Speech by
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign & European Affairs of the Slovak Republic
H.E.
Miroslav Lajčák
The UN in an Era of New Threats & Challenges:
Reinvesting in Multilateralism
International Peace Institute
February 13, 2015 | Friday
IPI (Trygve Lie Center, 777 UN) | New York
Excellencies, Ladies & Gentlemen,
Introduction | The fact is that while we have seen many positive developments on
the global scale, we have also seen too much of protracted trouble regionally; some of
it getting even worse as it used to be before.
Under such circumstances, it is easy to overlook even the most tangible long-term
progress when urgent difficulties keep emerging over and over again. It is no longer
important what prevails, it is the time and urgency factor that sets the tone and
dominates our optics.
It is undeniable that the global community has been successful in curtailing poverty,
expanding the availability of basic health care and education. At the same time, the
donor community has gotten bigger, more responsible and mature.
The aid schemes have been recalibrated towards more sustainability and local
ownership. These are facts grounded in numbers. But I also understand that good
global news appear of minor importance, if there is a gunfight in your own backyard.
----I don’t deny many harsh realities of today, but I am a pragmatic enthusiast.
I prefer facts over impressions.
(I) Crises & threats: The perception gap
Many believe that most of the pressing international issues stem from a different
notion of values. I don’t really think that the core values of each and every one of us
differ that much from region to region. Peace, security, stability, family, prosperity,
well-being …
How’s that different in Beijing, Addis Ababa, Nairobi, Cairo or Dhaka from what it is
in Geneva, New York, Moscow, Lima or Brussels? It simply isn’t.
It has never been difficult to identify what the global sores are. Threats to international
peace and security, human rights violations, poverty, pollution, climate change,
unemployment, the growing social divide, violence, arms proliferation or energy
security. The international community agrees on them quite easily. We always did.
What we rarely did, though, was to agree on ways how to tackle them jointly. Very
often, when something gets out of hand, we speak and deal on cross purposes on
possible solutions and remedies. As a result, a tardy and defective fix often substitutes
a sustainable settlement.
Looking at the same thing isn’t seeing the same. What is utterly pressing for some,
may be, and often indeed is, rather marginal for others. The priorities vary
significantly even over shorter regional distance. Some issues or ‘hot spots’ have
genuinely global impacts, some just don’t.
Recognition of the above is a good starting point. We tend to foster a specific myopia
by putting a sharp focus on one or a couple of aspects of an issue while completely
sidelining the others which are equally important.
We can’t turn a blind eye on other’s priorities even if they don’t happen to suit us.
Let me be concrete and give you some examples …
Civil war in Syria | Syria has turned into a humanitarian catastrophe of colossal
proportions. But it has also become increasingly obvious that we will only have a
chance to put an end to all this human suffering if there is appropriate communication
with all parties to the conflict. This is why we need to give the strongest possible
support to Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura who is doing precisely this.
Daesh / ISIL, Boko Haram & their likes | Terrorism can never be justified and we must
combine our forces to fight it, but we should also make a much stronger effort to
understand and to cope with the social and economic root causes of this horrible
phenomenon. Simply labeling this as “Islamic extremism” is wrong and completely
ignores Islam´s own commitment to the values of peace.
Disintegrating Libya | Once top headline topic has quickly become yesterday’s news.
Not that the nature or extent of the issues that trouble the country would become less
serious or urgent. On the contrary, we just decided to look less that way, haven’t we?
A couple of months ago, the same could be said about Iraq but we’ve seen significant
progress lately which is great news.
Middle East Peace Process | I dislike the ‘you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us’
shortcut thinking. Sad is that this logic is applied on many other issues, not the MEPP
only. If I agree with elements of reasoning of one side, this doesn’t necessarily mean I
oppose rational claims of the other. There’s no universal truth. It’s the will to accept
this that can make a change.
Ukraine crisis | No doubt, issue № 1 for the Euro-Atlantic area, let alone for the EU
and even more for my country as Slovakia borders Ukraine. A blow to European postCold-War order; European security architecture shaken, a challenge to core
principles of the UN Charter. Yet, with no intention to play down the magnitude of the
crisis, have we asked ourselves, whether what is happening in Ukraine is as central
concern in other parts of the world as it is for us in Europe? The answer might be
smash…I welcome the results of yesterday´s talks in Minsk and let us hope that the
commitments made there will be respected.
Proliferation | A neat example of how quite a robust set of containment tools might
become eroded in a relatively short time. The reason? Not enough will to seek general
agreement. Nobody wants to take the concession path. It is a story of how superficial
stances outnumbered and eventually ruled out the good old common sense and all have
lost eventually.
