January 2004 United Nations Department of Public Information Panel.  Other panelists: Ambassador De Alba, Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN of Mexico; Paul Hoeffel, Chief of the UN NGO Section; and Steven Stedman, Research Director of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change

It is an honor to be here today as the NGO representative on this panel to discuss UN Reform Initiatives. My thanks to Mr. Paul Hoeffel for organizing this important program and to Mr. Stedman, Lord Hannay, and Amb. De Alba for fitting this into their busy schedule.

My organization, Citizens for Global Solutions envisions a future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone. This vision requires effective democratic global institutions that will apply the rule of law while respecting the diversity and autonomy of national and local communities.

As the U.S. member organization of the World Federalist Movement we work to build political will in the United States to achieve our vision. We do this by educating Americans about our global interdependence, communicating global concerns to public officials, and developing proposals to create, reform, and strengthen international institutions such as the United Nations. Our political action committee also helps elect public officials who share our values.

Naturally we were very excited when we heard Secretary General Anna call for "radical reform" of the UN system last September. However, as pleased as we were with the Secretary General's call for reform, we were also extremely concerned by the lack of traction his statement had in the US press and in Washington in general. The "Reform" content of his speech was Page 13 in the New York Times and mentioned in a Washington Post Editorial. A Lexus-Nexus search came up with little else. When I mentioned the High Level Panel to the director of a major Washington think tank last week, he had never heard of it. So I want to emphasize out the outset how important it is for organizations that are represented here today to engage staff time and resources into developing and supporting a UN reform agenda. If we do not, then the work and efforts of this task force, and more importantly, the unique opportunity, this open moment of time, that we currently have to create a more effective UN system for the 21st Century will be lost.

My role as I understand it, is to kick-off the consultative part of today's session. As discussed earlier, the Panel's mission is to: Examine today's global threats and provide an analysis of future challenges to international peace and security; Identify clearly the contribution that collective action can make in addressing these challenges; and to recommend the changes necessary to ensure effective collective action, including but not limited to a review of the principal organs of the United Nations.

Of course the panel's efforts are constrained by the time they have available to produce their report, but it is the hope of many that they are creative and willing to push the political envelope as they recommend the means to make the United Nations a more effective organization.

It is my hope, and I believe the hope of many in this room that as the panel deliberates, it defines its mission not just in terms of national security, but also in terms of human security, and looks as broadly as possible at the range of factors -- including economic, social, and environmental - that impact the security of individuals throughout the world.

The Panels subject matter is extremely timely and appropriate. In February of 2000, Secretary General Annan said in a speech about UN Peacekeeping capacity that "At present it is as if when a fire breaks out, we must first build a fire station to respond." I serve as the Co-chair of the Washington based Partnership for Effective Peace Operations, a working group of concerned organizations. It is clear from our studies that situation has not dramatically improved over the last four years. There is a continuing deficit in capacity of the international community to provide personnel and resources to participate in peace operations at the national, regional, and international levels. In a meeting with Under Secretary Brahimi who was in Washington on Tuesday, he was troubled by tendency of permanent Security Council members who wish to send the UN to dangerous places, but not supply adequate security forces because these places were too dangerous.

To address this concern, as the Panel deliberates, I would recommend that it takes into account the recommendations of two earlier reports, The Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, also known as the Brahimi report, and The report of the Canadian-established International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, entitled Responsibility to Protect. I will highlight a few of their recommendations before pushing the envelope a bit with a few of our own recommendations.

The Brahimi Report was issued in 2000 and commissioned to address the growing crisis surrounding United Nations peace operations. Many of the Report's recommendations have been since put into effect and have improved the UN's performance in the Congo and Liberia, but there is still much unfinished business from that effort. My colleagues Bill Durch and Victoria Holt at the Stimson Center have just issues a follow-up report that details those Brahimi recommendations that have been implemented, and those that have not. At the top three on my list needing further consideration are:

1) The continuing need for the Dept. of Peacekeeping Operations to have a credible analytical ability. We must decide if this organization is to have a brain. (EISAS)
2) Increase the capacity of the Civilian Police Division, which remains too small to develop standards and procedures, plan operations and manage a force of 4,000-8,000 officers who are individually recruited, vetted, and hired.
3) Analyze the current roadblocks to UN capacity to support restoration of governance, transitional administration, civilian police and other rule of law components in field operations. We must address how best to integrate UN capacity in these areas with the capacity and programs of regional organizations such as the European Union and African Union.

These and other recommendations must be underwritten with an increased number of positions within DPKO that are funded by the regular budget rather than the peacekeeping account. This will mean take a serious look at the policy of zero nominal growth and replacing it with a budget based upon sound fiscal management that provides the UN with the resources to reasonably accomplish its mission.

There has already been much analysis of where future threats to peace and security will arise, and that analysis has led to a new emphasis on the human security framework, which is the recognition that threats to security do not only come as threats to states but also as threats to people's rights and safety. With this in mind, the human security agenda has promoted the treaty to ban landmines, the creation of the international criminal court, and calls for better mechanisms to protect civilians.

