The UN General Assembly is stepping up its role in the peace and security domain
The current session of the General Assembly marks the 70th anniversary of the United Nations. In Danish, every decadal anniversary is referred to as a “round birthday” (with reference to the zero) and is considered an opportune moment for (self-) reflection, appraising the past decade and potentially charting a new course for the coming years. The UN with its multitude of organisations, mandates and interests is not great at stringent self-reflection - even at the age of 70. Fortunately others stand ready to reflect on behalf of the UN System and hold up a mirror showing all those cracks and wrinkles.
For those interested in global peace and security the past year has presented no less than three ambitious reviews in that mirror of the UN’s peace and security architecture spanning peace operations, peacebuildingand Women, Peace and Security. An excellent report on the synergies between the three reviews has just been published by the International Peace Institute’s Center for Peace Operations, NUPI and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation attempting to identify the synergies and connectors across the three reviews.
Other critical reflections include former staff members voicing their concerns over a UN they love but that they think is failing and (current) outsiders such as this author arguing (in Danish) that the flaws of the UN system is largely the responsibility of the UN’s Member States to whom we own most of the UN System’s disorders.
An important and different week in the General Assembly for peace and security issues
Over the course of this week (10-11 May 2016) all these developments coincided as Member States met in the United Nations General Assembly (GA) to discuss precisely the recent reviews of the UN’s peace and security architecture. When one mentions the GA, most people think of the annual circus where heads of state deliver histrionic, at times funny and often ruthless interventions - seemingly with no tangible outcome; the prepared statements become an end in themselves. However, the opening session is in fact just what it is titled - a colourful kick-off to that year’s work in the GA. The remainder of the year, representatives from the Member States’ permanent missions to the UN debate every imaginable topic through hundreds and hundreds of debates, forums, working groups, committees, and sessions.
Some see this political machinery as a colossal discussion club with no concrete powers and outcomes (the GA produces non-binding resolutions). This analyst would however argue that, as cumbersome as these deliberations might seem, the GA is in fact the only global forum where all Member States are represented which gives it a unique legitimacy and that hundreds of non-binding GA resolutions have in fact become conventions or treaties that today regulate everything from landmines over nuclear weapons and the laws of the sea to the rights of persons with disabilities. That said, no one would dare to argue that the GA is not known for its appetite for innovation, experiments and out of the box thinking. It is exactly for that reason that this week’s discussion on peace and security stands out. The debate took the form of a High-Level Thematic Debate (HLTD), which is a known format (though one used more extensively under the current GA Presidency held by former Danish foreign minister Mogens Lykketoft) than ever before. The novelty lies both in the focus of the debate and the preparations for it.
While the UN Charter leaves questions around international peace and security firmly in the hands of the Security Council, the Charter (Article 11) does allow the GA to “Consider and make recommendations on the general principles of cooperation for maintaining international peace and security”. By dedicating a High-Level Thematic Debate to peace and security, the President of the General Assembly (PGA) has provided the GA with a somewhat historic opportunity to take on a more proactive and assertive role in peace and security questions, which many have historically considered the sole prerogative of the Security Council. Proponents of this view might highlight that particularly the reports on peace operations and Women, Peace and Security venture deep into the operational mechanics of peace operations - traditionally the exclusive turf of the Security Council (with the exception of budgetary matters). Proponents of a broader and deeper engagement of the GA in peace and security questions will, besides highlighting the illegitimacy of the Security Council where the victors of the second world war still reign supreme, argue that efforts to sustain peace precisely involves the full breadth of the UN System including the parts of the system that report to the General Assembly. The HLTD might therefore be an important first step in pushing the political boundaries of a more direct involvement of the GA in issues relating to peace and security.
Involving the world when discussing the world
Furthermore, the HLTD on peace and security was preceded by a series of global consultations and meetings held through the first four months of 2016 reaching and soliciting views from regional groups, troop contributors, regional organisations, civil society partners, governments etc. The Office of the PGA has limited human, financial and operational capacity in and of itself and has therefore relied on a network of think tanks, research institutions and civil society organisations to plan and carry out the consultations, the outcomes of which have been feeding into the HLTD this week. This, for example, included a consultation in Liberia on “Integration and Fragmentation in Transitions from Conflict” organised by DIIS in partnership with NUPI and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation with funding from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs which brought lessons learned and evidence-based perspectives from a country at the receiving end of a decade’s international peace and security assistance to the highest echelons of global decision-making New York.
Genuinely including field perspectives and involving a much broader array of stakeholders has given this HLTD a unique level of legitimacy, buy-in and potential impact, which was acknowledged by almost every single Member State taking the floor. Furthermore, the process has created strong global partnership between actors that do not always collaborate smoothly - thus laying important first stones to build the the long-awaited bridge between practitioners, academia and decision-makers. Several sessions were exclusively dedicated to frank and open exchanges between practitioners and decision-makers. As if to drive this point home, even the traditional, interaction-butchering pedestal panel vs. the world seating arrangements had been reconfigured. Representatives from academia and think tanks had been moved down in direct eye sight of the Member States (see photo) and the facilitation of the discussion itself was outsourced to Bruce Jones of the Brookings Institute with no fixed speaking order and nothing less than a rowing microphone!
So, what will become of it all?
Hitherto, as they say - the proof is in pudding and the novelty and distinctiveness of this HLTD will obviously need to translate into action to proof its merit. Action in this context can take many forms. What we know is that the HLTD was well attended including at ministerial level, which, if nothing else, help puts UN peace and security questions on the agenda in capitals around the world. We also know that the PGA will prepare an outcome document from the HLTD, which will ideally serve as an “agenda” for the incoming Secretary-General’s necessary reform work in the peace and security domain (a few of the prospective candidates also attended the HLTD). What we don’t know is whether the incoming Secretary-General will actually use the outcome of the HLTD as it is intended i.e. to provide her with a uniquely legitimate and evidence-based agenda - anchored in the broader UN membership and based on genuine global consultations. We also don’t know whether discussions at the HLTD will translate into action and commitments on the part of Member States without which reform will be virtually impossible. Not only will any Secretary-General need the support of the membership to implement a reform agenda to make the UN System a fit-for-purpose peace and security actor. In fact, many of the needed actions including penalizing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, strengthening preventive interventions, enhancing the capacity of peacekeeping missions, financing efforts to sustain peace and revitalising the Peacebuilding Commission primarily lie with the Member States. This week they all had a look in the mirror and saw a 70-year-old in need of their assistance.