New York City, March 22, 2005

The Secretary-General’s report, released March 21, 2005, and prepared
for
the September 2005 High-Level General Assembly that will celebrate the
United Nation’s sixtieth birthday, carries the title: “IN LARGER
FREEDOM:
TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT, SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL”.

The three legs of this tripod, according to text taken from the UN
Charter:

1. Freedom from want (read development),
2. Freedom from fear (read security),
3. Freedom to live in dignity (read human rights for
   all).

As stated, the intention was to marry the need for security in the post
9/11
world, and the need for economic development and poverty alleviation -
the
usual staples of deliberations in most UN bodies; or put even in
simpler
terms - the needs of the industrialized world for security guarantees
in a
world awash in terrorism, and what developing countries prefer to talk
about
- the need for aid now presented as Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs).

The concept of Sustainable Development, as presented in the Promptbook
on
Sustainable Development for the Johannesburg Summit (see P-book), could
have
answered the above needs because it incorporates the topics of economic
development, social development, human rights, and good governance,
with an
added necessary fifth ingredient - environment. Further, good
governance and
human rights also spell democracy. We thought that following on the
path of
SD one could also advance conditions that remove sources of disgruntled
people that feed the ranks of terrorists. By removing, for environment
reasons - including the problem of climate change and global warming -
reliance on oil, and decreasing the need for Middle East oil, it also
would
remove the source of disgruntled people that feel, perhaps correctly,
that
the natural treasures of their native lands are sold to foreigners.
The
problem is that the UN does not build on concepts that have been
established
previously, and when in need just goes out to create new concepts. The
Sustainable Development concept born at the Rio Summit in 1992 was all
but
forgotten, and does not rate a place in the new “In Larger Freedom”
concept.
By hopping from concept to concept, rather then keep developing an
already
agreed upon concept, there is a danger that lot of wind is being
generated,
meetings, conferences, committees, and commissions, and in the end
there is
little progress to justify all these efforts. With above in mind we
are
proceeding now to analyze the suggested programs of “In Larger
Freedom”.

In para. #2, we find that in an era of global interdependence and
global
abundance (read globalization) - “if only those resources can be
unleashed
in the service of all people”, the SG finds here that in order to face
“new
threats” (read terrorism) and “old threats (read poverty) - “there is a
yearning in many quarters for a new consensus on which to base
collective
action”. The SG sees “a will to make now the most far reaching reforms
in
the history of the UN”, and we wish he were right.

In para. #30 on the Millennium Development Goals - “While the Goals
have
been the subject of an enormous amount of follow-up both inside and
outside
the UN, they clearly do not in themselves represent a complete
development
agenda. They do not directly encompass some of the broader issues
covered
by the conferences of the 1990s, nor do they address the particular
needs of
middle-income developing countries or questions of growing inequality
and
wider dimensions of human development and good governance, which all
require
the effective implementation of conference outcomes”. This is the only
really good paragraph in the “Development” section of the report.
Actually
Mr. Abioudun Williams, Director Strategic Planning Unit of the
Secretariat,
pointed out to me that this paragraph talks about the needs of the
larger
Sustainable Development concept. I showed him my marked copy were I
noted
“Very Good” next to that Paragraph, but why then is Sustainable
Development
not really mentioned in the text? My problem here is that the
exclusive
attention to the MDGs came about because of the opposition of the oil
states
to the needs of the environment that call for reduction of CO2
emissions.
Above being part of the Environment leg in the SD tripod of
Environment,
Economic Development and Social Development. The SG opted here for the
lowest common denominator and therefore will land badly with middle
income
states like Brazil. Also, whatever positive was achieved in East and
South
Asia was done by the push of the local governments and with little help
from
the UN. Recognizing this, the report asks indeed - in bold letters -
that
each country with extreme poverty should by 2006 adopt a strategic
national
development plan.

