III. Comment on the following quotations:

• In today’s world any threat to one is a threat to all (Kofi Annan)

• There is no such single thing as the UN. Rather the UN is 191 countries with different agendas and a whole collection of civil servants who work there, and it’s all Jell-O. you can’t say what the UN is, because you touch one area and it comes out looking differently on the other side (Nancy Soderberg)

• "The UN is flawed but indispensable institution that we have two choices with: weaken it by undermining it or trying to strengthen it by getting it to correct its flaws" (Richard Holbrooke).

IV. Suggested activities for students:

1. If you were to propose reforms in the UN, what areas it will concern? What proposals would you come up with? What issues would you place emphasis on?

2. Are we in need of such an organization (the UN), if some countries feel free to ignore its recommendations? As far as it is not a legislative body, in that its recommendations are not binding on its members wouldn’t it be better to enhance its authority? Present the means through which this might be achieved.

3. Imagine you are an American representative to the UN. How would you argue your position being on the one hand supportive of the reforms and at the same time being uneager to be tired down by any legal commitments?

4. You are to discuss the extension of the permanent membership of the SC. What are its pros and cons? Would this extension bode well or ill for efficiency of the SC? Why are the current permanent members unwilling to grant India, Brazil, Germany and Japan permanent membership in the SC? Account for the historic background of the P5 creation. Should the SC be more responsive towards the changing circumstances?

5. Research areas of UN work, such as that of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization, the United Nations Development Program, the International Atomic Energy Agency; the World Food Program and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). What kind of work are they doing? Prepare a report about their activity, achievements and failures.

Text 2 The spirit of principled pragmatism By Ban Ki-moon (November 15, 2007)

If I were to sum up my view of the United Nations and its work today, it would be a spirit of principled pragmatism. By virtue of its Charter and its calling, the UN must be a voice of moral conscience in the world. Part of that moral duty is to make good on the hopes and expectations vested in us—to deliver results, not mere promises.

The coming year will bring extraordinary challenges. They range from the crisis in Darfur to Somalia, Iraq and the Middle East. We must act on climate change, and we must find ways to make development work in Africa. Too often, the UN has tackled such challenges rhetorically, contributing to its reputation as a talking-shop. For that to change, the UN must rediscover the pragmatism of its principles. Solutions we offer must be real solutions, not band-aids. Complex problems must be dealt with comprehensively, in their full economic, social and political dimension.

A global agenda

I see three main priorities for 2008. Each must be the work of every nation, for each embodies a fundamental principle of justice and human rights—as befits the year marking the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Begin with Darfur—a case study in complexity. The UN will soon deploy 26,000 peacekeepers in one of the largest and logistically most difficult assignments in its history. That it will be undertaken in partnership with the African Union is a precedent in itself. Yet this mission can succeed only if there is a peace to keep.

In the case of Darfur, principled pragmatism means painstaking hard work for a real political settlement. Negotiations began in Libya in 2007. They will succeed or fail depending on whether we get the parties to the conflict around a table and persuade them to agree: the government of Sudan, rebel movements and leaders of neighbouring countries. We must also remember that Darfur is an environmental and development crisis, arising at least in part from desertification, ecological degradation and a scarcity of resources, foremost among them water. Any solution must take this economic dimension into account: water, agriculture, transport, jobs, social services—all must be addressed if 2.5m displaced people are to return home and resume their daily lives. Dealing with such complexity is the only way to a solution that endures.

As in Darfur, so elsewhere. If we seek, genuinely, to create a more just world, then it is axiomatic: development cannot take a back seat to issues of peace and security. Hence the second priority for 2008. We are now at the mid-point of a multinational effort to aid the poorest of the world’s poor, set forth in the UN Millennium Development Goals. Here, principled pragmatism means sweating the details: working hard to deliver what has been promised instead of offering more high-minded words about what ought to be done.

We have had successes. Around the world, economic growth is lifting unprecedented numbers of people out of poverty. Yet this rising tide of globalization has not raised all boats. We see this most acutely in Africa, home to most of what one World Bank economist calls “the bottom billion” of the world’s poor. It is intolerable that HIV/AIDS continues as a modern-day scourge; and that 10m children die each year before their fifth birthday, mostly from preventable diseases such as malaria. It is a moral scar on our conscience.

As I see it, 2008 must be a year of fresh thinking. This is not to say we will do things that these countries should, and can, do for themselves. The “Asian miracle” has shown that successful development owes much to smart choices and rigorous execution. But we can do better. Developed nations must make good on promises of aid, debt relief and market access. Open, fair and non-discriminatory trading and financial systems are critical to the future of every developing country. This should be the main theme of the year’s Doha negotiations. Principled pragmatism means that business-as-usual doesn’t cut it any more.

Lastly, global warming—the defining issue of our era, as the Nobel prize committee has recognized. Here, principled pragmatism means not setting out a vision for a perfect regime to combat it. Rather, it means getting everyone around the negotiating table in Bali in December 2007, so that countries with different interests can hammer out an agreement all can embrace. Any such deal must be built on a foundation of justice. We are all aware of the terrible irony of climate change: developing countries have contributed least to the problem, but bear the brunt of the consequences. There can be no solutions that ignore this reality—just as there can be none that denies poor nations their chance to develop, to share in global prosperity.

Peace and security, the UN charter noted long ago, ultimately depend on “the social and economic advancement of people”. This is the spirit of principled pragmatism.

Comprehension