By Shashi Tharoor and - -
NEW YORK, Jan 9 2006 (IPS)

Shashi Tharoor is UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information and has held that position since January 2001. Regarding reform of the organisation, Tharoor argues that is is necessary \’\’not because the UN has failed, but because it has succeeded enough over the years to be worth investing in.

Shashi Tharoor is UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information and has held that position since January 2001. Regarding reform of the organisation, Tharoor argues that is is necessary ”not because the UN has failed, but because it has succeeded enough over the years to be worth investing in. A national of India, Tharoor is the award-winning author of nine books and numerous articles and op-eds in a wide range of publications. His books and essays include, Reasons of State, and India From Midnight to the Millennium. Born in London in 1956, Tharoor was educated in India and the United States, completing a PhD in 1978 at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

How should the UN be restructured to meet the needs of the 21st century? What is your vision for a future UN?

It is essential to make this 20th century organisation ready for the challenges of the 21st century. We need reform not because the UN has failed, but because it has succeeded enough over the years to be worth investing in. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” The UN, where I have worked for the last 28 years, is no exception. If we want to change the world, we must changeShhashi too. This calls for completing the unfinished business of management reform, studying the report of the panel on system-wide coherence to see what institutional restructuring might be desirable, and strengthening its operational capacities in development, peacekeeping, humanitarian relief and human rights.

As to my vision for a future UN, space does not permit me to express it fully (I have done so in several articles and speeches: see www.shashitharoor.com), but I strongly believe the organisation will only succeed as a recourse for all and not as the instrument of a few. It must amplify the voices of those who would otherwise not be heard, and serve as a canopy beneath which all can feel secure. The UN of the future must never forget that it is both a result and a source of hopes for a better world — hopes that, in the most fundamental sense, all human beings share.

What is the significance of your Asian origins that qualify you as the next leader of the UN?

The only significance is that it is Asia’s turn to provide the next leader of the Secretariat — and it should be someone who embodies the spirit and the experience of this youthful, dynamic, pluralistic, transformative, and progressive continent.

In a 192-member organisation based on the principle of one-nation, one-vote, do you think the 15-member Security Council is a political anachronism? If so, how should it be revitalised and reformed to reflect the realities of today?

There is no doubt that the Council reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945, not of 2006. Security Council reform is a structural issue at the UN; many countries believe that it needs to be reformed to make it more representative of the membership at large. Member States have been discussing reform for over a decade but have yet to agree on the shape of that reform. I sometimes joke it’s like a bunch of doctors gathered around a patient who all agree on the diagnosis but disagree on the prescription! Until there is agreement amongst two-thirds of the Member States about a formula for Council expansion, there won’t be a reform, and the job of the Secretary-General is to work with the institutions he has, since he has no power to change them — only governments can. Pending such structural reform, I believe that the Council can be revitalised through the use of working methods that open its deliberations more fully to non-members and associate them with the evolution of the Council’s thinking on the key peace and security challenges of the day.

If elected, what would be your priorities for the UN? Would you place more emphasis on the world’s social and economic problems and less on political problems?

Deciding on the relative emphasis to be placed would hardly be up to the Secretary-General, since events make their own demands — I doubt Kofi Annan intended in June to devote the bulk of his summer to Lebanon and travels in the Middle East. The single greatest problem facing the UN is that there is no single greatest problem; rather, there are a dozen different ones each day clamoring for attention. A clear set of priorities emerge from what we call “problems without passports” –issues that cross all frontiers uninvited, like climate change, drug trafficking, human rights, terrorism, epidemic diseases, migration, and refugee movements, whose solutions, too, can recognise no frontiers because no one country or group of countries, however rich or powerful, can tackle them alone. Are these problems social and economic or political? I would argue they have elements of both. But I would certainly not allow the world to forget the problems that remain when the headline issues are forgotten — above all the long-running tragedy of poverty and underdevelopment.

Do you think the international community will meet the 2015 deadline for the Millennium Development Goals? If not, why not? And why is it that despite all the assistance provided by the UN over the last 60 years, it has still failed to help eradicate poverty?

It is clear that, though (at the 2005 World Summit) leaders from donor and developing nations alike made a strong and unambiguous commitment to achieving the MDGs by 2015, they are, for the most part, not on course to being met. Despite its remarkable successes in pulling millions out of poverty in recent years, Asia cannot afford to be complacent; Latin America is not much better off and Africa continues to struggle. The reasons are many and varied, and include bad policies, misgovernance and corruption, but also inadequate resources, disadvantageous terms of trade for developing countries, and the crippling legacies of colonial exploitation. But let us look to the future. We have the means, the technology, and the awareness to do what must be done to fulfil the MDGs. We must hold both rich and poor countries to their commitments, and work to ensure that the world develops mechanisms that should make successful and sustainable development more likely. Not all of this will happen at the UN — the WTO and the Bretton Woods institutions, in particular, have a key role to play — but the UN remains indispensable as the place where political agreement can be reached on development goals, where the agenda is set on issues that affect the well-being of the overwhelming majority of the world’s people, and where the voice of each country is heard on that agenda. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Shashi Tharoor and - -
NEW YORK, Aug 1 2004 (IPS)

According to some less well-informed commentators, at the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in November 2005, the UN plans to \’\’take over the Internet\’\’, writes Shashi Tharoor, UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information. These critics suggest that developing countries without a tradition of tolerating free expression will be given a greater role in running the Internet, which will inevitably lead to censorship. Tharoor writes in this column that the UN is not interested in taking over Internet governance. Rather, the UN is providing a platform where all parties can meet to discuss how the Internet should operate. And those speaking will not be only governments but also businesses, non-governmental organisations, research institutions, and other members of the Internet community. What the United Nations wants from the Internet is that it fulfil its promise by delivering opportunities to all people, especially those most in need, to improve their lives.

One year ago, on the eve of the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, some in the media expressed concern that the Summit would push to limit freedom of the press. Some countries, these pundits warned, intended to insert restrictions on press freedom and the free flow of information via the Internet into the Summit’s final documents.

Instead, one of the great achievements of the gathering in Geneva last December was that it renewed the international community’s commitment to press freedom and the freedom of information, including on the Internet.

This commitment is not new. It was first elaborated by UN Member States in 1948 when they adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has been renewed many times since.

That the Geneva phase of the World Summit expressly reaffirmed the critical importance of freedom of the press was the result of the combined efforts of governments, the media, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the United Nations Secretariat.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UNESCO Director-General Koichiro Matsuura pressed the issue strongly both in their official statements and in their informal contacts with diplomats. I did the same.

The Summit’s second phase is scheduled to be held in Tunis from 16-18 November 2005. It will focus on partnerships for development and digital solidarity with the poorer countries, firmly identifying information technology as crucial to the delivery of internationally agreed development goals.

Apparently, according to some less well-informed commentators, the UN plans, in a sort of cyber-coup in Tunis, to ”take over the Internet”. These critics suggest that developing countries without a tradition of tolerating free expression will be given a greater role in running the Internet, which will inevitably lead to censorship.

The UN is not interested, as some have suggested, in wresting control of the Internet’s naming and addressing system from the current manager, the US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), or in taking over other aspects of Internet governance.

Rather, the UN is providing a platform where all parties can meet to discuss how the Internet should operate. And those speaking will be not only governments but also businesses, non-governmental organisations, research institutions, and other members of the Internet community.

It is true that some developing countries are concerned that they are being excluded from decision-making on how the Internet is being run, which is no small matter when their governments, businesses, media, and researchers depend on it more and more. For them, the Tunis Summit will provide an opportunity to express their views and hear those of others.

Network security, information security, privacy, consumer protection, e-mail viruses, and spam have become global problems which all governments feel must be tackled.

There are also increasing calls for some form of global coordination to oversee cyberspace. While not everyone agrees that this should be government oversight, all agree the system should be accessible and responsive to the needs of all people.

The whole world has a stake in how the Internet is designed and how it works. It is only natural that concerns about this most global of media will be brought before the most global of organisations; and it is only desirable that this should happen in a forum where governments and the members of the Internet community can engage on the issues that concern governments everywhere. What the United Nations actually wants from the Internet is that it fulfil its promise by delivering opportunities to all people, especially those most in need, to improve their lives.

Meanwhile, although fears that the principle of freedom of the press would be eroded have proved unfounded, there are threats to press freedom that still require our attention. The threat to the safety and lives of journalists appears to be growing. This year 29 journalists have been killed in the exercise of their duties, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and 133 journalists are in prison in 22 countries. Last year, 1,460 journalists were physically attacked or threatened.

This escalating violence affects all of us, because we all depend on an open and free press as a cornerstone of freedom of speech and expression.

In the fight against terrorism, some countries have enacted, or are considering, measures that restrict press freedom. It is our view that a balance must be found between ensuring national security and maintaining an independent, critical press. The fight against terrorism cannot be won unless the media are allowed to play a crucial role so that the people of the world are informed and engaged. In many countries, the concentration of media ownership presents another subtle challenge to a vigorous, independent press.

Press freedom is a precondition for economic and social progress — something the UN works hard to promote around the world. It is vitally important for international development, for protecting the environment, for education, and to reduce health problems like HIV/AIDS and smoking.

Of course, we must stay alert to the prospect that some may try to undermine established international principles. But let us not be unduly alarmist. Let us work to ensure that all concerned focus on the potential for using this new global resource for the benefit of all of us. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: