The future of diplomacy in a post-pandemic environment

Ian Martin

Good afternoon, good morning, good evening, wherever you are. Welcome to this discussion on The Future of Diplomacy in a Post-Pandemic Environment,” which I’ve been asked to Chair. My name’s Ian Martin. I’m a member of Chatham House. I’ve had difficulty, over the years, in self-identifying as a diplomat, rather than a human rights activist, but after having worked for Amnesty International, I have, indeed, worked for the United Nations in several field missions, including East Timor, Nepal and Libya, before watching the UN Security Council up close as Executive Director of Security Council Report.

I’m delighted that Chatham House has been able to line up four panellists, all of whom I’ve had the privilege of knowing. I will introduce them in the order in which I’m going to invite them to open our discussion. Ambassador Karel van Oosterom is Ambassador of the Kingdom of Netherlands to the UK. He came to London last year, in mid-pandemic, after seven years as Permanent Representative of the Netherlands for the UN in New York, which included, very importantly, representing Netherlands as an elected member of the Security Council throughout 2018. He’s written about that experience in this book, with an orange tie, which you will also see behind him, and it gives considerable insight into the diplomacy of the Security Council delegation and what can be achieved by an elected member of the council.

Isumi Nakamitsu is at the centre of UN diplomacy, as an Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, to which he was appointed by Secretary-General António Guterres at the beginning of his term. He has had many previous UN roles in the UN Development Programme, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as a period as Professor of International Relations at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo.

Ambassador Jürg Lauber is Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations in Geneva, having previously been Permanent Representative in New York. His current diplomatic assignments include, very importantly, chairing the Open-ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, which is, I think, extremely relevant to digital aspects of today’s discussion.

Mona Khalil is Director of MAK LAW International, a strategic consulting service, offering advice in the service of “We the Peoples,” I quote. She, indeed, served We the Peoples for more than 20 years of working for the UN, latterly as Senior Legal Officer in the UN Office of Legal Counsel. Specialties there included peacekeeping operations and sanctions regimes. She is co-Author of a book right on today’s topic, The Future of Diplomacy After COVID-19, which is going to be published in a couple of weeks, May the 12th, I think.

So, our panellists speak today from the diplomatic worlds of London, New York, Geneva and Vienna, but as it happens, we, all five of us, coincided in New York. So, it’s actually very possible that in those far-off pre-COVID days, you might’ve found all five of us at the same diplomatic reception at the United Nations, the kind of event which was assumed to be essential to lubricating the wheels of diplomacy. It seems so long ago.

But before we begin discussing how things have changed, some quick housekeeping. This event is on the record and is being recorded. You may tweet, using the #CHEvents. You can submit questions at any time, using the ‘Q&A’ function. You’ll find that the raised hands function is turned off, so please don’t try to use that. The ‘Chat’ function is opened for sharing ideas and comments, but please don’t put questions there. I’ll be finding questions only in the ‘Q&A’ box. I will invite participants to put their questions in person, unless you indicate in the ‘Q&A’ box that you’d rather I put your question to the panellists.

So, let me ask Ambassador van Oosterom to open our conversation. Karel, how has COVID influenced your work as a Diplomat, but when you were in New York and here in London?

HE Karel van Oosterom

Well, thanks very much, Ian, and great to see this wonderful group of people together. Maybe to frame my answer, I will first discuss a little bit what I see from my national perspective, as what diplomacy entails and what Diplomats do. And from Dutch perspective, diplomacy is about serving our country, serving our interests, our values, our citizens, our companies and certainly, our Cabinet, our political bosses. What you do is gathering info and appraising it and using that information to influence, in a constant battle of wits, both with the host country where we’re working, or in international organisation where we are accredited, and at the same time, influencing outside, it also means giving a lot of political advice back home.

In case, you know, work is personal relations and I think Jürg and I, we can both vouch that we belong to the group of people who know one person in every country of the world, it’s quite unique. And in our work, I would say intercultural sensitivity, picking up tell-tale signs and learning to work with other people is a key issue. And I realise, Isumi, and I’ll be very interested to hear from you later, that working within an – in an international organisation as Diplomats, your perspective is probably a little bit different than mine.

Then, looking at the impact of COVID on that work, I will – let’s say the half year I was in New York, maybe I can leave that to Isumi and to Europe, because at the moment, I’m Bilateral Ambassador. And let’s pick up some points on when I described that work is it just – what it means to me as a Bilateral Ambassador for my team here in London. Now, first of all, the quantity of meetings we have here has increased tremendously, with Cabinet members, with Civil Servants, with companies, with our citizens, and at the same time, I think it’s safe to say that the quality of all these meetings has really decreased. Communication has become much more formal and too often, I find, that in virtual meetings I attended, these have, yeah, basically, turned into a series of monologues instead of real dialogue or really trying to solve problems together. It’s much more difficult to pick up on body language to build a real human relation and to really understand the people with whom we’re talking. And I would say one of the laws I take back from this time, that the bigger the problem, the more difficult is to solve within a virtual way.

