Have A Future?"
Read: Foreign Affairs Article:"Regional Systems and the Future of the UN"
Watch: A panel of experts discuss the past, present, and future of the United Nations (by Council
on Foreign Relations)
Watch: The Past and the Future of the United Nations, a Conversation with Dr. Danilo Türk. e
former President of Slovenia, joins UN University Rector David M. Malone to discuss the past
and the future of the United Nations in three main areas: human rights, security and
development.
The Future of the UN Development Programme:
Read:Nash, Paul "Can the World End Extreme Poverty by 2030?"
Read:Nash, Paul, "Interview with Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development
Programme
CAN THE WORLD END
EXTREME POVERTY
BY 2030?
BYPAUL NASH.
New Zealand and Brazil are separated by more than 7,500 miles. The two
countries seem to have little in common, apart from long white beaches
and lush rainforests. But for decades both have struggled with similar
developmental challenges, and that struggle has made Wellington and Rio
de Janeiro important voices in the global debate on poverty.
Only sixty years ago, New Zealand basked in prosperity, enjoying one of
the highest standards of living in the world. Then, in the late 1980s and
90s, things started to cloud over. The country’s poverty rate jumped
conspicuously, notably among its children. Researchers blamed
disappearing jobs, changes to the tax system, and rising housing costs.
Living conditions continued to slide backwards, and by 2001 it seemed
possible that the small cluster of South Pacific islands could even fall off
the OECD’s roster of prosperous nations. Helen Clark, the newly elected
prime minister at the time and a former economics teacher, summed it up
by saying that “New Zealand’s economic performance [had] not kept pace
with that of other first world nations.”
Brazil, meanwhile, was moving in the opposite direction, along with much of
the developing world. Its poverty rate had steadily declined through the
1980s and 90s, and the country was poised to cut extreme poverty nearly
in half between 2003 and 2013.
Poverty has been part of the human experience from the very beginning.
Revolutionary technological advances in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, however, in areas from agriculture to healthcare, should have
changed that. But they did not. In 1990, 42.3 percent of the world’s
population in developing countries still lived in extreme poverty, meaning
that 1.9 billion people around the planet subsisted on $1 a day or less, the
average of the world’s poorest 10 to 20 countries, according to the World
Bank.
In 1992, the UN organized Earth Summit. It was an international mega
conference in Rio that set about drafting a new blueprint for human
wellbeing and sustainable development. Earth Summit was followed in
2000 by Millennium Summit in New York, which articulated eight Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) designed to stimulate progress in reducing
global poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and disease by 2015.
Since then, the world has halved extreme poverty, five years before the
MDGs’ target date. By 2010 extreme poverty had dropped to 20.9 percent,
or 1.2 billion people subsisting on $1.25 or less a day (the new threshold,
adjusted for inflation, calculated by the World Bank in 2005). In other
words, 700 million people around world had been lifted out of dire material
deprivation in only 20 years, a remarkable achievement by any measure.
The UN attributes this success to countries coming together as one to
tackle a common problem, although it acknowledges that progress has
been uneven across regions, with large areas in sub-Saharan Africa and
south Asia unlikely to meet the MDGs by 2015.
Today, as the world looks beyond 2015, the UN is asking member states to
build on the lessons learned from working toward MDG targets. Member
states, the UN says, now have to decide how to “invest in the unfinished
work of the MDGs, and use them as a springboard into the future we
want—a future free from poverty and built on human rights, equality, and
sustainability.”
Rio once again took center stage as the UN began charting its post-2015
agenda. In 2012 it hosted what Ban Ki-Moon called “one of the most
important conferences in the history of the United Nations.” World leaders
from 192 countries, along with thousands of participants from the private
sector, NGOs, and other major groups, gathered in Rio for the Rio+20
Earth Summit. Their purpose was to start a process of designing a new set
of development goals to replace the MDGs after 2015. These new goals
will guide efforts to drive down poverty rates, advance social equity, and
ensure environmental protection over the next fifteen years to 2030.
Preparations for the Rio+20 placed a renewed emphasis on sustainable
development. That is, development which, to use the landmark definition
crafted by the Brundtland Commission in 1987, “meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.”
What emerged from the Rio+20 gathering was a series of principles for
formulating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Participants agreed
that the goals have to be “action-oriented, concise, and easy to
communicate, limited in number, aspirational, global in nature, and
universally applicable to all countries while taking into account different
national realities, capacities, and levels of development and respecting
national policies and priorities.”
