The United Nations, NGOs and Global Governance

Table of Contents

• FOREWARD
• OVERVIEW OF THE CONFERENCE DEBATE
• INTRODUCTION
• THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
• THE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA AND COOPERATION, CONFERENCE FOLLOW-UP, AND UN-NGO COLLABORATION
• WHITHER THE UNITED NATIONS?
• NGOS AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
• THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AGENDA AND DEMOCRACY, EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY WORK, AND THE ECOSOC REVIEW ON NGO ARRANGEMENTS
• STRENGTHENING UN-NGO COOPERATION: VIEWS FROM THE UN SYSTEM
• THE UN, NGOS AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
• CLOSURE
• Annex I: PROGRAMME
• Annex II: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
• Annex III: LIST OF ACRONYMS

NGOS AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

Panel Presentations

Mazide N'Diaye (Senegal) said although the UN, World Bank and IMF are part of the world's existing tools for global governance, the view from the South is that the governments of seven to ten major powers control international decision making. While the UN should be more active, present and useful, NGOs have difficulties dealing with its bureaucracy, the pace and nature of diplomatic debates and negotiations, and the time lost on unimportant questions. At the country level, the UN system often appears to lack responsiveness, flexibility and a sense of urgency, which weakens the UN. In Africa, the competition between the UN and the Bretton Woods Institutions for "their" respective NGO constituencies is highly visible.

Many of the world's most important changes have come about because people risked fighting for their principles. Global civil society made a vital contribution to ending the Vietnam War and apartheid. But since the fall of the Berlin Wall, socialistic thinking is feared, and socialist ideals are seen as a lost cause. Yet it is widely understood that the free market system cannot resolve the problems of the human condition, since it generates inequality between the rich and poor. In the end, NGOs will have to forge a new ideology based on democracy in both political and economic spheres. If NGO views on justice and equality seem old-fashioned, NGOs must face that fact and accept the responsibilities of the principles they espouse. It is not enough for NGOs to criticize aspects of others' decisions--the key challenge is to develop alternatives that work.

Bob Harris (Australia) noted that NGOs have been involved in activities around UN world conferences and summits since the 1950s. In the recent cycle of UN conferences, and since the end of the Cold War, NGO fora and lobbying have taken on a major role. It appears NGOs are beginning to have an impact; but, can they link the declaration and programme of action made at a conference to what is really happening on the ground? A major challenge is to empower people at all levels engaged in relations with the UN. "Pathways to participation" must be developed which respond to the different kinds of relationships that various kinds of NGOs want with the UN. The belief that the presence of large numbers of NGOs in a forum has an impact on power holders can be an illusion. The diplomatic process is complex, combining procedures and language into a smokescreen that must be pierced if governments are to be held accountable.

NGOs should focus more on the General Assembly; informal NGO participation in the General Assembly has in fact already been taking place. For several years, the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Status with ECOSOC (CONGO) has been calling for NGOs with consultative status to have access to the GA. Also, a number of recent calls have been made to establish some kind of people's assembly or civil society forum linked to the work of the GA. The Commission on Global Governance has proposed something along these lines, but its idea goes beyond NGOs and people's organizations to include business organizations, which is problematic. Another idea is to establish a permanent world conference of NGOs. CONGO has no position on this issue, but it merits discussion. A great deal of thought must be given to how to ensure such a body has relevance, impact and meaning at the grassroots level.

Concerning the role of NGOs in global governance, it is necessary to reaffirm the diversity of NGOs, which represent the world in all its dimensions. For a constituency-based organization like Education International, with 23 million members in 150 countries, the issue of representativity is very important. It may be of less importance in other contexts, such as humanitarian emergencies, where the priority is to get the job done. NGOs must reaffirm their independence from governments and ensure their own transparency in financing and other issues. This will reinforce their credibility and strengthen the principles upon which they are based. In this regard, NGOs and the UN would both benefit from more public information on NGOs.

In the context of the ECOSOC review, great care must be taken in discussing the nature and future of formal relations between NGOs and the UN. NGOs live in the real political world of many different agendas, and the various NGO coalitions and actors do not understand each other well enough. Governments and the institutions they create are not going to solve the problems being addressed by NGOs. Progress depends on people, and people working together need solidarity. Greater dialogue among NGOs could help build solidarity. The dynamic forces beginning to well up at the national and local levels around the world could make a difference.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Philippines) said that from the perspective of indigenous peoples, the geopolitical reality in which NGOs frame responses to global governance is one of a few powers monopolizing decision making. Since UNCED, NGOs have achieved a number of small victories upon which to build, but there are many lessons to be learned. NGOs representing the voice of the marginalized, such as indigenous peoples, must provide a counterweight to the concentration of power. At the international level, there is a thin line between partnership and co-option by the dominant system. NGOs must join forces if they are to counter the concentration of global control. To start with, like-minded NGOs should develop joint strategies for action.