At the same time, there’s some positive sides. There’s much more intensive context with our capital. Any meeting in The Hague, usually, it would be The Hague and then later on, Rome, and it’s now much more integrated and I really appreciate that. And certainly in Brexit and COVID times, the fact that our Dutch community has turned virtual, as well, our companies in the Netherlands, as well, and in the whole transition we went through in Brexit, instead of, as my predecessors, be lecturing in small halls all over the UK and having to be in the Netherlands for meetings, I’ve been able, in the half year, to speak to thousands and thousands of Dutch people and Dutch companies and really advising and helping them in, certainly, in the Brexit issue.

I think the biggest challenge for us as an Embassy in the past decades was to be more than a travel office or a Post Office. Now I think the biggest challenge we have as an Embassy, to be more than a TV studio. And we even built a TV studio in our Embassy and I think the added value of Diplomats remains to understand what’s happening and to build up relations and to give sound policy advice. And key issue, of course, is building up relations and that’s, I think, like anyone I spoke to so far, really hope it will be able to come back in real life. And one last remark, as Ambassador, I’m also Manager of our team and mental health, it has been a key issue, making sure that people stay mentally healthy and stay physically healthy, and of course, also, to make sure that the technical equipment is okay, making people tech savvy. And last point, more on the global scale, one of the worries I have is that the big divide between poor and rich nations in the world gets bigger, and maybe Isumi or Jürg, you could say about that. In the half year I was still in New York, I was so concerned that there were, like, 30/40 colleagues I never saw anymore, because they didn’t have the IT skills in their Embassy to connect to the UN meetings we have. Back to you, Ian.

Ian Martin

Thanks very much, Karel, and Isumi, Karel has already, kind of, said that you’re in an excellent position to complement that from a multilateral perspective. You’re alongside the Secretary-General, at the heart of UN diplomacy, involved in important multilateral negotiations on diplomacy. What are the effects that you’ve experienced?

Isumi Nakamitsu

Thank you very much, Ian, and thanks to Chatham House for this opportunity. Well, obviously, as Karel already mentioned, my perspectives are, of course, those of the UN. And for us, diplomacy is a tool to find solutions to pressing challenges that concern all of us, by finding, if you will, a common ground. And today, of course, we’re faced with various pressing challenges, as we know, from climate change to sustainable development, from conflict resolutions, to human rights related issues. But I will obviously make my remarks based on my current area of disarmament, which is, basically, about international security.

Now, overall context, I think, important to remember COVID disruption happened against the backdrop of big power competition and trust deficit at various levels. These issues, these overall context already existed when we found this new way of connecting with each other and conducting a dialogue and diplomacy. In a way, the pandemic has exacerbated or catalysed some of the long simmering tensions, like between the United States and China, and when coupled with potential new domains of conflict and technological advances, nuclear risks are unlikely to decline from their current dangerous heights and at least in the near-term, obviously, with negative ramifications for disarmament and arms control. And ongoing concerns about the pace of disarmament and implementation of prior commitments are also unlikely to diminish.

So, beyond the logistics and forms of meetings in diplomacy, if you will, a post-COVID environment will continue to grapple with increased competition between nuclear arms states and the brakes that will place on significant gains in multilateral disarmament and arms control. So, even if states are able to be in the same room, whether or not they can come to any agreement is, I think, still unclear. My hope is that disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament, will be one of those issues identified as an area to co-operate, like climate change, as we see, simply because it is one of the few existential threats to humanity, like the climate change. And at least some voices to that effect coming from the new US administration, so we hope that will be the case.

So, to me, key is to think about how new means of digital diplomacy will help achieve successful outcomes in multilateral negotiations and how to minimise the downside or ensure appropriate ways of discussions. We are, of course, beginning to plan for an environment in which large-scale conferences, like before, negotiations can take place in person. The 10th NPT Review Conference is still scheduled for August and the first meeting of States Parties is the TPNW, the Treaty and Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, that is also scheduled for January next year, and we will see about the T – about the NPT.

Now, of course, we remain in the process of continued adaptation of disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control efforts and diplomacy, to the new reality. We are all learning, as we conduct those business. This has provided us with a certain flexibility as to what we can – what can be done and how and where, but also, we run into a certain inflexibility about tasks cannot be done remotely and most importantly, that is, of course, the hardcore negotiations. Now, we have seen successes with hybrid formats, such as, of course, the Open-ended Working Group on ICTs, in which member states reached consensus on recommendations for advancing peace and security in cyberspace, and Jürg will tell us about this, because he has made it happen, and this big success.

Now, so, that was the hardcore or traditional part of diplomacy. Now, across the various domains of our work in arms control and disarmament, multistakeholder engagement plays an increasingly central role and not only in intergovernmental processes in governance, but also for the implementation, as well. And of course, COVID-19 has presented challenges for both aspects. Before the COVID, models for engagement have varied, with different stakeholders and from issue to issue. On the one hand, the shift to online platforms has restricted participation in intergovernmental meetings, which was, basically, met only informally, but on the other hand, it has enabled other forms of participation, such as some of our office’s work, with STEM students and especially young leaders, on responsible innovation of emerging technologies and – in facilitating submission of written papers and various processes. So, I think there are some positives and – but we need to be, at the same time, we’re, you know, mindful of the fact that they are also danger that relies on remote interactions, carries forward, exacerbating digital divide and excluding already marginalised voices.

