UNITED NATIONS: Veteran Official Defends World Body

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Interview by Ramesh Jaura

BONN, Feb 2 2005 (IPS) - ”We need the UN more than ever,” says Nafis Sadik, an eminent member of the high-level panel on threats and challenges faced by the world body.

Sadik served as executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) 1987 through 2000. She is now special envoy of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan for HIV/Aids in Asia.

Sadik defended the UN in an interview with IPS last week in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre that hosted the fifth World Social Forum Jan. 26 to Jan. 31. Sadik also participated in a discussion organised by Germany’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

The high-level panel’s report titled ‘A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility’ was published last November and has been a subject of considerable debate.

An abridged version of the interview follows:

Q: The United Nations was established 60 years ago to promote international peace and security, a task in which it has apparently failed. Do we still need the UN?

A: We need the UN more than ever. If we did not have the UN, countries would be scrambling around to find some kind of an institution. I don’t think it is fair to say that the United Nations has failed in its mission. If you look at it there has not been a real World War since the last one. (Unfortunately), successes in the peace and security area are not really reported.

I think where the United Nations has not done well is in maintaining peace after they have resolved a conflict. You can see that in all the recurring conflicts that are taking place in Africa, the long-standing conflicts of the Congo and Liberia and Sierra Leone. . . .

The UN has a secretariat and a secretary-general. But the secretary-general is not a super government and does not have the powers to make decisions that will result in peace. The UN does not have an army … states are very reluctant to allow the UN to have that capability.

Q: What do you expect the report of the high-level panel to accomplish? To revitalise the UN or to initiate yet another debate that leads us nowhere?

A: Certainly it will initiate another debate. But you will find that many of our proposals endorse and call for stronger action on many of the steps already agreed, or under discussion by the world community.

For example, we noted some progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, but we also noted that progress is patchy and little has been done to address the very important gender dimension. We noted in particular the shortage of international resources to help countries reach the Goals.

We also note the apparent unwillingness of member states to respond to international security threats with domestic action, for example for richer countries to harmonise their aid, trade and agriculture policies. At the same time, the panel recognised that the international system needs considerable reorganisation to respond to the realities of the 21st century..

In the area of social and economic development, we proposed some structural changes in the United Nations itself, for example that the General Assembly should reorganise and refocus its agenda. The General Assembly should also enable systematic engagement with civil society organisations.

We recommended transforming ECOSOC (United Nations Economic and Social Council) into a development cooperation forum and reshaping the Commission on human rights to make it responsive to contemporary needs…

We also proposed a new peace-building commission to straddle the gap between post-conflict emergency operations and longer-term development planning. That will certainly make a difference. Because the outcome of this will be the bringing together of international financial institutions, the developmental organisations and the humanitarian organisations.

All the donors also seem to agree on that. But I hope the donors will also put all the money through this coordinated effort and have a good distribution of responsibility rather than a free-for-all at the country level which is such a huge burden for a country that is rebuilding and does not have the capacity.

Q: Is it possible to reform the UN to reflect the interests and aspirations of the peoples of the world?

A: The panel makes an excellent case for reform …and recommends many practical steps towards a more flexible, responsive and effective world body. I think it is possible to reform the UN particularly in the development area.

But it is a very long way to an egalitarian and transparent system because the permanent members will continue to wield power. The new permanent members will not have a veto power. The Club of Five will remain and within that there is no balance of power.

Q: Is HIV/Aids an issue for the governments and non-governmental organisations in Asia and the Pacific?

A: I was appointed special envoy for HIV/Aids two years ago and I have been saying that we keep paying attention to Africa – and quite rightly, because 6,000 people die there every day of HIV/Aids – but that we will have a similar calamity in Asia if we didn’t start working to get governments to have programmes now when prevalence is low.

Though national HIV infection levels in Asia are low compared with Africa, even a small percentage of prevalence in Asia could mean millions and millions – and millions and millions more than in Africa. China and India, home to some 2.35 billion people, are experiencing several distinct epidemics, some already very serious.

That is one consideration. Secondly, if you have public education, you provide access to preventive measures, you look after the ones who are affected today, you address discrimination, make sure that that they keep their jobs, they don’t get economic dis-empowerment, you can ensure a normal life for those affected. They can still be productive and contribute to society rather than eliminating them from the society.

I am glad to say that in a short period of time things are starting to change.