Climate change & sustainability | Environmental challenges, water management,
overpopulation, epidemics, development aid and humanitarian intervention
shortcomings – all truly global issues spanning beyond our lifetimes and acute
everyday reality for millions but also the bottom part of a list of voter-attractive topics
for a few.
One could easily go on enumerating like this …
Basically, the way we handle today’s multipolar world and its complexity resembles
deliberate application of the black-and-white filter on where the color and huesensitivity is an inevitable condition to any potential success.
In other words, we often see a simple rectangle where there is a polygon.
(II) Times of Transition
Once the bipolar arrangement – a concept that with all due respect bears an inborn
West-vs-Soviet-based interpretation bias – became irrelevant, the world entered a time
of big transition. Some pioneer traces of this global phenomenon could be tracked
down even earlier.
Think of China in 1978, for instance.
Overall, since the end of the Cold War in 1989 more than 40 countries have undergone
overwhelming changes. It started with Central and Eastern Europe’s complex social
and economic transition towards democracy and market economy.
It continued in the post-Soviet space with consolidation of Russia and spill-overs
beyond Central Asia. Many of the sweeping changes are still in progress; Arab world,
South-East Asia or visibly emerging Africa to put names to faces.
All these trends are desirable although they come with a range of problems and side
effects. But there’s no alternative. The world is dynamics, not an artificially cemented
status quo. We have to simply live with the divergence and all that it entails, both for
the good and the bad.
Good governance, rule of law, less poverty, more democracy, bigger space for human
rights implementation and fewer barriers of economic exchange – these are the
vehicles of long-term peace and growth.
Where we repeatedly and pitifully fail in today’s multifaceted world is that we miss
the bigger picture too often. It is pretty easy to be a poorly informed critic. The more
facts and factors you count in, the weaker the bias, the fewer jumps into conclusions or
superficiality of judgments.
Speaking examples …
Some may point out China’s shortcomings in some areas and stop right there. Adding
that China has lifted more than 500 million people out of poverty over the last four
decades and its averaging 10 percent annual growth gave job to millions more across
and beyond Asia makes a difference, doesn’t it?
Some may also criticize Russia for its policy towards its neighbors and stop right
there. Reminding that the creation of the United Nations in 1945 would not have been
possible without the tremendous sacrifices made by the peoples of the Soviet Union
during WW2 and that Russia as a successor state pulled the region from turmoil and
total economic collapse in the 90´s puts things into a broader perspective, doesn’t it?
Some may well criticize the US for being too proactive or pre-emptive in its foreign
policy and stop right here. Yet, completing the picture with the long-term US readiness
to deploy its own people to hot spots, conflict or humanitarian disaster zones no matter
how high the stakes are; to cover the bigger share of collective security costs as well as
its sincere belief in supporting the poorer, the weaker or the smaller gives it all a
completely new dimension, doesn’t it?
I don’t argue that we should curb our criticism when it’s relevant and justified. Not at
all; my point is that we should minimize importing our own bilateral issues, disputes
or bad sentiments when it comes to addressing issues of global importance, even if it’s
a marriage of reason.
The concept of ‘our truth’ has never led anywhere but a stalemate or even worse, to
regress.
(III) Multilateralism needs no major overhaul, it needs commitment
Ladies and gentlemen, since early 90’s we have been collectively dealing with the
notion that a different world requires a different United Nations. While the principles
and the primary goals of the Organization have remained unchanged, all of these calls
were centered on the desire to ensure that the most universal of international
organizations adequately reflects new realities and make use of emerging possibilities.
Over the years, there have been numerous initiatives to reform the UN. In fact, 7 of 8
Secretary-Generals have announced and established some form of UN reform. The
process of renovation, change and improvement became a constant at the UN. At the
operational level important changes have been implemented more often albeit with
less visibility.
Passionate debates started about the need to profoundly rethink the long-held norms
and notions, such as the use of force and collective security or humanitarian
intervention and responsibility to protect. It is important that these discussions are held
in a most earnest, inclusive, and constructive manner.
The establishment of G-20 (in 1999) acknowledged the emergence of new actors
anyway. Leading powers recognized that global governance needs to adapt to the new
international landscape, particularly when it comes to strengthening the international
financial architecture and fostering sustainable economic growth and development.
The financial crisis has taught us once again how profoundly interdependent countries
have become.
Entire new industries, new technologies including possible big ‘game changers’ such
as new means of transport or energy as well as climate shifts – the number of
challenges in the years ahead will challenge our conventional wisdom. They will also
generate new demands on the global governance architecture as well.
But let me be clear, I am not in favor of creating new or alternative structures. Let us
use the system of institutions that we have created and fine-tuned over the years. I am
no fan of ad hoc arrangements unless there’s really no other way. We need no new
tools before we have really given a chance to the existing ones.