There are also trends that suggest COVID-19 pandemic risks deepening inequalities, some of which was already mentioned by Karel, and – but I want to emphasise the gender and other biases persisting remote working environments. You know, only about 30% of the First Committee Heads of Delegations were women last year. So, we need to watch out for the impact of this remote diplomacy that might, indeed, exacerbate the existing inequality. But of course, opposite could be said about the youth participation, as I already mentioned. So, there are pros and cons we need to remember.

Now, to conclude, I think the pandemic has provided an opportunity to reflect seriously on how we, that is the global community, need to utilise multilateralism and further improve it. A networked multilateralism or inclusive multilateralism, of which the UN Secretary-General often speaks, to me, really is about modernising multilateralism and keep it fit for purpose, if you will. And that is looking outside of traditional parameters of the international community to embrace new and different stakeholders. What we need today, I think, is forums that bring together diverse groups of actors to engage in dialogue, provide fresh and different perspectives, and generate innovative solutions to pressing problems. We also need to reflect on how to crosspollinate, if you will, different forums, because many challenges today, as you know, are all interconnected, which cannot be solved in silos.

So, my final word with all of these, I hope the UN will be able to play a key role in it by strategically using our convening and facilitating roles and, also, by sharpening what I call a thought leadership. Back to you, Ian.

Ian Martin

Thanks very much, Isumi. You’ve set up Jürg to tell us how he achieved negotiating success during COVID, but more generally, Switzerland is host to a lot of multilateral negotiations, disarmament, humanitarian, human rights, so, Jürg, how has it been affected, from your perspective?

HE Jürg Lauber

Thank you, Ian, thanks, Chatham House, for having me into this really wonderful group. I can subscribe to everything I heard from Isumi and Karel. Can’t wait to read Mona’s book, by the way. Isumi, with your permission, I’m not going to revisit the Open-ended Working Group. It was a team effort, in which you had a very big share. I try to – I don’t have the answers. I have a lot of questions, because nobody knows what’s going to happen, but I try to mention some of the issues we’re looking at from a member and a host state, it was as Ian said, and now that I’m sitting here in Geneva. Like everybody else, I hope that the COVID restrictions will at least gradually go away, but what’s not going to go away, obviously, is the technology and these rapid technological advances we’ve seen increasing in speed over the last month. I’m convinced, like probably everybody here, that we’re not going to go back to where we were in March 2020. The future is, as the UN Director-General here in Geneva says, and I agree with her, “The future is hybrid.” What the exact balance will be, we have to find out.

So, what do we want? I think I completely agree with Isumi, we need to be careful. We need to make sure that we contain the risks and we’ve seen many of those over the last 12 months, that we seize the opportunities, of which we’ve also seen many over the last 12 months, to strengthen multilateralism, on, I think, on both levels. We want to make the organisations, the UN at the core, the specialised organisations, more efficient and effective. They need to use these technologies, also, to become more productive and we need to say it on the member state side, where we do – where we meet together, and we set norms and where we do our governance work.

So, just a couple of examples of things we’re looking into here in Geneva, which is by its composition, really, a great laboratory for the future of multilateral work. We look at the future work as such, with partners like the International Labour Organization and others. Again, I think international organisations, we, ourselves, we have to adapt. We have to make sure that we are still able to attract those people, staff, who want to use this new technology. Now, how much physical presence will be – physical presence in the office will be necessary in the future? How much home office is necessary? And I mean, what does this mean for, for instance, as a host state, what does it mean for building new office buildings or renovating office buildings, and what shape should the offices have? There’s a lot of legal questions involved more, now, of course, you know. What does it mean for the Vienna Conventions, diplomatic immunities and privileges, things like that? These things are open questions.

We’re looking at the future of meetings, together with the UN Conference Services, the colleagues in New York and in Geneva. Should meetings, from now on, whenever possible, be remote, virtual, because it’s more convenient, and only personal when really needed? That sounds attractive, but what’s the right balance and who decides what the right balance is? Maybe this is culturally very different, you know. Some feel it’s much easier to pick up the phone or do a videoconference. Others really need to be and meet people. I, personally, I’m very much – I believe very much in people-to-people contact, just in brackets, the Open-ended Working Group, I don’t think we could have done it if we didn’t have the first phase in traditional, the policy, being able to establish all the contacts and the trust that we needed in the end to do it in this new format. But again – so, what’s the future for meetings? Here again, what does it mean? How should meetings – meeting rooms look in the future, just a few seats, big screens, or a lot of seats and small screens? I don’t know, but these are things we need to look into.

What’s the future of our craft? Again, how do we build safe spaces for coincidental meetings, you know, where so much of our work is being done? Inclusivity is a big thing and you heard it from both the speakers already. Of course, it’s easier to do videoconferences and bringing people from around the world, but it’s also a big risk of excluding people. Those who control the technology, those who control the rules, how the technology’s used are – have an in – a big impact on that. And we’ve seen it in New York at the beginning, and March, April, can’t even remember, the member states were completely at a loss. The General Assembly, first the Security Council and then, much longer, even, the General Assembly was completely blocked and not able to meet to take decisions, because not the technology wasn’t here, but the rules were not there, or those who wanted the old rules, insisted on the old rules.

We need to look into partnerships. We really need to make sure that we keep our work open to civil society, but also, I think we need to make a better effort to bring the right partners to the table, who can really bring us the expertise, for instance, in the technical field. We’ve had these discussions, you know, the technology we are talking about and we are trying to make rules about, 90% of it is provided by the private sector, so we cannot pretend to be able to rule these technologies if we don’t understand what they’re about.

And if I may, one last point, because there’s a link to London in that. Looking at the link between diplomacy and science. I think COVID is a good example how this is functional. Science has been telling us for a long time that a pandemic will come, and we ignored it, Diplomats and Politicians and we ignored it. And once it was here, science was not able to give us really good advice and much of the advice was contradictory. So, we need to look into that. We’re doing that in Geneva and I mentioned it, also, because your colleague, Karel, my – and my friend, the Swiss Ambassador for London, is going to be our Special Envoy for Science Diplomacy. Much of it will be Geneva based, but not only. We need to look at how can we use technology to make a better connection between science and diplomacy? Science telling us what’s coming and diplomacy taking this seriously into account and trying to come up with the policies about this. Thank you very much.

Ian Martin

Thanks very much, Jürg. Mona, in working on the book that you’ve co-edited, you’ve been talking to a cross-regional group of people with experience in a whole series of fields. So, give us some of the headlines.

Mona Ali Khalil

It’s an honour, thank you, to be with you today. It’s an honour to be invited to Chatham House and to join this distinguished panel of what I’m proud to call mentors, friends and former colleagues. Then, our upcoming book by Routledge, on The Future of Diplomacy After COVID-19. My fellow co-Authors and I assess the impact of the global pandemic on multilateral diplomacy, in our respective fields, ranging from public health and sustainable development, to general co-operation, peace and security and the rule of international law. In my chapter, on the latter subject, I identified the challenges and opportunities the pandemic has posed to the Principal UN Organs and provide recommendations on strengthening the ability of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretariat to fulfil the vision of the UN Charter.

As horrible as the last year has been, it is a far cry from the horrors of the 1918 pandemic. We’ve lost three million lives thus far, a fraction of the 50 million lives that were lost to the Spanish flu in 1918 and 1919. In the years that followed that pandemic, we saw the rise and fall of the League of Nations, a second, far deadlier, World War, a horrific Holocaust and the establishment of the United Nations. The Founding Fathers emerged from World War II and adopted the UN Charter to offer a way out of war and genocide, towards peace and security, socioeconomic advancement, self-determination of peoples and human rights for all. They did not do this as an act of idealism, but rather, as an act of self-preservation.

Fast forward 75 years, we haven’t had another World War, but we are facing multiple intrastate conflicts, many genocides, terrorist threats, an accelerating climate crisis and now, another global pandemic. The 21st Century began rather badly. Indeed, we had the 9/11 terrorist attacks, followed by the US-UK aggression in Iraq, the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the use of chemical weapons and other mass atrocities in Syria, genocides in Darfur, Myanmar and elsewhere, and the unparalleled brutality of IC – I – the I – ISIS.

So, this erosion of international law was defining the first part of the 21st Century, but then, in March 2020, we learned that it can get even worse than that, that mass death can come from the spread of a virus, not just the proliferation of WMD. We learned that the UN Principal Organs must be able to convene, regardless of the nature of the crisis, whether it’s a weather event, whether it’s a terrorist attack, as we saw in 9/11, or a pandemic, as we are currently undergoing. Not only to deliberate, but to take decisions and adopt resolutions, not only by consensus, but also by vote, if necessary.

The tragic loss of human life from COVID-19 is coupled by the staggering loss of livelihoods around the world and increasing violence against women and girls, not only on battlefields, but also in their own homes. The uneven vaccine rollouts are prolonging the crisis and giving rise to new variants that threaten to undermine the progress made elsewhere. All of this impedes the attainment of the SDGs and cripples our first steps in the Decade of Action. “What a wakeup call,” as our Secretary-General has admitted to it. But in their declaration commemorating the 75th anniversary of the UN, today’s leaders met them all. They came together in the midst of the pandemic and promised to build back a better post-pandemic world, not just to restore the health of people, but also the health of the planet. Not just to restore the status quo ante, but to recommit to the UN Charter and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Like their predecessors, they had to act, not out of idealism, but also out of self-preservation. Yet, it took the Security Council four months to adopt a resolution responding to the pandemic. The officials and the Council, in particular, between the US and China paralysed the Council’s ability to take prompt and effective action. The UNGA acted faster and more decisively, adopting several COVID-related resolutions and, ultimately, the UN 75 Declaration. And in a rare show of proactiveness, the SG called for a global ceasefire to facilitate humanitarian access during the pandemic, and with the help of the ETAN, got his initiative adopted. This illustrates that when the Council fails or flails, the GA and the SG can still step up. But if the UN 75 declaration is to be a true turning point and not just words on paper, it is imperative that we hold the three main Principal Organs accountable. We must mobilise the Council to be more inclusive in its deliberations and resurrect its members’ sense of responsibility to prevent threats, not just to manage them. It is important that we revitalise the emergency special powers of the General Assembly under Uniting for Peace and encourage the Secretary-General to exercise his prerogatives under Article 99, and to uphold and strengthen the independence of the Secretariat as the 6th Principal Organ.

This would all go a long way in restoring the credibility and improving the effectiveness of the UN in the post-COVID era. Moments of crisis are moments of opportunity, provided we’re guided by the power principles, not the principles of power, guided by our common humanity, not narrow self-passion or self-interests. Imagine if the Council took the reins, as it did in the Ebola crisis, and led a global response to address the peace and security impact of COVID-19. Imagine if the General Assembly adopted a universal basic income to address the socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic, so that no-one is left behind. Imagine if the Secretary-General held a pledging conference to ensure that all countries have the means to obtain and distribute safe and effective vaccines. With renewed commitment and using new technologies, the UN can live up to its founders’ vision of being the centre for harmonising the actions of nations, not just to co-ordinate and effect a response to the pandemic, but to protect civilians from terrorism, nations from aggression, peoples from genocide, and the planet from climate change. I look forward to that kind of world.

Ian Martin

Thanks, Mona. That makes me wonder if all the participants might not want to watch the webcast next Tuesday, when Secretary-General Guterres appears before the General Assembly as a candidate for a second term, and will, no doubt, be addressing and being asked some of these large questions about the future of multilateralism.

I’m going to forego my own right to ask the first question, because I see in the Q&A two related questions, which are exactly where I thought we should be starting. So, could I ask Madeleine Moon and Louise to ask their questions. I think they go together, and then I’ll go back to all the panellists.

Madeleine Moon

I’d like to ask what would be your one priority for the change for the new normal? What would be the enhancement of the new normal with the change that you’d like to see take place? Thank you.

Ian Martin

And Louise?

Louise

My question is what would you like to retain from the new way of diplomacy or the new way of working post-COVID, and perhaps, what would you hope never to do again?

Ian Martin

Thanks very much. That challenges the – all the speakers who have said there’s good and bad in the way things have happened. So, let’s drill down, especially to try to capture some of the positive elements of the future. Karel, would you like to start, again?

HE Karel van Oosterom

Yeah, I – if I’m allowed. One thing I would like to retain is – and then it’s a dream for the future and I hope one company will develop it, a Zoom facility, which integrates Google Translate. And then, I think five years – and it’s going to come and five years later, then we will have a Google Translate in between people, but I think Zoom, here, could be ahead of the – what we ourselves. Second thing, what I really would like to retain is less travel, so one meeting where people get to know each other and then, subsequently, we do it virtual and we would really reduce our footprint.

I also see a question what the name of my book is. It’s called, With an Orange Tie – A Year in the Security Council. It’s available on Amazon. Sorry for that commercial, but I saw the question.

Ian Martin

Not at all. I hope perhaps Chatham House can put the reference in the ‘Chat’ box and, also, the reference to the book that Mona has coming out in a couple of weeks. Isumi.

Isumi Nakamitsu

Yes, somewhat similar to what Karel just said. I would definitely like to retain a very frequent and, also, very substantive contacts that I have been – I have started really to establish with the various Diplomats, you know, representatives of various member states, on the regular basis, you know, connecting not just with the Ambass – UN-based Ambassadors here in New York, but I’ve started very useful consultations directly with the capitals. And that has really enabled us to better understand how these different member states look at issues, where they are coming from, what might be their concerns, and that really helped me, as the Secretariat, how we might be able to pursue opening towards commonalities or positions, common grounds.

So, that’s one, you know, way of working that I would like to retain and that is, of course, you know, related to less travels, less carbon footprint, so all these things, of course, are interconnected. And of course, you know, what – as I mentioned already in my remarks, I think really trying to establish the trust relationship, whether that is a virtual means or in person means, I think is the key in such a divided world, where, you know, different countries actually see challenges from very different perspectives. So, you know, I would definitely try to maintain always available [audio cuts out – 37:17].

HE Jürg Lauber

Ian, we can’t hear you.

Ian Martin

Yeah, the problem is we can’t hear Isumi. Her internet…

HE Jürg Lauber

I think, yeah.

Ian Martin

…seems to have frozen. So, unless she’s coming right back, perhaps I can go onto you, Jürg, and we can ask her to finish her remarks when she reappears.

HE Jürg Lauber

Yeah, thanks. On the first point, it’s not really a priority for the time after, but something I think we need to look into. We need new metrics for performance. It’s just a number of meetings today and the number of participants in virtual meetings isn’t really a good metric. You know, that doesn’t really work, and we need to look into that.

What I want to retain is similar as my colleagues, inclusivity, you know, for instance, in the cybersecure negotiations. We had a group of young female Diplomats from the Caribbean, Africa, and other areas, who had, thanks to some sponsors, the possibility to participate, especially through virtual means, also, and that was really great to hear their voices. What I don’t want to retain – I’ve never really warmed up to Zoom dinners, with all the respect to those who organise, I’m not a fan, to be honest.

Ian Martin

Mona?

Mona Ali Khalil

The – I think that the openness now of the diplomatic process to these Zoom conferences can open out something that has long been in demand and long needed in the deliberations, especially of the Security Council, but also the General Assembly, and that is to open it up to those who are impacted by the conflicts of the Council, as discussed above, the issues that they’re discussing. You cannot solve a problem without hearing from both sides and, in some cases, multiple sides, and the intrastate conflicts. And the Charter foresees that fundamental principle of fairness, again not just out of idealism, but out of the need for efficacy. It’s important to hear from all sides if we’re going to have a chance of succeeding in resolving conflicts and given that the majority of conflicts on the agenda are now intrastate conflicts, it’s important to hear from the non-state parties, the legitimate ones that are dedicated and devoted to a political solution. One can find a way to do that without legitimising them, as you know, international personalities, but it’s important to hear from them, even if informally, and the use of technology can now facilitate that, without having to bring them into the chamber.

The one thing that I wouldn’t like to see again, and I’m going to misuse the question a little bit, is the use of the veto in any situation involving mass death. That has to stop, and while it is the right of permanent members to use their veto and to even threaten the use of the veto, it is also their obligation to ensure that stu – certain crimes, such as genocide, do not continue and that it is their equally binding legal obligation to stop those genocides and using the veto interferes with that obligation, as well as with their duties to provide prompt and effective responses to any threat to peace and security under the Charter.

Ian Martin

Well, Switzerland and the Netherlands are signed up on restraint on the veto, I think, so, you have agreement there. I want to take a question from Oded Miya and then add my slight gloss on it. This is really a question for the two Ambassadors. Oded, Miya? You’re on mute. Oded, you need to un – yeah.

Oded Miya

I’m okay now. No, my question is very simple, I mean, how does a Diplomat cope when his or her suggested policy point is being rejected by the political masters? Is it not an inner struggle to stand publicly behind an issue opposite to the Diplomat on – beneath? Does it render the Diplomat weaker for lack of personal conviction?

Ian Martin

Well, the gloss I wanted to add that is perhaps you might have something to say – we’ve been talking about Diplomats have coped during the pandemic. How have Politicians coped during the pandemic and the relationship between Politicians and Diplomats? Jürg, let me ask you first. Karel’s been going first.

HE Jürg Lauber

Thanks. I’m fortunate enough to not have had this position too often, but of course, it’s more fun when you can represent positions that you firmly believe in. And if you want to know why it can’t go as fast as you’d like, or – then you just have to suck it up, as they say.

HE Karel van Oosterom

I have been, a number of times, in that position, certainly when I was Political Director in my Ministry. Yeah, first and foremost, I think for Jürg and me, we represent democratic countries with a democratic system, so it’s not a conflict between my Minister and me, if I disagree with his policies. My Minister comes from a parliament, which has been chosen in a fully legitimate, democratic election, so, I really – Jürg and I, when we spoke at the event, we speak on behalf of the people of our countries, and I feel that very, very intensely. And my Minister is controlled by Parliament, so if I disagree with his policy, it, basically, means I disagree with the majority of our Parliament, which being a democratic – it’s in my DNA and our democracy. So, that gives me a lot of personal motivation, even when there’s an issue which I might disagree on.

Very specifically, I had this a number of time with colleagues when they disagreed with our policies and frankly, I told them, “Well, either,” as Jürg said, “you just eat it up, or you resign, and you stand for politics.” And a number of our colleagues, indeed, went into politics, because they felt they wanted to be more shaping the policy than implementing it. But part of our work is we represent our governments and that’s what I’m proud of.

Ian Martin

Thanks. I think there is another subject for a whole webinar as to how the pandemic has affected the relationship between people, Parliaments and Ministers, but that’s not for today, I guess. There’s a question from Renata Dwan, which goes to one of the issues that Chatham House drew attention to, which is “where the private sector is in…?”

HE Karel van Oosterom

Ian, may I interrupt? Isumi is back. She can finish her…

Ian Martin

Oh, yeah.

HE Karel van Oosterom

If she has yet more lines.

Ian Martin

Isumi, have you lost the thread…

Isumi Nakamitsu

No, I…

Ian Martin

…or – go ahead, go ahead, please.

Isumi Nakamitsu

No, no, no, no, I’ve, basically, finished. It was funny, I could hear you, but you couldn’t hear me, but this is one of those things about technologies. But go back to the – to Renata’s question.

Ian Martin

Well, we can now. We’re delighted you’re back and Renata, are you with us? Hello, do we have Renata?

Renata Dwan

I’m not sure.

Ian Martin

Yeah?

Renata Dwan

But yeah, you…

Ian Martin

Yes, we do.

Renata Dwan

…hear me? Okay, great.

Ian Martin

We do, yes, yes, yes.

Renata Dwan

Well, thank you. Well, I think, I mean, from a perspective of those of us interested in think tanks and working in think tanks, one of the good features of COVID has been – and remote life, is that we get to see you all from different parts of the world in meetings. I think we’ve been exposed, in a way, to more international voices, ironically, because of the virtual opportunities that present and the fact that people are much more willing to come on online and engage for an hour, where they wouldn’t be prepared to travel for a week to a different part of the world.

But I was interested in something that a number of you mentioned, which is the gap between those states that have capacity, that have resources, that have digital depth, let’s say, versus those countries and those institutions and organisations that haven’t. What I’ve been struck by is the extent to which it has, or it hasn’t, prompted a little bit more discussion about how does international development need to change? Do we need to start to put much more emphasis on digital capacity building? It’s always struck me, when we look at development policies, how relatively little emphasis is put on technology in the past and how it was heavily routed around things like agriculture, education. So, I’d be, first, interested in your perspectives there, is there a renewed emphasis, either in your bilateral policies, Karel, for example, Dutch policy or your Swiss policies, or at the level of the UN and thinking about development agendas at the OECD and in other places?

And then second, you know, the winners in COVID have been Big Tech, not just because of the platforms they provide and the services they’ve provided, but the scope of their influence and role has really further reinforced at a global level. This has prompted a lot of discussions about regulation, about governance, about framework. But from my perspective, what I’d love to hear from yous, has it promoted discussions within multilateral organisations of the relationship between and the role that Big Tech can play in multilateral processes? Is the Secretary-General engaging with Google, with Amazon, with some of these companies, about enabling these technologies? Obviously, they’re sensitive, very big questions there for state-based organisations, but I’d be really interested in some of your thoughts on that relationship. Thanks.

Ian Martin

So, could we start off with you, then, Isumi, given the way Renata pointed the last part of the question and then, Karel, perhaps I could go to you, because you mentioned, you did mention your dealings with Dutch companies through the pandemic and intensification of those discussions, but Isumi, first.

Isumi Nakamitsu

Yes, thank you, Renata, for those questions, and really important points. On the development co-operation approaches, I do believe that, you know, the approaches are, indeed, shifting towards, you know, really intensifying our support to capacity building, related to digital. I think, you know, it’s very important to remember, however, that we need to – not to be supply driven approaches, but we need to actually really understand what the countries really do need, and the needs are, indeed, very diverse. You know, and it goes from infrastructure, sort of, a hardcore, you know, capacity, to really training and, you know, some of the software part of it, legislation, what kind of, you know, government structures and regulations internally, do they need to have? So, it’s a really diverse sets of requirements and then, we need to be driven by the needs, rather than countries from the North actually trying to impose on supply driven development co-operation, and I think, indeed, that those discussions are very actively taking place in the development community. And I must say this actually featured very strongly in the recent work of our Open-ended Working Group as well, and I believe that this will also feature very strongly in the forthcoming Open-ended Working Group, exactly how to structure those development co-operation.

The SG engaged with, you know, Big Tech companies, the answer is yes, but I also say that we also need not to be driven by them. We need to make sure that our, you know, working relationship will not be imbalanced to only certain corporations, but we need to also, you know, work with diverse, you know, private sector entities, coming from, both geographically, but also, in terms of the profiles of companies. So, I think, you know, this is very new and it’s – you know, the UN is a intergovernmental organisation, so you know, by that, sort of, historical background, we’re not necessarily very good at co-operating with those private sector entities, but we are learning quite a lot by, indeed, working with some of those companies. And I’ve met really impressive, you know, people from those private sector entities in my current responsibility, in particular, through the cybersecurity related work that we have done, also, with Europe, as well.

Ian Martin

Karel?

HE Karel van Oosterom

Yeah, a few remarks. First, coming back on your remark on politics, and Diplomats, people. I – quite simple, in the Netherlands, we’ve had elections, so we don’t have a missionary government at the moment. So, I will refrain from commenting on that one, but we’ll see what my new government will do, once established.

On the question of Renata, I think the SDG, we concluded, SDG and Agenda 2030 we concluded in 2015, made very clear in their SDG 9, industry innovation, and certainly innovation in respect of infrastructure. It has a very strong digital component and I think work on the SDG 9 should be intensified, also, learning the lessons from COVID.

Third point, on involvement of big industries, some of you have heard the story of my son, who wrote his master thesis on moving from the Ruggie principles to the SDGs, and he called it, From Doing No Harm, to Doing the Right Thing. And ever since he wrote that, that has been my personal motto when talking to Big Tech and big companies. But I want to issue a word of warning, as well, we should, on the one hand, be very, like, very sure that we involve the capacities of, let’s say, the private sector. At the same time, we’ve all seen examples of greenwashing, where the SDGs are part of the Public Affairs Department, that are a very nice PR tool, and what I’m personally very interested in, and it’s not a point for my government and I just refer in general to the international discussion at the moment, in what way can the largest international corporation be taxed in such a way when they do digitally business? And in – how far can we – the money generated from that, use that to invest in the SDGs and so that no-one is left behind?

Ian Martin

Thanks, Karel. Jürg, something to add?

HE Jürg Lauber

Maybe on the capacity building issue. We’ve done capacity building in our development co-operation for a long time, but one new trend, I think, I find interesting now and it refers to what Isumi mentioned, that there needs to be demand and, you know, what we see is a two-way street now, because we are, in industrialised countries, we are building up digital infrastructure and so, we see whoever – wherever in the world, partners facing new challenges, but also, coming forward with new solutions. And so, it’s – capacity building is becoming more of a two-way street, I would think, than in the past. I don’t have – this is anecdotal, not scientific. But it was also a big issue, by the way in this – in the negotiations and the discussions around cybersecurity, and I think that’s an interesting development. And by the way, nice to hear you, Renata.