Thierry Lemaresquier (France) observed that the terms of the ongoing debate about global governance and UN-NGO relations are subject to different meanings, uses and abuses. There is little point in debating issues without putting points of analytical truth on the table. A great deal of scepticism can be detected concerning the notion of global governance. Does it mean the governance of the many weak by the few strong? Is the NGO world less oligopolistic than the world of governments? After all, some NGOs, a particular category of organization, wield power through the transfer of finance from one part of the world to another. NGOs are in an increasingly competitive market among themselves, and they are competing more and more with the multilateral system for finance and political recognition.

The ECOSOC review has shed some light on government thinking on the role of NGOs and civil society in global governance. Some countries perceive the extension of NGO rights as a possible infringement of their own rights as sovereign states in the UN. Other countries, particularly major donor countries, support greater access for NGOs to the UN's economic and social fora but do not support its extension to other bodies such as the BWIs, WTO and the UN General Assembly and Security Council. In this context, support for greater access for NGOs could appear to non-donor countries to be part of a broader conditionality package. NGOs should be aware of these political dynamics.

There are many differences of opinion on the issues at stake in the review, and some unholy alliances have been formed between international NGOs and governments on issues of NGO rights. The consultative status system operates best when it enables NGOs to influence the UN agenda on issues such as human rights and women's equality. But it has also produced a situation in which some NGOs consider themselves part of an elite and defend very limiting attitudes and positions. Clearly UN-NGO relationships have evolved greatly, irrespective of formal rules. Rules and regulations are important, but ideas even more so, since rigid systems can greatly stifle creativity.

Achieving the objectives set by the multilateral agenda cannot be the domain or province of any particular group, whether NGOs, governments or UN bureaucrats. There is a worrying lack of attention to the quality of participation in the governance of the world and in UN bodies. For this reason, participation in global governance must be organized differently. Unless civil society is involved, what happens at the international level will continue to take place through chance, resources, connections and power.

It is therefore vital to establish a broader system of relations between local, national and global levels. This can only be nurtured by more democratic debate and processes at the national level. NGOs can then participate in global governance with positions that have at least been the subject of a sufficiently open consultation and preparatory process. Otherwise, ideas such as a global people's assembly will smack of the illusion of power being confiscated by the few. At the same time, a number of countries must nurture an enabling environment if civil society and NGOs are even to make an appearance.

The messages emerging from the continuum of UN world conferences are closer to the desires expressed by people for the world than ever before. A loose consensus on people-centred sustainable development, largely inspired by people's organizations and NGOs, has begun to emerge.

Gregory Kovrizhenko (Russian Federation) said that the UN's 50th anniversary has prompted much debate in the Russian Federation on the role of the UN. Many people in Russia see the UN as a body designed to ensure peace and security; its complex role in managing a wide range of global affairs is less well-known and understood. NGOs, researchers, journalists and others have produced a range of viewpoints and proposals concerning UN reform.

The experience of drastic change in Russia has made people cautious about supporting similar drastic change in the UN. There is support for the enlargement of the Security Council to include more countries with the means and will to resolve security problems, and with representation from all continents. But, people are concerned that the UN is poorly equipped to respond to the growing number of critical situations, such as nuclear weapons issues. Some governments claim there are only five nuclear powers, which means the problem may only be dealt with when it becomes a crisis. Terrorism is another serious problem which should be handled by the Security Council or a body created by it. The UN should have standing forces it can mobilize within 24 hours. The veto power should not be abolished, but the powers possessing it should be encouraged to use it with much restraint. Recourse to sanctions should be approached in a broader way, with the possibility of compensation for third countries that suffer losses.

Other ideas for reform are splitting ECOSOC into an economic council and a social or human rights council. The UN's economic system must correspond better to new demands and challenges. The Trusteeship Council should be abolished unless a new role is developed for it, such as dealing with ecological issues. An international criminal court should be established and become part of the international system. The General Assembly should take up more pressing issues and some continuing, unresolved agenda items should be dropped. Resolutions of the GA on important global issues should be made better known to the public.

NGO participation in UN conferences, councils, commissions and committees is very important. NGO participation should be as a broad as NGOs have the capacity to make it. NGOs should articulate the concerns of a broad sector of the population. In Russia, many NGOs feel that the democratic forces in their country were betrayed by the Western democracies, particularly when the Parliament was closed and when the Chechnya conflict broke out. Many people share the view that there is a danger Russia might become a global security problem if the international community does not undertake necessary steps to avoid it.

The 1994 report of the Club of Rome, "Capacity to Govern," argues that future society will flourish if raison d'humanité replaces raison d'état as their basic principle, and if cultural pluralism and solidarity are allowed to thrive. NGOs will achieve more of their goals at the national and international levels if they base their work on these principles.

Harris Gleckman (USA) reported on his organization's recent survey on NGO participation in international events and UN world conferences. The work was sponsored by Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which in the context of the ECOSOC review, is interested in the NGO community's views on democracy. In some respects, the findings of the survey are both revealing and unexpected.

For example, when asked why they go to UN meetings, NGOs responded in the following order of priority: (1) to strengthen their own organizations; (2) to learn about the issues; (3) to influence their national government; and (4) to influence the conference itself. These replies remained constant across both Northern and Southern NGOs. When asked to which groups NGOs need access at UN conferences, NGOs replied: (1) their own national delegations; (2) UN staff; (3) NGO support staff; and (4) the media and other governments. The priority NGOs give to access to national delegations may mean that there are more opportunities at the international level than at the national level for NGOs to lobby their governments.

According to the survey, up to 50% of NGOs feel in some way restricted by their governments or UN procedures when taking part in UN meetings. Most cited the entrenched patriarchy of UN institutions as their main obstacles. When asked what mechanisms or structures work best for NGO participation in the official conferences and NGO forums, respondents said: (1) NGO participation in government delegations; (2) more government-NGO meetings; (3) small working groups; and (4) experimental formats such as trialogues and, for example, the five-sided discussion of the Bergen Conference in preparation for UNCED. Face-to-face discussion is considered the best way of communicating NGO views, and holding demonstrations the least effective way.

When asked who or what NGOs represent, the replies were diverse and included social groups, such as poor women, immigrants, the unemployed and others. Some respondents said they represent nature, or even a natural species, or their particular NGO. Southern NGOs feel freer to endorse a joint NGO declaration or statement of position than Northern NGOs, and men feel freer than women.

The survey shows that in crucial areas, Northern NGO views differ from Southern ones, and in many areas, male and female views differ as well. One conclusion to be drawn from the survey is that a single system of arrangements for NGO participation makes no sense. Rather, the UN needs to establish different procedures and rules for consultative status which reflect the different levels and nature of involvement sought by NGOs within the UN.

Discussion

After the panel presentations the floor was opened for discussion. What follows is a summary of the observations, viewpoints and recommendations made in the discussion.

Solidarity in such a diverse group as NGOs is difficult to achieve. Individual national member organizations of an international NGO enjoy different levels of accountability and democracy. It is, nonetheless, possible for NGOs to create processes and structures to work together to achieve more transparency and accountability. Diversity is the NGO community's greatest strength--and its greatest weakness. NGOs need to deal with their weaknesses and build upon their strengths. In the context of governance, NGOs must represent something to have the credibility to put forward proposals. Even the UN's fairly tight procedures for consultative status have allowed individuals and organizations without statutes to be accredited, lowering standards for all NGOs. NGOs need to establish a mechanism to elaborate a set of minimal criteria and standards for defining what a legitimate NGO.

At the same time, political criteria for defining government-NGO relations are not clear-cut and vary depending on the context. Human rights NGOs are often perceived by governments as the opposition; yet some governments accept NGOs as members of their own delegations to international meetings and conferences. These are very different expressions of political relations. NGOs created or organized by governments (GONGOS) pose a serious problem for the integrity of the wider NGO community.

Are definitional issues being imposed on NGOs by bureaucratic requirements? While NGOs must make some concessions, bureaucracies should not seek to box NGOs and civil society organizations into categories. The legitimacy of NGOs derives from their being true to their own goals and principles and from acting in an open and transparent way. An individual acting on this basis could be a legitimate representative of civil society. UN procedures and criteria for establishing relations with NGOs must be flexible. At the international level, it is difficult for NGOs to say to what extent they represent a particular constituency; what counts is the quality of NGO ideas and proposals that emerge from their work with the people. While international work can open space for NGO work at the national level, public recognition of the value of an NGO's work at the national level can also give it more influence with its government at the international level.

Should NGOs focus their energies on creating some kind of global NGO forum? There is concern that several governments, rather than NGO themselves, are taking the lead on this proposal. Another concern is that if it is created at UN headquarters in New York, North American NGOs might dominate such a forum, as is now the case with many NGO standing committees based in New York. A forum might even be counterproductive; finding ways of developing real solidarity between NGOs might be more productive. On the other hand, if some NGOs feel the need for this kind of body, there is nothing to stop them undertaking such an initiative. Nobody should be forced to participate but nobody should be stopped from trying to undertake such an initiative. However, to be global in nature, no assembly or forum should be based in the North, and its leadership and vision should not be dominated by international and Northern NGOs. An annual rolling conference held each year in different regions might be more appropriate.