There is no need to invent or re-invent the wheel. The wheel is already there. Let´s use
it! Let us keep the rules and rather change the conduct where we perform miserably.
We need more goal-oriented thinking suppressing non-relevant factors to the most
possible extent for the sake of common cause. I believe that a positive change can be
achieved even within the existing setup. The United Nations Organization is and stays
the cornerstone of the international order … the most effective way of multilateral
diplomacy and various other formats … the only forum where the broadest possible
agreement can be achieved … and the only establishment that can face global
challenges that no other grouping of states (no matter how broad or strong) could
handle.
Let´s face it – there is no alternative to the UN. If it wasn´t there, we would have to
invent it. UN needs no ‘big-bang’ overhaul, rather a set of evolutionary reforms. Focus
should be put at what is achievable and sort out the unrealistic. Taking up on initiatives
with high consensus potential could bring about concrete changes. I agree with Pope
Francis saying that ‘diplomacy is the work of small steps’ aptly reflecting a much
older piece of wisdom by Lao Tzu [ la-o dzá ] arguing that ‘a journey of a thousand
miles must begin with a single step’.
(IV) The visible part of Multilateralism … Peacekeeping
15 years ago, a major revision of the United Nations’ peacekeeping forces took place
in order to adapt the organization to changing needs and complexities at both the
headquarters and in the field. This included investing more in research, analysis,
training and capacity-building as well as changing the way peacekeeping mandates are
established by the UN Security Council.
The establishment of the Peace-building Architecture in 2006 was a significant
structural reform ensuring that due attention is afforded to countries emerging from a
conflict as well as to preventing or reducing the risks of relapsing into one whilst
promoting national ownership of the process.
----There are 3 specific areas where UN’s ability to make a difference needs a substantive
fix:
(1) Ad hoc crises that catch us unprepared and take huge tolls
Here, we struggle badly because we’re hardly ever ready for immediate response to
stop crises from spreading or getting worse. We cannot leave people behind in
terrifying situations. We were far to slow in reacting to the crisis in Syria when
chemical weapons were used in the Syrian civil war, or more recently, we were too
clumsy with the international response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
(2) Reflection on peace-building track record
The next major external review of UN peace operations is set to be undertaken this
year.
In addition, this will be the first examination of this kind that will focus on both
peacekeeping operations and special political missions acknowledging the inter-
linkages and the changing role of UN political missions through decades. We need a
profound and critical debate on what proved right and what went wrong.
(3) Tailor-made approaches & regional organizations importance
There is nothing such as universal solution to conflicts no matter how many
similarities they might show. The international community tends to underestimate this
too often. Thinking of examples that surpassed the conventional toolbox, I would
mention cooperation between the UN, African Union and the EU in Central African
Republic as a positive example.
UN teaming up with regional organizations strongly hints at where the future
peacekeeping philosophy should be heading. It’s not only about sharing
responsibilities and burdens. It’s also about local ownership and better reading of
regional specifics.
As a Central European, I have to admit that recognizing that there are effective
groupings beyond the Euro-Atlantic space is not very commonplace on both sides of
the Atlantic, but it’s true and it’s also something we should embrace.
(V) The invisible part of Multilateralism … Mediation
Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t want to act as if I was extra clever but the truth is that
over the years I have accumulated some personal experience in dealing with crisis
areas or challenging situations.
Testing and fostering various mediation principles and negotiation attitudes I ended up
with a couple of ‘golden’ rules that never left me twisting in the wind – be it in Bosnia
and Herzegovina or during the process of preparing the 2006 Montenegrin
independence referendum.
In terms of public debate, inclusiveness and legal conduct it might have even
surpassed the unique peaceful split of Czechoslovakia in 1993.
The ‘how’ of what was then achieved for future constructive relations between Serbia
and Montenegro, as well as the rest of the region, is what enables the countries to look
and think ahead and not to be stuck in the past of their bilateral relations with no
external pressure or international mediation needed anymore.
----By the way, most of these lessons and principles work neatly enough in no crisis
environment and everyday multilateralism as well.
It all starts with the premise that …
(1) Whatever you do, do it FOR not AGAINST something
In Montenegro, all that we did with my team was FOR the legitimacy of the process
and its outcome as well as for the sake of future decent neighborly coexistence of
Podgorica and Belgrade. It wasn’t against the ‘federalists’ or those who preferred the
independence track.
(2) Respect for local environment
Solving, mediating or mitigating a crisis is first and foremost about profound
understanding of the region. It’s a difference that only a meticulous approach can
make. It requires knowledge and understandings of details and nuances on history,
mentality including local bias.
