Webinar: Inclusive Governance and Sustainable Development – Bridging the Divide Between Local and International Action

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second of Chatham House’s series of events marking our centenary week. I’m Robin Niblett, the Director of Chatham House, and it’s my very great pleasure to welcome former Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, to join us today for what should be a very interesting conversation about the topic of inclusive governance and sustainable development, that combination. And the reason we’re so pleased not just to have him with us today, but also to be having this conversation, is that we are, as Chatham House, making, as one of our second century goals, the whole issue of more inclusive and accountable governance. And, with that in mind, to be able to discuss with him today specifically the topic of how you bridge the divide between local and international action strikes us as especially important.

As we know, most of international affairs’ work on multilateral initiatives focuses on big aid packages, the G20’s debt relief and the 0.7 targets of GDP, 0.7% target of GDP for foreign aid, some of the big infrastructure projects that are taking place around the world. But the positive impacts of development are crucially connected to local context and local implementation, whether this connects into the climate impacts of development, whether it’s the role of women in development, we really want to think about how governance models can change so that we can engage more local involvement in the process of sustainable development, both in the execution and in the implementation and in the design. And this means engaging civil society actors, private sector, but also some of the more marginalised parts of international society, who are not involved in developing sustainable development as they would like to do.

And, as I said, we are absolutely delighted to have Ban Ki-moon with us here today, all the way from Seoul. Mr Ban, great to have you with us. As I think you will know, he was Secretary-General of the UN from 2007 to 2016, and he has become the Deputy Chairman of the Elders, that very notable group of former world leaders that was kicked off around the time of Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan was involved in at as well, and to have you with us today, both in your role as former Secretary-General of the UN, but also importantly, as somebody who understands the delivery of complex policy solutions as former Foreign Secretary of South Korea. As Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon focused on the launch of the SDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals. He put a very heavy focus on climate change, and he also helped to launch the UN Women programme of initiatives, as well as being a big supporter of universal healthcare, another area also of Chatham House focus in our centenary.

After inviting former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to say some words of – you know, to set the scene on this topic, just to let you know, we will be engaging some of you who can join us in conversation. Could I please encourage you to type any Q&A questions that you have, any questions into our ‘Q&A’ function at the bottom of your Zoom page. I’m sure you are all very experienced on doing this now, so if you go to the ‘Q&A’ function, just type in your note there. If you would like to ask the question in person, then feel free to say so in the Q&A, and then we can always call on you to unmute your microphone, so you can ask the question in person. Otherwise, I will moderate the questions that I pick up, as I see them coming along. So, once again, Secretary – former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Mr Ban, wonderful to have you with us today for our centenary week. This is the second in the series of special events that we’re doing this week to mark 100 years since our founding in 1920, and we really can think of no one better to address this big issue of inclusive governance and bridging local and international action. Over to you, Sir.

Ban Ki-moon

Thank you very much, Dr Robin Niblett, the Director of the Chatham House. First of all, my warmest of congratulations on the centenary anniversary of this Chatham House. It’s a great honour to commemorate this occasion through this webinar, but I have been participating once with the Chatham House as the Secretary-General, and this is my – I think the second time, and this time also a webinar. For the past 100 years, Chatham House has performed a valuable service to the whole world, as a centre for independent thinking, thorough research, and, perhaps most importantly, constructive value in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. In fact, you have made the many important subjects, like local versus global, and also visual versus the civil society, etc. I have been always speaking out that there is no difference between local and global. Local is global and global is local, and without any support of civil society, no country and no leaders can perform their visions smoothly.

This is why I think continues a time of between academic research institute like Chatham House, and also – and just many type of civil society is very important for the work of the United Nations. Now, more than ever, we need the values of Chatham House at the centre of public life and discourse. COVID-19 has shone a light on the acute vulnerabilities of our interconnected world. No country can tackle these kind of global challenges, without having full co-operation and solidarity, and also sense of a compassion for other people. Now, digital technology offers many positive ways, as we’re now fully utilising it to facilitate this kind of a co-operation and dialogue, and the transparency. Webinars and videoconferences and other online platforms can play a significant role in maintaining a global conversation about the global problems and in holding leaders and their Advisors accountable. At the same time, we all need to be vigilant about the risks posed to peace, democracy and public health, and by the rising amount of hate speech or fake news, like disinformation in a gentle way, amplified via social media, and the internet during the time of crisis, sometimes has celebrate state propaganda, and sometimes has a cynical clickbait, designed to maximise revenue for digital platform and providers.

This vigilance is all the more important amid the current global climate of companies’ isolationism, nationalism, disregard of international law and rule and open government of the key treaties and institutional governance and the mechanisms. As everybody already is aware, 2020 is not only 100th anniversary of Chatham House, but 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. As a former Secretary-General, this has much more importance and the meaning and reflections. Then, between the birth of Chatham House and the United Nations, there are 25 years of difference. Those intervening 25 years, from 1920 to 1945, serve as a reminder to all of us the terrible consequences of failures of multilateralism. First and Second World – First World War and Second World War, all this happened. Faced then, as now, with a devastating pandemic, growing nationalism, systemic racism, and profound the economic inequalities and too few of the leaders of 1920 had the courage or rhythm to tackle these threats collectively. Rather, they rejected it, the inter-narrow nationalism, and tried to maintain unsustainable and unjustifiable colonial empires and indulged in a punitive posturing towards formal adversaries.

In 1945, it seemed as if the world had finally learned the lessons of past mistakes. The United Nations was created. In the words of the charter, “To save the world from the scourge of war,” and pursue peaceful and inclusive path to global prosperity and democracy. Cynics might argue that the fact that war, inequality, discrimination, and poverty have not been vanquished over the past 75 years means that United Nations may be a quasi-failure. I vehemently disregard and I even disagree. If anybody – people, even during my time as the Secretary-General, they ask, “Is the United Nations still necessary?” My answer was that if we have to, whatever the reasons may be, have to disband or – this United Nations, then we will have to create another United Nations tomorrow. So, without United Nations and without such a global body like United Nations, I think it will be very much difficult to handle all these problems.

Where the United Nations has failed, I would argue that this has been because of the member states, particularly, but not least, exclusively the five prominent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. And it has been very rare that all these five countries were able to have a full agreement on even sometimes purely humanitarian issues. As you may remember, as you may agree, that the Security Council has not been able to issue any statement or any resolution on this COVID-19 crisis. During my time, in 2014, when the Ebola pandemic happened, I think just one day – it took just one day that they declared that it was serious threat to the maintenance of international peace and security, but because of a political difference between China and the United State, and this is not the case now, then there are many situations like the climate change, in particular, which is an existential threat that can only be solved through collaborative action among all the countries around the world. That is why the multilateral instrument and processes created to tackle climate change, including the Paris Climate Change Agreement of 2015 and the broader UN Sustainable Development Goals, with the 17 goals, that needs to be informed by a sense of a climate justice.

The countries and peoples who have contributed the least to the global warming are paying the highest price. They have done anything wrong. Why it’s mostly industrialised countries who have done wrong to this climate, I think our planet Earth? Then it is what we call injustice, so my good friend and chairperson of Mary Robinson has created her own foundation of climate justice. Now, country like the United Kingdom, a prominent Member of the UN Security Council, one of the architects of international order, a significant player in the global economy, and present of the next COP next year, even for – it was due this year, but it was not possible, has a particular responsibility to show leadership and set the global example on climate justice.

Back in 2019, last year, I expressed my concern in there about the role played by the UK export finance in funding for secure project overseas, even when the UK Government was proclaiming it’s a success domestically, in moving away from whole generated powers. I called on then Prime Minister Theresa May, in my – to cal – recalibrate the UK’s export finance policy, so it is fully consistent with international climate trends and your obligations, and I repeat it today even, to Prime Minister Boris Johnson. I know that the many people across the United Kingdom, in government, development administration, and businesses, academia, and the think tank community have been working hard to ensure a successful COP 26 Summit in Glasgow this November. COVID-19 has forced the summit postponement to 2021, but there must be no diminution of the UK’s ambition and efforts to secure meaningful outcomes that put the world finally on track to meet the target of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5° Celsius, as was recommended solely by IPCC October 2018. This must mean listening and learning from activists at the local level and providing a platform via the medium of digital technology, so these lessons can be translated into international action plans.

In conclusion, Dr Niblett, I’d like to remind you of some wise words from my dearly missed colleague and my predecessor of the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He described the existential challenges basing our word from climate change to nuclear proliferation, and to terrorism, racism, and economic injustice, as “problems without passports.” Like the virus, coronavirus. We cannot solve these problems if we retreat behind our own borders, obsess about definitions of sovereignty, or indulge in spacious rhetoric about national greatness. COVID-19 is a sombre reminder of our common human bonds and vulnerabilities. We will dishonour its victims unless we respond to the pandemic and our shared threats with a renewed sense of solidarity and collective action. But this is my just beginning, brief remarks, but I’ll be very happy to engage in dialogue with you and the students.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Ban. Thank you for those very thoughtful remarks for the quite appropriate reminder of this being the UN’s 75th anniversary as well, and I think especially important that you noted what was it that happened between that period of 1920 and 1945. It was the failure of the League of Nations, an idea that was helped, curated and so on, and then, the rediscovery, as you said, of a new system of international governance built around the UN, which, for all of its failings, as you said, would almost need to be reinvented, to deal with these “problems without passports,” to quote your predecessor, Kofi Annan. Thank you for those very important remarks. Also for bringing up some of the more pressing current issues, not just the issue of climate change, but, importantly, the issue of hate speech, disinformation, the way this is feeding into populism. And, as you said, the particularly strong reminders right now of injustice, not just in developing parts of the world that are afflicted by ubiquitous poverty, but also, in some of the more developed countries around the world, as we’ve seen in the UK and the US, and around Europe, in recent weeks. So, I think particularly importance there of remarks.

We’ve got quite a few questions coming in. I will pose some of them to you in a minute, though we did want to – one of the questions I wanted to bring in was a comment also from Sanne Thijssen, who’s a member of the Chatham House Common Futures Conversations. Before I turn to Sanne though, let me just – Sanne, good to have you with us. Before I turn to Sanne, let me just ask you one specific question, Mr Ban, which is about the role of the UN, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, because it does strike me that this is a time where you focused on the limits of governments and what governments can achieve. But the UN did have in its founding this idea of the rights of individuals, and I can think of no important – more important way of thinking of bottom up than thinking about the rights of individuals, which were enshrined in that UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Could you say where you think that stands right now? We look at the UN Human Rights Council, it does not seem to bear a resemblance, to somebody like me looking on the outside, to the values that are upheld in that Universal Declaration. There seems to be a dichotomy. Now that you’re no longer Secretary-General, maybe you could share your thoughts on that, and then, after that, I’m going to turn to Sanne, our colleague there, for an intervention. But first, back to you, Ban Ki-moon.

Ban Ki-moon

Thank you very much. That’s a very important question. When I became Secretary-General, by January 2017, we had already transformed from Human Rights Commission to Human Rights Council. In fact, there had been a strong criticism from international community, particularly countries like the United States and many European countries, that Human Rights Commission had become very much politicised and by particularly some of those countries. The competition and role of Human Right Commission was very much criticised, then they decided, through many long, heated discussions, to reform this commission and creating the Human Rights Council. Council. We hope that Human Right Council was less politicised by a certain group of countries, but it was almost the same things. That is why the – unfortunately, American Government, United State, has been in and out of this Human Rights Council.

When I became the Secretary-General, I have strong advice newly elected President Obama and his administration, and I had in-depth discussions with Ambassador Susan Rice, etc., that if – I know there is no – not satisfied with the Human Rights Council, but Human Rights was – Council was created upon the strong urge. Then if you speak out, outside of the Council, then I think that whatever your concern may be, your concern may not be addressed, you have a concern, then come in, join the Council, and speak out there, as a Member of the Council. Everybody will be welcome. Normally, these Council members are elected, but I’m sure that you will have no problem to be elected. Then, in fact, President Obama accepted my recommendation, and he joined.

Then there’s some very serious issues between Arab countries and the Israels, and all this human right of the Palestinians and Israeli issues, and then, unfortunately, the President Trump administration has decided to, you know, withdraw from this Human Rights Council. This is very sad. Now, apart from this one, then my policy has been human rights should be upheld the highest priority. As you know, Charter of the United Nations, basic – well, three principles of United Nation Charter are peace and security, sustainable development, and UN right. Now, which are more important? I think they are all equally important but, in reality, if there is no peace and security, you cannot guarantee, you cannot promote human right, and even you cannot engage in sustainable development. Nobody can engage in their productive activities. Then, in normal countries without economic developments, no political leaders can sustain their political power that can easily be, you know, voted – elect – voted out in the next election. So, peace and security, economic development should go hand-in-hand, work together.

There were about – there are some countries who seem-seemingly seem to be very peaceful, and economic development very – going well, but where people’s voice has not been much heard. That means when there is no human right, human dignity respected, then peace and security and the economic development may not mean anything. So, I’ve been speaking out that human rights should be upheld first. Learning from very serious and the tragic lessons from our Sri Lankan, you know, tragedy, and where United Nations was not able to afford their proper role during the crisis. And then, in 2011, we created the Human Rights up Front, HRuF, Human Rights up Front. Human rights have always been upfronted on top of first peace and security and during – even during the time of conflict, human dignity and human right must be protected. That is number one goal.

Then what about, in reality, when there is a war in front of the guns, gun barrels, you cannot claim the human right, but we will say human justice will follow, then there is a justice issue. I’ve been seeking out that justice will be there, if not today, tomorrow. If not tomorrow, surely day after tomorrow, or near the future. This is what we are now seeing, we have established a lot of tribunals, special tribunals and prosecutors, and this is what we see in many countries. So, as far as human rights is concerned, I am the most committed. This is what the Elders, Elders who they take human right the most. Yeah.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you very much for underscoring the importance of it. As you said, there is the dilemma of, you know, is it peace and security and economic development first and then human rights? We hear some people talk about human rights as being economic rights first, and then other political rights second. I think, as you explained here, it’s very hard to divide them, and I think the terminology that was developed by you and your – I think your Deputy Secretary-General, Jan Eliasson, about Human Rights up Front, which you referenced there, I thought was a very clever way of putting its centrality. Let me bring in some younger voices, as this is also meant to be – inclusive governance is about being inclusive of perspectives, as well as nationalities, and I’m thrilled that we have Sanne Thijssen with us. Sanne is, since February, a Member of the Chatham House Common Futures Conversations initiative, bringing young voices from across Europe and Africa together to talk about their common challenges. I think, importantly, she’s somebody who has demonstrated her own drive to bring about change, having established the Shake the Youth – Shake – sorry, Shake the Dust young people’s organisation, which is all about youth participation in sexual and reproductive rights and health. And I think, Sanne, you’ve also been doing stuff under lockdown, somebody told me you’ve set up a new Stories to Action initiative. So, Sanne, why don’t you just share your thoughts and a question, please, for Ban Ki-moon, when you’re ready? Over to you.

