On 31 May 2018, UN Secretary General, in his remarks to the UN General Assembly in New York at the adoption of the resolution on repositioning the UN development system stated, “The resolution you adopt today ushers in the most ambitious and comprehensive transformation of the UN development system in decades. It sets the foundation to reposition sustainable development at the heart of the United Nations.” The UNSG went on to add, “I will move immediately to put in place a transition team under the leadership of the Deputy Secretary General to implement your decisions. This team will work in the same open, transparent and inclusive way we have conducted this process thus far and ensure the inclusion of our funds, programmes and specialized agencies.” Why did the UNSG vest the important task of reform of the UN development system in the Deputy Secretary General? More fundamentally, what is this office and what is its background? This article looks into twenty years of the role and impact of the UN Deputy Secretary General in promoting reforms of the organization and also shares some thoughts on the way forward for this institution.
The institution of the UN Deputy Secretary General is not mentioned in the UN Charter. Twenty years ago, on 2 March 1998, Canadian national, Louise Fréchette was appointed as the first Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations [DSG] by then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan and remained at her post until 31 March 2006. The post of DSG was established by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution A/RES/52/21 B dated 9 January 1998.
The responsibilities of the DSG, by terms of the GA resolution, were those “delegated by the Secretary General…” and included the following five broad categories:
To assist the Secretary-General in managing the operations of the Secretariat;
To act for the Secretary-General at United Nations Headquarters in the absence of the Secretary-General and in other cases as may be decided by the Secretary-General;
To support the Secretary-General in ensuring intersectoral and inter-institutional coherence of activities and programmes and to support the Secretary-General in elevating the profile and leadership of the United Nations in the economic and social spheres, including further efforts to strengthen the United Nations as a leading centre for development policy and development assistance;
To represent the Secretary-General at conferences, official functions and ceremonial and other occasions as may be decided by the Secretary-General;
To undertake such assignments as may be determined by the Secretary-General;
The same GA resolution also further noted “…that the Secretary-General will appoint the Deputy Secretary-General following consultations with Member States and in accordance with Article 101 of the Charter of the United Nations and that the term of office of the Deputy Secretary-General will not exceed that of the Secretary-General.”
Distinguished diplomats and international civil servants
According to the information sheet about Louise Fréchette, the UN website observes, “As Deputy Secretary-General, Ms. Fréchette assisted the Secretary-General in the full range of his responsibilities and also represented the United Nations at conferences and official functions. She chaired the Steering Committee on Reform and Management Policy and the Advisory Board of the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP), which handles relations with the foundation set up by Ted Turner in support of the United Nations.”. Since 31 March 2006, there have been four DSGs including the serving Ms. Amina J. Mohammed, a Nigerian national who took charge on 28 February 2017. Louise Fréchette was succeeded by British national Mark Malloch Brown on 3 March 2006 (and remained till December 2006). Tanzanian national, Asha-Rose Migiro was the third DSG to be appointed and took office on 1 February 2007. She remained in her post until the end of June 2012. Jan Eliasson of Sweden was the fourth Deputy Secretary-General to be appointed and took office on 1 July 2012 until the end of December 2016. Invariably, all DSGs have come to their jobs after substantial UN and diplomatic experience. Before joining the United Nations, Ms. Louise Fréchette was the Deputy Minister of National Defence of Canada from 1995 to 1998. Prior to that, she was Associate Deputy Minister in her country’s Department of Finance. She served as Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations from 1992 to 1995. The shortest serving DSG, Mark Malloch Brown served as Chef de Cabinet to the Secretary-General since January 2005 and before that served as Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the UN’s global development network, from July 1999 to August 2005. The third DSG, Dr. Migiro served as Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation from 2006-2007, the first woman in the United Republic of Tanzania to hold that position since its independence in 1961. Before that, she was Minister for Community Development, Gender and Children for five years. Dr. Migiro’s successor as DSG, Mr. Jan Eliasson was from 2007-2008 the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Darfur. He was Sweden’s Ambassador to the US from September 2000 until July 2005. Most recently, Ms. Amina J. Mohammed was Minister of Environment of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from November 2015 to December 2016 and prior to this, she served as Special Adviser to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Post-2015 Development Planning.
