The General Assembly: where the debates take place. Credit: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

By Prisca Chaoui
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 4 2023 (IPS)

The 78th UN General Assembly (UNGA) session begins September 5. Below is an interview with the outgoing President of the 77th session, Csaba Kőrösi of Hungary.

Q: During a General Assembly session, there are many things an external observer doesn’t know about. What can you share about your behind-the-scenes experiences?

A: The General Assembly session starts with a “big bang” with the opening of the General Debate when Heads of State and Government meet at the Headquarters in New York for a marathon of meetings and discussions.

I think it might be surprising to learn that Member States are constantly in discussions and in negotiations. From the outside, it might seem that the General Assembly meets every few days for debates or to adopt a draft resolution, but in fact, ambassadors and diplomats are in meetings at the UN most days, formal and informal ones. There is always a buzz in the hallways, and many deals are decided outside the formal negotiations over coffee in the Delegates’ Lounge or the Vienna Café.

This session of the General Assembly has 181 agenda items. This means that the calendar is quite full. In addition, Member States take part in additional 16 so-called mandated processes during the session. What that “UN term” refers to is that there are 16 negotiations on important conferences or political declarations that UN Members discuss in parallel to the regular issues.

For example, this year, the first mandated process that was completed was about identifying the theme for the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the High-level Political Forum (HLPF) for its session in 2024, and the set of Sustainable Development Goals to be reviewed at the HLPF in 2024.

Csaba Kőrösi, outgoing President of the General Assembly. Credit: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The most recent process that was completed for the 77th session was the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform, where Member States agreed that the process would continue during the 78th session.

That process was led by Mr. Tareq M. A. M. Albanai, the Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait, and Mr. Alexander Marschik, the Permanent Representative of Austria, who managed to get some agreements from Member States on the way forward to make the process more transparent and hopefully reach a substantive agreement in the future.

But to get to such an agreement, it takes a lot of negotiations with Member States, civil society organizations, the private sector, academia, and others, so that these processes are completed only after very extensive and thorough discussions.

In addition, I convened informal meetings on Friday mornings, where a small group of ambassadors would come together off the record and discuss tricky topics such as how to improve human rights situations on the ground.

So far, it might seem that all that occurs is talking, but there is so much more to work in the General Assembly. Talking is important, especially if those conversations are aimed at finding solutions that are based on solidarity, sustainability and science – my motto for the 77th session. Solutions that have a tangible impact for the people outside of the UN – for the 8 billion people whom we represent in here.

Q: The General Assembly is seen as the legislative arm of the UN with no execution authority. How do you think it could be made stronger?

A: The General Assembly is unique in that it is the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nations. It is comprised of all 193 Member States and each Member State has an equal vote.

General Assembly resolutions represent the point of view of the majority of Member States, from which the General Assembly has mandated peacekeeping operations, fact-finding missions and humanitarian assistance in the past.

Under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution of 1950, the General Assembly may consider any matter related to peace and security, when the Security Council has failed to act owing to the veto of a permanent member – with some exceptions, of course.

But we see how this works in the case of the ongoing war in Ukraine. Since March 2022, the General Assembly has adopted six resolutions related to the war with a great majority; the Security Council none. This shows that the international community has a strong opinion about what should be done – and that is to put
an end to the violence in line with the UN Charter and international law.

We should aim to make the General Assembly relevant and stronger for 2023 and the future. How do we do this? Well, one of the 16 processes that we spoke about at the beginning is about the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. The process is now completed for the session, successfully led by Mr. Mitch Fifield, the outgoing Permanent Representative of Australia, and Ms. Egriselda Aracely González López, the Permanent Representative of El Salvador.

The outcome is a draft resolution that – I hope – will be approved soon. The recommendations are wide reaching, ranging from working methods of the General Assembly, to the need to support gender representation.

Q: Why do you think the High-level segment of the General Assembly session is so important?

A: There are two things that stand out to me from my own experience as President of the General Assembly during the High-level segment in September 2023:

One is the eagerness with which world leaders resumed their in-person interaction at the Headquarters following years of the pandemic. They were enthusiastic to be back at UNGA in person, to speak at the General Assembly, to meet face to face. That enthusiasm underscores the importance of the United Nations as a platform for international diplomacy and multilateralism.

The UN is the most important international body with convening power to bring people together. Especially during a time of multiple crises, this institution is seen as more important than ever.

The second observation that I made was that while the United Nations is seen as more important than ever – it is also seen as needing reform. During global crises discussions, the need to revitalize the United Nations was the most prominent theme from the more than 190 formal speeches in the debate. In today’s world, any organization must adapt to changing conditions to stay relevant – the United Nations is no different.

