Other resource
Published 23 October 2019
Updated 14 December 2020
ISBN: 978 1 78413 371 9
Cover image: Kofi Annan meets with high-school students in Kabul, Afghanistan, in January 2002. Copyright © Chien-min Chung/Getty Photos
The ‘Our Shared Humanity’ conference explored Kofi Annan’s legacy for the future of global governance in the run-up to the UN’s 75th anniversary. This paper summarizes key points raised during the conference, and presents the substantive recommendations that emerged from the discussion.
The conference sessions reflected different elements of the UN’s work and Kofi Annan’s legacy. However, as Annan himself underscored, issues of peace, development and human rights are interconnected, and a number of common themes emerged throughout the conference.
Annan’s leadership style, his ability to communicate with diverse audiences, his commitment to participation and inclusion, his promotion of democratic principles and his emphasis on solidarity were identified as the five fundamental lessons from his legacy. Deficits in those same five areas were also highlighted by conference participants as significant challenges faced by our global system at present.
When considering how to apply lessons from Annan’s legacy to those deficits, participants noted in particular:
In discussing all three of the above, participants noted that the UN needs to work out how it relates to states and hard power in the context of the 21st century’s competing approaches to sovereignty. To what extent is the UN a system of checks and balances on states or a rival to state power? How should it handle obstacles and detractors? Should it find other ways to fulfil its objectives – through creative partnerships with other stakeholders, for instance? And which areas should the UN be engaged with, given the multiplicity of actors now able to effect change at both local and global level?
Throughout the conference, the importance of placing Annan’s approach and achievements in context was referred to repeatedly. Participants commented that the current era continues to be defined by challenges that Annan grappled with as secretary-general, such as rising inequality, intractable civil wars and debates around sovereignty. However, these issues are now affected by factors such as new and emerging technologies, from the power of social media and big data to cybercrime and election interference – all of which are generating challenges and opportunities of their own.
With hindsight, speakers stressed that Annan’s tenure as secretary-general (and previous role as head of UN Peacekeeping) benefited from the end of the Cold War and, thus, a period of opportunity for value-based, cooperative international relations. Many noted that this provided greater room for manoeuvre for a politically savvy secretary-general, especially one who was strategic about the issues he applied himself to. In this way, Annan was able to make headway on situations such as the Bakassi Peninsula and East Timor, and on issues related to health, for instance.
Other speakers commented that Annan’s personal history as a UN insider also gave him a head start. He did not need time to familiarize himself with the system, its dynamics and personalities. Some argued that this helped to galvanize reform initiatives such as ‘Delivering as One’. Others noted that it meant there were occasions on which Annan shied away from pressing ahead, for instance, on Security Council reform.
With hindsight, speakers stressed that Annan’s tenure as secretary-general (and previous role as head of UN Peacekeeping) benefited from the end of the Cold War and, thus, a period of opportunity for value-based, cooperative international relations.
And yet this same period saw some of the most tragic failures of our global system. These were raised in almost every session of the conference, with speakers focusing particularly on the atrocities of Rwanda and Bosnia, where the shortcomings of a UN-led approach were laid painfully bare. Participants also highlighted the 2003 Iraq war, where the decision of certain member states to intervene militarily without the backing of the Security Council dealt a strong blow to regional stability and to the cause of multilateral cooperation. Participants noted that these events had undermined trust in the central mission of the UN, and in its values, trajectory and capacity. They also noted the ongoing impact of these events on thinking and decision-making today – at the UN and in capitals.
Many speakers highlighted the need for the UN to stand more clearly for normative values, and to focus on the core and irreplaceable elements of the UN’s mission – such as peacebuilding, mediation and human rights. On balance, it was felt that this could help reinvigorate the UN.
Over the two days of the conference, speakers and participants noted that faith in global governance appears to have reached a critically low ebb, with declining support for multilateralism among states, rising uncertainty in the value and purpose of the UN, and a growing disconnect between the public and institutions. Nevertheless, it was felt that transformative reform is both possible and necessary. A number of participants referred to the ‘1 for 7 Billion’ campaign,1 which pushed for greater transparency in the UN secretary-general appointment process, as a recent example of reform sparked by a civil society movement.
As one speaker commented, the situation is now so serious that a ‘minor rearranging’ will not suffice; widespread change is needed. Others commented that as the fundamental political and structural problems the UN faces have not been solved in 75 years, it was difficult to believe they could be addressed in the current environment. This raises a dilemma that the conference acknowledged, with some participants calling for greater ambition and radical change, and others for damage limitation and incremental reform.
Many participants who knew Annan noted the importance he placed on listening to different perspectives and trying to understand the relevant complex contexts of these positions. He also understood that if the perspectives of those at the top are the only views included in deliberations, then the problem-solving capacity of the UN will suffer. Several speakers therefore felt that a potential way forward would be to insist upon an inclusive multi-stakeholder response to global challenges, so that the complex, diverse and multifaceted nature of the problems faced becomes hardwired into the response. When solutions are generated from this form of deep engagement, questions of level of ambition in the abstract are more likely to recede as the conversation shifts to the level of response required by the problem.
A recurring theme of the conference was the multiplicity of actors working on UN issues, as well as the emphasis on partnerships generated by agreements such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Many speakers and participants spoke about the need to look to new allies and new partnerships to mitigate the rise in hostility to multilateralism, and to determine the most appropriate and capable actors involved in different areas of the UN’s work – recognizing that the UN is not always best placed to lead or deliver on particular issues. Creative ways to pursue this direction were identified by participants, such as alliance-building in specific UN committees or bodies, or along thematic areas that enjoy widespread common support, such as protection of civilians and the SDGs.
Annan’s era was described as one which broadened the understanding of stakeholders as problem-solvers, bringing youth, civil society and business to the table.
There were repeated calls for a new multilateralism that embraces a broad range of non-state actors. Annan’s era was described as one which broadened the understanding of stakeholders as problem-solvers, bringing youth, civil society and business to the table. Those who worked with Annan said that he championed civil society leaders wherever he went, offering them a protective space within which they could operate. But it was also noted that civil society space is shrinking, as evidenced by attacks on human rights defenders, as well as by the increasingly politicized NGO accreditation process at the UN. It was felt that the UN needs to clarify how the inevitable challenges arising from a shift to bottom-up approaches will be managed.
The need to improve engagement with the private sector was highlighted throughout the conference – for example in relation to financing and delivering on the SDGs. Annan’s inclusion of businesses meant that they ‘saw they could flourish alongside the UN’s work’. Some participants expressed caution about the significant negative impact on human rights and development that can arise from commercial activities. Others noted that deeper engagement with private-sector actors may help align them to normative standards as well as improve the capacity of the UN to do its work. Overall, it was felt that the diversity of the business community and its reach require a nuanced, strategic approach to its engagement, not least to prevent co-option of a public interest agenda to commercial goals.
The conference did not seek to generate agreed recommendations. But, reflecting the wide-ranging discussion, participants did put forward practical recommendations on a broad set of issues: from strengthening peacekeeping efforts to tackling the divisive impact of social media on democratic processes and harnessing data to drive progress on the SDGs. A summary of these recommendations is set out below, with a brief overview of the conference discussion to provide context.
Peacekeeping, conflict prevention and the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) doctrine dominated this session on peace and security challenges. On peacekeeping, panellists stressed the importance of managing expectations among various stakeholders, from those who develop mandates to host populations. It was noted that evaluating progress needs to take into account diverse mandates, roles and contexts. Conflict continues in some instances where the UN has invested considerable resources (for example, in the Central African Republic and Mali).
Comfort Ero described how unrealistic peacekeeping mandates are ‘almost set up to fail from the start’. Michael Keating reflected that in Somalia, for example, there is no clear political strategy or shared understanding of the nature of the political context. There is a lack of attention to investing in political solutions – a key recommendation of the 2015 report of the High-level Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) was that peacekeeping should be understood as part of a suite of approaches that include intervention, peacebuilding and mediation.
Other points from the HIPPO report were also raised, including partnerships, accountability for sexual exploitation and abuse, improved capacity and performance in the protection of civilians, and a greater sense of local ownership. Panellists discussed Annan’s efforts to cultivate UN partnerships with regional organizations, particularly with the African Union (AU), and how these could be developed and improved, for example by providing more consistent financing.
It was noted that the UN should not be the only problem-solver. In Sudan, for instance, solutions are more likely to come from the country’s neighbours and the region. The AU had its own ‘brand’ of multilateralism in peace and security, and could play a greater role, including on the political side. However, it was also noted that there are limits to what these partnerships can achieve, as conflicts often have international as well as regional dimensions and should be considered ‘international problems that need international solutions’.
In reflecting on the current state of conflict prevention, the panel agreed that while prevention should be prioritized within peace and security discussions, risks emerge if it becomes the sole focus. Preventive diplomacy and early warning have had too few successes – though Madagascar offers one positive example. Opportunities to act early are not being taken consistently enough. Ian Martin reflected on the ‘inability of the Security Council to take what’s seen as to be the most obvious necessary steps’. The situation in Libya was mentioned as warranting an immediate response to prevent the outbreak of serious fighting. The opportunity to act early in Burkina Faso to prevent spillover from issues in Mali was also highlighted.
The panel then discussed the role of the Security Council in the context of the more competitive geopolitical environment. Speakers cautioned that the Council’s lack of action and political will were weakening the role of the UN in addressing conflicts, and could even dismantle this role. This assessment applied not only to the Council’s inability to agree resolutions on certain situations, but also to its level of support and engagement. Lakhdar Brahimi gave the example of Sudan, where some parties to the conflict were trying to talk to each other. He argued that if the Security Council was not willing to help in such situations, it should at least support the efforts of local actors to mediate.2
Panellists noted that there is a fine balance between raising expectations, managing them and having the political will to achieve them, as Annan was able to do in Kenya in 2007–08. Managing this balance requires leadership, which in turn requires effective appointment processes. Panellists discussed the need for reforming UN recruitment mechanisms to ensure that the most capable candidates from within and outside the UN system are able to rise to senior positions.
Finally, the panel turned to the ability of the international community to prevent atrocities in an environment hostile to multilateralism. This was identified as a major challenge not only to the doctrine of R2P, which Annan championed, and which was endorsed by world leaders in 2005, but also to the legitimacy of the Security Council as a body capable of fulfilling its mandate. In this context, participants discussed the future of R2P. It was emphasized that R2P’s toolbox is not just about military intervention. Is there potential in pursuing humanitarian goals under the R2P label as a means of distancing R2P from its use for regime change in Libya? This approach may garner support even in a divided Security Council. An alternative view put forward suggested that the label of R2P may be tainted beyond recovery, but that some of its ideas and principles remain critical for engagement on mass atrocity prevention.
This session focused on efforts to support democratic transition and resilience, as well as challenges for the human rights agenda. Annika Savill recounted how Kofi Annan used his Davos speech in 1999 to warn that the absence of a compact to ensure the even spread of the benefits of globalization would encourage the proliferation of ideological and political divisions which could threaten international peace and security. Human rights are central to this idea – but they are increasingly under threat from factors that include populist and authoritarian leaders, attacks against human rights defenders, shrinking civil society space, and the use of new technologies to spread misinformation and hate speech, foment divisions and undermine democracy.
On international efforts to support democratic processes, Raila Odinga reflected on the 2007–08 Kenyan election crisis and Annan’s negotiating strategy. Instead of allowing leaders to arrive with essentially non-negotiable pre-prepared solutions, Annan encouraged them to go through the exercise of researching and analysing the problem collectively, in order to develop a collective solution. Odinga drew lessons from this on the importance of mediation, and of collaborative discussions as opposed to more traditional negotiations on formal lines.
Radhika Coomaraswamy focused her remarks on human rights, noting the backsliding in recent years on civil and political rights in particular – with gender equality and women’s empowerment being perhaps the most prominent examples. However, she also acknowledged progress made on socio-economic rights, including through the SDGs – which encompassed targets on governance, the rule of law, access to justice and information, and participatory decision-making. This led to a discussion on partnerships for human rights, for example the alliance between the EU and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation on the Rohingya.
The panel discussed the interplay between human rights and democracy, the role that human rights play in framing and guiding development efforts, and the need for a human rights-based approach to balancing free speech with the need to combat hate speech. Panel members also noted the central role of civil society in defending and advancing human rights. Patrick Gaspard outlined the many spaces – including inside the UN – where civil society space was shrinking. He underscored the need for current leaders to emulate Annan’s practice of speaking out against human rights abuses and championing the voices of civil society actors.
During the session, it was noted several times that the UN had a strong track record in driving normative change, especially with regard to human rights, and that this area represented some of its most enduring successes – even during challenging periods such as the aftermath of 9/11. It was also noted that Annan frequently reminded governments and political leaders that the preamble of the UN Charter opens with ‘we the peoples’, not ‘we the member states’, emphasizing the need to ensure that the UN stands for, and works on behalf of, the global public. These values need to be ingrained into the UN’s narrative, as well as its programme of work. In this regard, the panel made recommendations on improving the UN’s human rights capacity.
It was also noted that Annan frequently reminded governments and political leaders that the preamble of the UN Charter opens with ‘we the peoples’, not ‘we the member states’, emphasizing the need to ensure that the UN stands for, and works on behalf of, the global public.
The relationship between democratic transition and elections was explored through discussion of criteria for the integrity of elections, developed by the Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security with Annan’s support.3 These criteria include: reducing barriers to equal political participation, regulating political finance, building the rule of law, using capable independent professional election management bodies, and establishing a mutual security system which secures the survival of the losing political parties. Stephen Stedman discussed how Annan was concerned about the growing impact of social media on democracy and elections, and about the lack of understanding, engagement and influence of policymakers in this sphere.
A better understanding of the dynamics involved in social media use during elections is necessary. For example, one speaker asserted that in the US misinformation through social media is typically spread by those in the 65–80 age group, but that the extent to which this is the case in the rest of the world is unknown. Such information is crucial to shaping appropriate action. Civil society was repeatedly referred to as a key actor with the skill to hold technology companies to account, as has been done with Facebook more recently.
There were diverging views on the role of the UN in addressing the impact of technology on public debate and electoral processes. Concern was voiced about the tendency of multilateral institutions to move slowly and methodically, whereas new technologies and tactics are advancing rapidly. Scepticism was expressed as to whether the international community will make any progress on regulating new technologies, and whether progress was more likely at the national level. However, there was also a view that this is precisely the sort of normative role that the UN could and should play.
The first day ended with a conversation format session on Kofi Annan’s leadership style and approach to the role of UN secretary-general. A key theme was the attentiveness to listening and understanding that he employed in all relationships, regardless of how politically complex. As highlighted by Nader Mousavizadeh, Annan was uniquely suited to the role of secretary-general due to his ability to convince other leaders that his success was in their interest. He was concerned in negotiations to reduce a lack of understanding between all sides and made great efforts to try to bridge such gaps. He saw military intervention as absolutely the last resort. He also understood that, to be successful, he needed to empower and delegate to his team. Alex Russell recalled that Annan saw his philosophy of leadership as a combination of ‘farming’ and ‘engineering’ – needing the seeds for growth to be planted and structures to be changed where needed.
Kathy Calvin noted that Annan had remained actively engaged with global challenges and crises almost right up to his death in August 2018. His loss was keenly felt among communities and constituencies the world over. Describing his approach, Calvin noted his willingness to work with leaders he disagreed with, while also standing up to them. He had done so in the case of the George W. Bush administration during the ‘war on terror’, and it was an approach that he had continued after leaving the UN. He also understood that changes did not have to be ‘zero sum’. For instance, he had maintained that the rise of China as a global power did not need to come at the expense of others.
The legacy and priorities of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and their successors, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), were the focus of this panel. In her opening remarks, UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed provided an overview of the transition from the MDG era to the SDGs, which are broader in ambition and scope and place greater emphasis on partnerships. She also underscored the need to bring the principles of solidarity and universality, which underpinned the UN Charter, to the SDGs.
Despite the challenges highlighted throughout the conference, the deputy secretary-general, and this session as a whole, acknowledged the MDGs as part of Annan’s legacy in supporting advances relating to rising life expectancy, human well-being, declining violent conflict and many other areas. The panel stressed that these are important points to remember when confronting the loss of confidence in institutions. The challenge now is to build on these advances, and the approaches used to achieve them, to deliver concrete action and outcomes, especially through the SDGs. Harnessing the full capacity of the private sector will be key, but political leaders also need to signal that they have heard the alarm and have the ambition to take actions to ensure progress on the SDGs.
Reflecting on the changing context for global development initiatives, Mark Suzman spoke to the core strength and competencies of the UN as a vehicle for driving normative change, despite the challenges presented by power imbalances. The MDGs reflected this normative power, as they profoundly changed the way in which development was understood and prompted a wider set of partnerships among the UN, civil society, philanthropy, the private sector and others.
Focusing on the continent of Africa, as Annan did even more intensively after he had left the UN, Strive Masiyiwa outlined demographic youth ‘bulges’ and unemployment as serious challenges to pursuit of the SDGs. He stated that we need to reimagine how young people are going to operate and interact in urban populations. There are also important links to be made to energy needs in Africa. Entrepreneurs have got 75 per cent of Africa connected to mobile phone networks faster, more cheaply and more efficiently than any state or development programme could have done. A similar approach could be employed to develop green energy.
Global actors need to look to business partners for opportunities to accelerate progress on global goals, while being aware of the remaining role for the public sector in delivering, for example, unprofitable but necessary services. New approaches to security for banks were raised as key to encouraging lending, especially to small ventures and farmers. Investigating these barriers to entrepreneurship was articulated as a priority for pursuing development and harnessing the capacity and talents of youth.
Entrepreneurs have got 75 per cent of Africa connected to mobile phone networks faster, more cheaply and more efficiently than any state or development programme could have done. A similar approach could be employed to develop green energy.
Addressing one common criticism of the MDGs/SDGs, Claire Melamed set out the benefits of having a quantitative framework that offered clarity: ‘This is what we want, this is how we know we will get there.’ The 169 targets of the SDGs allow for tracking progress if the data are accurate, enabling efforts to hold governments accountable.
Rapidly changing patterns in so many areas have made it difficult to guide advocacy, policy and resourcing decisions at the UN, yet technology means that it is becoming easier to capture these changes. Accurate data can be a source of decision-making, but in order to have value, the data need to be timely and inclusive, reflecting the reality of people’s lives. Three principles for effective ways to measure impact through data were suggested: (1) gather robust data which can evaluate how well tools are delivering; (2) ensure impact is evaluated from the perspective of those who are meant to benefit from the programme; and (3) systematically pool wider data systems in the country in question, for instance from NGOs that are already monitoring impact and from private-sector entities, and integrate these into the policy and accountability structures of government and government systems. It was noted that data can easily be misunderstood, and that for greater accessibility data need to be combined with narratives. Data should not be the sole criteria for informed decision-making – some decisions must be made on moral, political and philosophical grounds.
This panel brought together young leaders from civil society to discuss youth engagement in leadership and governance – one of the core themes to emerge from the previous sessions. Introducing the panel, Zeinab Badawi noted that despite obstacles such as shrinking civil society space, young people are organizing creatively in response to pressing challenges and having significant impact – the climate change strikes and debates were highlighted.
Alvin Carpio pointed out that young people are not just leaders of tomorrow, they are leading already but traditional systems have not caught up with that reality yet. He pointed to the discrepancy between how young people engage – in terms of mechanisms, platforms and language – and the engagement opportunities provided by governments and multilateral institutions. Hajer Sharief expressed frustration that ‘we are still talking about the right of people to participate’. She also noted that inspiring leaders in the mould of Kofi Annan now seemed to be in short supply.
Enyseh Teimory pointed to the inherently global mindset of many young people, and their awareness of intersectionality, as well as the interconnected nature of the challenges we face. She also cautioned against speaking about ‘youth’ as a cohesive voice. Mainstreaming any perspective means having different voices at the table. However, doing so relies on confronting the reality of systematic barriers in terms of who can enter this conversation – including race, gender, class, age, religion and other factors.
Natasha Kimani focused her remarks on youth – especially young women – in politics. Badawi asked whether lowering the age for political office, as has been done in Nigeria, could create positive change. Kimani observed that the hurdles were not merely legal but socio-cultural: for example, there was an expectation in some countries that female political leaders needed to be married with children – and endorsed by a male political leader – to succeed. Echoing other panellists, she called for more funding for youth, given that young people are more educated, skilled and numerous than ever before. This opportunity is not being seized.
