I would like from the outset to congratulate the organizers for the choice of the theme of this Roundtable, "the future of international cooperation: prospects for the 21st Century". A most welcome topic after the celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the United Nations which, like all events of this nature, tended to be somewhat formal with a heavy emphasis on the past.
The problems confronting the world today not to speak of those of tomorrow, although not totally forgotten, did not receive all the attention they deserved. Nostalgia is an essential part of life because it nurtures memory but vision is even more vital because it gives a dynamic meaning to the past as part of its conception of the future.
The dimension of the future is very helpful because it discards linear thinking, recognizes the phenomenon of discontinuity as a positive factor, and encourages innovative thinking knowing that never has man had as great a capacity, intellectually and materially, to shape his own destiny. For many, including myself, the UN organizations have become unconscious defenders of the status quo. Unless they are radically changed they may become an obstacle to the attainment of a desirable and possible future. Such a future can not see the day without a stronger international organization.
I have been asked to speak on the following topic : "UN Organizations: ways to their reactivation". These organizations which taken together make up what is known as the UN System are simply means to an end. Hence, although I have spent 17 years of my life as an international civil servant within this system, I believe that concern for the fate of international cooperation should precede organizational considerations.
The important question is the "UN system What for?". The answer to this question determines the purpose of these organizations and then leads to the examination of their output as a means for the achievement of that purpose. Unless one adopts this approach there is every chance to end up with a long list of remedies dealing with instrumentality and modalities but which may not affect the heart of the problem.
For my part, I do not believe that the crisis is one of organizations. The crisis is much more serious it is one which affects the very concept and spirit of international cooperation. It is a systemic symptom of deep disagreements between the members of the international community on the purpose of this cooperation and of its instruments. The ills are to be found within what is broadly called the "international system". The solutions ought to be sought at this level and not in the mechanics of individual organizations which are themselves a by-product of the international environment within which they evolve.
The purpose of the UN system is defined in the UN Charter and in the constitutions of the Specialized Agencies. The main difficulty which is facing the future of international cooperation is twofold. First, the agreement which existed among the authors of these texts, when they were approved, is no longer there. Second, the nature and the complexities of the problems facing humanity at the eve of the XXIst Century are not the same as those which were prevailing over 40 years ago.
Let us first examine these two aspects before attempting to sketch out a few directions which might help to "reactivate" the UN organizations. The term "reactivate" is not my own, it was in the title of the theme which I have been invited to deal with. It implies that they have been "deactivated". By whom? and why?
The composition of the international system has greatly changed since 1945 because of the increase of the number of independent states as a consequence of the process of decolonization. Other political developments have affected power relationships and concepts of world organization. We still find a formal agreement about the great objectives of the UN System but there is no longer a universal acceptance of their fulfillment through the UN organizations.
The nature of the security problems between the super powers
has changed and they do not consider the UN as a suitable arena
for the negotiations of the vital issues which divide them such
as disarmament, local military conflicts in different regions of
the world otherwise known as "wars by proxy", and major
developments in science and technology to cite but a few. They
have found other ways of dealing with them.
The other industrialized countries have made great strides in regional political, economic and socio-cultural cooperation through the European Economic Community, OECDE and the COMECON. These institutions serve, within their respective region, as the main framework for their substantive cooperation.
The role of the organizations of the UN for the developed countries has thus dwindled, particularly in the last twenty years, to the point of becoming of very limited use for their particular needs. The excuse often given for this trend is that priority had to be given to the developing countries. In fact the members of the industrialized world although eager to discuss and orient issues concerning the economic and social development of Third World countries were not as keen to bring up questions concerning their own affairs before the UN System.
The original universal purpose of the UN organizations in the area of international cooperation has been reduced to the new concept known as "aid to development" not simply out of compassion for the Third World but also as a way of keeping the UN system out of the picture for what is taking place in the industrialized countries. In clear, those who founded the UN changed their mind as to the purpose of the UN once the composition of the system changed radically and they could no longer impose their way of thinking.
What is ironical is that the newcomers had more reason to complain as they were not present when the purpose was agreed upon in San Francisco. In spite of its very generous humanistic dimension it reflects a clear ethnocentricity with respect to the socio-cultural values which underlie its vision of the world. This major concession on the part of the developing countries is rarely taken into consideration and much less so understood by students of international relations.
To conclude this point on the lack of agreement about purpose let me quote the Secretary general of the Commonwealth, Sir Sridath Ramphal who wrote the following words in 1984, "What begun as an era of negotiation after the post-war period ended,has become a time of studied inertia and firm resistance to change... We cannot any longer confidently assume that there exists a basic consensus within the international community in support of international cooperation. We cannot assume that there exists an ethic of multilateralism."(in "Will the the 1990's be '1984'?").
What needs most urgently to be reactivated is not the organizations but the sense of purpose and an agreement as well as a commitment to such a purpose by the members states of the international system. Any other approach would merely amount to harmless tinkering with organizational charts, procedures and accounting which might give the illusion of having made a step forward but will not help these organizations to face today's challenges of today nor those of the twenty-first century.
We are all conscious of the rate at which change has been taking place particularly in the last twenty years. The total knowledge of mankind doubles now every eight years. The military, political, economic and socio-cultural consequences of these developments are leading to the emergence of new problems, to an increasing complexity which we are not yet capable of analyzing properly, to a rapid social change which raises all kinds of conflicts due to a mutation of socio-cultural values, and to an incapacity to manage planetary issues vital to the survival of the human specie.
The problematique of the first half of the twentieth century was quite different one from the one we confront today. We must therefore accept the specificity of the age we are living in and of the one we are preparing and see to it that they are reflected in the approach of the international agencies which have been created in order to play regulatory functions. The Union of International Associations has identified 10.233 world problems (Encyclopedia of World Problems).
The characteristics of our time, as we move from a society of production to a society of knowledge, are change, creativity, innovation, participation, anticipation, socio-cultural relevance, redistribution, quality of life, information and communication, human dignity and peace. The member states reflect these concerns only too rarely within the UN organizations.
One thing is quite certain, the international organizations of the first half of the twenty-first century, can not and will not be like those which were conceived during the first half of the twentieth century. The world has changed and the international organizations will either integrate this change or disintegrate. This is why we must be very careful in adopting an attitude which seeks a return to the "sources" to the "original aims" and to the gospel of the "founders".
Fundamentalism may not be the best road for international organizations which seek to enter the next century.
Change is in the nature of things. It is coming in one way or another. The greatest strength of international organizations during their first three decades has been their "resilience" or capacity to adapt and to recuperate power. This resilience has been totally used up and entropy has set in. So the only choice facing them, if they wish to survive, is change which is a much more thorough concept than mere adaptation which is no longer sufficient.
The question which remains is the cost of this change or badly needed transformation. The cost of change is always inversely proportional to the degree of anticipation. The longer one waits the more it costs. The change here is not only in the methods of work of the organizations, it is first and foremost in the international system which determines their behaviour. This transformation concerns equity and social justice.
Tokyo, 9/1986.
© 
Genève 1996. Webeditor