DISCUSSING "NEW DEMOCRATIC DIPLOMACY", DPI/NGO CONFERENCE EXCHANGES VIEWS ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTNERSHIP WITH STATES

Press Release
NGO/377
PI/1276

DISCUSSING ‘NEW DEMOCRATIC DIPLOMACY’, DPI/NGO CONFERENCE EXCHANGES VIEWS ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTNERSHIP WITH STATES

Many people would disagree with the view that open markets and private enterprise were the best generators of economic growth, Alejandro Bendaña, Director, Centro de Estudios Internacionales, said this morning during the second panel discussion of the Fifty-third Annual Department of Public Information /Non- Governmental Organization Conference.

Speaking during a panel discussion entitled “The New Democratic Diplomacy: Civil Society as Partner with the United Nations and Governments”, Mr. Bendaña said the current private sector management of the global economy was fundamentally anti-developmental in nature.

He also said that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were being co-opted by Governments and international institutions. They needed to make up their minds about whose side they were on and who would stand with them. Some had been seduced and others were being seduced, while many were donor-dependent and supply- driven. Others thought more of supporting rural development projects rather than rural workers. New diplomacy had to be rooted in the principle of social alliances.

Responding to a criticism of the Secretary-General’s Global Compact initiative, Sweden’s representative said the idea behind that process was to encourage private companies to take larger responsibility by incorporating internationally recognized labour standards, environmental protection measures and human rights norms in their managerial practices. In that way the private sector could contribute to giving globalization a more human face. He urged all to give the Secretary-General’s initiative a chance.

Referring to the theme of the discussion, Jayantha Dhanapala, Under- Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs and panel moderator, said diplomacy was ceasing to be a profession practiced by an elite group, as both globalization and the revolution in information technology had made it possible for new players to enter the field.

He warned, however, that there was a danger the formula might be abused. High motivation, networking, electronic communications and mastery of the media were all multi-purpose tools that could be used for good or bad. Diplomacy must therefore respond to the popular will -- yet it must continue to advance the long- term interests of people even in the face of contemporary opposition.

DPI/NGO Annual Conference - 1a - Press Release NGO/377 AM Meeting PI/1276 29 August 2000

Statements were also made by: Betty Murungi of the International Federation of Women Lawyers and Indira Rosenthal, Counsel of Human Rights Watch.

The Conference will meet again at 3 p.m. to hold another panel discussion on the roles of civil society in humanitarian intervention.

DPI/NGO Annual Conference - 3 - Press Release NGO/377 AM Meeting PI/1276 29 August 2000

Conference Work Programme

The Fifty-third Annual Department of Public Information (DPI)/Non- Governmental Organization (NGO) Conference met this morning to hold a panel discussion entitled “The New Democratic Diplomacy: Civil Society as Partner with the United Nations and Governments”. Panellists will develop the practical application of the New Democratic Diplomacy –- the working partnership between Governments, the United Nations and civil society to negotiate social change for the betterment of humanity.

Panellists include: Alejandro Bendaña, Director, Centro de Estudios Internacionales; Betty Murungu, Member, International Federation of Women’s Lawyers, Kenya Chapter; Indira Rosenthal, Counsel, Human Rights Watch; and Pierre Schori, Permanent Representative of Sweden. Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary- General for Disarmament Affairs, will moderate the discussion.

Statements

JAYANTHA DHANAPALA, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, said diplomacy was ceasing to be a profession practised by an elite group, as both globalization and the revolution in information technology had made it possible for new players to enter the field. The current revolution in the field of diplomacy stemmed from the rise of civil society, which had become a foundation of policy, an independent source of knowledge for leaders, a potentially powerful tool of leaders, a medium for the conduct of diplomacy and a potent force for public accountability. That revolution was evident in the success of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the campaign to establish an International Criminal Court.

There was danger that the formula might be abused, he noted. High motivation, networking, electronic communications and mastery of the media were all multi-purpose tools that could be used for good or bad. Therefore, diplomacy must respond to the popular will -- yet it must continue to advance the long-term interests of people even in the face of contemporary opposition. There could be no instant treaties, especially in the sensitive area of national security. To ensure durability and universality, a strategic partnership between civil society and sovereign nation States was indispensable.

The Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters had always stressed the importance of civil society to the future of disarmament. Genuine progress in achieving disarmament goals, including the elimination of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as reducing stocks of small arms, must rest upon a solid foundation of an informed public. One of the greatest hurdles in any effort to make the process of disarmament more democratic was the unwillingness of governments to provide relevant information, ostensibly for national security reasons. Consequently, attempts to improve transparency would require persistent efforts by and on behalf of civil society.

