DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL, ADDRESSING INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FORCES OF GLOBALIZATION, STRESSES NEED FOR LONG-TERM THINKING AND PLANNING

Press Release
DSG/SM/81
UNU/194

DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL, ADDRESSING INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FORCES OF GLOBALIZATION, STRESSES NEED FOR LONG-TERM THINKING AND PLANNING

Following is the text of Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette’s address to the United Nations University Conference, “On the Threshold: The United Nations and Global Governance in the New Millenium”, which was delivered today in Tokyo:

It is a real pleasure to be with you today for one of the first major international conferences of the new millennium. The United Nations University is an excellent place from which to start a new chapter in human history. It is dedicated to the sharing of knowledge. In a world where knowledge is as formidable an asset as technology or oil, that commitment is in the best tradition of global fraternity.

So I would like to express my gratitude to the United Nations University for organizing this conference, and to all others who have helped make it possible, foremost among them, the Japanese Ministries of Education and Foreign Affairs, the Asahi Shimbun and the United Nations Development Programme. I would also like to pay tribute to those who have contributed their valuable papers, ideas and time to this undertaking.

We are, however, engaged in a somewhat uncertain enterprise. The philosopher Karl Popper once said that we cannot anticipate today what we shall know only tomorrow. The course of twentieth century history is littered with discarded theses and discredited predictions. As we look ahead, we are not likely to know what advances or crises are going to light or blight our path. Surprise has always been the order of the day.

Still, however difficult or risky it might be to peer into the future, peer we must. Population growth; energy consumption; economic growth; health and education levels; technological breakthroughs -- these are some of the trends we can extrapolate, and so at least imagine what the world may look like one or two decades hence. And while human beings are not known for long-term thinking or planning, we must project ourselves forward, lest we miss opportunities for progress; lest we fail to ward off impending calamities; or, just as bad, lest we gird ourselves for the wrong battles. As I gaze at this near horizon, I see two trends shaping our collective life in this new century. The first -- concern for the well-being of individual human beings -- is certainly not new. Is it not what "liberté, egalité, fraternité", or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were all about? But this concern has assumed true prominence only in recent years. The second -- globalization -- is also familiar to us; human beings have interacted across the planet for centuries. But today's globalization is different -- in its pace, its impact and, especially, in its driving mechanisms.

The two trends are closely related. Both create intense pressure on the nation-State -- globalization from above, concern for individuals from below -- and imply dramatic changes in our understanding of State and individual sovereignty. And each feeds, and is fed by, the other.

The information technologies that make up part of globalization's leading edge helps foster worldwide awareness of the fate and welfare of men, women and children. Indeed, the starving child whose image is beamed to comfortable living rooms from some faraway war-zone land, and the images of plenty and conspicuous consumption transmitted from a rich country capital to the shanty towns of the poor, both create two-way traffic in concern and wonder. The rights revolution, for its part, provides a spur to globalization. It is not only trade, finance and investment that are being globalized; so, too, are values, such as equality, tolerance and freedom -- which today, even more than in 1948, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted, are recognized as truly universal.

Concern for the individual human being -- for his or her dignity, liberties, rights and well-being -- has a long, if checkered history, but what is most striking about its development in the last half century is not only the intensification of these concerns at the national level, but the prominence they have assumed in the international arena. That development has been marked by a series of milestones: the United Nations Charter, written in the name of "we, the peoples"; the Universal Declaration itself; and the plethora of more recent conventions, covenants and mechanisms that now encompass women's rights, torture, minority rights, and children’s rights to name but a few more.

A solid framework of international law and practices has been put in place. Some say this is a mere “paper” triumph, and there does remain an alarming chasm between laws on the books and daily reality. Still, the United Nations has spawned increasingly intrusive mechanisms to monitor and foster respect for human rights -- for example, the thematic and country-specific special rapporteurs. Of an even higher order -- and this is truly one of the most dramatic developments in the last decade of the twentieth century -- has been the willingness of the international community to deploy troops and take other action aimed at preventing gross abuses of human rights. The creation of the International Criminal Tribunals to investigate genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the adoption of statutes for an International Criminal Court are further evidence of the deepening involvement of the international community in human rights matters.

The concern for individual human beings seems to me to be irreversible. It is bringing profound changes to national life and international life. Citizens, conscious of their rights, want to be heard, want to participate -- in short, they want to be in charge of their future. As Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said, it is now widely understood that States are the servants of, and accountable to, their peoples, not the other way around.

However, growing pains are evident in efforts to involve civil society more deeply in the work of Governments and international organizations. The passion of civil society groups is clear. So is their power; witness their role in successful campaigns to ban landmines, promote debt relief and adopt the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. They also influenced very significantly the outcomes of the Earth Summit and other major world conferences over the past decade. But the mechanisms for their participation remain embryonic. Governments often question non-governmental organizations (NGOs) representativeness while they in turn question whether Governments are really committed to anything more than token transparency.

Globalization is also irreversible. Globalization is commonly understood to describe those advances in technology and communications that have made possible an unprecedented degree of financial and economic interdependence and potential for growth. As markets are integrated, the theory goes, investments flow more easily, competition is enhanced, prices are lowered and living standards everywhere are improved. Today, globalization is a fact of life, although the theory has not worked out precisely as envisaged.

We are all consumers in the same global economy. Instant communications and free-wheeling movements of capital, goods and peoples have created a web of relationships that transcend frontiers. The process is bringing us more choices and new opportunities for prosperity. It is making us more familiar with global diversity. But it also brings uncertainties. There are losers, as well as winners. It is exacerbating already large gaps between rich and poor, both within and among nations.

Millions of people around the world experience globalization not as an agent of progress, but as a disruptive, even destructive force. Many more millions are completely excluded from its benefits. Half the world's people, for example, have never made or received a telephone call. To them, the great gains of science, medicine and technology might as well be taking place on another planet. Meanwhile, criminal groups take advantage of porous borders and powerful new technologies for their own nefarious aims.

Earlier this month, a single day's front-page of The New York Times offered two examples of the fast-changing world in which we live and the wide-ranging new forces with which we must contend. One story told of a credit card cyberscam in which the criminal was sitting at a computer somewhere in Eastern Europe, but the threat was to wallets and pocketbooks on the streets of the United States. A second story showed how people could circumvent public health laws by ordering medicines, some of them untested or of questionable value, through the Internet. Clearly, States are having difficulty in keeping pace with technical change and human ingenuity.

Globalization confronts us with the challenge of reconciling the imperatives of global markets with the socio-economic needs of the world's people; and of realizing its full potential while minimizing the threat of new divisions in our world, of backlash and recourse to the damaging "isms" of our post-cold-war world: populism, nationalism, ethnic chauvinism, fanaticism and terrorism.

This, then, is the backdrop for our work as we embark on a new millennium. Globalization and concern for individual well-being are the grand, defining forces of our day, affecting more and more aspects of our lives. And as they do so, they are showing us yet another key feature of our world: that almost every phenomenon or problem we face - - from education to the environment; from disarmament to development to discrimination -- has a compelling and often overwhelming international dimension. These are issues which transcend borders, and are beyond the power of any single nation to control or even confront. Thus, they require some form of management and cooperation at the global level. The question is whether we have the right institutions and tools to respond to these challenges, whether the necessary mechanisms for effective global governance are in place.

When assessing the adequacy of global governance instruments, one is struck by the sheer number of them. During the latter part of the twentieth century, a multitude of new treaties came into force to help strengthen international management of issues as diverse as climate change, international crime or the rights of children. And the alphabet soup of international organizations was enriched by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the World Trade Organizaion (WTO) and countless others, only exceeded by the explosion in the number of international non-governmental organizations covering the full spectrum of human activity.

In order to prove up to the challenges of this new century, this dense network of conventions and organizations must, in my opinion, meet three crucial tests.

First is the test of legitimacy. The more decisions taken at the international level impinge on our daily lives, the more the countries and peoples of the world will need to be reassured that their national and individual concerns, and aspirations can be taken into account. Our intergovernmental institutions do not always reflect the realities of today. The enlargement of the United Nations Security Council, for instance, is viewed almost universally as an imperative if its authority is to be preserved in the new century. Furthermore, international institutions often function in a way that is not fully in keeping with today's demands and desires for openness, whether we are speaking of the Security Council, the WTO or the Bretton Woods institutions. This was, indeed, one of the main criticisms voiced by both Member States and NGOs in Seattle, not without reason or resonance. In the future, decision- making will have to be more transparent, not as a reward or privilege, but as a basic principle and a smart way of doing business.

The legitimacy of decisions taken in international organizations will be further enhanced if governments also routinely make efforts to reach beyond the ranks of officialdom into those of civil society. The state-based order will no doubt continue to prevail, but governments and international institutions must do more to involve civil society groups. These groups, in return, must be prepared to meet high standards of transparency and accountability.

The second test I would propose to judge the adequacy of our international governance framework is that of coherence: is it capable of dealing effectively with the complexity of and interconnections amongst the issues we have to resolve nowadays. We have made much progress in understanding the political, economic and societal factors that can allow a fragile peace to endure or condemn it to collapse. We have explored in some depth the complex interrelationships that are at play in achieving sustainable human development. The question is whether our institutions are capable of integrating these factors in their actions and decisions.

Our network of international institutions is very fragmented. All too often, issues are addressed piecemeal and in the worst case, institutions trespass on each other's turf, causing substantive confusion, bureaucratic strife and political stalemate.

Many have dreamed of rebuilding the United Nations and its system of specialized agencies from the ground up, so to speak, but this seems to be too ambitious a goal. We need, however, better coherence among them and the willingness to give them the authority they need. This is the essence of the Secretary-General's reform programme. I believe we are demonstrating that, within the constraints of the existing system, we can achieve greater coherence and reduce significantly the overlaps and duplications that have been so roundly criticized in the past.

A third and final test is, simply put, the test of effectiveness, for which legitimacy and coherence are the building blocks. Effectiveness has to do with the existence of proper instruments, the timeliness of decisions, the adequacy of the means to meet the goals. The financial crisis of last year, which did grave damage to so many developing countries’ economies, particularly in Asia, revealed severe deficiencies in the international financial governance. And anyone who is familiar with United Nations peacekeeping operations will recognize the paucity of means available to the United Nations, whether in the form of well equipped troops, qualified police officers or financial resources, to deliver on the ambitious goals set by the Security Council. The sharp decline in official development assistance (ODA) during the nineties put in question the commitment of the richer countries to reducing poverty in the less developed countries. At the end of the day, the effectiveness of the global governance instruments depends on the political will of States and their leaders: the will to respect the commitment they have made, the will to implement the conventions they have signed, the will to support with resources the institutions they have created. It also depends on the commitment of the international staff of all these organizations to provide the best possible service to their Member States and the people they serve.

Let me conclude by saying once again how pleased I am to be participating in this conference. Your research and your views are of great importance to all those who are involved in building the rules, tools and institutions by which an international community can manage life in the global era.

* *** *