The report notes that no new institutions are needed on the development
subjects and proceeds to repeat the old litanies and lists of things
that
have to be done. The introduction (in bold letters) of a new
International
Finance Facility with “front loaded” ODA is a deviation from Professor
Jeffrey Sachs’ idea that no new institutions or new commitments are
needed.

para. #56 contains a call to proceed with the Doha round of
multilateral
trade negotiations with Member States providing duty-free and
quota-free
market access for all exports from the least developed countries.
This, in
many cases, is indeed a step more important then the aid program, but
it
must be qualified that the manufacture of the goods for export must be
according to acceptable labor and environmental rules.

para. 57 - para. 61 deal with “Ensuring environmental sustainability”
and
call for the implementation of the three conventions that date from
the
1992 Rio Conference dealing with Desertification, Biodiversity, and
Climate
Change. This sections provides a highlight of the SG’s Report: talking
of
the Kyoto Protocol - “We must develop a more inclusive international
framework beyond 2012, with broader participation by all major emitters
and
both DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, to ensure a concerted
globally defined action, including through technological innovation, to
mitigate climate change, taking into account the principle of common
but
differentiated responsibilities”. This is a call to start looking now
already beyond the Kyoto Protocol period but also allow for special
conditions for the less developed countries.

para. #65 stresses the establishing of worldwide integrated early
warning
system for all natural hazards based on existing centers.

The section on SECURITY is what caused the timeliness of this report
and
para. #74 stresses this: “Unless we agree on a shared assessment of
these
threats and a common understanding of our obligations in addressing
them,
the UN will lag in providing security to all of its members and the
world’s
people”. The SG extends the security concept to stretch over - “A
nuclear
terrorist attack on the US or Europe would have devastating effects on
the
whole world. But so would the appearance of a new virulent pandemic
disease
in a poor country with no effective health-care system”. Having said
that
the report moves on to the problem of catastrophic terrorism and the
requirement to define terrorism and including it in a comprehensive
convention. The definition was provided by the “Panel on Threats,
Challenges
and Change” and is the same the SG used at the Madrid anniversary -
“intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or
non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population, or
compelling
a Government or an international organization”. The SG brushes aside
the
talk of “so-called ‘State terrorism’ because the use of force by States
is
already thoroughly regulated under international law”, and he also said
that
“the right to resist occupation must be understood in its meaning. It
cannot
include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians”. Together
with
this, the SG also recommended the Commission on Human Rights start
monitoring the compatibility of counter-terrorism measures with
international human rights laws. All this, earlier this month, was
indeed
also part of the Declaration of the Club of Madrid .

After a series of suggestions to strengthen UN role on weapons of mass
destruction, in mediation, sanctions, peacekeeping, the SG suggests a
new
intergovernmental Peacebuilding Commission and an office within the
Secretariat.

The section on HUMAN RIGHTS starts with an amazing admonishment of the
UN
membership: “In the Millennium Declaration States stated that they
would
spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as
well
as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and
fundamental
freedoms”. Then we recognize reality - “… it sees war-lords and gang
leaders take power and become laws unto themselves. And solemn
commitments
to strengthen democracy at home, which al States made in the Millennium
Declaration, remain empty words to those who have never voted for their
rulers and who see no sign that things are changing”. It concludes
with
“responsibility to protect” and “The time has come for Governments to
be
held to account, both to their citizens and to each other, for respect
of
the dignity of the individual, to which they too often pay only lip
service”. What I see in this is actually the UN backing that President
Bush
needed, had he said from the start, that he goes to Iraq as liberator
of the
Iraqis. I am sure Freedom House could provide the SG the list of
countries
that do not conform to the UN Charter and to the Declaration on Human
Rights, in the relation to their own citizens. But, there is also an
interesting caveat - “I strongly believe that every nation that
proclaims
the rule of law at home must respect it abroad, and that every nation
that
insists on it abroad must enforce it at home”. The SG closes the
circle by
linking extreme poverty and terrorism as scourges that take away human
rights from citizens.

The section on RESTRUCTURING THE UN (actually titled Strengthening the
United Nations) holds perhaps the most important proposals for the 60
year
old organization - such as:

• Updating the Charter of the United Nations - As the UN operates now
  in a
  radically different world from 1945 - we need to eliminate the
  anachronistic
  references to “enemy” clauses (I assume that meant Germany and Japan)
  and
  the Military Staff Committee. Also, the Trusteeship Council has to be
  closed as it has successfully finished its task.

• Revitalize the General Assembly by having it regain relevance
  through
  focusing its deliberations on the major issues of the day, “such as
  international migration and the long-debated comprehensive convention
  on
  terrorism”.

• Security Council Membership Restructuring perhaps according to one of
  the
  two models suggested by the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and
  Change. Both models suggest adding nine states; model A suggests 6 new
  permanent members and 3 new two year non-renewable memberships, model B
  suggests 8 four-year renewable seats (potential permanent members) and
  one
  additional two year non-renewable seat this according to a formula that
  would create a Council of 24 members - 6 each from Africa,
  Asia/Pacific,
  Europe, Americas - while there is no change in the five permanent
  veto-holding members.

• Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to be mandated to take over the
  management of the MDGs, the work on major natural disasters, and
  regularize
  also post-conflict management and the work of the newly proposed
  Peacebuilding Commission.

• The Trusteeship Council shall be closed and replaced with a new Human
  Rights Council that will also eliminate the present malfunctioning
  Human
  Rights Commission. “Member States would need to decide if they want
  the
  Human Rights Council to be a principal organ of the UN or a subsidiary
  body
  of the General Assembly, but in either case its members elected
  directly by
  the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority of members present
  voting”.

• The Secretariat shall be thoroughly redone and the SG suggests that
  with
  the changing conditions he can not rely on the same pool of people to
  address the new needs. “I therefore request the General Assembly to
  provide
  me with the authority and resources to pursue a one-time staff buyout
  so as
  to refresh and realign the staff to meet current needs”.

  The SG wants further to establish in the Secretariat an office of
  Scientific
  Adviser and an office for peacebuilding support. Also, he wants “a
  review
  of all mandates older than five years to see whether the activities
  concerned are still needed or whether the resources assigned to them
  can be
  reallocated in response to new and emerging challenges”.

• The Regional organizations connected to the UN are viewed here in a
  very
  peculiar way and the idea is that the Heads of State that will be in
  New
  York this September shall: “Support a stronger relationship between
  the UN
  and regional organizations, including by, as a first step, developing
  and
  implementing a 10-year plan for capacity-building with African Union,
  and by
  insuring that regional organizations that have a capacity for conflict
  prevention or peacekeeping consider the option of placing such
  capacities in
  the framework of the UN Standby Arrangement System”.

• The System Coherence section includes among many other subjects also
  GOVERNANCE OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT and the recommendation:
  “It is now high time to consider a more integrated structure for
  environmental standards-setting, scientific discussion and monitoring
  treaty
  compliance. This should be built on existing institutions, such as
  UNEP, as
  well as the treaty bodies and specialized agencies. Meanwhile,
  environmental activities at country level should benefit from improved
  synergies, on both normative and operational aspects, between UN
  agencies,
  making optimal use of their comparative advantages, so that we have an
  integrated approach to sustainable development, in which both halves of
  that
  term are given their due weight”.

The last item is then rewritten in the Annex “For decision by Heads of
State
and Government” as follows: “Recognize the need for a more integrated
structure for environmental standard-setting, scientific discussion and
monitoring, and treaty compliance that is built on existing
institutions,
such as UNEP, as well as treaty bodies and specialized agencies, and
that
assigns environmental activities at the operational level to the
development
agencies to ensure an integrated approach to sustainable development”.
I must acknowledge, that at first reading I did not recognize the words
“sustainable development” here - now I must say that I do not recognize
here
the meaning of the concept of SD in these words. Honestly, I do not
see
what good this recommendation will do to a subject which I hold to be
of
primary importance to the continuation of life on planet earth. On
this the
Secretariat is still very far off mark.