COUNCIL, ONLY UN BODY WITH EXECUTIVE POWERS
Press Release
GA/9290
PI/1028
COUNCIL, ONLY UN BODY WITH EXECUTIVE POWERS
19970910 In Address to DPI/NGO Conference, Razali Ismail (Malaysia) Says Governments/NGOs Productive Partnerships Are Exception and Not Norm at UNThis is the text of the address by the President of the General Assembly, Razali Ismail (Malaysia), at the opening of the fiftieth annual Department of Public Information (DPI)/NGO Conference, at Headquarters this morning, which is focusing on the theme "Building Partnerships":
It has been said that the partnership between NGOs, governments and the United Nations has come a long way in 50 years. This is certainly true in one sense, and one would be forgiven for being surprised at the theme of this conference, "Building Partnerships", after so long an association. But critical review of developments in the last decade demonstrate that productive partnerships between governments and NGOs are the exception and not the norm in the United Nations context, and remain steeped in mutual suspicion and ignorance despite participatory rights at global conferences and Economic and Social Council meetings, and despite the recognition that NGOs are essential components in an age where power is being diffused from the nation State to markets, transnational organizations and civil society.
As with most organizations, building partnerships in the United Nations context is about a complex set of power relations. Even here in the General Assembly Hall, the domain of democracy and sovereign equality among nations, such principles are neither manifest within nor between nations, and seldom factored into the intergovernmental decision-making of the United Nations. All this despite such principles remaining at the heart of the United Nations Charter.
Until recently the United Nations was a house of sovereign States whose normative and operational activities were determined by nation States. This is now under attack by the powerful engine of change via the telecommunications revolution. The breaking-down of the States' monopoly on the collection and management of information leads to their relative decline
while instantaneous access to information and the ability to use it provides non-state actors with knowledge. And to use a couple of cliches of modern times, knowledge is power and the ability to mobilize public opinion is to master the world. These developments are why governments fear NGOs, avoid having to deal with them if they can help it or try to manage them at best. For some governments, their only experience of NGOs derives from what they would consider the annual human rights bashing at the Commission on Human Rights. I urge you to go out and talk to them, drop your politics for a moment and make friends, dispel the myths and stereotypes as a first step.
Contradictions abound of course. The first arises when governments feel that they need more capable multilateral organizations to solve the growing list of transnational problems, but at the same time fear competitors and those with transnational reach. This ambivalence is apparent in the United Nations, where governments mandate the Organization with new responsibilities while reasserting sovereignty's first principle, the non-interference in domestic affairs of States. This ambivalence has opened up the political space for NGOs to take up such global issues, although even in this instance there appears to be a backlash. For instance, the success of NGOs in shaping the agenda at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and pushing for a framework convention on climate change has not only made governments more wary of allowing NGOs to penetrate the official decision-making process, but spurred industry to set up their own "expert" groups to counter the lobbying efforts of environmental groups.
The conventional approach of governments to NGOs when access to United Nations bodies is being considered is the legal approach. This depends on the exercise of authority by States, on the consent of States as the basis of application of rules and on the notion of some type of self-interest as the underlying reason for acceding to cooperative arrangements. The United Nations, as an international organization, is treated ultimately as a creature of national self-interest where national sovereignty is supreme, however and by whomever that is defined. The NGOs only fit into this scheme as entities whose activities have to be regulated and to conform to the broader undertakings and strategies of States.
The need to democratize the international system was clearly recognized by the NGO forum during UNCED which, in "The People's Earth Declaration" stated, and I quote: "We, the people of the world, will mobilize the forces of transnational civil society behind a widely shared agenda that bonds our many social movements in pursuit of just, sustainable and participatory human societies. In so doing we are forging our own instruments and processes for redefining the nature and meaning of human progress and for transforming those institutions that no longer respond to our needs."
- 3 - Press Release GA/9290 NGO/295 PI/1028 10 September 1997
How far have these goals been met? It seems that NGOs with all the best intentions in the world, also fall victim to the difficulty of translating words into tangible deeds. Despite huge progress in terms of harnessing information technologies to network with other citizens groups across national boundaries, such empowerment has yet to alter the decisions of governments on crucial issues or the decision-making process in any substantial or sustained manner. While numerous NGOs scrutinize the actions of governments from their favourite single-issue perspective at the United Nations, precious few scrutinize the structure or actions of the Security Council, the only United Nations body with executive powers. And where are the voices that uphold the rule of international law on human rights issues but have failed to decry United States arrears to the United Nations?
Even if I sound extreme, I will make the point that not too many ambassadors will readily acknowledge the expertise and contributions of NGOs. But truly, not only do NGOs deliver more development assistance than the entire United Nations system (excluding the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund), but they provide development, education and health-care services in areas that governments and the private sector fail or neglect to reach. Governments and the United Nations would benefit enormously from the new ideas that NGOs generate. Often however, the range of methods employed or the packaging used to get the message across -- whether it be advocacy, direct action, protests, policy analysis, implementation, monitoring, enforcing commitments or conducting slick public relations campaigns -- can overshadow the message itself. The diversity of NGO activity, methods, work and interests are its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. In building new partnerships with governments and the United Nations, it is essential that NGOs continue to bring priorities, to demand procedures that give voice to groups outside government and new standards of accountability.
It would be naive to think that the outcome of all NGO efforts is necessarily positive. While the achievements are many and diverse, some activities have backfired, prominent examples being involvement in relief efforts in recent humanitarian crises involving "ethnic cleansing". In some instances, particularly on the operational side, NGOs need to dispense with their "more action and less reflection" attitude if better partnerships are to be built into United Nations projects and programmes. So too should fund- raising of a sensational nature with the help of Hollywood, which can undermine longer-term efforts to improve public knowledge about the complexity of issues and inform them of their choices.
A traditional criticism of NGOs held by governments lies in the nature of representation within these organizations. While it would be both impossible and undesirable to standardize criteria for NGOs, the non- transparency of how NGOs are structured and organized remains a block in the minds of most government officials, even though procedures for accreditation to the Economic and Social Council have been performing well enough. Once again it is a problem of perception. After all, NGOs are not necessarily in themselves democratic. While some are organized along the lines of coalitions that network laterally, others are hierarchical and headed by elites, who in their style of decision-making push forward their own personal agendas rather than those of their constituents, and may hardly be different from the
- 4 - Press Release GA/9290 NGO/295 PI/1028 10 September 1997
governments that they confront. The best of them, the ablest and most passionate often suffer from tunnel vision, judging every public act by how it affects their particular interests. A need to sustain growing budgets can compromise the independence of mind and approach.
Governments also argue that for all their strengths, NGOs remain special interests, and being without election procedures from their constituents, do not have the rights of representation that governments do. This type of argument does of course beg the question whether the governments in the United Nations are any more representative of democracy based on the universal principles of human rights than NGOs, if election procedures and arguments of accountability are to be the benchmarks of legitimate and popular representation. A case can also be made that representation through the election process can lead to a situation where leadership assumes beyond bounds its mandate to think and act on behalf of its electorate.
Whether the United Nations is to become a winning proposition for the next century will to a large degree depend on the manner in which partnerships are constructed between NGOs, governments and the Secretariat. The politics of building partnerships are enormously complex of course, fraught with fear, stereotypes, apathy, legal inhibitions and ambiguities. No player is immune from the above. It is only when such contradictions are explored from all angles that partnerships of mutual trust, cooperation and complementarity will be sustained. At the moment we have not even got past the "back to basics" mark. For example, when we speak about the United Nations, do we differentiate between United Nations agencies, funds and programmes and intergovernmental processes? This may seem an elementary question but the sociology of cultures within the United Nations family are virtually unknown even to so-called insiders such as myself. And when we speak of NGOs, isn't it time we make a distinction between non-profit organizations and commercial organizations?
While the academic and incremental approach to building partnerships has certain advantages, so does tough questioning about the fundamentals. This conference would be valuable if it would start to provide some of the answers. Let me pose some of them here. Do NGOs actually see strategic value in
- 5 - Press Release GA/9290 NGO/295 PI/1028 10 September 1997
greater involvement in intergovernmental bodies or will it compromise too much your cherished independence? Are NGOs now too diverse and unable to build coherent arrangements of participation through existing hierarchical structures such as CONGO? How are the tensions between international NGOs and grass-roots NGOs reconciled? Do most governments only pay lip service to public participation and democratization for political expedience or are they really convinced of the long-term benefits in encouraging a diversity of opinion? Does the Secretariat consider NGO participation in the United Nations a valuable way of cooperating with multilateralist allies or is it a tedious matter of accreditation and finding more seats for people and upsetting age-old protocol?
Answering these questions, if answers are possible, would require the explosion of myths as a first step. Building partnerships on the other hand requires careful thought and strategic planning by all parties concerned. It seems to me that the dialogue between NGOs, governments and the United Nations Secretariat has barely begun. Consider the irony that existing practices of NGO participation at the United Nations may in fact be downgraded when government delegations negotiate formal arrangements of participation. Consider also the fact that governments deem broader participation of NGOs in the work of the United Nations to be an urgent matter, note report of the working group on strengthening of the United Nations system, but the subgroup on NGOs established to consider the matter could not even agree on a mandate, despite over 30 hours of meeting time. That is the burden of consensus, necessary as it may be in most instances.
In considering this issue, while each party in the United Nations system will try to determine the advantages and disadvantages of partnership on a case-by-case basis, simple reference to NGOs, Secretariat and government as three homogenous interest groups is superficial and misleading. Even in my own Mission, one that is renowned for its openness to NGOs, there are diplomats who hold quite conservative views in contrast to my permissive ones. It is important to remember that day-to-day work is accomplished by people who have a variety of instructions, or none at all, from their governments or departments. The quality and characteristics of personal contacts can do much to help or hinder the building of effective partnerships, and in the United Nations context, personality can count for as much as policy or instructions.
A critical ambiguity that NGOs must decide in building partnerships is the mixture of conflict, competition and cooperation in determining how close their links with governments or United Nations bodies should be. Only NGOs can decide that for themselves. In the case of the United Nations, while there is merit in keeping the boundaries of relationship porous in the case of non-profit NGOs, the ramifications of association with profit-making or
- 6 - Press Release GA/9290 NGO/295 PI/1028 10 September 1997
commercial NGOs and foundations is potentially serious, especially as fictitious fronts for corporate political lobbying have mushroomed in recent years and with their money and leverage can undermine the universal norms and values of the United Nations, as well as the authority of governments.
The participation of NGOs in the United Nations context, whether on the local, national or international levels, is a healthy development and should be deepened. A deepening partnership does not necessarily mean that formal relationships should be established. In fact, informal partnerships are often more effective in meeting objectives and ensuring impact than partnerships that develop around lunches and social events. The gradual emergence of a mixture of governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental voices in the debates and problem-solving forums of the United Nations would reflect reality more closely than a nation-state dominated United Nations. This would surely strengthen the United Nations and equip it so that it provides the modicum of global governance so eagerly sought by peoples and governments of the world.
The proverbial bottom line for the United Nations, if it is to fulfil its Charter responsibilities, is enhanced transparency, accountability and participation. Under the right conditions and with patience, tolerance and farsightedness, the growth of NGOs and their increasing relevance to the operational and normative activities of the United Nations system could provide the United Nations with the conditions and opportunities for improved transparency, accountability and participation. And also I believe added legitimacy.
* *** *