Foremost on the SDG list is poverty reduction. The proposed target is
informed by a simple question. If extreme poverty could be halved in the 20
years between 1990 and 2010, could it not be nearly eradicated in the 20
years between 2010 and 2030?
It is an ambitious target, to be sure. But ambitious action is what many are
calling for, especially the world’s younger generations. At the Rio+20
opening plenary, seventeen-year-old Brittany Trilford, a student from

7. Wellington, was invited to the podium before more than a hundred heads of
state to voice the concerns of her generation.
“I stand here with fire in my heart.” Trilford said. “I’m confused and angry at
the state of the world. We are here to solve the problems that we have
caused as a collective, to ensure that we have a future.”
“Are you here to save face, or are you here to save us?” Trilford
challenged. “You and your governments have promised to reduce poverty
and sustain our environment. You have already promised to combat climate
change, ensure clean water and food security. Multi-national corporations
have already pledged to respect the environment, green their production,
compensate for their pollution. These promises have been made and yet,
still, our future is in danger.”
The Rio+20’s outcome was articulated in a document titled “The Future We
Want.” It outlines the lessons learned from two decades of development
experience, and provides an assessment of the progress and gaps in
implementing the MDGs. The report expresses a common vision for the
post-2015 agenda in these words: “We recognize that people are at the
center of sustainable development and, in this regard, we strive for a world
that is just, equitable and inclusive, and we commit to work together to
promote sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development and
environmental protection and thereby to benefit all.”
Following the Rio+20, the UN embarked on one of the broadest
consultation processes in its history, involving all UN member states, the
entire UN system, and experts from a cross-section of the scientific
community, civil society, and business. National consultations were held in
almost 100 countries, and more than 5 million people around the world
responded to the UN’s online “MY World” survey.
Details of the individual goals had yet to be worked out, though. In January
2013 the UN established an Open Working Group (OWG) consisting of 30
countries from various regions. It was tasked with preparing a proposal for
consideration during the 68th session of the General Assembly between
September 2013 and September 2014.
The OWG presented its proposal last June. Seventeen goals and 169
targets were identified, covering a broad range of sustainable development
issues, including ending poverty and hunger, improving health and
education, making cities more sustainable, combating climate change, and
protecting oceans and forests.
Some believe the goals are too vague to be practical, with unquantifiable
targets that will make it difficult, if not impossible, to gauge progress toward
achieving them.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said 17 goals may be too many and
that the number should be trimmed to 10 or no more than 12. “I appreciate
the work of the open working group, and how difficult it is to deal with
competing demands, but frankly...there are too many to communicate
effectively,” he said. “There’s a real danger they will end up sitting on a
bookshelf, gathering dust.”
Sam Kutesa, president of the 69th General Assembly and former foreign
minister of Uganda, said that the goals have to be broad, ambitious, and
transformative. “We carry the expectations of millions and millions of
people,” Kutesa said on the opening day of debate in September, “but there
are many issues and challenges that require our attention and effort in this
session.”
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued his Synthesis Report in December,
titled “The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives
and Protecting the Planet.” It incorporates comments received from world
leaders during the Generally Assembly, plus those from other consultations
that have taken place. Intended to set the tone for intergovernmental
discussions on the SDGs between now and September, it indicates “the
possibility to maintain the 17 goals and rearrange them in a focused and
concise manner that enables the necessary global awareness and
implementation at the country level.”
Ultimately, discussions involving individual governments will shape the final
goals. The final goals will be presented for affirmation during a special
session of the General Assembly in September. Implementation is
expected begin in 2016.
Helen Clark, who attended the 2000 Millennium Summit as New Zealand’s
prime minister and now heads the UN Development Programme (UNDP),
explains that while there are many SDGs, they are all closely linked.
“Tackling poverty and creating economic opportunity,” for example, “goes
hand in hand with protecting biodiversity,” Clark said at a biodiversity
protection conference in South Korea last October. Leaders, she said, have
“to see the links between the complex challenges we face and the
solutions.”
Clark argues that these links demand a holistic approach. Ending poverty in
all its forms everywhere (SDG1), for example, cannot be effectively
addressed without promoting inclusive economic growth (SDG8), equitable
education (SDG4), and gender equality (SDG5).
