Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/580873
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2015 Opinion 23 Opinion A t 70, the perennial question as to whether the United Nations has outlived its purpose or not continues to crop up, perhaps with increasing frequency. My stock reply is better the UN we have with all its moral authority, even if sometimes it lacks teeth. But that's small consolation for those who genuinely feel concerned that it has grown into a sprawling body, with various specialised agencies, different funds, and a top-heavy secretariat and a substantial budget that often leads to accusations of misallocation when it comes to actual priorities. The stickier the crisis, the more the feeling of political impotence grows when action stops at resolutions, if at all. On the other hand, there is resentment at countries' efforts to mire the UN process in gridlock. The UN has no national boundaries, and has often taken up causes that others have either ignored nor been competent to tackle. There have been occasions when it tried to tackle certain issues by merely organising a summit, the same way the EU itself often tends to act whenever it has a hot potato for which it cannot throw up any tangible solutions. Such as the refugee problem amongst others. The UN offers protection where none exists, but on the other hand it is often fully aware that it can only partly mitigate, if at all, such issues as the ever-growing number of displaced persons worldwide. The role of the secretary- general often has a lot of bearing on the influence the organisation is perceived as wielding. But when push comes to shove, regardless of the fact that all members have an equal vote on issues, the UN Security Council remains what it always was – an inner sanctum where vetoed decisions often proved to be the best guarantee for inaction. What has given the UN the edge over the years is its increasing reliance on communications technology, a tool being used most effectively to sensitise people to key issues. Even a simple theme song can make a difference. With the formal adoption of the sustainable development goals in New York underway, accompanied by a global campaign to raise awareness of the new agenda, various member states are finding that there has been – to quote Ban ki Moon – 'a much more individualistic way of thinking and doing business by each and every member state.' Whether they practice on home ground what they preach internationally is something that public opinion can best judge. Particularly after wading through the rhetoric. The end of the Cold War brought with it an easing of tensions, but the new era of globalisation also brought with it a deeply fractured world, where the old dichotomy of Western movies – of having good guys and bad guys – became somewhat passé, leaving us often at a loss to try and figure out who the good and bad guys really are. Whenever Ban tries to go for a consensus-seeking approach he is often criticised of being ineffective. But how can he impose diktats without bringing the key players on board, particularly when we know that it is the sum of its parts as an organisation that really matters? He has called for more transparency in the UN's operations. If we think our respective civil services are a bureaucratic jungle, the deep bureaucratic silos at the UN are very hard to beat, rendering it more hopelessly inefficient than it is. Ban will not guarantee a Paris climate success in December, but I experienced first-hand his true and personal commitment this summer in New York. It's a strong pointer that the UN can still steer certain vital causes ahead forcefully, even if the net result will remain member-state domain. And is all the talk and travel worth the effort? Being involved at ministerial level in various formal and informal meetings on climate issues at both EU and international levels, I can vouch for the fact that one is conspicuous by your own absence; and even more so, we help mould public opinion and certain decision-making processes in ways that would have not been made any easier by staying home. Particularly, when the demarcation between decision-makers and negotiators often gets increasingly blurred, as in the case of the climate change UNFCCC process itself. Were it not for the UN, China and the USA might have never felt the urge to inch closer to the international community and to each other on climate issues. There would have been no global initiative to provide billions of dollars in technological assistance to poor countries to cut emissions. The stumbling block is not the UN itself but the attitude of many of its members, particularly as they end up mired in their own domestic problems, focusing invariably on their own narrow national agendas. Last week, Ban joked in the FT that when they refer to his role as 'SG', it stands for scapegoat rather than sec-gen. His frustration is understandable, his loneliness often happening to people in high office. But when there is unity of purpose, especially among the five permanent Security Council members, then real things can happen. One definite plus for the UN this year was the Iran issue, where as a result of the deal struck its nuclear programmes have been placed under the surveillance of UN inspectors and other agencies. The quid pro quo was the withdrawal of Western sanctions. Geopolitical realities like the war against poverty will continue to put the UN in a near impossible position but its legitimacy as an organisation lives on. If it manages to constantly evolve and change we will all be net beneficiaries. Ban ki Moon and the UN itself sometimes do not have clear answers for most problems. But in those instances when they do let us all do our utmost to ensure that they get implemented. Leo Brincat is minister for the environment and climate change Now at 70, has the United Nations outlived its purpose? Leo Brincat Secretary-general of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon