Jean Asselborn Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Luxembourg Wilton Park Conference, Luxembourg, 17 June 2011.

Transcription

1 GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND THE REFORM OF THE MULTILATERAL SYSTEM Jean Asselborn Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Luxembourg Wilton Park Conference, Luxembourg, 17 June Ladies and gentlemen, Let me start by expressing a few words of thanks for the organisers of this Conference, in particular the staff of Wilton Park, the Institut Pierre Werner and the Luxembourg Ministry for foreign Affairs who have all put in a considerable effort to make it happen. This opportunity to debate the state of global governance is particularly welcome at a time where the international community faces unprecedented challenges. According to some, this calls for unprecedented responses. Put bluntly, the issue is whether the structures built around the UN and the Bretton Woods Institutions are still fit for purpose or should we be exploring other avenues? What is at stake is, ultimately, the international community s ability to overcome the various crises it faces. So the debate is far from being theoretical and, as minister for foreign affairs, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add a few political thoughts to the work you have been doing for the last two days. Let me first say a few words about the situation facing the international community today.

2 The world is still in the process of overcoming the global financial crisis and much remains to be done. Economic recovery is perceptible in most parts of the world but is still weak. Indebtedness, public or private, remains very high in various countries, I need not say more on this subject. But worst of all, the social consequences of the crisis are still with us. Unemployment has risen in many parts of the world and is receding only slowly, if at all. Rising food and energy prices threaten the livelihood of many, particularly among the poorest. To a degree, these developments are likely to be cyclical. But structural flaws are appearing ever more clearly. We are facing unsustainable rates of resource consumption, be it energy, land, water, minerals or other commodities. The recent nuclear disaster in Japan has prompted calls for a fundamental rethink of the world s energy provision and thus of its model of economic development. The symptoms of environmental degradation are becoming increasingly clear for all to see: erosion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity are all on the global agenda, while climate change still needs to be addressed. Faced with such an array of challenges, the international community has reacted by agreeing the Millennium Development Goals in the year They cover the whole range of interlinked problems: poverty, health, education, gender equality, the environment and so on. They thus provide a crucial tool for a comprehensive and integrated approach.

3 While it is already clear that not all countries will reach all goals, there is significant progress to report. However, in some cases that progress is under threat from rising food prices and the economic and financial crisis. A lot of work still needs to be done, as evidenced by the UNDP s latest figures : there are still 1,2 billion individuals suffering from hunger in the world and, tellingly, 70 % of them are women or girls. A similar number has no secure access to clean water. The security outlook is equally challenging. Not only is world peace still threatened by traditional conflicts between states, we are also witnessing increasingly complex armed conflicts within states or regions, opposing both state and non-state actors. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, human trafficking and organised crime are also emerging as major threats. Most of these problems are global in nature and hence can only be solved by collective action. All parts of the world are affected by them, even if it is to varying degrees. On top of that, due to the ever greater interconnections between economies and communities, driven by technological change, an event in one part of the world can have many unpredictable consequences in other parts of the planet and at different levels. These problems also tend to be interrelated : for instance, environmental degradation can undermine agricultural production, and thus lead to food shortages and ultimately violence and radicalisation. Tackling such vicious circles demands a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach.

4 There is however a paradox here. The continuous progress of communication technologies and the increased movements of goods and people amplified the convergence of cultures and economies. Yet, at the same time, as the number of independent states keeps rising, new borders keep appearing. Moreover, while peoples and cultures interact more than ever before, frictions between ways of life are appearing. So the globalised world with its global problems is coexisting with a reverse trend of fragmentation and mutual rejection. The scale of the challenges the international community faces is daunting. Without adequate global governance, humanity will not be able to solve, or at least alleviate, these problems. In that sense, the international community can be compared to the nation States that are its constituent elements : a State that does not have the structures required to reach an adequate standard of governance will be in danger of failing and its population will suffer. The same applies to the international community. Some will argue that the multilateral system we have inherited from the immediate post-war years does not stand a chance. Lets us hear their case. They will claim that the multilateral system has been unable to deal with old challenges and will point to the numerous instances where the Security Council has failed in its mandate to safeguard the peace. They will cast doubt on whether the UN has done much to spread democracy and human rights.

5 They will question its record in the fight against hunger, poverty and diseases. They will see the picture I have just sketched as an indictment of the existing structures. They will have no difficulty in pointing out that some of the problems I have mentioned barely existed in 1945, except perhaps in the minds of science-fiction writers And finally, they will take pleasure in underlining how much the international community has changed since the inception of the UN, that the world no longer revolves around two rival superpowers, embodying two opposing economic social and political systems and that power in the world order is shifting. Of course we all know that. Does it follow that the UN system has reached the end of its useful life and that solutions should be sought outside it? This is not something I can accept. The fact that an institutional system was designed in an era with different problems, different actors and a different balance of power does not as such mean that it has become redundant. Quite to the contrary. I believe that the arguments in favour of the multilateral system, with the UN at its core, remain every bit as relevant today as they have ever been. Of course, coming from a small country, I have a natural bias in favour of multilateral structures, such a the EU and the UN, as I am bound to fare better in such organisations than in a bilateral context where the more powerful actors inevitably tend to prevail at the expense of the smaller ones.

6 Even so, I strongly believe that there are objective arguments to support the view that a rules-based multilateral system is the best solution to serve the needs of the entire international community, including both its larger and smaller members. The UN system provides the only global framework where States can act together to tackle the challenges faced by the whole of mankind, while enjoying the full protection of international law. The UN charter specifies the rights and obligations of all the members, whose sovereignty and dignity it protects. The rules and procedures agreed by all are the foundation of the system. They are the source of its legitimacy. It is within that framework that all States, including the most powerful ones, have delegated to the Organisation the responsibility to protect world peace. It is a tribute to the foresight of the drafters of the Charter that they largely resisted the temptation to settle for the age-old solution and draft a peace treaty that would have served only the purposes of the victors of the day and stored trouble for the future. This foresight has preserved us from a new global conflict and we still benefit from it today. Moreover, the architects of the post-war order did not limit themselves to a narrow vision of peace and security. They did not forget that it was the economic and social collapse of the early 30 s that contributed decisively to the coming of war. They understood the need to take into account the financial, economic, social and cultural dimension of a new world order and created a whole system of multilateral institutions to address all these issues.

7 As a result the UN system today combines the knowledge and legitimacy required to play the leading role in defining urgent and collective responses to the challenges we face. One should not therefore draw argument from the extent of the global financial crisis to claim that we need some self-appointed major players to substitute themselves for existing multilateral institutions. Such thinking is only the latest version of the 19 th century Concert of Great Powers, that has no place in modern international relations. It is nevertheless a sad fact that, in times of crisis, unilateralism tends to rise. Short sighted selfishness is the order of the day. Rules-based structures are bypassed, ignored or neglected. The consequences of States turning their back on multilateralism are dire. Let me give you two examples : The fight against climate change has severely been hampered by the failure of the Copenhagen Conference. Initiatives are taken in various regions at various levels. But in the absence of a common framework, there is a complete lack of transparency and efficiency. Costs are borne disproportionately by the frontrunners to the short term benefit of freeriders. This has the potential to harm both the environment and the global trading system at the expense of the entire international community. So the fight against climate change is both much more costly and much less efficient than it could be. The second example I want to highlight is the Doha Round. The continued failure to conclude the round is even more damaging in the context of the global financial crisis, where the increased economic opportunities that conclusion of the Round will bring would have been all the more welcome.

8 The present stalemate is detrimental to the WTO and thus to the rules-based international trading system. It creates losers in the industrialised countries, but also in the emerging ones and even more so in the developing countries which the Round aims to integrate more closely into the world trading system. An agreement would help the world economy along. It would complement and indeed enhance our development aid policies. I still believe it is possible, provided we all remind ourselves of what is at stake and create the political and social conditions where the long-term common good can be successfully pursued, in spite of the inevitable short-term losses for some. You will by now have understood that when it comes to multilateralism, Luxembourgers are true believers. Furthermore, we also practice what we believe. For instance, Luxembourg is a regular participant, either through human resources or otherwise, to UN or UN-mandated peace keeping operations, for instance in Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon or Kosovo. Luxembourg s ODA, which has reached 1.09 % of Gross National Income, is channelled, in a significant proportion, through UN bodies. As a result Luxembourg is among the top 20 contributors, in absolute terms, to all major specialised UN agencies, funds and programmes. This applies notably to UNWRA, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, UNHCR, as well as the World Health Organisation, and we are determined to maintain this effort. Our commitment to the rule of law and human rights also has a strong multilateral dimension as evidenced by our consistent support for the work of

9 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as the Human Rights Council. Luxembourg representatives also take an active role in a whole range of UN bodies. I would like to quote in particular the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which has recently been chaired by Luxembourg, as well as the various organs of the Peace Building Commission. Luxembourg also contributes to the multilateral agenda through its membership of the EU, which has repeatedly proved that a regional organisation can be a very effective tool in order to increase the efficiency of the multilateral system. IN many fields, ranging from the environment through trade to the fight against terrorism, it is the EU that has carried the burden of driving the international agenda forward. I hope you will forgive me for having dwelt at some length upon the case of my own country. But I do believe that it provides a good illustration of the fact that the multilateral framework gives the opportunity also to smaller countries to show commitment, take responsibility and bear part of the burden. It demonstrates that such contributions are in no way made only by the most powerful countries. Having said that, I am of course not going to try and claim that everything s perfect. Even a staunch believer must be able to question his beliefs. I am also prepared to accept that multilateralism, regardless of how great its attractions are, is not an end in itself. We do not believe in it solely because it is right in principle. We also believe that it is right in practice.

10 That is not to say that it cannot be improved. Quite to the contrary. If we want to enhance the effectiveness of the multilateral system and give the lie to the doomsayers proclaiming its demise, we must not shy away from necessary reform. It is of course the Security Council that first comes to mind. It is plainly obvious that it reflects the world of 1945 rather than today s international community. We therefore believe that increasing the number of seats in the Council is indispensible to make it more representative of the present membership of the Organisation. This increase should in our view apply both to the permanent and to the non-permanent members, and take into account the justified ambitions of Africa for permanent representation on the Council. There is also a need here to tackle the issue of how to represent the smaller States which make up the majority of the membership of the UN. But Security Council reform cannot mean just adding a few members and doing nothing else. The Security Council needs not only to become more representative. It must also become more transparent and more open. More attention will have to be devoted in particular to its relations with non-members of the Council. The same applies to the Security Council s cooperation with the other principal organs of the UN, in particular the General Assembly and Ecosoc. I am fully aware of the magnitude of the task. But reform will enable the Security Council to become both more efficient and more legitimate. Its decisions will thus be better implemented by the international community. It is a prize worth striving for.

11 It is regrettable that efforts undertaken in this respect over the last years have remained largely fruitless. The status quo is no longer acceptable. Reform is needed if we want the Council to remain the primary organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council s decisions are binding on all UN members. Its membership must therefore be representative and its working methods transparent and inclusive. This focus on the Security Council must not blind us to the other areas of reform. Efforts have been undertaken to revitalise the General Assembly, the only organ where all 192 member states are represented on equal terms. But let s be honest: much more needs to be done if we wish to see this G-192 play a more effective role. We should also look again at the Human Rights Council. Human rights must be mainstreamed in all UN policies and activities. In this age of economic and social turmoil, Ecosoc has an important role to play and can offer a useful forum for discussions, including with the Bretton Woods Institutions and the WTO, next to its function as main coordinating body for development policy. The Peace Building Commission is a crucial new instrument for the international community and an example of the system s ability to evolve. Further work is now required to spread the benefit of the Commission s work more widely. We also need to overcome the fragmentation that has emerged over the years as the UN system has evolved and work to strengthen the coherence of the system.

12 Strengthening the international judicial architecture is also crucial to the implementation on the ground of the values that are at the root of the multilateral system. There is no point in proclaiming new rules if we do not give ourselves the means to implement them. This is particularly true in the context of the fight against impunity. Reforming the main institutions is not the end of the task. Day-to-day management of the Organisation must be improved. We need to continue to encourage the Secretary General in his efforts to improve efficiency, transparency and accountability in all aspects of the running of the Organisation. This implies, of course, that we should provide him with the necessary means to this end. Ladies and Gentlemen, Gradual reform might sound less exciting than complete revolution. We tend to have a fondness for the flamboyant revolutionary, as opposed to the boring reformer : Should we try and improve what there is or start from a blank sheet? It is an old dilemma. There is however absolutely no doubt in my mind that gradual reform is the way to go. It can be done. It must be done. I trust that the exchanges you had over the course of this conference will have made a contribution, however small, to this process. Thank you for your attention. I hope that you will have a fruitful discussion with the concluding panel and wish you all a safe journey home.

13