Punkter til frokostmøte med UN Foundation

Støre baserte sin innledning på
noen av de følgende punktene

Strengthening of and advocacy for the UN

• Salute the UNF – our partner. (Norway: A country having its “narrative” on UN achievements, small state (“protection” from bigger states), Law of the sea, trade, norms and standards, development – 1% GDP for ODA). I am honoured to welcome the distinguished Board of the UN Foundation to Norway, not least Gro “my old boss”. I hope you and your fellow Board members have productive meetings this week.
• I also hope your visit to Svalbard will allow you to witness how climate change, one of the biggest challenges of our time, is affecting our environment.
• UNF and Norway have a common cause – we both believe that global problems require global solutions, and that a dynamic and effective UN is needed to address global challenges. (How can we protect and improve an organisation that could not have been made today...).
• In recent years we have been facing a number of crises – financial crisis, climate change/crisis, food crisis, energy crisis, political crises, and even potential pandemics. In all these instances we look to the UN to respond. (The world since the cold war: “bipolar” (US-Soviet) – unipolar – multipolar – “zeropolar”?)
• In some cases – such as Libya and Cote d’Ivoire, the UN was able to respond effectively.
• In other cases, such as the financial crisis, other actors such as the G20 (I welcome, but mandate? legitimacy?) moved to the forefront when the UN could not take the lead. The UN falls short of protecting civilians in both Abyei in Sudan and in DR Congo. We need to look critically at our own responsibility as Member States and governors of the UN and address shortcomings seriously. When the UN fails, we all fail.
• The proposals of the high level panel on System-Wide Coherence were aimed at strengthening the UN at country level by bringing the different parts of the system together.
• We had hoped that the intergovernmental process needed to implement these proposals had come further than they have.
• Still, the successful Millennium Development Goal Summit last year reminded us of the UN’s central role in setting the development policy agenda. It was a chance to recognise how much has actually been achieved. World leaders reiterated their commitment towards the Millennium Development Goals and the need to accelerate our efforts.
• When we look beyond 2015, we need to take into consideration that the world is a very different place than just 10 years ago. Changing geopolitical and economic realities affects the political balance amongst countries and will also affect how we do business in international organisations.
• As politicians, we often focus on the issues and to a lesser extent organisations and institutions. However, sometimes we need to look at how we run the institutions that we expect to implement our priorities and consider whether they have the resources and parameters necessary to deliver those results.
• Large organisations are often conservative and resistant to change. Still, they must adapt to changing context and new demands, or risk marginalisation. It is our impression though that there is “reform-fatigue” (re: from my time in the WHO). The term “UN-reform” has become difficult. Traditionally, radical changes in global governance have been preceded by major catastrophes.
• The end of the cold war did not lead to large structural changes in the UN, but 20 years later the UN is a fundamentally different organisation. “Reform by evolution” or incremental changes and patient pursuit of normative agendas are essentially what has transformed the UN. We agree with former SG Kofi Annan in that “reform is a process, not an event”. 
• Perhaps we need to change our narrative – use other concepts and terms that reflect the end goal of what we want: a stronger UN that can be a guarantor for peace and security, social and economic development and human rights, and we need to look at our responsibility as Member States to both diagnose the problem and prescribe the cure.
• Norway has always been a friend of the UN, but public support can never be taken for granted.  Domestic debate around our engagement in the UN and the level of funding we contribute has increased in recent years. We have recently undertaken a thorough assessment of Norway’s engagement with the UN and this will be the basis of a review of our UN policy. A few issues stood out as key challenges for the UN that require more attention:  

i) Demonstrating results: The UN needs to improve the way it presents and communicates results of the work the UN does at all levels. UNF’s advocacy efforts and information campaigns, and support for the UN’s own communication effort may provide useful input in this regard.   

ii) Matching resources and mandates: 192 countries have as many or more priorities. Mandates are rarely abandoned, but we keep adding on. At the same time there are calls for cuts in budgets following the financial crisis. There are efficiency gains to be made, but this is not sufficient in the long run. There is a need to “share the burden of UN financing”. The emerging powers should invest in the organisation and take on more financial responsibility. In addition, Member States need to avoid micro management and allow the Secretary-General and the heads of UN entities to undertake administrative reforms they deem necessary.   

iii) “Ghosts of the past” in the negotiating room: Debates at the UN frequently fall along north/south divides. Negotiations in blocks of regional groups have exacerbated this divide. Negotiations by consensus give a voice to all, but also provides a veto for “spoilers”.  A general assembly that relives the same arguments on a regular basis has not been capable of taking on board emerging issues in an effective manner.

• A common denominator for these challenges is the issue of governance. When the UN fails to respond, it is mainly because we fail in our governance of the organisation. It is also a question of confidence, or rather lack thereof, amongst Member States and between the Member States and the Secretariat.
• The heart of the problem is always political – not institutional. Solving political problems require building alliances and changing perceptions. I am therefore interested in your views on how we can, firstly, strengthen the UN and, secondly, sell the UN better to the public at large. 

Women and health

• Inadequate health care in connection with pregnancy, childbirth and abortion is still the main cause of death among women of reproductive age in developing countries. We are also witnessing a disturbing feminisation of the AIDS epidemic due to women’s lack of control over their own body.
• Norway is a strong and relentless supporter of the work done to ensure that women have the right to adequate health services and to control their own bodies and sexuality, including respect for women’s freedom of choice and self-determination. 
• Norway is deeply concerned by the latest developments regarding the increased mobilization by certain states opposing women’s sexual health and rights.  In the time to come it will be important to continue, if not intensify, our efforts towards the promotion of women’s sexual health and rights, while also ensuring that our efforts are not counter – productive. It would be of interest to hear your take on the challenges we are facing in defending and promoting a progressive agenda when it comes to women’s sexual health and rights.