The concept of “new democratic diplomacy” also connoted the existence of a strategy, he said, and participants in democratic political systems needed to act diplomatically. They needed clear goals and carefully coordinated tactics rooted in democratic origins reflecting popular will. One area where such initiatives could be applied was the environment. For example, disarmament groups must do more to build bridges to environmental and human rights groups. The burden of eliminating all weapons of mass destruction could not fall solely on the backs of the dedicated but under-funded members of the disarmament movement. There must be integrated support from various members of civil society, academia and others for a collective effort to succeed.

ALEJANDRO BENDAÑA, Director, Centro de Estudios Internacionales, said globalization was nothing more than the militarized process of corporate rule of the world. Yesterday he had heard and read a lot of disturbing statements. The Secretary-General, for example, at the opening of the Conference, had said that globalization was like gravity. He disagreed with that -- every day people fought gravity when they got out of bed. Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), had said that open markets and private enterprise were the best generators of economic growth and could reduce poverty. Many people all over the world, and particularly in Latin America, would also beg to disagree with that.

He said the current private sector management of the global economy was fundamentally anti-developmental in nature. The United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) had stated that the Organization was open for business. While the United Nations had always been influenced by business, the Organization was now going through a reform. The private sector had its own agenda and the type of business now was being taken on was disquieting. Furthermore, the Global Compact, announced by the Secretary-General last June, was simply bad news. One therefore had to be clear as to the limits of partnerships and who was included in those partnerships. Corporations thought only in terms of commodities -- and “we are not commodities”.

Governments were just as much part of the problem, he said. And structural adjustment programmes were just as much a danger to peace and development as anything else. They killed. Who was to blame? The Governments that went along with such programmes. The solution to the problems of liberalized intervention and globalization was therefore not more of the same thing.

He said NGOs were being co-opted by Governments and international institutions. Yes, they were working -- but under whose terms? The NGOs needed to make up their minds about whose side they were on and who would stand with them. Some had been seduced, and others were being seduced. Many NGOs were donor-dependent and supply-driven. Others thought more of supporting rural development projects rather than rural workers. The "new diplomacy" had to be rooted in the principle of social alliances. Included in that were issues such as support for land reform, ending military intervention and debt forgiveness.

The history of humanitarian intervention, he said, revealed that such actions were performed to conceal the interests of major powers. The NGOs needed to be invigorated by a new multiracial partnership and a genuinely new diplomacy.

BETTY MURUNGI, Member, International Federation of Women Lawyers, Kenya Chapter, said that there had been a number of initiatives to increase the level of participation of women in national peace processes, and women’s organizations had taken bold steps and used effective strategies to ensure their participation. That had been the case in Liberia where women had effectively organized themselves through two national networks, which had resulted in a long-term sustainable peace plan that included both men and women. In addition, women in a number of other countries, including Sierra Leone, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali and Burundi, among others, were forming movements to promote peaceful resolutions to prevailing conflicts.

She said that the Organization of African Unity (OAU) had always supported the inclusion of women civil society organizations in peace negotiation mechanisms, affirming their collective conviction that freedom, justice, peace, equality and dignity were legitimate aspirations of African women. Women had also participated in advocating for the inclusion of gender-sensitive investigative techniques and inclusion of gender crimes in indictments that were brought to the Ad Hoc Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.

More recently, women groups and activists had turned their attention to ongoing efforts to create an International Criminal Court, advocating the inclusion of a gender perspective in the Statute of the Court, she continued. As a result, the Statute finally codified as international law many of the crimes committed against women which had been formerly ignored or unrecognized by the international community. The most important aspect of the negotiations was that civil society groups managed to get the ear of governments to listen to their concerns.

INDIRA ROSENTHAL, Counsel, Human Rights Watch, addressing negotiations on the International Criminal Court, said that when the Court was established there would be -– for the very first time -- international legislation governing crimes against humanity. The human rights NGO community regarded that development as a potential agent of change in the area of human rights protection. It would offer victims of human rights abuses the chance to validate their stories and to see perpetrators of abuses and crimes brought to justice.

She noted that the role of civil society in the negotiations for the Court had been held up as evidence of the implementation of the new democratic diplomacy. An extraordinary coordination of NGOs from all parts of the world had been formed, and that approach had ensured that gender crimes and crimes committed against children were addressed in the Treaty. Civil society organizations had brought high levels of expertise and technical assistance to the negotiations, which in turn had helped build stronger working relationships with governments. The positive impact of the negotiations could be attributed to the participation of those organizations in the process.

However, she pointed out, all was not rosy in the NGO-government alliance. When negotiations became charged, civil society had been excluded, affecting the ability of NGOs to influence the process and undermining transparency. While it was expected that civil society would be excluded from sensitive political discussions, such exclusion only compounded the lack of transparency in many areas -- for example, in the push by the United States to gain exemption for its nationals from the jurisdiction of the Court. Seen in that light, the ease with which the new democratic diplomacy could be discarded raised concerns over future participation by civil society in other forums.

PIERRE SCHORI (Sweden) said that no decision taken at the Millennium Assembly would have any lasting effect unless it met with the understanding or the approval of the citizens of the States taking part. People no longer accepted decrees from abroad or above. For anything to last in a democratic society, it must come from within and have grass-roots support. Social cohesion was very much needed in the era of globalization.

He said globalization was happening whether Governments tried to organize it or not. The challenge therefore consisted of reducing the gap between rich and poor on both national and international levels. He hoped that when world leaders gathered next week they would not only take a hard look at the United Nations and how it was managed and organized, but would also have the courage to take a hard look at how their own societies were managed and organized.

The positive effects of globalization must be inclusive, and must benefit all. “Many of the challenges that we are confronted with today must find their solutions through multilateral negotiations and agreements”, he said. It was not blind forces that formed the destiny of the world, but people. There were many instances of how grass-roots organizations with scarce financial resources had made a difference. In 1998, for example, Jody Williams received the Nobel Peace Prize for her contribution to the campaign against landmines.

He said NGOs tended to work in a very flexible manner, gathering great knowledge and understanding of the areas in which they operated. They also contributed to much needed transparency. That made them excellent partners in development cooperation. Cooperation between governmental aid agencies and NGOs increased the chances of reaching the intended beneficiaries and maximizing impact. “By working with NGOs we can also be assured that international solidarity enjoys widespread popular support”, he said.

Falling Official Development Assistance (ODA), he continued, was not only a humanitarian disgrace, especially in times of unbelievable wealth creation, but also a prescription for a more unjust, unsafe, violent and ugly world. “The message is there for all of us to see: as long as there is no justice in the South, there will be no peace in the North”, he said. United Nations peacekeeping operations had become more complex and multifunctional in the post-cold war period. The Organization, however, lacked both the experience and the expertise to handle such tasks alone. What was really needed was a civilian standby force.

Crisis management would not be needed if violence could be prevented before it occurred. Civil society often possessed insight and knowledge of local conditions that could help give a better understanding of the root causes of conflicts. “With cooperation and better analysis we can develop more effective early warning systems that can contribute to preventing violent conflicts.”

He recalled that this summer the Secretary-General had invited representatives of major multinational enterprises, multilateral organizations and NGOs to New York to form a new partnership called the Global Compact. The idea behind that was to encourage private companies to take on larger responsibility by incorporating internationally recognized labour standards, environment protection measures and human rights norms in their managerial practices. In that way the private sector could contribute to giving globalization a more human face. He urged all to give the Secretary-General a chance.

In conclusion, he said that perhaps one day it would be possible to have a directly elected civil assembly attached in some form to the General Assembly -- since the Charter spoke of “We the peoples” and not “We the States”.

Questions and Answers

There were very few mechanisms to govern globalization. How could the United Nations strengthen accountability at all levels?

Mr. SCHORI said that transparency and accountability began with national governments. Transparency was one of the pillars of democracy. There was very little insight on globalization, but global impact could be used to monitor the larger corporations.

How could the international community ensure that the United States became a part of the International Criminal Court?

Ms. ROSENTHAL said that people could embark on a letter-writing and advocacy campaign. Moreover, not only United States citizens, but everyone could assist in the drive to ensure that governments withstand the pressure with which the United States was asserting its demands.

It had been suggested that information technology would bridge the communications gap by the year 2000, but that did not seem to be the case in Africa. Could the panel comment?

Ms. MURUNGI replied that a cursory glance at the problems facing the African continent would reveal that the health issue was a priority. That needed more attention than purchasing computers. The majority of the African population lived below the poverty line. Therefore, priority should be placed on calls for debt cancellation and relief.

What about the call for partnerships with young people?

Mr. DHANAPALA said the organizers would take note of the lack of youth participants at the Conference. The United Nations itself usually encouraged participation by the student community in its activities.

How could it be determined that Latin America was able to repay its debt, and at what cost?

Mr. BANDAÑA said many of the NGOs in the South were advocating non-payment of debts. Assuming there was a debt to be paid and if Latin American governments should agree to pay those debts, then he would propose that the United Nations help assess what was legitimate debt.

Did the panel agree that the establishment of the International Criminal Court was premature?

Ms. ROSENTHAL said it was rather late to establish the Court, as some States had problems with bringing perpetrators of human rights abuses to court, among other reasons.

What about recognition of the Dalai Lama and Taiwan in the work of the United Nations?

They were both matters of international law and were still being discussed.

Would gender-based analysis be useful in structural adjustment policy- making?

Ms. MURUNGI said that it could be useful when referring to the feminization of poverty in the ongoing discussion of globalization.

* *** *