Category Archives: UN

Letters from America (I): Where the sky is the limit

I was recently visiting the US again, more than a year after my last visit and some two-and-a-half years after I moved from New York to Brussels. Twelve years working for the United Nations in New York may not qualify me for US citizenship or a green card, and I am not sure I would want either at this stage in my life, but certainly a New Yorker I feel, then, now and forever.

New York for me is the capital of the world, not only because of the United Nations, and less so because of Wall Street, but certainly also because of the immense diversity in cultures and cuisines, languages spoken, music, exhibits and other cultural activities from across the globe. You can find everything in New York and you can find New York everywhere – in the movies that the world watches, in the change of the year at Times Square, in what the New York Times publishes, in the trends that New York sets. The city is full of beautiful, ambitious and creative people. It is dynamic and intense. It is where you live your dream, if you want it hard enough: the sky is the limit here.

Brussels - Borse - 8 June 2014 - 20140608_142001Quite a contrast from Brussels, the capital of Belgium and the seat of the main European Union institutions, where I now live. “Gotham City” or “The Big Apple”, as New York is also known, rises into the skies, with its high-rise office and residential buildings. Brussels has an area of high-rise buildings, ambitiously called “Manhattan” by the way, but it is mainly a beautiful, art deco, low-rise city with some medieval structures still intact at is famous Grand Place. New York’s skies may pour down with rain and snow, lots of snow during a heavy winter, but they are deep blue and sunny the rest of the time. Brussels, in turn, tends to be milder but often overcast and with drizzle, giving you a claustrophobic feeling when you do not see the sun for weeks at a time.

New York is multicultural, with distinct neighbourhoods, restaurants and supermarkets, with its numerous national parades spreading their special flavour each time – from St. Patrick’s Day Parade to the Puerto Rican, Greek, and many others. Brussels is also becoming increasingly multicultural, mainly with Europeans from other countries and Arabs from North Africa, some sub-Saharan Africans too, and of course it has its indigenous linguistic divide between French and Dutch/Flemish speakers. As apparently is the case in the rest of Europe, rather than being a source of richness and pride these diverse cultural identities seem to be a cause of concern, with political correctness trying to ignore them and political expediency trying to accentuate them.

Plays and musicals on Broadway, performances at Lincoln Center and Carnegie Hall, exhibits at the MoMA, the Metropolitan Museum and the Guggenheim, movies shot in and about the city, set trends and are points of reference worldwide. Brussels, of much smaller size than New York, has a surprisingly vibrant artistic scene that its inhabitants enjoy thanks to institutions like Bozar, Flagey and Ancienne Belgique, but has no claim on influencing people beyond its limits, not even within the EU.

New York is known as “the city that never sleeps”, with the subway (metro) running 24/7, delis and some other stores the same, shops opening long hours including on Sundays, and with attentive service offered by shopkeepers to waiters to bank tellers. Brussels thankfully has an increasing number of night stores and supermarkets that also open on Sundays, but most shops open during office hours, making it difficult for office workers to visit them. Services often seem to be offered with the rights of the person serving in mind, rather than of the client, who undoubtedly does not seem to “be king”… And I could go on and on making such comparisons between the two cities.

What am I getting at with these arguments? Is this an unqualified eulogy for New York and a scathing criticism for Brussels? A praise for America and a castigation of Europe? Not really, not least because I am aware of the many problems New York and the US model have. The infrastructure has a lot to be desired, notably the train system, which is still old and slow; no TGV or Thalys connecting New York to Washington or Boston for example, unlike the impressive connections that Brussels boasts of with Paris, London, Amsterdam, Cologne. Criminality is lower in Brussels and life is quite comfortable, more family-friendly and less stressful than New York. Working people are entitled to longer vacations and other benefits, and can count on high-quality healthcare and education at significantly lower cost. Inequalities may be rising but still in Brussels and Europe there is a large middle class that enjoys a good life. There may be racial tensions but Europe is not facing situations like in Ferguson, Missouri or in New York, with deadly attacks between black US citizens and the police.

My critical comparisons between New York and Brussels have been an attempt to distil the best of both worlds, and hopefully infuse what is missing from one to the other. For Europe, which is the focus of this publication, it would mean, among other things, less parochialism and more ambition for the future at individual and collective levels; more client orientation and more flexibility in employment conditions, while keeping an overall guaranteed social safety net that is the jewel of the “European model”; more openness to other cultures and influences, notably those from other countries of the EU but also beyond; much more openness towards and investment in new ideas, innovation and creativity; and an overall more optimistic attitude and can-do spirit.

Georgios Kostakos

Originally published as op-ed in Katoikos.eu on 29 January 2015

Apologies for the silence…

…It is not that I do not have a lot to say about what is happening in our world, global and European governance, climate change and all in recent months. The silence is due to many new projects being prepared. Do stay tuned as they get launched early in 2015, with new opportunities to express views and to have a positive impact on developments, not only for me but also you and others. For announcements and sneak previous keep an eye on FOGGS and Katoikos.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you personal happiness, good health and many achievements, and to our world the peace, good will and equitable prosperity that it deserves, all this with good global and regional governance and sustainability, of course!

Georgios

Brussels, 27 December 2014

The EU Circus performing in Manhattan again

In the second half of September, each and every year, world leaders gather in New York for the annual high-level meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is like the annual town hall meeting of the planet, an opportunity for presidents, kings and prime ministers, to make public statements on the big issues facing their countries and our world as a whole, and to discuss privately possible solutions to the thorniest among those issues. Not all 193 countries that are members of the UN are represented at the highest level. Some send only their foreign ministers, or just have their resident ambassadors to the UN speak.

In this parade of leaders, or circus if you wish, Europe has a numerous and colourful team. Well, colourful and numerous it is for sure, a team not exactly, though. In addition to the leaders of the 28 EU member countries, who speak for their respective governments, the European Union is also represented by the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council. So “Brussels” is also there, in addition to Berlin, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Bratislava, etc. Because “Brussels” is not a country, it has some (complicated) kind of global diplomatic representation and observer status at the United Nations. Senior European officials often get good speaking slots at UN events, not least thanks to the money they have to spend on good causes and the good relations with the host, the UN Secretary-General.

Let us briefly see what happened this year, how the EU representation positioned itself at the high-level stage in New York. Commission President Barroso, in his last global performance before leaving office at the end of October, participated in the UN Climate Summit of 23 September. He went there with the outgoing commissioners for climate action and development cooperation, Connie Hedegaard and Andris Piebalgs respectively. President Barroso repeated positions announced by the Commission earlier, that is that it will dedicate 20 per cent of the EU 2014-2020 budget to climate action inside and outside the EU (some 180 billion euros in total), and that EU member states will hopefully agree to a greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 40 per cent and increase in the renewable energy share to 27 per cent by 2030. In the same meeting heads of state or government from Austria, Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovenia and many other EU countries made their own statements and announced their own commitments, in terms of money to the Green Climate Fund (which the Commission did not do) and steps towards climate neutrality.

Outgoing European Council President Herman Van Rompuy had among his UN assignments to speak at the General Assembly, where he covered a range of issues, including the conflict in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, sustainable development and the Ebola crisis. Of course, the 28 countries of the EU also spoke at different times there, many represented at the highest level. Mr. Van Rompuy also spoke at the Security Council Summit that was chaired by US President Obama on 24 September. He spoke as an observer on the issue of foreign terrorist fighters. When the time came, however, for a vote on the draft resolution, Mr. Van Rompuy had no vote to cast, unlike the President of France and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who were sitting at the actual Council table, because their countries (but not the EU) are permanent members of the Security Council.

In the same period Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission, was chairing talks on resolving the issue of Iran’s uranium processing. Add the active presence of other Commission members, like Kristalina Georgieva, responsible for humanitarian aid and crisis response, and you get a picture of a lot of “Brussels” action in New York, usually in parallel and in addition to that of high-level representatives of EU member states. If that were a well-coordinated “blitzkrieg”, to take over UN headquarters by Europeans disguised in various forms but working for a common purpose, one could applaud the cunningness, strategy and coordination of this emerging global power called Europe. Things seem to be much more mundane, though.

The EU institutions add an extra layer of representation of Europe at the UN, without really affecting most hard-core political issues, especially in terms of global peace and security. London continuous to do its own planning with its Commonwealth contacts and residual imperial practices; similarly Paris with its Quai d’Orsay bureaucracy and traditions; Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland carry their respective weight around; the medium- to small-size Scandinavian states continue to play the nice guys and to spend money on good causes, thus enjoying major-country influence on the UN agenda, and so on and so forth. Imagine the day when Europe will speak in one voice that will be respected globally, on a par with other continental power houses like the US, China or even India, Russia, Brazil? Well, certainly that day is not here yet.

Georgios Kostakos

Originally published on 30 September 2014 as op-ed at www.Katoikos.eu 

 

Cosmopolitan Consciousness and Civic Action in a Globalized World

See the outcome of five intense days of talking and walking/hiking in the mountains of North-western Greece in early August 2014; an initial contribution to creating the “global demos with a global ethos” that our world urgently needs.

Irresponsible brinkmanship all around on Ukraine

Worrisome signs of the (re)emergence of a cold war between the West, mainly the US and the EU, and Russia are emerging over the issue of Ukraine. Political rhetoric is being ramped up, along with sanctions gradually introduced on the part of the West, while Crimea’s incorporation into Russia is advancing. It looks increasingly difficult to return to the status quo ante and have a reasonable discussion on how to ensure the integrity, prosperity and good governance of Ukraine in the difficult buffer zone between the EU and Russia where it finds itself.

Barring a major miscalculation from Ukraine, Russia or the West, the most probable is for a new status quo that includes:
– A Crimea that is de facto part of Russia, whether internationally recognized or not;
– A Ukraine run by a pro-Western government but facing outbreaks of violence with parts of the population feeling closer to Russia and with the extreme right making strides in the other parts;
– Frosty relations between Russia and the West, with Russia facing limited sanctions and exclusion from fora like the G7/8, and Europe potentially facing counter sanctions and experiencing energy supply problems.

This may make for a somewhat unpleasant situation but nothing the key protagonists cannot live with, except perhaps Tatars, Ukrainians and other minority populations in Crimea, and Russians in the rest of Ukraine. But the main political players, international and local, can always restate their claims against each other, excite patriotic sentiments among their respective publics and allies, win elections and exercise power, without having to resort to much more than tough words. If no unpredictable factor intervenes, that is, no provocation or public uprising that might demand from politicians to prove their toughness in practice and authorize action. Such an improbable, it must be said again, turn of events that might lead to a hot incident between Russian and Western/NATO forces could have unpredictable consequences for regional and even global peace and security.

To avoid any dramatic eventuality, and to stabilize the situation as much as possible, measures like the following could be taken:
– Swift and systematic moves to establish democratic governance and respect for minority rights in Ukraine, as part of its gradual integration into the broader European space; the EU and the West should strongly discourage right-wing or other excesses, retribution among rival political forces, etc. by setting their avoidance as precondition for any deepening of integration and financial support; organizations like the UN and the OSCE could be brought in to help with or monitor actions in that regard.
– Guarantee of minority rights, assistance with family reunions across the new de facto borders etc. in Crimea too, through similar assistance or monitoring arrangements with the involvement of organizations like the UN and the OSCE.
– Continuation of mutual engagement between Russia, the US and Europe on other issues like Syria, Iran, North Korea, and avoidance of a Cold War-type split in the UN security Council; gradual reinstatement of collaboration fora like the G8.

This would be a far-from-perfect state of affairs, but could be the most viable, because it would entail a pragmatic recognition of mutual interests and might eventually draw the West and Russia closer together. This would presuppose a degree of humility, self-discipline and self-awareness from all sides, with the Russians realizing that they cannot reconstruct their empire with threats and a gradual return to centralized authoritarianism; the US and Europe admitting their hypocrisy and finally learning from the litany of failures they have created by “spreading democracy” around the world, e.g. Iraq and Libya; Europe facing head-on the major handicap of its own divisions that still allow the pursuit of narrow nationalist gains instead of working to define and implement the common European good.

Georgios Kostakos
20 March 2014

 

The UN at 67

(or Happy UN Day, 24 October 2012)

The United Nations is celebrating its 67th birthday on 24 October 2012. A lot can be said about its many achievements, but also its numerous shortcomings. Without going into the historical details, I try in this piece to identify the UN’s strengths and weaknesses, as they relate to today’s world. I conclude by making seven suggestions for improvement, namely:

  1. Less talk and more focus on problem-solving;
  2. More involvement of regional organizations to rationalize the number of negotiating parties;
  3. Organic connection to limited-membership intergovernmental bodies that matter, notably the G20;
  4. Better use of the broad expertise available in the entire UN system;
  5. Bringing together all relevant stakeholders into joint projects focusing on implementation;
  6. “Quantitative easing” at a global scale, to kick start economic activity in developing countries, and fulfill various financing-for-development promises;
  7. Bringing the UN closer to the average individual and making them feel that it is their United Nations.

Those familiar with the UN’s good deeds may want to skip the first long section on strengths and go to the second, more critical part, or go straight to the final section, where I analyze the seven suggestions for improvement.

Strengths

The UN and the system of multilateral agencies that revolve around it[i] have some clear strengths, namely:

+      Near-universal membership of countries, especially in the UN General Assembly, and therefore moral authority and legitimacy in representing “the World”. This is particularly exemplified in the “global village” gathering of national leaders each September in New York, but also on special occasions for global challenges like food security (Rome, 2009), climate change (Copenhagen, 2009) and sustainable development (Rio de Janeiro, 2012).

+      Norm and standard setting in areas related to human rights, including women’s and children’s rights, workers rights, refugee rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, disabled people’s rights, etc., all of which serve as a guide for action, and to judge the actions of, governments around the world.

+      Creation or guarantee of principles that regulate behaviour among states, such as the peaceful resolution of disputes, the “common but differentiated responsibilities” for addressing climate change and other global challenges, the interconnection of the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, environmental), etc.

+      Efforts at conflict prevention and peace-making by the UN Secretary-General and his various special envoys may have varying degrees of success but are often the only ones accepted by all parties in a conflict. And when the peaceful settlement of disputes fails, there is also peacekeeping and peace enforcement, under an increasingly unrepresentative but still legally empowered and potentially effective Security Council.

+      Concrete goals and mechanisms for advancing the wellbeing of humanity, especially its less privileged parts, notably through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

+      Technical standards for safe operation and cooperation in various areas of human activity, from safe travel by air and sea, to telecommunications, postal services, health, keeping the environment clean, safely operating nuclear plants, recognizing the world’s cultural heritage, etc. through organizations like ICAO, IMO, ITU, UPU, WHO, UNEP, IAEA, UNESCO, etc.

+      Warning systems based on scientific evidence about imminent threats, from diseases and environmental degradation to all-encompassing climate change, food crises and even financial crises, through agencies like WHO, UNEP, IPCC, FAO, UN-DESA, UNCTAD, IMF, World Bank,[ii] etc.

+      Humanitarian assistance, from feeding, vaccinating and schooling poor children through UNICEF, to providing for the victims of drought and hunger through WFP, to taking care of the needs of refugees through UNHCR, etc.

+      Development assistance, including expert knowledge, capacity building and funding, through UNDP, the World Bank, IFAD, GEF, etc.

Weaknesses

Inevitably, the UN also has some quite clear weaknesses, which have to be acknowledged and dealt with:

–      Too much talk and too little action often characterize the UN, not least the General Assembly, where the democratic one-country-one-vote principle looks increasingly irrelevant compared to the powerful influences that shape the real world outside, from state and non-state actors. By the time agreements are reached, often by consensus, among 193 countries, they contain very little that can be actually applied in their convoluted prose.

–      Country representation mainly by diplomats, in the UN General Assembly and even in the more “specialized” Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), makes tackling global challenges with strong technical elements like climate change, food insecurity or unemployment a virtually impossible task. Instead of problem solving, what all too often happens is negotiating of lowest-common-denominator political texts.

–      A ritualistic insistence on debates of the past, between North and South, East and West, and related diplomatic point-scoring, with minimal or no connection to today’s world realities and to solving the actual problems facing humanity.

–      Fragmentation of efforts and lack of coordination between the political centre in New York and the more specialized technical agencies of the UN system that cover from economics and finance to health, education, telecommunications, etc. In addition to bureaucratic infighting, this reflects a lack of coherent guidance by national governments, which are represented in the UN specialized agencies by different line ministries that often take a narrow sectoral approach.

–      No effective connection to limited participation bodies, like the G20, that powerful countries create to deal with key issues outside the egalitarian “’one country one vote” system of the UN General Assembly.

–      Reliance on ad hoc arrangements of questionable accountability and effectiveness for engaging powerful non-state actors, like the globalized private sector and civil society, which can nowadays mobilize a lot more resources than small or medium countries can.

–      For UN Headquarters, too much reliance on and embracing by actors based in New York and the US Northeast, often non-governmental actors, including media, foundations, think tanks and academic institutions, which attempt to monopolize the attention of UN senior staff and diplomats and become “the world” in their eyes, disconnecting them from the realities faced by the actual 7-billion-people-strong worldwide constituency.

Suggestions for improvement

From this author’s experience with the UN, in theory but also very much in practice, the following suggestions if implemented could make a positive difference for the UN and the world:

1. Less talk and more focus on problem-solving, bringing into the discussion experts, from governments and other stakeholders, who actually know in depth the issues and have to deal with them on a daily basis in the real world. Thus each problem-solving debate/conference could be preceded by a mapping of the relevant actors globally, with invitations sent to high-level representatives of such actors to participate. It could all be topped up with an intergovernmental debate to keep official delegates and leaders happy, but once the expert voices have been heard. Timid steps in this direction have been made by the General Assembly, its Main Committees and ECOSOC, but they are completely informal, disconnected from any decision-making and the selection of invited experts is often haphazard. Having permanently stationed at the country missions to the UN, along with the diplomats, experts in the key areas of UN activity, including economic, social and environmental, from the relevant country ministries, would help a lot too.

2. More involvement of regional organizations to rationalize the number of negotiating parties and reach decisions faster and of a more applicable nature. Arrangements in this direction could be introduced without a (very difficult to achieve) amendment of the UN Charter, by agreeing that regional organizations (real ones, like the AU, ASEAN, CARICOM, EU, League of Arab States, Mercosur – not just geographical groupings) and key individual countries would get together to discuss draft resolutions before formal submission to the General Assembly and other intergovernmental bodies, ideally including the Security Council too. How each organization would be represented, by the country that chairs it during that period or through a supranational body as in the case of the European Union, it would be up to the countries covered by the respective organization to decide. This way the one-country-one-vote system would be maintained for final approval, while allowing initial consultations and action planning in smaller groups. Of course, a lot would depend on the degree of integration and effectiveness of the regions, which is far from homogeneous, but would probably have the positive side effect of expediting regional integration.

3. Organic connection to limited-membership intergovernmental bodies that matter, notably the G20. In fact, actual decision-making or at least decision-preparation in the UN context on the basis of regional representation and involving only major countries individually would obviate the need for the establishment of ad hoc bodies outside the UN.  While such bodies may be useful for crisis management, eventually they suffer from the lack of legitimacy or succumb to broader participation rituals and proceduralism over time.  Interesting to note in this respect the current General Assembly President’s stated intention to connect the UN and the G20, or the “G193” and G20. It remains to be seen how he will attempt to do that and how successful he will be where others failed.

4. Better use of the broad expertise available in the entire UN system, bringing together into a coherent whole the now scattered organizations, and providing central leadership, vision and direction. This would mean upgrading and making more substantive the existing system-wide mechanism, the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), which is chaired by the UN Secretary-General and attended by the executive heads of UN specialized agencies, funds and programmes. The CEB in its current state, with its two meetings per year and with minimal high-level attention in-between, cannot realize its potential and is led adrift by petty competition between agencies for predominance and access to limited resources. Stronger leadership by the UN Secretary-General and his Deputy, coupled with appropriately coordinated guidance by UN member states, who are represented in the assemblies and governing bodies of each UN system entity but are often incoherent themselves, would make the UN system much better value for money for the global taxpayer.

5. Bringing together all relevant stakeholders into joint projects focusing on implementation. International public-private partnerships increasingly promoted by the UN Secretary-General are moving in this broad direction, covering issues of global concern from health to energy and education. However, a lot more needs to be done to ensure accountability, from the selection of the participants to the planning phases, to the actual investment of pledged resources and the achievement of the stated results. Before that happens, such partnerships can be variously seen as social or image-making opportunities for those participating (“bluewashing”), or products of political expediency, or as a way of bypassing UN member state control over substance, process and budgets. It will be interesting to see how the participation of stakeholders other than member states will be organized in the context of the high-level political forum mandated by the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro last June and due to meet for the first time in September 2013. Another project mandated by Rio+20, the development of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), can offer the context for broad mobilization and partnerships, especially as regards sustainable development implementation, in the post-MDG/post-2015 period.

6. “Quantitative easing” at a global scale, to kick start economic activity in developing countries, and fulfill various financing-for-development promises. Developed countries have been adding liquidity to their systems to help themselves out of the financial crisis by basically printing new money through their central banks. Why not have the world’s “central bank”, the IMF, issue or allocate Special Drawing Rights, which have an exchange rate equivalent to all major currencies, to be used for infrastructure projects in developing countries, especially least developed ones, to give their citizens a chance to get access to electricity, mobile telephony, drinking water, the Internet. SDR allocations for such use can be of the magnitude of the annual Official Development Assistance (ODA), which amounted to about US$129 billion from OECD DAC countries in 2010. ODA commitments are now faltering due to developed country problems, but the use of SDRs should not be instead but should supplement them. Such new liquidity would not destabilize the global financial system, as it is much lower than the new money produced by developed countries, and would in any case partly at least return to developed and emerging economies, from where the hardware, software and know-how will have to come from, providing an additional stimulus for their economies. Such SDRs be issued in annual installments for a certain period, say over 5 years to start with, and can be counted as innovative financing also towards the annual US$100 billion by 2020 agreed at the UNFCCC COPs in Copenhagen and Cancun for climate change action.  Finally, some of this money could be used for large scale microfinancing projects enabling developing country smallholders and entrepreneurs, especially women, to start or expand agricultural and other small businesses, which can create a growth dynamic in their respective economies. A suggestion to use SDRs to mobilize climate change financing was put forward in recent years by IMF staff but was not pursued further; it may be time to revisit it. Of course, honest accounting, good governance, strict guarantees against corruption, transparency and accountability should be key parts of any such project.

7. Bringing the UN closer to the average individual and making them feel that it is their United Nations, not an external force, even a good one. Beyond political declarations and even money, it is through a broadly shared global conscience that attitudes can change and actions can be generated at such magnitude that will have a positive impact on human societies and the planet. Promising salvation by a UN as an outside force, or making the UN the scapegoat for the lack of leadership and effectiveness of national governments, as is often the case, will not solve any real problem. The UN needs to work a lot more on its public image, on informing the global public about its real nature and capabilities. This requires a lot of honest and eloquent work out there, by headquarters and country teams and other offices – as well as civil society organizations, academics, religious leaders and others who realize the importance of the UN – for the hearts and minds of people.

So there is a lot that needs to be done, and the UN has to run faster to keep up with developments in the world. But that can wait for one more day, and let this 24 October be dedicated to rejoicing in what the UN has already achieved. Cheers to those who have been in the centre of it all, the UN staff, as well as diplomats and experts from all around the world, who work in New York, Geneva, Bangkok, Santiago, Nairobi, Vienna and so many other offices and missions around the world day in and day out. Congratulations, praise be to you – and sleeves up again as soon as the UN’s birthday party is over!

Georgios Kostakos

Ixelles, 24 October 2012

[i] For the membership of the UN system and the full names of the various organizations see: http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/index.shtml

[ii] The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group are also parts of the UN system of agencies, even if they are often mentioned as rivals or alternatives to the UN, especially by finance- and economy-focused critics.

Global Sustainable Development Negotiations and the Role of Europe

Although not as anxiously anticipated as that of Copenhagen 2009,[i] the outcome of Rio 2012[ii] may have equally disappointed many a citizen of the world, who expected more concrete outcomes for implementing sustainable development. The sense of disappointment may be even stronger among EU citizens and policy makers, who had hoped to see coming out of Rio a very strong endorsement of the concept and specifics of the Green Economy, along with the elevation of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to an autonomous organization within the UN system.

This author, however, solemnly believes that reports of Rio’s failure are greatly exaggerated. Indeed, the results may have not been as concrete as one would have liked. But the actual Rio+20 Outcome,[iii] the document approved by consensus among UN member states in Rio, has a lot to offer. Here are a few examples:

  • It clearly places sustainable development at the intersection of the economic, social and environmental spheres, with the highest priority given to poverty eradication. This balances a tendency to overemphasize the environmental dimension, which has made sustainable development implementation efforts rather one-sided since the first Rio conference in 1992.
  • Recognizes the importance and usefulness of setting a limited number of universally-applicable sustainable development goals (SDGs) for focused and coherent action on sustainable development. A 30-member, geographically balanced working group of UN member state representatives is mandated to make proposals on such goals to the UN General Assembly at its next session that starts in September 2013.
  • Establishes a universal intergovernmental high-level political forum to lead on the implementation of sustainable development, replacing the discredited Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). The format and organizational aspects of the forum are to be decided through negotiations in the UN General Assembly, with a view to holding the first high-level forum in September/October 2013.
  • Recognizes the need to complement gross domestic product (GDP) with broader measures of progress, and requests the UN Statistical Commission, the intergovernmental body that brings together the statistical offices of the world and approves common methodologies and standards, to work on it.
  • Decides to establish an intergovernmental committee of 30 experts to prepare, by 2014, a report with proposals on a sustainable development financing strategy to facilitate the mobilization of resources and their effective use in achieving sustainable development objectives.
  • Invites the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution at its present session on strengthening and upgrading UNEP, among other things by making the UNEP Governing Council membership universal, increasing UNEP’s financial resources, and enhancing its coordinating role within the UN system on matters pertaining to the environment.

A special note on the Green Economy: There is nothing in the Rio+20 outcome that prohibits putting a Green Economy into practice, within the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and taking into account the special circumstances and priorities of each country. If one accepts these caveats, avoids the temptation to turn the Green Economy into an ideology, and alleviates fears of “green protectionism” or “green conditionalities”, there is plenty of room created by Rio+20 to build on good practices, create tool kits for countries at various levels of development and use the emerging Green Economy arsenal as a means of moving closer to sustainable development.

These are no small achievements by any means. Yes, they could remain mere declarations on paper, or could lead to endless new negotiation processes with no concrete result. But that exactly is the challenge now and the opportunity for glory: to make sure that these Rio decisions are acted upon in a concrete, efficient and balanced way.

As the UN General Assembly gets down to business in New York, with the Rio+20 follow-up/post-2015 development planning high on the agenda, Europe needs to get its act together to play its part as effectively as possible. It has or will soon have its representatives on the intergovernmental working groups mentioned above, and in other relevant bodies like the Post-2015 Panel established by the UN Secretary-General.[iv] Could they be:

a)     Efficiently coordinated, without being fully absorbed by their own internal negotiations (the formulation of policies and the practice of EU external relations, in the UN context at least, leaves a lot to be desired);

b)    Substantive rather than representational, and covering all three dimensions of sustainable development, not only the environment (by coming from and being supported by experts from all relevant EU and member state ministries/DGs/agencies/offices);

c)     Open and inclusive internally (connecting with European professional associations, think tanks, NGOs, etc.) and externally (reaching out to other countries, including developing countries and emerging economies, and international civil society and private sector coalitions)?

d)    More cognizant of and publicly acknowledging the challenges of sustainability as they apply to the EU itself and its member states, from reliance on coal and energy infrastructure dependent on non-renewables for some time to come, economic and governance weaknesses affecting parts of the Union, etc.

If the EU representatives, member states and central EU institutions together, manage to do all this, they will play a leading role, make Europe’s positive mark and contribute to a better state of sustainability for Europe and the world as a whole in the years to come.

                                                                                                    Georgios Kostakos

                                                                                   Ixelles, 22 October 2012

[i] 15th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Copenhagen, 7-18 December 2009.

[ii] UN Conference on Sustainable Development, also known as “Rio+20”, Rio de Janeiro, 13-22 June 2012 (high-level segment/Summit on 20-22 June 2012).

[iii] See “The Future We Want”, endorsed by the UN General Assembly on 27 July 2012 through resolution 66/288 (document A/RES/66/288 of 11 September 2012).

[iv] The membership and terms of reference of the High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda were announced by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 31 July 2012.

The annual meeting of the global village (Part II)

Syria, as expected, was a top agenda item for the leaders addressing the UN General Assembly. While there was broad agreement that violence should end from all sides, there were disagreements on apportioning blame. The deployment of an Arab peace force was proposed (Tunisia), while others insisted on diplomatic efforts among Arab, regional and global powers that would prevent external military intervention (Egypt). Good governance, justice, respect for human rights and the rule of law were identified as the main elements of democracy that could eventually, with sustained effort, lead a country from poverty to prosperity, and would ensure peaceful relations between countries (EU, Ghana, Japan, Kenya, UK, US, Zambia).

In direct or indirect reference to the violent protests caused by the slanderous video about the Prophet Mohammed, several leaders addressed the apparent contradiction among the principles of freedom of speech, tolerance and respect of the religious beliefs of others. Some of them stressed the importance of tolerance and avoidance of violence as paramount (Liberia). Others pointed to the need of preventing abuses of freedom of expression, when it blatantly disrespects the religious beliefs of others and sows hatred, while at the same time stressing the peaceful nature of Islam and the need for peaceful protests (Yemen). The widening gap between rich and poor in the world was pointed out as a main cause of the ideological conflicts and violence (Iran).

On development issues, several leaders stressed the importance of implementing the outcome of the Rio+20 Conference for a more sustainable and equitable future (UN Secretary-General, UN General Assembly President, Brazil, Nauru). At the same time, it was significant to accelerate efforts to achieve the MDGs, especially in Africa (Australia South Africa). It was suggested that poverty and climate change could be addressed in tandem, so one does not have to choose between them (Mexico). Moreover, the connection was pointed out between sustainable development and peace and security (UNGA President, Cyprus). Serious concerns were expressed about the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (China, Norway), as well as about the nuclear activities of Iran and possible responses to them (Israel, Russia, US).

There was a broad recognition of the importance of multilateralism and the role of the United Nations, often accompanied by calls for UN reform, in different directions: to give emerging powers the place they deserve, especially on the Security Council (France, Germany, South Africa); towards more democracy within international fora, away from the control of a few powers (Iran); or towards full implementation of commitments made and decisions taken within the UN (Poland).

Only indicative references have been made above to the many speeches and the numerous issues brought up by world leaders at this year’s UN General Assembly. But of course this global village gathering has no decision-making purpose. It mainly allows expositions of country and leader positions on the global stage, in a ceremonial but useful way for reference and agenda setting. Of more practical relevance are side meetings of other bodies like the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, special initiatives like the Secretary-General’s “Sustainable Energy for All”. And of course very important are bilateral meetings that happen on the sidelines of the General Assembly, thanks to the simultaneous presence of so many dignitaries from around the world. Such meetings take place even between leaders (or their aides) whose countries are not on friendly terms.  This is by itself a very important function that the UN fulfills, as the meeting place of the – still quite dysfunctional – human family.

Georgios Kostakos

Ixelles, 29 September 2012