The New Democratic Diplomacy: Civil Society as partner with the United Nations and Governments

Esteemed Participants,

Before joining the United Nations I had the pleasure of serving in the European Parliament as head of the Swedish Social Democratic delegation and spokesperson for the Socialist group on Foreign Affairs. One of the last major speeches I heard in the Parliament was the one delivered by the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel. His main message was that when the European Union now is in the historic process of enlarging its membership to above all Central and Eastern Europe, the EU must help to strengthen the civil society which was either suppressed or destroyed under the Communist rule. Havel feared that without a vibrant civil society the accession process would become bureaucratic and elitiste and, in the end, without popular legitimacy and support. I believe that Havel has an important point and that his argumentation is valid not only for one half of Europe but for the whole continent Without the active participation and involvement of the citizens in the daily and future affairs of their societies, there will be no democratic legitimacy and no sustainability in the development of any nation.

And this goes also for the world as a whole. I believe that this view will become very clear during the Millennium Assembly where the future of our globe will be in the centre of the deliberations of so many heads of states and governmnets. Because no decision will prevail nor have any lasting effect unless it will meet the understanding or have the approval of their citizens. The citizens of our time no longer accept decrees from above or abroad. Everything to last in a democratic society must come from within and have grassroot support. And such social cohesion in society is much needed in this era of globalisation.

Almost every aspect of our lives is, in one way or another, affected by globalisation, which of course is much more than the flow of money and commodities. New investments, technology transfer and increased trade means economic growth and the creation of new jobs. In the end, if given a moral and political compass, globalisation will increase the standard of living for most people on this globe.

But globalisation is not yet a fair process. Important parts of the world remain largely excluded. There are more telephones on Manhattan than in the whole of Africa!

But globalisation is happening - regardless if governments try to organise it or not. It is neither possible nor desirable to try to turn the tide. Isolationism and protectionism belong to the past and offer no way out of this human dilemma. The challenge consists in reducing the gap between rich and poor - on both international and national levels. And therefore when the world leaders meet next week here in this building, I hope that they not only will take a hard look at the UN and how it is managed and organised but that they also have the courage to take a hard look at how their own societies are managed and organised. The positive effects of globalisation must be inclusive not exclusive and must benefit all. Therefore the shaping of our common future cannot be left to market forces alone.

Many of the challenges we are confronted with today must find their solutions through multilateral negotiations and agreements. The United Nations is the only intergovernmental organisation with a global mandate, universal membership and a broad multifaceted agenda. But the UN needs to cooperate with other international, national and local actors. Multilateral organisations, governments, private sector and civil society, all have an important role to play in the global house-keeping.

It is not blind forces that form the destiny of the world. It is people. Through human history democracy and social justice has rarely been imposed from above. But rather resulting from the dedicated struggle of thousands of individuals and grass root organisations. In my own country, Sweden, organisations have played a major role in forming our democracy and way of life. And they still are. In the 60´s peace organisations played a decisive role when the government decided not to develop nuclear weapons. Women´s organisations have long worked very hard to overcome prejudices, income differences and under-representation in executive positions. This struggle is far from over. But today a majority of ministers in the Swedish government and around 40 per cent of parliament members are women.

Around the world non state actors are involved in voluntary work for peace, disarmament, human rights, democracy, gender issues, social and economic development and a better environment.

With globalisation their activities extend beyond national borders. There are many examples of how grass root organisations, with scarce financial resources, can make a difference. In 1998 Jody Williams received the Nobel peace prize for her contribution to the campaign against land-mines. Miss Williams started out, virtually by herself and managed to build a strong international coalition that eventually led to over 94 countries ratifying the Ottawa treaty banning the production, storing, and distribution of anti-personel land mines.

Non-government organisations tend to work in a very flexible manner gathering great knowledge and understanding of the areas in which they work. They also contribute to much needed transparency.That makes them excellent partners in development cooperation. About one third of Sweden´s international development assistance is channeled through non-governmental organisations. This partnership has proved to be an efficient way of transferring aid resources. Cooperation between governmental aid agencies and NGOs increases the chances of reaching the intended beneficiaries and maximizing impact.By working with NGOs we can also be assured that international solidarity enjoys a wide-spread popular support.

All this has helped us to maintain ODA well above the UN 0,7% goal and now when the economy is improving in our country the target has been set to raise Sweden´s ODA to over 0,8 5 in the year 2003.

International development assistace is not charity it is a humanitarian imperative and an expression of enlightened self-interest. Because we know that in the post Cold war era poverty and injustices are the main threat to peace, democracy and development. It is therefore not only a humanitarian disgrace when we see ODA falling, especially in these times of unbelivable wealth creation on world markets, but it is also a prescription for a more injust, unsafe and violent and ugly world. The message is there for us all to see: as long as there is no justice in the South, there will be no peace in the North.

So there is scope for closer cooperation in many fields between the UN and concerned world citizes. UN peace operations have become more complex and multi-functional in the Post-Cold war period. The cases of Kosovo and East Timor demonstrate how civilian tasks have come to play a major role in peace building. The UN lacks both the experience and the expertise for taking on such tasks alone. It has also proven very difficult to recruit such experts at short notice. What is really needed here is a civilian stand-by force! While this to a large extent will engage governments, I believe civil society could play a complementary role in this context.

But crisis management would not be needed if we were able to prevent violence before it occurs. Civil society often possesses insight and knowledge of local conditions that could help us better understand the root causes of conflicts. With cooperation and better analyses we can develop more effective early warning system that can contribute to preventing violent conflicts. Personally I got a clear example of this conflict prevention role of the civil society during the EU Election observation mission in Zimbabwe which I had the privilege of heading. The international observers played a role in calming down an agitated atmosphere and contributing to an orderly election process on polling days. But without the national monitors we wouldn´t have been able to have a nation-wide coverage and without a close cooperation with this domestic NGO community we would have had no real legitimacy.

Civil society can also provide intellectual input to various UN activities. Civil society has created several parallell fora which serve as a complement and an important source of inspiration. Last May representatives of civil society met here in New York to participate in the Millennium Forum to discuss the challenges confronting us in the 21st century. And this conference is another valuable contribution to our common goal.

So NGOs are important partners in the shaping of the future. In order to fullfil their objectives it is vital that they find their role between, let´s say, Davos and Seattle. It is not in confrontation but in a dialogue that we can build a better world.

A few words should also be said about the role of the private sector. This summer UN Secretary General Kofi Annan invited representatives of major multinational entreprises, multilateral organisations and NGOs to New York to form a new partnership which was named Global compact. The idea behind is to encourage private companies to take a larger social responsibility by incorporating internationally recognized labour standards, environment protection measures and human rights norms into their managerial practices. Thus also the private sector can contribute to give globalisation a more human face.

Let me end where I started, in the European Parliament.

As you may know the Parliament with its 626 members is the only directly elected body in the EU and has over the last years aquired increased powers, by for instance having the right to approve or not approve the budget of the EU and by saying yes or no to new members. All this has enhanced the democratic legitimacy of the European Union project.

Maybe the time has come to talk about enhancing the democratic legitimacy also of the UN. After all the Charter speaks of "WE, the Peoples", not "WE, the States". Maybe we should one day have a directly elected assembly attached in some form to the UN General Assembly. Being a newcomer here I will not dwell more on the subject. But maybe a first step would be to follow the example of those member nations who have attached members of their national parliaments to the UN delegations during the General Assembly period.

Thank you!

Accreditation
Form 2006

22-23 Feb. 2006 Annual DPI/NGO Orientation
Programme