Sanne Thijssen

Yes, thank you so much, it’s an honour to be here, and to be speaking with you, Mr Ban Ki-moon. Yes, so, as already mentioned, over the past months, I’ve been engaging in the Common Futures Conversations and with a great team. We established an idea, in terms of youth participation and youth representation, and so my team consists of Monhare, who’s in Tunisia, we have Michel, who’s in Italy, and Jift in Kenya. And, together, what we were actually brainstorming was that a lot of the youth networks and constituencies are informally formed, and what we saw, from our own experiences, is that they therefore are very often overlooked and undervalued by more formal institutions, governments and different bodies.

So, our idea centred on trying to integrate these informal networks within more formal bodies. So, we proposed a structure where a number of young people would be formally appointed within government ministries and agencies and, in their positions, they would actually be engaging and much [audio cuts out 29:34] the activities that happen within those bodies. So, proposing policy recommendations, attending different meetings, even representing the government. And, in order to actually get the informal – the wider, broader youth networks engaged, we also propose that they would be supported by a selected network of formal and informal youth-led movements that actually represent the diversities that exist among young people.

So, this would include the geographic spread, the cultural backgrounds, academic backgrounds, you know, and, you know, the marginalised groups. And in their position, they would actually form a sounding board for these young people within these bodies, and also trying to, you know, gather opinions within their own communities and feed this into these youth representatives, and also bringing forward key concerns that exist among young people in their own context. And then, the last aspect of our idea would be that we also know that a lot of action is really – needs to be – yeah, needs to happen very fast.

So, in terms of that, what we were thinking was also to appoint a smaller board that could actually provide direct, on-the-spot proposals to these different young people. So, this could be in the case of, you know, an urgent meeting popping up, or an urgent proposal that needs to be put forward, and that these young representatives still have some kind of backing from young people and from a different youth movement than themselves. So, given this idea, what we did have – we did have a question for you, sir, is how could initiatives such as your own with the Elders actually join forces with projects, such as the Common Futures Conversation, in order to bridge the vibe between local and international action?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you very much, Sanne, and maybe I’ll – Michel, and we’ve also got another member of our Common Futures Conversation, Michel Alimasi, who’s with us as well, but, Michel, do you have the same question or a different question?

Michel Alimasi

Well, my question was, like, very much similar to the one of Sanne, but I wanted…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Well, if you could just hold on a second. Secretary – Mr Ban, what I’ll do is let me let both of my colleagues, Sanne Thijssen and Michel Alimasi both put their questions together, and then you can answer them together, and I will just introduce Michel quickly by saying that he was one of the founding members of our Common Futures Conversation way back in 2018. Michel, maybe you could tell us where you’re joining us from, ‘cause I think Sanne is in the Netherlands, and I don’t know where you’re joining us from, Michel. Why don’t you tell us where you’re calling in from?

Michel Alimasi

Sure. I’m from Italy and, actually, like, five years ago, I had the pleasure to meet Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in New York, doing the United Nation Alliance of Civilisation. My question is starting from that particular moment. In that occasion, you, Ban Ki-moon, you said, “You young people, you are the last generation that can end the climate change crisis, and you are the first generation that can achieve the ending of global poverty.” Five years later, and here is the connection with the proposal of Sanne, how to join the forces of the Elders and initiatives such as Common Futures Conversations. After five years, it’s still relevant your call to young people, or now it’s time to making a shift from being youth as the future to coming to be youth as present agent of action? Thank you.

Ban Ki-moon

Sanne and Michel, thank you very much for your very good question. I think Sanne mentioned at length about the – sort of, an inclusivity, including the youth empowerment. I think Michel’s question is focusing on youth issues. Now, when United Nations was created, as you may know, just after the Second World War, and this was mainly focusing on how the state nations could contribute to maintaining the peace and prosperity. So, most of the work had been done among – between and among the nations but, as we progress into 20th and 21st Century, people realise that it is not only the national government leaders, political leaders, we need to have a partnership with business community and we need to have a partnership with civil society, then we need to have a participation of women and young people, and there are many people by, you know, how they look and how they were born, then they have been discriminated.

So, it is the, sort of, not to discriminate, to have everybody onboard our process. This has been much, much more lifted during my time as the Secretary-General. Can you believe that, from 1945 to 1992, 47 years, 47 years, there were only three women senior staff in UN? And, you know, nobody pay attention to young people. So, I thought that, somehow, without fully utilising and involving, engaging, the women’s participation, women’s power, women’s potential, which – whose numbers are even more than men, more than half of the global population are women, and half the global population are under the age of 25, boys or girls. That means 75% of the world is – world population are either women or young people. That includes boys, men. So, how to fully utilise these very valuable elements and resources?

The first thing was that, in 2010, I created, for the first time, the UN Women. That’s a super agency, they’re, you know, empowering and empowering women’s potential, women’s ability. I have been reaching out to many business communities, then I have been reaching out to many educational leaders to teach more girls and more women. I appointed Michelle Bachelet, who was the former President of Chile, as Head of UN Women. Then, in 2011, I thought that, without having young people joining and empowering young people, then we would not be able to do all this climate or whatever, sustainable development. At that time, there was no sustainable development, but we had development goals.

Then I appointed, as you may remember, Mohammed Alhendawi. He was 28 years old. There were many young people applied for this, as the Special Envoy of Secretary-General on Youth. It was again first institute – institution that I established. Mohammed Alhendawi is now Secretary-General of World Scout Federation, he is now, and his successor is a Sri Lankan lady, a formidable lady. She was a landmark appointment. She is also second young lady who is taking charge of, you know, youth empowerment. So, this is what I have been working very hard.

Then, there is an issue of quality education, and for women and young people. There are still many young people, more than 62 million young people, who are not able to go to school, so Sustainable Development Goals are now very clearly focusing on empowering women. Now, empowering women is number five goals of Sustainable Development Goals. I think equality among sexes, and there are many people, you know, who have different sexual orientations. It was I, during my time, that this issue has just been exposed. When I became Secretary-General, I knew that there were many UN staff who were just working and living under the shadow, and who were not able to come out, the speaking out. Then I just brought them, and I declared to myself that I will make the United Nations as the best workplace, where people with different sexual orientation will be able to work.

Then there was strong pushback from conservative countries like mostly Arab countries, and they were – yeah, I made it that there is a family allowance when men and woman live together, as a couple, but when they are, sort of, you know, lesbians or gays, then they have not been able to give – given this benefit. The UN’s position was that, if our country or that country – and if our country or that person respect this different sexual orientation, then we respect it. But during my time, I abolished that kind of thing and enhanced that whether one’s homeland country respect this sexual orientation or not, the United Nations will give full equality, complete, full equality. And this is what I have been working, this is an inclusivity. Multilateralism and inclusivity. Inclusivity can cover various aspect. Philosophical speaking, we love people, and in the trap of the United Nations.

Most important development of recent years has been remarkable growth in scale and influence of cross border civil society. Now, I know that there is even demand from international communities that there should be on the Secretary-General’s department for civil society. I think I would support it, even though I do not have any – you know, any power now. If I were still Secretary-General, I would have strong support on this establishing a dedicated department on empowering civil societies. Yeah.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

So, incredibly important, different dimensions here, and we’ve got so many questions coming in, and we’ve only got, sort of, 15/20 minutes to go. So, I’m going to say thank you very much for answering those two questions. Your point about a formal role for civil society’s incredibly important. I think, if we could find a way, and maybe something in the Common Futures Conversation should be encouraging, to – and maybe in teaming up with the Elders, as both Michel and Sanne recommended, to make a big push for stronger youth voices, actually in agencies, formalising, almost, that process of drawing new ideas in. I think it’d be an incredibly good idea. So, I think, Sanne and Michel, you’ve got a good idea to be taking forward during your time in CFC, and let’s see if we can get it into the system and get it embedded in the way that the focus on women now is so clearly across the UN.

Look, we’ve got a number of questions, and I’m just going to just tell colleagues here, maybe you could see if we can get Duncan Bartlett to get on camera, or at least to be unmuted, Amrit, Duncan Bartlett, because, Mr Ban, there were two or three questions, just to get to the core nub of it, and they’re at the top of the list, that have been voted to the top, about the perennial question of the veto. The veto-wielding aspect of the UN, and you, yourself, mentioned, I think, in your remarks the failure of the UN to be able to address the issue of, you know, vetoes around the question of Syria, and this issue has been raised in a number of the questions we’ve had here. Is there any prospect, if not of removing the veto, of finding ways to work around it, and what experience do you have of it? Duncan, you were going to ask some version of this question. Let me invite Duncan Bartlett to make his comment. Duncan.

Duncan Bartlett

Thank you very much. My name is Duncan Bartlett. I’m the Editor of Asian Affairs magazine. You expressed your frustration in your opening remarks about the situation in the Security Council of the United Nations at present, and you said that you were – you noted that it had been unable to offer a resolution on the COVID-19 crisis. Do you think that it’s time to reform the membership of the United Nations Security Council?

Ban Ki-moon

That’s a very important question, but very difficult for me to answer and to be able to give you any clear answer, as a former Secretary-General. That has been the most – it has been the most, you know, very difficult moment, whenever I have been asked this question. This has been a long-held, you know, aspiration of member states of the United Nation, but somehow, as a result of Second World War, terrible tragedies, they seem to have agreed that there should be a very effective, you know, decision-making power, which can be implementable, forcibly implementable. That is why they created the prominent members of the Security Council. In fact, the – any resolution of the General Assembly is just recommendation, advisory recommendation. Therefore, it doesn’t have any power, any force to be implemented, while only Security Council resolutions are.