Ian Martin

Mona, a quick addition?

Mona Ali Khalil

Yes, only to note that actually, the SDGs do anticipate, you know, bridging that digital divide, and unfortunately, the last year, or last two years, has only made those SDGs harder to achieve. We’ve lost the ground, both in terms of women’s rights and children’s rights, but also, the economic losses of the last year and a half. While the majority of the world was suffering, unfortunately, the richest people have gained wealth and governments have spent nearly 2% more on military assets, instead of on developmental assets. So, it really has to stop being about lip service. Whether it’s the digital co-operation, or the climate change, or the SDGs, it really has to be, again, as a matter of self-preservation, a rededicated, recommitment, effort to realise and not just pay lip service to these goals.

Ian Martin

Thanks very much. We need to conclude this session at – on the hour. Let me just pull in elements of three more questions that are there and give each of you a quick final word. One questioner says, “Do the speakers have any advice or insight about building trust through online trends – interactions?” And another says, “Has the new use of Zoom included civil society and how can those voices be included in the future?” That comes from someone whose work is with human rights for women dealing with violence. And then, somewhat in the other direction, there’s someone who suggests that after a year plus of looking at the screen, it’s time to – not to give into the ease of discussing issues from home, but get out there, network and get back to informal face-to-face discussion.

So, any final comments that those provoke? Let’s go in the original – go in the reverse order: Mona, Isumi, Jürg, Karel. Mona.

Mona Ali Khalil

Again, my last chance to say thank you to everybody. Let’s not lose sight of some of the positive elements of working from home and working on Zoom. We have seen the numbers of sexual harassment cases and other workplace misconduct go down. We have seen that there is more accessibility to various actors to the meetings and greater transparency and inclusivity. We have also seen this recognition that technology is available, accessible to most, but not all, and that the Secretariat was ready. I’ve heard many Diplomats say the Secretariat was ready, with relatively short order and that member states are the ones that needed to, sort of, customise and familiarise themselves with the technology and also to feel comfortable with it, given the possibility of hacking and deep faking that’s going on. So, we should build on those assets.

Obviously, the question of trust and the question of human relationships and diplomacy has to be restored. As soon as we can, I’m sure we’ll all be, not just ready to shake hands, but to actually hug. For me, that’s been the biggest thing that I’ve missed in the last two years, is hugging the people I love and the people that I respect. So, I think we shouldn’t lose sight of the advantages, but of course, restore the human relations that are at the core of the United Nations and of all human relations.

Ian Martin

Thanks. Isumi.

Isumi Nakamitsu

Yes, thank you. Well, I would say that we need to be guided by what we really want to achieve and then use the new means to balance the objectives. Don’t be driven by these new digital means, but we need to try it out, we need to use it effectively. So, we need to really want to find solutions. We need to, you know, collect variety of people, form alliances and try to advance our objectives through digital diplomacy, but also in personal diplomacy. So, it’s all up to how we use those new instruments, so let’s try to move towards our shared objectives, thank you. And I’m ready to really do in-person meetings. I’m so looking forward.

Ian Martin

Great, thanks. Jürg.

HE Jürg Lauber

Thanks. Yeah, I agree with everything that I’ve heard from my colleagues, except that the thought that we have to lock up people back home to lower the incidence of sexual – yeah, that’s just terrible, it’s just depressing. But on civil society participation, it’s exactly what Isumi says, this is not happening by itself. We have to – those who make the rules, those who decide the rules of procedure, have to make sure that it can happen, also, with the new means. Those who organise negotiation processes, individual events, have to make sure that civil society can be there. But civil society also has to help. You have to organise yourself and reach out in a way that also helps states to include you. It has to be done proactively. Thanks, and thanks for having me.

Ian Martin

Thank you, Jürg. Karel, you have the last word.

HE Karel van Oosterom

Yeah, in order of the questions. First, building trust online, start any meeting with ten minutes chitchat and just have fun. In the UN, meetings always started 15 minutes later and then we talked. So, all these meetings start really on the hour, I miss so much.

Second, I’m looking forward, and that’s a challenge to Isumi, to the 1st UN Pub Quiz, to do something very nice with you and then we do a global pub quiz with all people who have ever worked there. With this, I will make one copy of my book available as main prize.

Third, yes, I want to go out there, and I’ve been to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but only virtually. It’s bizarre, because there’s 150,000 Dutch people living here in the UK, there’s thousands of Dutch companies working here. I just want to promote all their interests and help them as much as possible, because I need new material for my book. And my last point, Mona, I’m going to quote you in that book, when you said, “Diplomacy is all about hugging.” I miss you, friends, and let’s hope that somewhere in the coming year we’ll be able to hug.

Ian Martin

Well, thank you all very much. Thanks, from all the participants, I’m sure, to excellent panellists. Thanks to Chatham House for putting this together, thank you.

Mona Ali Khalil

Thank you.