“We estimate that more than 75 percent of the population in developing
countries are living in societies where income distribution is less equal now
than it was in the 1990s,” Clark said in a speech to the Dag Hammarskjold
Foundation in Sweden last November. “High levels of inequality make
poverty reduction even harder to achieve.”
Funding availability will have the final say in shaping the SDG list. The
subject will be taken up in July at the Third International Conference on
Financing for Development, slated to take place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Clark stresses, however, that although funding is a critical component, the
“means of implementation” look beyond money.
“Compared to the MDGs, the new sustainable development agenda
will…be much more about making good policy choices,” Clark said.
“Nonetheless, the availability of official development assistance (ODA) is
still very important for low-income countries in particular, and commitment
to ODA at adequate levels is important for building trust in the post-2015
negotiations.”
The UN plans also to employ “softer” means. These include various
programs to encourage local government participation and efforts to
strengthen local institutional capacities by making them more efficient,
open, and responsive to stakeholders. The UN is calling on civil society to
become actively involved in monitoring and accountability, and to create an
“enabling environment” by helping to introduce new supporting legislation in
member countries. Cultural values will play a role in stimulating economic
opportunity, and so too will private sector participation, which is expected to
provide essential sources of investment, employment, and innovation.
No one thinks the SDGs will be easy to realize. The goals are sweeping
and their implementation broad. While non-binding, they are intended to
apply universally to all member states, both rich and poor. Clearly they are
more complex, and for that reason more difficult to communicate, put into
action, and monitor than the MDGs. But the world’s problems are complex.
Perhaps such an ambitious, integrated approach—one that looks to the
links between development, human rights, peace and security, and climate
change—is what is needed to carry us forward.

8. Photo: Aerial view of Monrovia. Sub-Saharan Africa is urbanizing and
growing rapidly. Making sure that growth benefits the many is a key
challenge for African countries. UN Photo by Christopher Herwig.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's
January/February 2015 print edition.
INTERVIEW: HELEN
CLARK
ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE UNITED NATIONS
DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMME
BYPAUL NASH.
Helen Clark became the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) on April 17, 2009, and is the first woman to lead the organization. She is also the
Chair of the United Nations Development Group, a committee consisting of the heads of all
UN funds, programmes, and departments working on development issues. Prior to her
appointment with UNDP, Helen Clark served for nine years as Prime Minister of New
Zealand, serving three successive terms from 1999 - 2008.
***
[Diplomatic Courier:] Do you think the emerging post-2015 development agenda is too
broad—that is, could it be made more effective by giving it a sharper focus?
[Helen Clark:] The thing about sustainable development is that it is broad. It is not a narrow
agenda. It is an agenda that covers three strands: the economic, the social, and the
environmental. It tries to deal with issues across these three strands in an holistic way. So
it’s always going to be a big agenda. The issue, then, is which particular things do you select
from the all-encompassing total agenda to prioritize.
And that is the way the member states have to negotiate. You will see in the
Secretary-General’s synthesis report, and already outlined in the statement he gave to the
General Assembly, that he has drawn their attention to the Rio+20 outcome, which said that
the sustainable development goals should be “action-oriented, concise, easy to
communicate, limited in number, aspirational, global in nature, and universally applicable.”
That’s quite a lot. But he is saying, in effect, that there is a lot because it is important to get it
right. He’s accepted that the Open Working Group’s report is the basis for the negotiations,
but he’s also said go back and look at what the Rio+20 asked the member states to do.
[DC:] Do you think the targets and indicators of the sustainable development goals are
adequate?
[HC:] The proposal has 169 targets, and obviously immensely more indicators would fall out
of those. The Secretary General has said that the UN system is available to assist the
member states to work on targets and to work on indicators. In the end, this is a signal to
take advice because if goals are to be action-oriented and actually achieve something, then
the targets have to be measurable.
So the technocrats now need to have a good look at what has been proposed and ask: Is
this a target and is it measurable, or is it a statement of intent? The targets need to be
targets. So I think the message coming through that synthesis report is: You’ve got the basis,
now look at the “action-oriented,” the “measurable,” and the “limited number” and come up
with something that meets these requirements.
[DC:] Do you think it’s realistic to believe that extreme poverty can be ended by 2030?
[HC:] Well, if all things were equal, yes. But—and I immediately say but—a lot would hang
on goal number 16, which is to promote peaceful and inclusive societies. It simply isn’t
possible to eradicate extreme poverty in poor countries that are at war. If they are in the
same state of conflict in 2030 that they are today, it is impossible to eradicate extreme
poverty. So that’s why I think it’s very important that this agenda does encompass the
objective of building peaceful and inclusive societies that hang together and don’t spawn the
conflicts that completely throw development off track. I think that is the huge issue.
There are also other things that can wipe progress away. For example, there may not have
been sufficient adaptation around disaster risk, and that includes climate risk. And then there
is the question of building resilience around other kinds of shocks. The poorest countries on
earth got knocked sideways by the global financial crisis because the prices for basic
commodities and the demand for them fell through the floorboards. And then of course there
is the issue of epidemics. Take Ebola at the moment, for example, which has hit three of the
poorest countries in the world. Those countries were also three of the fastest growing
countries, but a basic incapacity to deal with a communicable disease outbreak knocked
things for six.
So, yes, eradication of extreme poverty is possible by 2030, but a lot has to be done to
promote peaceful and inclusive societies, disaster risk reduction, resilience to shocks, and
the basic capacities that enable countries to put in place a health service to cope with
epidemics and provide other basic care.
[DC:] Is the development agenda largely about developed countries giving charity and
solving the problems of other countries?
[HC:] No, I frankly don't believe it’s about that at all. I think that official development
assistance (ODA) is extremely important for the poorest and most fragile countries. But it is
such a small part now of the overall funding for development that it really has to be seen in a
much bigger context.
When I spoke to a General Assembly briefing on the Financing for Development Conference
two or three weeks ago, I made the point that financing for sustainable development is
something very, very different from financing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The MDGs were basically about financing a gap. That is, here are the basic benchmarks of
development, here are where countries are—now let’s fund the gap between the two. So we
try to reduce infant death rates and so on, and you can cost what that will take. But when
you come to sustainable development you are talking about the trillions of dollars of
investment that will be needed in countries, both rich and poor, for things like clean energy
assistance, clean transport systems, and sustainable cities. In the social sphere you are
talking about bringing education assistance up, providing a fully comprehensive,
better-quality system, and taking people through learning for life. And you are also talking
about better health services and about improving other areas of infrastructure. So it
becomes a total development financing agenda, not just a “gaps” financing agenda.
The role of ODA in that is frankly very small, which is why it has to be “smart.” The role of
ODA increasingly must be smart to support countries as they build the capacity to mobilize
their own resources, through a tax system and access the loans and financing mechanisms.
I had a very interesting conversation with one of the African ambassadors today, and he said
he had been thinking that the total official development assistance that goes to Africa is
about $50 billion a year, but that this sustainable development agenda will require about $1
trillion a year. And this is the point. So, yes, ODA is important and can be catalytic, but it is
only a small part of a huge global sustainable development financing agenda.
[DC:] Why is the development agenda voluntary and without an accountability framework?
Can it truly be effective this way?
[HC:] Well, we’re not negotiating a treaty here like one concerned with climate change, which
takes a very long time. Here we are negotiating the outcome of a General Assembly
deliberation. It can’t be compulsory—that is not the nature of it—because a General
Assembly resolution is then up to the member states to implement.
I think the trick is to come up with something sufficiently compelling that will motivate
countries to pick up this agenda and run with it—both developed countries and developing
countries.
In terms of the accountability framework, there will be mechanisms and there will be a lot of
reporting. Yes, it’s voluntary, but as we have seen with MDG reporting over the past 14
years, countries do take it very, very seriously. We work to provide the support but people do
put out good reports that say: Here is where we are succeeding, and here is where we are
not. At the global level we have facilitated that. So I think that as we move to an era of SDG
reporting, we will move to the equivalent of these national voluntary presentations on MDG
progress.
There has been a lot of talk about the data revolution and how it can be used to bring official
statistics up to good standards, and how we can try to capture and use big data, to provide
more analysis, and to get civil society more engaged and participatory in monitoring, which
requires capacitating civil society. In other words, there is a focus now on how we know if
this is going anywhere, and how we are going to measure it. So I feel reasonably confident
that countries will want to do their best, will want to have a good story to tell. It won’t be a
question of it being compulsory—it will be a question of people wanting to show that they are
achieving something.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's January/February 2015 print
edition.
Photo: Inia Herencic/UNDP Croatia.