News

Working session “The UN and Global Governance: realistic scenarios”December 4, 2002HelsinkiMy brief remarks today have been provoked by the first guiding question of our working session: Has the United Nations been sidelined in the core global governance structures? In order to orient my response, let me step back to gain some perspective.The term ‘global governance’ was, at least at first, mainly used as a concept which sought to challenge the traditional confines of exclusive inter-state administration. Gradually, however, the term ‘global governance’ has acquired a more specific meaning, especially in the context of the existing realities and, more so, new challenges such as poverty, terrorism, AIDS or global warming.Global governance is mainly about management, yet it is also about accountability and representation. It is about the process which links different actors - governments, corporations and civil society organizations – and which mediates their differences be they at local, regional or global level. So if better governance means greater participation, ‘global governance’ cannot be subjected to the ‘zero-sum’ calculations. Let there be no mistake: we cannot talk of good global governance if we assign only a marginal role to the most inclusive – membership and scope wise – organization, the UN. It is precisely for this reason that I fully endorse the report of the Secretary-General of the UN where it is explicitly asserted that the main question of global governance is not what or who constitutes global governance, but rather [and I quote]: ‘[I]s there room for improving the existing arrangements for norm setting and policy coordination, thereby raising the standards of effectiveness, equity, accountability, transparency, participation and voice?’Markets have gone global, national governments, however, remain local. So it is up to international organizations, (and I mean international rather than intergovernmental only), to act as mediators or facilitators. Of course, one may feel tempted to call for an establishment of new international organizations, especially in the face of an ever- increasing avalanche of new global challenges. Yet, my question is, should we not consider makeover rather than takeover. In other words, should we not consider a better use of the existing ones?Reform of the UN Security Council is long overdue. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) seems to have only ‘deliberative’ functions, although its recent vigorous attempts to secure a more important role have been successful. (And to demonstrate that I mean it: Lithuania is seeking membership in the Council.) Commission on Human Rights (still) keeps on trying to find an agreement on how to reform its working methods. Yet, just like in the democracy debate, where one can criticize democracy as long as one accepts that it is the best alternative available, should we not approach the UN as the only body of its kind, (and I repeat myself): with universal membership and comprehensive scope. Put differently, the legitimacy and authority of the UN remains unshattered, when the question ‘which organization has played the biggest role in setting global norms and defining the terms of the debate on important issues such as environmental degradation, human rights, poverty eradication, or dialogue among civilizations‘ is posed. Yet if the UN core strength lies in its capacity to play a central role in forging normative consensus and spelling out practical solutions on the great number of challenges of today, its core weakness is the lack of mechanisms which would ensure compliance with or implementation of the agreed upon standards or objectives.With this caveat in mind, I shall turn to the next question: what should we expect from the UN. There is a saying ‘when the only tool in your kit is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.’ A tool kit for an era as complex as ours, however, requires an array of tools, not simply hammers of different sizes. Let me explain. The UN sets up global policy agendas, frames debates and raises public consciousness. Yet the rapid pace of change today frequently exceeds the capacity of institutions, be they national or international, to adapt. It is for this reason that we should seek to strengthen what the UN embodies the best - the principles and practice of multilateralism - by simultaneously engaging in creative coalitions – regional organizations, global or regional policy frameworks. No, it is not about changing objectives, it is about organizing and expanding the tool kit to respond to the challenges of today.I fully understand our reluctance to put a question mark next to such an important, albeit extremely sensitive instrument as the Charter of the UN. Sixty years have elapsed since the time the Charter was elaborated, and if it reflected realities of the then global situation, it no longer corresponds to the challenges of today: we have already ‘buried’ the Cold War and the likelihood of interstate conflicts has decreased significantly. And even if traditions and working methods of the UN still retain their value, the UN, especially in the face of future challenges, should not be straitjacketed, there should be room for maneuvring.Having argued that the UN is enabling, rather than prescriptive, that it is guiding rather than directive, I shall provisionally conclude that the United Nations ‘steers’ rather than ‘rows’. At this point, I would like to move our discussion to the ‘rowing’ dimension. In other words, I shall offer the Lithuanian perspective on how to strengthen our participation and, by definition, engagement in global governance.First, forging stronger partnerships between the UN and regional and subregional organizations may unfold yet underexplored synergies, ensuring a speedier way towards achievement of commonly defined objectives. In this context, I would like to express my conviction that cooperation between the UN and the Council of Europe, which Lithuania has had a privilege chairing recently, has promising opportunities. The Council of Europe remains the main standard setter in the field of promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the European continent. Therefore continuous and increasing co-operation between this regional organization and the United Nations shall be promoted and strengthened. By the same token, I also would like to suggest that possibilities for a tripartite cooperation between the UN, CoE and the OSCE are further explored.Second, regional cooperation can make an essential contribution for consolidating stability and security, and promoting development – the overriding objectives, articulated by the UN. Regional cooperation can provide a contextual framework to encourage innovation, creative solutions, and good practices among participants. In fact, it was our host country, Finland, who has started the practical implementation of the idea to formulate a wide-range European Union policy in the North. The Northern Dimension, as it is called now, has developed into an effective tool to enhance co-operation in the northern region of Europe. Regional cooperation thus is a point where ‘rowing’ and ‘steering’ vectors meet. And it is through ‘exploitation’ of these nexuses that we shall achieve the UN Millennium Summit Goals.Third, just as exclusive attention to ‘inter’state relations is no longer sufficient, not least because globalisation is transforming them to ‘trans’national relations; overemphasis on macropolitics may fail to produce a complete picture as well. Although I do not seek to underestimate the ever-increasing role of such actors as the EU or the Group of 77, yet I want to underscore that small or medium-size polities do not necessarily succumb to the process of ‘lumping’ under the label of globalization. In other words, even small states can produce pressures and shape global responses to the arising challenges. Throughout the last decade, Lithuania, just like any other country in transition, received financial support. Currently, however, Lithuania, along with other Central European states, is contributing to the cause of development. In fact, Lithuania, along with other applicant EU and NATO countries, ise moving away from the recipient country label and aspiring for a donor country status. This is an important moment, which is yet to be understood by the citizens our region. In order to respond to the challenges of today we have to act collectively: efforts of the United States or Europe alone would not solve the problems. For this cause, we need sustained and unified efforts of every continent, of every state in our ever diminishing world. Capacity to think and act globally – so ably and on numerous occassions demonstrated by our host country today, Finland – is what Central Europe still lacks. Indeed, it may well be the source that could be tapped by the UN, and for our states in the region – we could more efficiently explore the opportunities provided to us by the UN.To conclude my presentation, I would like to come back to the title of our working session -‘UN and Global Governance’. I sincerely hope that next time we come to discuss particularities of global governance, we will no longer doubt the role of the UN and the title of our session - just as our deeds - will reflect our common trust.