A lot of discussions have been made. There have been many aspirants, like in Africa, in fact, there is not a single country is represented for this amount P5, and nobody from Latin America and, therefore, you can understand there’s such a huge, you know, pushback from those countries. Therefore, the UN has taken this as one of the very serious issues, but the discussions has been always very, very slow. They forcing in establishing some sort of a working groups, which didn’t have anything, then this res – and this idea, I mean, the – and this item has been picked up by the General Assembly itself. The General Assembly has been making a lot of discussions, but so far it is because of the lack of political will among P5.

You know, according to resolution and regulations, any such a decision should be – should have the full five prominent members concurring the vote, but I don’t think no countries are willing to give up that power. Then, countries like France or United States, you know, they have been very generous, saying that the Security Council should be expanded, and with even vetoed powers, but it has been mostly lip service, and they have been – they know that even though they would’ve support certain countries’ prominent membership, there will be some natural enemy country who will veto it. So, it is quite – you know, very easy, political promise, but I am afraid that – and disappointed deeply that not a single, you know, meas – decision has been made by the Security Council on COVID-19, while more than 12 million people have been contracted, and more than half a million people have been dead.

But because of the dispute between United State and China, they have never been able to agree on any single resolution. Once you learn from the lessons the Ebola case in 2014, it took just one day by Security Council, they declared this a serious threat to maintenance of international peace and security. What’s wrong? And why they are not able to agree to make some solidified action? But to my colleague, this may not be my answer, but my answer to your direct question – my direct question is at this time, there may not be a possibility of any agreement on the form of the Security Council, expanding the prominent membership with the veto power. Without veto power, there may be some possibility that the expansion of our prominent members, without notice veto power, but other than that, you know, I don’t have any hope.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah, and I think some of the proposals, Mr Ban, I don’t know if you know have been made, is to whether the veto could be removed or given up for certain types of issues like declarations, you mentioned Ebola. Of course, it was easier on Ebola because it was happening in Africa, so it was possible for the bona members to approve it, but obviously, as you well know, the source of the coronavirus has made it a political issue. So, maybe there’s some other ideas out there. I’m…

Ban Ki-moon

Yeah.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

…conscious we’ve only got eight minutes left. Sorry, you wanted to come in, Mr Ban, yes?

Ban Ki-moon

Just briefly about this. French Government was very persistently pushing this idea of when it comes ab – to absolutely humanitarian crisis, and then veto-wielding power should, you know, not exercise this veto power. But, you know, there has been support by some countries but, basically, they were not willing to support this kind of – any changes to it.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Right.

Ban Ki-moon

Yeah.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Well, maybe this is a movement for future to make. We’ve got – and I want to bring in Sedakta Sama into this call here, she’s got, I think, an interesting conversation about South Asia in particular. Sedakta, I think you’re there, can you be unmuted or – yeah, thank you. Sedakta, could you ask your question, please?

Sedakta Sama

Hi, thank you. Thank you, Mr Moon, for taking the question, I understood it. My question is regarding the questions on water treaty policies, which is about the recent escalation in the region of the conflicts between India and China and India and Pakistan. We have a lot of water treaties between the four countries: India, Bhutan, China and Pakistan. Now, with given so much of conflict, these water treaties are mere paper policies, and they will tend to become myopic ones. So, in your opinion, how can local communities contribute to inclusive sustainable governance policies, in terms of national resources? Because these are problems not just in South Asia, but in Africa, as well. So, how can local communities take action to counter climate change related issues and issues regarding water policies, so that we can have a better world tomorrow?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you, Sedakta. Over to you, Mr Ban.

Ban Ki-moon

Yes, that is, again, very important question, but difficult. It is – it should not be difficult, in fact. It’s not like a veto, you know, power issues. When it comes to India, Pakistan, they are both nuclear power states. When it comes to India-China relationship dispute, again, they are both nuclear power states, and they are very important countries, particularly when it comes to India and Pakistan in Southeast Asia. Because of this longstanding dispute, the United Nations has been deploying UN peacekeeping – it’s not peacekeeping, but the peace-observing – observer mission. But, unfortunately, Indian Government has not been rendering any support to this United Nations observer mission, until now. This is a source of regret for me, as a Secretary-General, and while they occasionally rollover, but have engaged in peace talks at the very senior levels but, somehow, it has not been able to do that. And United Nations has not been fully and effectively engaging in hope to implement their observer – observing US mandate, which has been given by the Security Council, because of – and just to unilaterally, you know, boycott our support. So, though UN observer mission has been able to observe the Indian side of this borderline, only Pakistan side.

That’s why I really regret very much as the Secretary-General, and we’ve been discussing this method, but they are not willing to engage in dialogue, first of all. And, most recently, we have been really very much concerned about the dispute between India and China. I hope that those two countries should really bear their responsibility as very important regional and global powers, and also nuclear power states. This is what I’m really asking. One should look at the, you know, longer vision, rather than their only national vision. Though we are living in a very small planet Earth, we have been affected by climate change, and there are many global challenges, which we have to really solidify our limited resources. I think that that comes – climate change comes at number one. Number one, our most important and urgent issue. Now, India and Pakistan and China, they have been wholeheartedly supporting these climate issues, but still, this having some potentially explosive political issues not resolved, it will always be in a very much unstable situation in Southeast Asia. Thank you.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

I – that is such an important question, Sedakta, and, as Dr Ban was describing how difficult it’s going to be to try to overcome it, one would hope, given the water relationships, as you were mentioning, between China and India in particular, I think, Mr Ban, you’ve dealt with this when you were Security General, that could become a real flashpoint in the future. Not just the unregulated border between the two countries, but the fear over blockages of water supply so, hopefully, I think it’s a good reminder also to Chatham House to make sure we’re able to combine this focus on resource management, environmental stewardship, and ways of promoting peace and stability, because there’s a connection there where maybe you can get people to walk towards – work towards common interest in ways that is very hard to do when you talk about things like borders. You know, borders bring out all those atavistic concerns. We don’t have much time left for many more questions. I did want to get a question in, ‘cause I think it’s very relevant, actually, Mr Ban, from John Nilsson-Wright, the Senior Fellow in our Asia Programme, who does a lot of our work on Korea, on the Korean Peninsula. I think he has an intriguing question to ask you. John, please unmute and let’s hear your question.

John Nilsson-Wright

Thank you, Robin. Dr Ban, echoing your earlier remarks beginning of your presentation about the connection between the global and the local, I’m reminded of former US House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s own famous phrase, “All politics is local,” and I think about the experience of South Korea and those dramatic candlelit processions, the candlelit demonstrations that led to a dramatic political change in South Korea. What lessons do you think can be learnt from the South Korean experience of participatory democracy, particularly as a basis for challenging authoritarianism, and also, very importantly, managing the balance between representative democracy and direct participatory democracy? How can South Korean’s example be a lesson to other countries that are grappling with these questions at a time of rising populism? Thank you.

Ban Ki-moon

Well, thank you very much for raising this very important – we – I, as a Korean, am very much proud that Korea has something to extend, to show, as well as to share, with some countries where still, the people are not fully able to fully engage in the activities without any political fear or oppressions. Of course, democratic rules and values. This is a basic and fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter. I think when – you can – there are some countries where the people can seemingly enjoy their economic engagement and some prosperity but, when there is no freedom of speech and no freedom of assembly, then it will be very difficult for society.

Korea started, because of our dire situating – very serious situating issues, confronting each other between South and North Korea, and surrounded by many big powers, and also having experience of this terrible Korean War in 1950. In fact, Korea – I can tell you that Korea is still in the state of war, even though there may not be some, you know, exchange of fires, but North Korea is heavily militarised, and very much dictatorial, a one-man rule, you know, countries, while Korean Government, during this successive administrations, we have gone through very dictatorial to very full-blown diplomacy, but that was not free. A lot of students, a lot of civil society freedom fighters, they had to be sacrificed, even, you know, they have been killed by military regimes. But upon this kind of things, and with – fully engaging with international community, and with growing awareness on the importance of human right and values, and democratic values and principles, then all Korean people are fully enjoying and this freedom of speeches and assembly. Sometimes, it may look disordering. People are speaking out against the government and against their employers, etc., etc.

So, civil society is very strong and Korean Government, no leader, no political leader can effectively carry on one’s, you know, mandate without fully engaging in labour unions and civil societies, and without engaging women and youth group. So, this is something which Korea can really share with many countries where the situation may not be the same. So, it is very important, first of all, the political leaders and the business leaders, they should have a clear sense of – and based on democratic values and principle, the human right. Then I think that there can be slow changes, and there should be full support from international community. United Nations, Human Rights Council, and regional specialised agencies, and there are many human right watches, you know, international human right groups. I think their voices also helped Korea to democratise, and they have been the target of criticism by a human right watch, you know, all this humanitarian and human rights groups.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Just a last question to you, Secretary-General Ban, because we have gone a little bit over time, but we’ve got most of our audience still with us because this is an important discussion, and I think one area we haven’t had time to get into enough, but I think I want to finish with this as the last question, I’m picking up a couple here, which is really about the role of business. We had a very important meeting recently, the Summit of the UN Global Compact Members, with Angela Merkel, the Presidents of Botswana, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, many CEOs, all focused on the role of business and the private sector, and private capital, driving positive change, and they committed to it in the areas of health, inequality and climate change.

And I’m wondering if you could finish up, in your last remarks, by saying something about the role of business, ‘cause obviously, the UN Global Compact, started by Kofi Annan, taken very strongly by you, now by Secretary-General Guterres. Business seems, to me, to be going beyond where governments go, in many cases. There are new alliances being formed between business leaders and civil society. In many cases, businesses are listening more closely to the local and the communities than the governments are. So, could you say something about the, kind of, partnerships you think – Mark Moody Stewart and Lee Dan were two people who asked this question. What do you think would be – how positive are you about the role of business in helping drive more local and accountable and inclusive change in the UN system?

Ban Ki-moon

That’s, again, very important tools and means to make sure that the Climate Change and Sustainable Development Goals are implemented. Number 17, goal number 17 is about partnership, global partnership. After discussing all 16 very important goals, the member states agreed that, without establishing fully, you know, committed partnership among government, business community and civil society, there’s a tripartite partnership, is most important tools and means of addressing all global challenges, including climate change. In that regard, I am very much grateful for the foresight of my predecessor, Kofi Annan, who initiated this Global Compact, UN Global Compact. As soon as this Millennium Development Goals were adopted by the member state, but I think he went to Davos forum and proposed to the business community that we established a global – UN Global Compact where we expected that the business communities, business leaders, should render and should be a part of this in [inaudible – 64:43] time.

Now, they are part of SDGs now, and I’m also proud to tell you that I have prioritised the strengthening much, much more, and this about the UN Global Compact. When I assumed my job in 2007, it wasn’t just the seventh year of this Global Compact, but during my time of ten years, I have expanded, I think to almost a common size of more than 15,000 global business forms, big and small and medium. My strong argument and pitch was that, without the full participation and support of business communities, nothing can be done, nothing can be achieved, because most of the global emissions coming are coming from industrial sectors, and most of the funds, they run, they mobilise trillions of trillions of dollars. I think even Samsung company, I think they mobilise a much, much bigger budget than, you know, Korean Government. So, this is something, one big global company that can mobilise such a funding.

Now, I’m also proud that, even after my retirement, I’m still working as Honorary Chairman of the UN Global Compact Korean Network. I’m also Korean – engaged – very closely engaged in Korean Global Compact, and I have also established, while travelling many countries, even in Myanmar, and in several African countries. I have established duly a Global Compact, even though I knew that their economic situation were not, you know, strong, but having mindset among business leaders that they are part of this process, it’s very important, then, you know, there are many big companies like Coca-Cola, Nestlé, etc., etc., Ford, so global companies, they show this – the principles, the ten principles of UN Global Compact. In fact, the ten principle combines and constitute all the big principles of the United Nations and United Nation Charter, starting from human rights, gender empowerment, and peaceful resolution of all these labour issues, and health, global health issues. They’re a very important element and principles, which UN Global Compact, you know, comprise of, and with the Global Compact successfully engaging, continuously engaging, I think we’ll have a better prospect of fulfilling the visions of Sustainable Development Goals.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you very much for those comments, and I think it was a good place to finish. I’m conscious that I have not managed to get through definitely not all and not even half of the questions we received, and there were so many in the question line. I hope participants had a chance to read through them and see the very important points that were raised there. Sometimes it’s as important to write a question as to have it asked and answered, because people can see your voice and your concerns, so I want to thank all of the Chatham House members of putting so many good questions in the list. I think to finish with this idea of business and, as you said, the ten principles of the Global Compact is a good place to finish. If multinational businesses, which are so important in creating jobs, link those jobs to principles that are progressive, that work towards reducing inequality, work towards providing more universal health, work towards tackling climate change and sustainability, then that’s going to create an environment that governments will respond to, I think, as you were saying, Dr Ban, there.

We have, of course, a reminder, in the last two months, of how much money governments can manoeuvre, however, ten trillion dollars by some counts of money invented by governments and central banks, so if you could get that partnership between businesses, civil society and governments really working in the same direction, we could bring about incredible change. We’re very grateful for the time you’ve given us, more than hour today, thank you so much, Ban Ki-moon. It’s great to have you involved with the Elders, with which Chatham House has a very good partnership, and we’re thrilled to have you there as Deputy Chair. I think Mary Robinson actually is joining us towards the end of this week, as well, so we’re going to have a – quite an Elders element here.

But I do want to thank the members of our Common Futures Conversation, ‘cause this idea of linking the experience of people like you and others in the Elders and networks that are involved with Chatham House and other groups, and linking them with the young voices that really are driving so much change today, it really is – that can be incredibly powerful, and obviously, businesses are looking at the young. The young are the future consumers. In many cases, they’re also setting the agenda today. So, you’ve really provoked a very interesting conversation. Thank you for being part of our centenary week. We look forward to incorporating some of your ideas, along with others, at the end of our centenary year, see if we can get some of the best ideas of the year put together, and thank all of our members for joining us today, for asking such good questions, for engaging. Thank you very much. We look forward to seeing you at our next meeting, tomorrow. Thank you very much for joining us. Goodbye everyone and see you soon. Keep safe. Thank you, Dr Ban. Bye, bye.

Ban Ki-moon

Thank you very much, Dr Niblett, for this opportunity, and congratulations again for this centennial anniversary of Chatham House. I know that there is a Chatham House Rule but, in my case, no such ruling.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

We didn’t need it today. We want to get the ideas out.

Ban Ki-moon

Yeah. Okay.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you so much.

Ban Ki-moon

Thank you very much. God bless you.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Goodbye. Goodbye, everyone. Thank you.