Supporting the UN Secretary General in reforms
The first Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette was actively involved in reforms of the United Nations system. Special mention may be made of the Millenium Summit in the year 2000, when world leaders congregated at the UNGA in New York from 6 to 8 September and adopted the Millennium Declaration which, inter alia, identified the MDGs; resolved to reaffirm the central position of the United Nations General Assembly; intensify efforts for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects; further strengthen the Economic and Social Council and the International Court of Justice; encourage regular consultations and coordination among the Organization’s principal organs; ensure greater policy coherence and urge the Secretariat to make the best use of resources, which should be provided on a timely and predictable basis. Ms. Louise Fréchette has subsequently also been involved, after demitting office of DSG, in reforms of UN peacekeeping operations. Though he served as DSG only very briefly (March to December 2006), Mark Malloch Brown, had in his position as Chef de Cabinet to the Secretary-General since January 2005 worked closely with the Secretary-General and the Deputy-Secretary General on all aspects of UN work, including helping to set out an ambitious reform agenda for the United Nations, much of which was endorsed by world leaders at the World Summit in New York in September 2005.
The third DSG, Ms. Asha-Rose Migiro worked on the “Delivering as One” scheme which was launched in 2007 to respond to global challenges and test how the UN can provide more coordinated development assistance in countries that volunteered to become pilot cases – Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uruguay, and Vietnam. In her remarks at the end of the 4th High-level Conference on Delivering as One in Montevideo, Uruguay on 10 November 2011, Dr. Migiro said that the initiative had empowered UN Resident Coordinators and country teams, noting the that coordinators now had greater role in helping articulate programmes and allocate resources around national priorities. “We must forge ahead with strengthening the Resident Coordinator system. All organizations must give priority to implementing the Management and Accountability System for the UN Development and Resident Coordinator System,” she stressed.
The now, the here and the way forward
Jan Eliasson, who had served as President of the 60th session of the UN General Assembly, had actually been a visiting lecturer on mediation, conflict resolution and UN reform at Uppsala University since 1988. In a detailed interview in 2014, Jan Eliasson identified the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ functions of the DSG. Speaking of the former set of functions, he said, “…it has been to try to bring the different entities together, use the fact that I have a different portfolio from my predecessor, who had management and development. I have political affairs and development and rule of law. So, management is done mainly by the chef de cabinet.” About the latter, he observed, “I will be also looking into the external role. One area where I have profiled myself very strongly, also publicly, where I will probably do more, is on water and sanitation. We launched the Call for Action on sanitation, and that will be followed up. It was met with a tremendously positive reaction.”. Current DSG, Ms. Amina J. Mohammed has conducted ‘robust consultations’ with Member States since the third quarter of 2017 on the UN development system reform process as part of UNSG Guterres’ efforts unveiled in a report of 30 June 2017. In a speech at the UN ECOSOC in October 2017, DSG Amina J. Mohammed stressed, “The 2030 Agenda is the guide and framework for the United Nations development system.”
Yet another area where the UN is engaged in terms of changes is the work culture at the Secretariat and within the organization. The Organization itself has identified three key issues that deserve maximum attention and commitment from the entire leadership of the United Nations: promoting gender parity; combating sexual exploitation and abuse; and addressing sexual harassment within the organizations of the United Nations system. A final area, among many others, that the DSG is focusing attention is in the sphere of privacy, data protection and ethics in the use of big data for the SDGs. The role of Information and Communication Technologies as an enabler for achieving the SDGs is well acknowledged; but regional inequities and the limitations of the existing norms that govern these technologies continue to hinder progress. In a sense it is remarkable that structural innovations like the DSG have been allowed to thrive within a large bureaucracy like the UN system. At the same time, the record of the last twenty years throws up a mixed bag. Perhaps this has more to do with the changing attitudes of the nation states that make up the UN. Nevertheless, the UN would do well to persist with the reforms and transformation process and the DSG can and must continue to play a constructive role in this.
Transition of Balance of Power from Unipolar to Multipolar World Order
The international system may be described as a complex system of social, scientific, political, military and technological systems. This dynamic structure is very difficult to evaluate and it is even more difficult to predict its future.
The distribution of power potential in the international system defines the number of major powers and thus the international system’s polarity. The system would be multi-polar if the great powers are more than two; if they are two it would be bipolar and systems with only one great power are called unipolar.
It can be expected in the future multipolar world that the global economy does not settle with a couple of significant nations but rather with multiple nations of varying capabilities. In the limited arena of affairs pertaining to their country, each state with its particular notable qualities will have decisive say. Beyond the US, Japan, China, the EU, and India are capable of economic influence due to their advancements in technology, increasing economy, and large population base. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, African Union countries and Brazil will have an impact, owing to their large energy reserves. Russia should have preferences for both. Because of their geostrategic location such as Pakistan, Central Asia, Ukraine and Turkey, a few nations will have some regional influence because these nations are situated on the energy routes from which energy resources would be on route to other parts of the world.