The fifth panel considered what reforms are needed at the UN – and whether they are feasible – given the current geopolitical climate, pressing challenges facing the world, and future trends. Richard Gowan described the UN of today as heavily shaped by reforms from the Annan era, such as the Human Rights Council, Peacebuilding Commission and R2P, though not the Security Council, where Annan put energy into reforms but was unable to overcome differences between states.
Michèle Griffin considered Annan’s achievements in reform as rooted in developing mutual trust towards shared goals of member states. In the absence of this trust, a pattern is established wherein member states demand institutional fixes from the UN for what are ‘fundamentally political problems’ between member states. Either trust must be restored or this pattern must be broken.
Richard Gowan described the UN of today as heavily shaped by reforms from the Annan era, such as the Human Rights Council, Peacebuilding Commission and R2P, though not the Security Council, where Annan put energy into reforms but was unable to overcome differences between states.
Querying the appetite and political climate for reform, David Hannay suggested a sectoral approach might be worth considering, beginning with the climate change summit, for example, and then moving on to arms control and disarmament through the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Arms Trade Treaty. He noted that a number of smaller UN entities and programmes could potentially be consolidated, with work transferring in part to multi-stakeholder partnerships. At the same time, some bodies could benefit from greater human and financial resources – he gave the Peacebuilding Commission as an example. He also struck a note of warning about threats to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and underscored the need to strengthen multilateral cooperation on trade, including the WTO dispute settlement process.
Danny Sriskandarajah noted with regret that the current framework for civic participation in global governance was not fit for purpose, despite the availability of new technologies that enable engagement. At a time when participation and transparency are increasingly on the public agenda, he believed that the UN risked losing relevance and legitimacy if it failed to open up. On technology more generally, he echoed previous sessions’ calls for effective governance through multi-stakeholder frameworks.
Patricia Lewis picked up this theme, noting that this needs to be high on the UN’s agenda. For instance, artificial intelligence offers a way to make sense of big data, which is needed for initiatives such as the SDGs. But the UN also needs to consider issues such as improving the capacity of machines to think more like humans so that their decisions better reflect – even improve on – human decision-making. She also suggested this should not just be confined to development but could be used creatively in conflict prevention.
Panellists suggested that building consensus around issues which already have general agreement, such as the secretary-general’s approach to conflict prevention, could provide an avenue for reform and open up space for non-Western actors to lead.
Panellists reflected on who might drive UN reform. They noted that it is not clear what many middle-income and emerging powers want from the UN in the future, nor do we yet know the impact of the current reforms under way on UN peace and security, management and development structures. Panellists suggested that building consensus around issues which already have general agreement, such as the secretary-general’s approach to conflict prevention, could provide an avenue for reform and open up space for non-Western actors to lead. In the context of shifting global dynamics, panellists commented on the anticipated diminishment in the UK’s influence post-Brexit, and noted that its development assistance budget was an avenue for leadership at the UN.
The session concluded with a discussion on engaging stakeholders and partnerships, noting that UN reform efforts should not only involve states. Support from other actors may help refine the details and priorities for UN action, as well as implementation of agenda items. Curating multi-stakeholder partnerships may also help mitigate the negative effects of declining support for multilateralism.
The penultimate session was a conversation on Kofi Annan’s ability to engage stakeholders. His ability to communicate with people and world leaders, while reinforcing a clear narrative on what the UN stands for, was critical to his success. He faced significant challenges in communicating that narrative, in light of UN failures in Bosnia and Rwanda, and crises in Iraq, but he managed to strike this balance, and to create a role for the secretary-general as a moral voice. Edward Mortimer noted that Annan’s achievements underscore the importance of having leaders, especially at the UN, who can communicate with the poor and marginalized as well as heads of state.
Kumi Naidoo emphasized Annan’s role in championing human rights, and put this in the context of the current fraught geopolitical environment. He noted that creating the sort of UN and global governance system we need will require more than minor tweaks to the system, and that a more dramatic redesign is implied. Empowering diverse sets of new actors, especially from civil society, will be critical to the UN’s future. In the discussion that followed, it was noted that civil society actors also needed to change – to be more inclusive and effective.