The Responsibility to Protect report offers an important contribution to the issue of protection of civilians. As Kofi Annan said earlier this week to the Conference on Genocide in Stockholm, " 'The Responsibility to Protect' has altered the terms of debate on this very difficult issue, in a most creative and promising way." Responsibility to Protect frames the issue of acting to protect civilians not as a question of the right to intervene, but the responsibility of states to protect their own citizens, and failing that, the responsibility of the international community to protect its citizens from extreme threats of violence.

While the report takes a broad view of the responsibility as encompassing a spectrum of actions from prevention, to reaction and rebuilding, it is useful in this context to focus on the issue of reaction to situations of compelling need for human protection. The report deals explicitly with those rare occasions when military force may be needed to respond to grave threats to civilians. The Security Council's role in reacting is one of utmost importance. It maintains the primary role in matters of peace and security, yet it has failed to act in some of the most visible and deadly crises.

Responsibility to Protect presents specific actions that the Security Council should take to increase its capacity to react. It calls for Members to consider and seek to reach agreement on a set of guidelines to govern their responses to claims for military intervention for human protection:
Criteria should include an agreement to act only where there is a threat or actual large scale loss of life or large scale ethnic cleansing, to act with the primary intent of halting or averting human suffering, to use military force only as a last resort and use force proportionally to achieve the human protection objective; and to act only where there is a reasonable prospect of success.

The Security Council should deal promptly with any request for authority to intervene and should seek adequate verification of facts or conditions on the ground.

In instances where actions are needed to stop or avert a significant humanitarian crisis, Responsibility to Protect proposes that the Permanent five Security Council members adopt a code of conduct whereby they refrain from exercising their veto power in matters where their vital state interests are not involved, to obstruct the passage of resolutions authorizing military intervention for human protection purposes.

Rwanda, Srebrenica, East Timor, Sierra Leonne, Afghanistan, the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and now Liberia. Just a few of the places where we know the world could and should have done better.

Rather than await the next tragedy, together, we could take one confident step toward saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Together, we could help the UN prevent armed conflict and protect civilians at risk. Together, we could finally provide the Organization with a reliable mechanism for responding rapidly and effectively to diverse emergencies worldwide. Together, we could initiate a dedicated UN Emergency Peace Service.

With sufficient support, such a service would complement efforts to overcome an increasingly divided, dangerous and heavily armed world. As a mechanism for enforcing international law, it would be a positive step toward ensuring a rules-based system; one that worked to promote common, human security. Gradually, it should also help to undermine the anarchy, the culture of impunity and the growing exclusivity characteristic of contemporary international relations.

A UN Emergency Peace Service would be a permanent UN formation, maintained at high readiness with pre-trained, well-equipped personnel, available for immediate deployment once authorized by the UN Security Council. This service would be both multidimensional and multifunctional, composed of military, police and civilian elements, prepared for rapid deployment to diverse UN operations.

Ideally, approximately 13,200 personnel would be co-located at a new UN base under a static operational headquarters and two mobile field headquarters. Each field headquarters would be assigned sufficient strength to provide robust security elements, as well as a range of skills and services to address human needs. By including a wider range of services within a modular formation, the UN could provide a prompt, coherent response to various contingencies.

The future roles and potential tasks of the new service should include the provision of: reliable early warning with on-site technical reconnaissance; rapid deployment for preventive action and protection of civilians at risk; prompt start-up of diverse peace operations, including policing, peacebuilding and humanitarian assistance. The objective of a new UN Emergency Peace Service is to complement, rather than replace, existing UN arrangements. In fact, such a service could not operate without the support of the wider UN system and the assistance of supportive member states. Fortunately, the UN finally has a foundation upon which to establish such a dedicated service. I won't go into all the details of this proposal today, but it is supported by a coalition of organizations and detailed in a book published by the Center for UN Reform entitled "Bridging the Responsibility Commitment Gap" A terribly title but a wonderful book written by Dr. Peter Langille of the University of Victoria. Peter of course credits Sir Brian Urqhart with the proposal. The reality is that a UN rapid deployment force is an idea that has been around for a long time, but it is an idea who time has come I hope the panel will find a way to include this in its recommendations.

I will also note that Citizens for Global Solutions has been advocating a bill in the UN Congress, HR 1414, which calls for the establishment of a UN Civilian Corps. Perhaps I can tell you more about it in the Question and Answer period. But a growing number of representatives are supporting this legislation.

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing the recommendations and concerns of others here today. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to craft an effective 21st Century United Nations system. For those of you with members in the US, I would like to talk with you about partnering on a project entitled a US Dialogue on UN Reform that we have embarked on that will seek to identify a bipartisan consensus among US opinion leaders on UN reform. I believe it is vital to engage this country in a constructive way on this issue. We will hold mini conferences and facilitated roundtables across the country over the next year to accomplish this and would appreciate your support.

But whether your organizations has members or not, I cannot stress how important our participation in this effort will be. In fact, I am concerned that without serious ownership and participation by NGO's,  the panel recommendations will turn into just another report gathering dust on a shelf. We cannot allow this to happen. We must not allow the United Nations and the ideals that it represents devolve into a memory. We showed with the Landmines treaty, the International Criminal Court, and many other efforts that we can make a difference. I pray that we can come together, pull ourselves away from our short term projects, and engage in this desperately needed campaign to re-invent the United Nations. Thank you.