United States and the Changing World Order
There is a broad bipartisan consensus within US political leadership that the country must remain a global leader / world leading power. This assumption in its re-eminence also comes with the fundamental underpinnings that the United States will lead the world to freedom and liberty. Its third term is resolve to contain China.
It’s troubling to what extent the US continues to pursue China’s containment. The’ democracy alliance’ or the’ pivot to Asia’ are examples of US designs. China too, because of its part, diverted from the usual cautious approach and its proclaimed strategy of’ peaceful progression’ to an unambiguous stance on the South China Sea. Right now, however, the condition does not appear to come to a head-on collision anytime far. Yet the contest could bring a serious and dangerous situation to the fore. The US is not going to communicate directly with its forces on the field. There is a lot of resistance for another war at home. This doesn’t mean the US is ineffective. What we have is a hegemon with a diminishing power and a reluctance to give up his position of leadership. At the other hand, there is no other country capable of replacing it while they frequently seek to question its authority. Chinese occasional deviation from caution, and reluctance on the part of the US to yield, build a dangerous situation.
Decline of the Unipolar System
The U.S. has been the only hegemony since the end of the Cold War, but since the economic crisis of 2008 its world hegemony has been undermined. The gap in power between China and the US is diminishing. In 2011, China’s GDP contributed for around half of the US GDP. If China’s GDP continues to rise at 8.5 per cent and US GDP increases at less than 3.8 per cent, the current gap between the two forces will level out in the decade to come. Meanwhile, the economic gap between these two nations and the other major powers will continue to expand over the next ten years. In the next five years, only the US and China will spend more than $100 billion annually on defense, growing the difference in power between them and the others. Accordingly, the international structure would not be unipolar.
International Players That Can Change the International World Order In 21st Century (Analytical Approach)
Bipolar global structure collapsed by the end of the Cold War. The United States has become the sole superpower and as expressed in the new industrial order of defense, the international structure has become unipolar. The major powers of the global community are China, Russia, Japan and the E.U. Whether the international system can turn into a bipolar or multipolar system depends on developments in many countries and regions in technological, political, economic, and military terms. China, Russia, Japan, the EU and India have the power to change their international structure. In the last twenty-five years, China’s capacities have steadily increased in magnitudes that significantly restructure the international order. Economic prosperity for China goes hand in hand with the advancement of science and technology. It is developing expensive weapons systems that are increasingly capable compared to developed countries ‘ most advanced weapons systems. Another important determinant of the future of the international community is the relative dominance of the U.S. in science, technical, economic and military capacities compared to other major powers.
The position of emerging states, which influence the range and change of the international system, is very difficult to comprehend. The general outlines of what is happening with this phenomenon are becoming more evident, as transition happens under intense internal dynamic conditions and not from external factors. There is a group of candidates that can be considered growing powers, and there are rapid bursts in this phase of transition, but it is longer than expected. Under conditions of changing institutionalization a central component of these changes occurs. Yet there is also a gap in the assumptions regarding the principles of collaboration and conflict. National interests and principles are certainly the most significant in the changing world order, and these can also lead to deeply complex and frustrated bargaining situations that need to be resolved by enhanced collaboration at the state level. Joined societies dissolve, along with the old beliefs. According to different ideas of world system, that countries are not less divided, and they can constantly struggle and communicate with each other at the same time. Therefore, the future multi-polar system would be no different from the other multi-polar moments that history has seen, resulting in more chaos and unpredictability than in the current unipolar world. Nevertheless, multi-polarity does not only carry the risks involved in researching balance of power among great powers for the first time in history.
The UN reforms are required to make it functional
Today, the world we live in has become more unpredictable, insecure, and exposed to more vulnerability. Geopolitics is changing rapidly, new problems are often emerging, while old issues remained unresolved. Humankind is under threats and challenges; some of them might be natural disasters, like Earthquakes, Floods, Fires, Valconos, Pandemic, etc. But most of the difficulties and problems are man-made, creation of some powerful countries, the result of over-ambitions, greed, expansionism, biases and jealousy. Big and more muscular countries are keeping eyes on the natural resources of small and weaker nations, etc.
In 1945, the United Nations was established to replace the League of Nations. Because the League of Nations was unable to solve most of the problems faced by the world, unable to resolve conflicts and wars, unable to protect human lives, unable to maintain justice and equality, the failure of achieving objects, the League of Nations was dissolved, and UN was established.
The UN was established with the following four objectives:
Maintaining worldwide peace and security
Developing relations among nations
Fostering cooperation between nations in order to solve economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian international problems
Providing a forum for bringing countries together to meet the UN’s purposes and goals
UN Charter was written by very professionals and experts in their own fields. The Charter is comprehensive and based on many considerations, satisfying almost the needs of nearly everyone at that time. Considering the disaster of the Second World war, the Charter was considered a most appropriate document to address practically all concerns.
The UN has been functioning since 1945 and ready to celebrate its 75th anniversary soon. At this moment, if we look at the performance of the UN, there are many things one can mention as achievements or in the UN’s credit. No doubt, in the early days of the Establishment of the UN, the objectives achieved were rated quite well. However, over time, the UN was politicized, and some of the countries, who were a major donor to UN contribution, were using the UN and its structures to achieve their political objectives. They were misusing the UN platform to coerce some other nations or using UN umbrella to achieve political of economic goals by harming other nations. On the other hand, geopolitics became so complicated and complex that the existing structure of the UN is unable to meet the challenges of the modern world.
Just, for example, Afghan is under war for the last four decades, people are being killed in routine matters, foreign intervention caused the loss of precious lives and economic disaster to people of Afghanistan. Iraq war, Libya War, Syria war, Yemen War, the situation in Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Venezuela, Ukraine, somewhat more complicated conflict among the U.S., Iran, Israel, and the Persian Gulf, U.S.-North Korea tussle, and Kashmir, all are remained unresolved under the current structure of the UN.
Should we remain silent spectators and keep the status quo, and let the humankind suffer more? Should we justify ourselves as helpless and let the more powerful kills more human beings? Should we remain in isolation and keep our self busy with our own interests? Should we compromise with our conscious? Should we ignore our inner voice? Should we prove ourselves as innocent and not responsible such crimes committed by someone else?
Think and thing smartly, and consider yourself in the same situation and a victim, what we should be expecting from other nations, the international community, and the UN. We must do the same thing to meet the expectations of the victims.
The UN is unable to achieve its objectives with the current structure; the reforms are inevitable. We must strengthen the UN and transform the current dysfunctional UN to a more effective UN, which should satisfy the core issues of all nations. Africa is a major continent, and facing many challenges, but have no say in the UN; there is no single country from Africa in the Security Council of the UN as a permanent member having veto power. The Muslim world, having an estimated population of two billion, every fourth person in this world is a Muslim, there are 57 independent sovereign countries as member f the UN,m but no voice in the UN, no permanent member of UNSC, no veto power, who will protect their rights and who will look after their interests. Should they remain at the mercy of the current five permanent members of the UNSC?
Some countries are rebellious to the UN; some states are defaulter of the UN, and not implementing the resolutions passed by UNSC. Some countries have bypassed the UN and imposed war or sanctions on other nations. They must be held responsible for their acts, the UN should kick such countries out of the UN, and their membership may be suspended or cancelled.
It is time to introduce, comprehensive reforms in the UN, to address all issues faced by today’s modern, complex and rather complicated world. An appropriate representation of all nations, groups, ethnicity or religion should be ensured. The UN has a heavy responsibility, deserve more budgets, more powers and needed to be strengthened further.
Coronavirus Shaping The Contours Of The Modern World
Globalization vs. Protectionism:
Globalization means the movement of ideas, products, technology, and people across borders and different cultures. It is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It has social, cultural, economic, political and legal aspects. Globalization has made the world a global village and talks about co-operation and interdependence. Protectionism, on the other hand, is the restriction of movement of goods and products across borders to protect the national industries and economy. The major goal of protectionism is to boost up national economy, but protectionist measures can also be applied for security purposes. So, we can say that protectionists are basically anti-globalists and prefer domestic strength as compared to foreign co-operation.
Protectionism and Covid-19
Globalization has made the world so interdependent and interconnected that any economic or political change in one state creates a domino effect and influence many other states. For the pandemic, most states were initially blaming China, but as it slowly healed and the pandemic caused more devastating impacts in the western states, more fingers are pointing towards globalization. Multiple narratives are building regarding globalization where protectionists finally got a chance to prove how right they were all along.
Globalization not only played a vital role in the spread of this epidemic, it also made the economic crisis go global by affecting the supply chains. An epidemic that affected a single city in Dec, 2019, grew to become a pandemic affecting almost every state in the world through movement of people and goods. States that adopted strict measures and restricted the movement of people, have relatively less cases of corona virus as compared to other states. The worst impacts of corona virus so far can be seen in USA where New York City was initially the epicenter.
New York City is definitely one of the most crowded cities in the world where daily, thousands of people move in and out for various purposes. This could be one of the reasons of such devastating impacts of corona in NYC because the free circulation of people and goods allowed the virus to spread exponentially. On the other hand, if we talk about African continent, where most states are under developed, and the movement of people in and out of the continent is very less as compared to Europe and Americas, reported cases of corona virus are very low. As of Sep 11, 2020, in the whole continent, the highest number of corona cases is in South Africa, with a count of642k as compared to USA’s count of 6.49m. This provides evidence that movement of people played a vital role in the spread of this virus and movement of people has increased a lot since the rise of globalization.
Critiques of globalization also argue that globalization is to be blamed for an epidemic that spread across borders and will soon plunge the whole world into recession. Interdependence because of globalization has made the world more vulnerable to such situations. For instance, China is one of the biggest markets in the world that exports antibiotics and telecommunications and remains an important part of most of the global supply chains. Half of the world’s surgical masks were made by China, even before pandemic. So, when the pandemic struck Wuhan, China, the supplies from China to the rest of the world affected many states that were dependent on China, and they ran out of important pharmaceutical inputs. Even the developed states like France ran out of medical masks and had to suffer because of lack of important medical equipment. This reveals the cost of such deeply interconnected global supply chains that create a domino effect.
Is Globalization ending?
Globalization has made the world a global village and undoubtedly facilitated the free movement of people, goods, ideas, cultures, information, and technology across borders. But on the other hand, it has also played a major role in the spread of diseases and has made states vulnerable to unexpected shocks. Globalists also believe that the medical or health consequences of corona would prove less destructive if states work together instead of working separately for the vaccine, as a competition. Adopting the nationalist or isolationist approach during the pandemic would crash the international economy and further increase the tensions. As the protectionists suggest, if we’d continue to protect only our national economies and keep on putting barriers on international trade, the national recession would soon turn into a global depression, as happened in 1930’s.Timely economic recovery is only possible through global cooperation.
I think that the threat of Covid-19 has created an extraordinary situation. Originating from Asia, and then causing millions of deaths all around the globe, the blame on globalization is legitimate. Most of the states in the world rely on their tourism revenue that has been affected badly due to corona virus. For instance, Saudi Authorities decided to cancel Hajj because of growing pandemic, and the impact on KSA’s economy would be dramatic. Similarly, Japan is one of the states that depend highly on tourism revenue from Chinese tourists and travel restrictions have caused severe losses. We have also seen how the supply chains are affected just because one of the major producers (China) was badly hit by the virus. Globalization seems to have conquered the world so there is no way that it can be avoided completely. However, after the pandemic, there might be a little change in the world order regarding high interdependency. States that were mostly dependent on China for their important supplies might try to produce the supplies on their own and prioritize their domestic industries over foreign industries because of the consequences they had to bear during the pandemic. Similarly, travel bans will surely be removed but people might hesitate to cross borders and move freely because there will be awareness regarding the risks related to free movement. So, I think that the pandemic has highlighted some backlashes in globalization, but it doesn’t mean that globalization has failed. We can say that it is fragile, despite or even because of its benefits.
Russia Among Global Top Ten Improvers for Progress Made in Health and Education
Russia is among the top ten countries globally for improvements to human capital development over the last decade, according to...
U.S. Elections: Trump’s Strategy of “Peace” might help
Presidential elections in the United States are around the corner and campaigns by the presidential candidates are in full swing...
Rediscovering the Sea: Comparing New Maritime Orientations of Turkey and Indonesia
Authors: Tufan Kutay Boran and Hadza Min Fadhli Robby* Sea has once more become one of the most contested regions...
Accelerating Mongolia’s Development Requires a Shift “from Mines to Minds”
A new report by the World Bank estimates that out of every dollar in mineral revenues Mongolia has generated over...
India’s strategies short of war against a hostile China
Since India’s independence several peace and border cooperation agreements were signed between the India and China. Prominent among them was...
Navalny, Nord Stream 2 and Moscow’s Response
As expected, Alexei Navalny’s case is seriously tearing apart relationship between European Union and Russian Federation. The alleged “poisoning” of...
Emerging Muslim Blocs and Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Dilemma
Over the years, Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had established substantial influence over the Muslim...
Energy3 days ago
The U.S. Oil Ambitions Threaten Economy and Sovereignty of Syria
Environment3 days ago
10 years to restore our planet. 10 actions that count
Middle East2 days ago
The new relationship between Israel and Bahrain
International Law2 days ago
The UN reforms are required to make it functional
Reports2 days ago
Building confidence crucial amid an uncertain economic recovery
Southeast Asia2 days ago
No such thing as sustainable palm oil”? What nonsense
Newsdesk3 days ago
World Bank Sets Ambitious Targets for Green and Resilient Economic Growth in Africa
Economy2 days ago
How U.S.’s Response to Covid-19 Could Precipitate 2nd Great Depression