Naidoo warned that civil society, while complementing the delivery capability of governments, is often treated as cheap labour. The kinds of investment and commitments needed to champion multi-stakeholder partnerships require macro-, meso – and micro-level actors. They also need to take into account the differences between these actors, and points of tension, for instance on issues relating to human rights and environmental protection or to approaches such as civil disobedience.
On the role of the relationships with the private sector, Mortimer cautioned against ‘UN blue-washing’, where some businesses that have signed up to the Global Compact fail to fulfil their commitments without consequences. The Compact needs to be able to moderate the behaviour of businesses and encourage them to meaningfully engage in development pursuits. Mortimer cited Annan’s success in bringing pharmaceutical companies together to lower the cost of antiretrovirals – an initiative which took a practical problem, of poverty and disease in developing countries, as a starting point and paved the way for engagement in other areas.
Elizabeth Cousens also raised the role of young people, who could contribute to redesigning governance and making it more inclusive and people-centred. Young people need to be prepared to handle the fallout from challenges in the future, while also seeking to stimulate, influence and support solutions. One practical means of supporting this is to ensure that school curriculums adequately address global challenges such as climate change, and that education and training seek to equip young people for managing these challenges and advocating for solutions.
The final session of the conference invited the audience to look ahead in practical terms, focusing on priority issues and solutions. Natalie Samarasinghe commented that the present confluence of crises may not represent a ‘fork in the road’, as the title of the session on UN reform implied, but rather a tipping point or point of no return, where we could see irrevocable damage to the rules-based international system. The world was becoming more multipolar but also more polarized, with tangible impacts on multilateral institutions and hard-won international agreements. There was also a growing disconnect between people, governments and institutions as citizens lose faith in the ability of those in power to improve their lives.
Alan Doss highlighted four themes that had emerged from the conference. The first was the durability of the issues that Annan had prioritized: human rights, climate change, equality, Africa and UN reform. The second concerned the key differences between Annan’s time at the helm of the UN and the present day, notably demographic changes (including that Africa will be the most populous region within a generation); economic transformations (primarily the shift towards the east); digital innovations (such as social media); and political transitions arising from globalization and generational change to a more interconnected and urban population.
The third theme was the extent to which Annan’s time as secretary-general had coincided with, and been buoyed by, the so-called golden era of the post-Cold War years, notwithstanding that US obstructionism had also existed then, and that this had required Annan’s skill to overcome it. The fourth theme concerned the guiding principles of Annan’s approach: patience, persistence and participation.
Going forward, the Kofi Annan Foundation, through its Vision Annan programme, would prioritize Annan’s strength as a ‘curator of coalitions’, inspiring partnerships and building capacities for action, and supporting initiatives by young leaders.
During the discussion, the importance of youth engagement was reiterated, with one participant commenting that the generational shift could mark a transition to more instinctively multilateral populations in many countries. The issue of inclusivity was underscored, with proposals relating to a greater role for civil society in UN decision-making and scrutiny, for instance through a ‘shadow General Assembly’ made up of civil society and the public. The benefit of the UN having critical friends, who provided political and financial support but also focused on increasing its effectiveness, was also raised, as was the need for the organization to do more to tackle problems such as sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers and staff.
Looking at next steps, it was noted that Chatham House would be taking forward many of the issues raised during the two days as it geared up to marking its centenary in 2020. Inclusive global governance would be a central theme. Through its global ‘Together First’ coalition, UNA-UK would be identifying the most feasible, transformative next steps for addressing global catastrophic risks, with a view to producing a civil society agenda for UN renewal to coincide with the UN’s 75th anniversary next year.
Wrapping up the conference, participants highlighted deficits in four major areas of the UN system: principled, far-sighted political leadership; proactive communications that mobilize diverse support; inclusive processes that allow stakeholders to participate in decision-making; and solidarity, as the organization continues to have a Western bias in structure and programming. At this moment, standing up for the values espoused by Annan is necessary – it is difficult to reclaim ground once ceded. Despite – and because of – the challenges facing the world, we cannot shrink our ambition.