I would imagine that this coming High-level segment of the General Assembly will be no different. I expect it will be well attended and there will be a large number of bilateral meetings, as world leaders seek to speak
with one another and discuss solutions.

The theme for the 78th high-level debate and the session was just announced by my successor, Ambassador Dennis Francis of Trinidad and Tobago as: “Rebuilding trust and reigniting global solidarity: Accelerating action on the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals towards peace, prosperity, progress and sustainability for all.”

This year is especially relevant because the SDG Summit will be held during the High-level Week on 18 and 19 September. This might be our last opportunity to get the Sustainable Development Goals back on track. I hope that actions presented at the summit help to lead us into a sustainable transformation.

Q: What is the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council, and how can it be strengthened?

A: The General Assembly and the Security Council are two parts of one whole – which is the United Nations. The General Assembly and the Security Council are complementary bodies meant to work together, and that is how I have tried to steer this 77th session of the GA.

You may also remember that the General Assembly now meets every time that there is a veto in the Security Council. This has strengthened the role of the Assembly on peace and security matter substantively.

As I’ve already mentioned, the IGN process on Security Council reform has concluded this session and will be picked up during the 78th session. There has been measurable progress, when you look at increased transparency, inclusivity and institutional memory. That’s thanks to the co-chairs – Ambassadors Albanai and Marschik. These changes are steps in the right direction. If Member States continue in this direction, then there will be reform.

Prisca Chaoui is Editor-in-chief of UN Today

Source: UN TODAY, the official magazine of international civil servants, Geneva

The link to the website: https://untoday.org/

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Staff in Geneva

By Prisca Chaoui and Ian Richards
GENEVA, Sep 29 2020 (IPS)

As the United Nations prepares to celebrate its 75th anniversary we have been made aware of an extremely worrying development concerning the future of UN staff contracts.

It seems that UN management is bringing forward plans that, if implemented, will rip up long-established, secure standards of employment and replace them with a model that follows much of the ethos and practices of the ‘gig’ economy, famously characterized by Uber and its contractor drivers.

On Tuesday 29th September, managers from across the UN system will hold a meeting to look at a report on the ‘Future of the United Nations System Workforce’. The report, prepared under the guidance of International Labour Organization (ILO) Director-General Guy Ryder and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, contains much to alarm us.

Instead of understanding the importance of stable, secure contracts of employment to staff during these difficult times, the report recommends a drive to ‘a more agile model contractual modality’, a move that we believe is designed to move staff to short, limited duration contracts.

One crucial section of the report speaks of a new model contract supporting ‘a more agile organization that can rapidly adapt to changing needs and opportunities and scale up and down as needed’. The report notes that these so-called agile contracts could progressively apply to all staff, replacing fixed term and continuing contracts.

The way agile contracts work is that staff would be hired for fixed periods for specific tasks, after which they would be forced to leave and return to their country. They would then have to reapply for a new job and start again from scratch.

There would be no pension scheme and the UN would wash its hands of any long-term obligations towards its loyal staff, many of whom have sacrificed their personal lives in isolated and dangerous locations.

These types of employment arrangements are already controversial when it comes to delivering pizzas in the neighbourhood. So, it’s surprising that the ILO and UN would think they are the future when it comes to delivering humanitarian aid in war zones, providing peacekeeping and defending human rights.

We saw something similar before with contracts called appointments of limited duration, under which staff received a fixed amount with no additions for post adjustment, dependency or education allowance, and no salary scale to ensure equal pay by gender. (Interestingly, Ban Ki-moon abolished them because they were seen as contrary to fair labour standards).

This is revealing as it points to a deliberate ending of career appointments, in particular continuing appointments, an area of concern that we have already brought to your attention.

The rationale for the plans is that the UN needs to have greater agility and responsiveness in dealing with challenges and world events and deliver this in the context of funding constraints and a downturn in the global economy.

We recognize this situation, but are hugely disappointed to see the solutions proposed by the organization, which singularly fail to appreciate the critical importance of the established contracts that sit at the heart of the relationship between staff and employer.

We also believe that if managers want agility, then this is better achieved by investing in training, empowering staff to try different roles, and re-establishing the link between performance and promotion.

Lastly, we are concerned that management’s plans ignore the main reason that UN staff have contract security. It is to be able to act independently from pressures that may be exerted by member states and ensure they are not put in the position of doing the bidding of whichever country or corporation donates the most money to ensure their next job.

We have seen during the pandemic how even the perception of such influence can create huge problems for a UN organization.

For this reason, we call on management to drop their plans for Uber-style contracts at the UN.