(3) Timely analysis of the current situation
The ability to predict both imminent and strategic consequences is about the ability to
admit the unexpected and not to ignore the obvious. The course of things might (and
often does) stray from the expected ‘scenario’. We can hardly change and should not
blame the reality but we can and shall always adapt our plans.
(4) Correct composition of the mediation team
Accepted team is a prerequisite for potential success. We are not living in a perfect
world. You have to embrace realities on the ground regardless of how absurd they
might appear to you. Some may be loved by the international community but never
accepted by the conflict parties.
(5) Give time to time
Don´t artificially speed-up or slow-down the process – but at the same time allow no
dragging on for no reason.
(6) Treat the partners according to their relevance, not according to your liking
Deliberate avoiding of relevant actors for personal political or other reasons predicts a
failure. If I ignored the relevance of some key figures from either of the referendum
camps just because I didn’t like his (or her) opinions, it would kill the aim of the entire
endeavor almost instantly.
(7) Support the principles, the process, not the actors – avoid the “good guys-bad
guys” game
This is the flip side of the previous principle. Mediation is not about taking a liking to
somebody. Even the friendliest interlocutor can sell you down the river while your
least favorite partner can aid the success of your mission. Being genuinely neutral even
if it doesn’t suit the local or international media is a paramount task. Winning trust of
the parties is the most difficult thing.
(8) Always opt for tailor-made over universal
Mechanical transfer of previously used formulas rarely works however strong the
similarities are. There are no one-size-fits-all, let alone ideal solutions. In Montenegro,
the key element that prompted protest but proved to be right was the introduction of
the ‘supermajority’ threshold. The independence was conditioned by 55% votes in
favor out of those participating. In the end, it boosted the legitimacy of the entire vote
and with the final turnout of 86.5% left the society much less divided. Looking back,
choosing a tailored arrangement was the best we could do.
(9) Proceed from more simple towards more difficult + build the feeling of local
ownership
Going through every single element of each side’s position or claim including the most
difficult ones paves a way to finding the least common denominator. It’s the small and
continuous progresses that bring the parties closer to mutually acceptable compromise
and create the feeling of local ownership of the process, along with increasing mutual
understanding
(10) Keep the unity & support of the international community as much as possible
Investing time into keeping all key external players on board and informed pays off.
You cannot succeed unless international community knows and supports your action.
----Ladies and gentlemen,
I would add 2 more overarching principles I consider important. Namely …
Firstly, don’t link the international agenda to your domestic election cycle.
And secondly – and this one I learned a hard way - if you decide to go for
confrontation, be sure you are in control of its escalation.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is my personal take on the essence of what I find critical to
every successful multilateralist. It sounds simple – but we see quite often in various
international endeavors – that one or more of these simple principles are missing.
The general notion that today hardly someone remembers how tense and emotional the
situation prior to the run-up of the Montenegrin referendum really was is a proof of a
success of the process that led to its result as we know it.
Conclusion | 2015 & beyond
Ladies and gentlemen, the UN will turn 70 in October this year. The UN Millennium
Development Goals agreed by all then member states in September 2000 have created
a strong foundation for ending poverty and inequality worldwide.
Later this year, we will hold a summit to launch a transformative development agenda
for the post-2015 era. This joint undertaking must result not only in renewing our
commitments but in further reducing inequalities of wealth, power and resources
between countries, between rich and poor, and between men and women in a balanced
and sustainable way.
2015 holds out a hope for strengthening and broadening the collective efforts to tackle
climate change. A new agreement is to be adopted at the climate conference in Paris
under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in December
to enter force in 2020. We hope the new Protocol will be ambitious, comprehensive
and legally binding for all countries.
Strong, effective and efficient United Nations is essential, indispensable and I would
argue that also a fully fit global institution for today’s world. With almost 7 billion
people on the planet expected to rise to more than 9 billion later in this century with
almost 80% living in urban areas, providing for everyone to lead a decent life will be
an enormous challenge.
Strong support from the member states remains a critical ingredient of the
Organization’s effectiveness to deliver. It is equally important to have a modern,
dynamic, adaptable and forward-looking steering of the UN agenda.
A leadership that will be capable of building strong coalitions on practical problems.
A leadership that will not practice ideological politics but provide member states with
practically achievable proposals.
----The art of listening | And most importantly, the ability to listen. This might sound
quite ordinary or minor. Yet, this is the key ingredient to what I mean by reinvesting
in multilateralism.
However mundane on the surface, it has had profound consequences on the system
of international relations over the last two decades. We seem to have lost the ability to
carefully listen to each other … not to hear but to truly listen … the kind of listening
when you understand even if you might disagree.
-----
The kind of listening comprehension that produces respect,
aids tolerance and leads to an agreement.