Excerpt:

Credit: UN Staff Coordinating Council in Geneva

By Prisca Chaoui
GENEVA, Jul 15 2020 (IPS)

Two years have passed since the introduction of the illegal pay cuts imposed on staff in the Professional category– and above– working for the UN in Geneva, following a cost of living survey conducted by the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) in 2016.

For this second anniversary, the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT), whose jurisdiction covers staff working in the UN secretariat, issued its judgement declaring the cuts legal.

This was contrary to the ILOAT (Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization) judgement of 2019 that led to the restoration of the salaries that were prevailing before the introduction of the cuts for staff working in the agencies, namely WIPO, ILO, WHO, ITU and IOM.

This means that for a work of equal value, staff working for the Secretariat, in a duty station that is among the most expensive ones in the world, are paid less than their peers in the agencies.

The irony is that the UN preaches for very noble principles, one of them being the “equal pay for equal work” for the outside world, but it is obviously failing in implementing them for its own staff.

In 2019, the General Assembly declared 18 September, “International Equal Pay Day”, but it seems the UN is exempted from guaranteeing it to its own staff. The question is why?

The answer is simple: the pay cuts have initially been introduced as a cost-saving measure, based on what was inadvertently recognized by one of the ICSC commissioners in 2017. The mere fact that the UN secretariat never budgeted the retroactive payment of salaries in case the judgement was in favour of staff, says it all.

The UNDT, whose judges are appointed by the General Assembly, is supposed to be independent and to ensure justice for the involved parties. However, it failed to prove its independence in the pay cut file.

In the past, the UNAT, which is the appeal tribunal, was accused of politicization but in this particular case, the UNDT followed suit.

Indeed, the words of one of the top administrative law lawyers who represented some of the applicants are very revealing: “I can only state my deepest disagreement on what the judgement says regarding the ICSC and the overall process that led to these cuts.

The judge seems to become suddenly deaf and blind on any real criticism concerning the past and interprets in a very tendentious manner the diverse opinions, all this with the aim of proving that the applicant is wrong in its submission”.

It is important to recall that the first hearing regarding the Geneva pay cut case took place in October 2018. Based on the code of conduct of the judges, the judgement should have been issued three months later.

The early issuance of the judgement would have made sense for a case that was submitted by over 800 staff, which is totally unprecedented since the establishment of the tribunal in 2009.

But, instead of issuing its judgement early on time, the UNDT tried to gain time in order to dismiss all the arguments used by ILOAT to declare the cuts illegal. The late issuance of the judgement was perceived by staff as a denial of justice, as “justice delayed simply means justice denied.”

Apart from breaching the sacred principle of equal pay for equal work, this judgement announces the end of the common system which was initially put in place to secure equal treatment to all international civil servants, in order to avoid any undue competition between the different organizations that constitute the UN system.

What is troubling in this situation is that it might repeat itself in other locations leading to a complete fragmented system whereby each organization decides on the salaries and benefits that would be paid to staff, which in turn put into question the future of the ICSC that is supposed to be a technical body but is turning into a mere political one.

The “one UN” that is dear to both Member states and staff is becoming a delusion, even for administrative matters.

UN staff in Geneva are under shock since the announcement of the results of this legal battle that was their only remaining hope, as all their past attempts to make the Secretary General correct this unfortunate situation failed to bear any concrete result.

“Guterres doesn’t seem to care about his staff as he pretends it, he lost their trust”, says a staff member. Another one says: “I used to believe that the UN walks the talk but this was the past. This situation is a blatant breach of fundamental labour rights, which is unacceptable for an organization such as the UN ”.

Staff in Geneva feel abandoned by a Secretary General, whose main objective is to be re-elected, regardless of how his own staff are treated, which is a real pity.

Staff feel demotivated to see that their employer cares about everything except about them, giving them the impression that they are goods that can be easily traded off.

What’s next? In normal times, this situation should have warranted an industrial action such as an open strike to oblige the organization to find a solution that would save the common system from agonizing.

However, the Covid-19 impact on the organization and its finances, as well as the deliberate attacks against multilateralism by certain international players make it difficult for staff to opt for such a move.

If it weren’t out of belief in the organization and its mandate, many staff would have let the lack of motivation and trust in the UN as employer take hold of them.

Would the coming years bring more bad surprises for staff? Will Guterres be able to defend his own staff or will he choose to remain silent, regardless of what happens to them?

Will UN jobs still be attractive for young generations who are seeking for a reliable and trustworthy employer?

These are legitimate questions that each and everyone is entitled to ask but who has the answer? I guess only time will be able to bring answers.

Excerpt: