During my time working around the UN there has been a constant debate on how civil society can and should be involved and have access to UN decision-making processes. There have been many previous reports and recommendations on this issue, among them the Cardoso Report, but the debate is ongoing. Civil society is obviously always pushing for more access, arguing it brings expertise, accountability and urgency to the processes. Governments argue the UN is a forum where governments make decisions and that the number and diversity of civil society organizations is too large to handle.
Under this context, the General Assembly President organized a meeting where civil society representatives in New York met with UN officials and governments to discuss how the relationship can improve. A number of NGOs had gone together and prepared a statement outlining their recommendations. The most interesting ones were:
Appointment of an NGO Focal Point for the UN system - Today there exists a number of NGO Focal Points within the UN system, often one for each department and agency, and with each comes a different registration process and different procedures for engagement. It can be very confusing for NGOs to figure out how it is possible to get involved, especially for young people engaging with the UN for the first time. One focal point and one office that NGOs can contact, along with uniform registration procedures, will make life a lot easier for many NGOs.
Establishment of a trust fund for Southern NGOs - Participation at the UN remains dominated by Northern NGOs or northern representatives of International NGOs. The travel costs for Southern NGOs to come to New York are often too great for organizations already struggling with little resources. A trust fund dedicated to increasing southern participation would of course be most helpful. However, such a fund does already exist for bringing youth delegates to the UN, and it has been painfully empty. There are also visa restrictions - especially young people from Africa can be stopped at the US embassy even with funding and approval letters from the UN.
Virtual representation and regional engagement - One of the more interesting and relevant recommendations for young people is the use of technology and virtual representation. Video conferencing could enable young people to participate from their home countries. Although not ideal, it would solve the funding and visa problems that stops many youung people from participating. Another recommendation is to engage civil society more in the regional processes and in the work of the UN country offices. Although this is currently happening in many countries there is a lot of potential for bigger involvement, and it would also be more relevant to those participating.Other recommendations included to improve the the way civil society hearings are organized, to improve the actual physical space for civil society when the UN building is eventually upgraded, and to grant more funding and responsibility to the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service.
The recommendation that received the most applauce, though, was regarding the entrance for civil society to the UN building. Currently we have to walk through the visitor's entrance, along with tourists and through a security screening, while government delegates and UN staff can go through more accessible entrances. I couldn't believe that after the whole debate on improving civil society access, this was what seemed to be the biggest concern. It's a minor issue that would perhaps save 5 minutes when entering the UN building, but would do nothing to further substantiate our participation.
There was not much said about youth until Emily Freeburg of the NGO Committee on Youth stood up and spoke about the contributions young people can make to the UN, and the specific challenges young people have when trying to participate. Certainly the UN can improve the conditions for young people, including funding, training, and recognition as key stakeholders.The potential of technology and the knowledge and innovation of young people to utilize it is also certainly worth exploring.
The UN is trying to improve its relations with civil society, but the way the system works right now it will take a while. Civil society can continue to advocate and lobby as we have been doing for the past years, repeating the same thing over and over until eventually someone hopefully listens, or perhaps a new way of thinking is required?
I just finished a book by Franklin Foer that makes the unlikely link between football (I insist on saying football, not soccer) and globalization. After reading many books and articles that analyse the economic forces and impacts of globalization, it was refreshing to read a book that takes on globalization from a very different perspective.
The title of the book is a bit misleading, as Foer is not at all able to offer an alternative theory of globalization. Still, it is very interesting reading, and offers many insights into how football has acted as a catalyst of globalization. I want to highlight three examples from the book - of which one is depressing and frightening, one is hopeful, and one is just plain interesting.
The Serbian Massacre
The Serbian massacre in the Balkans in the 1990's was in large parts carried out by fans of the football club Red Star Belgrade. Red Star became a symbol of the Serbian identity, and the hard-core followers can best be classified as hooligans, still the shame of football and a terrible side effect of the game worldwide. Hooligans use team identity as an excuse for carrying out violence and are often just slightly interested in the game itself. In the Red Star case, Serbian leaders noticed how organized the hooligans were, and recruited them with the help of a charismatic leader, Arkan, in the fight against the Croats and Bosnians. By channeling their anger from the football field to the political field, Serbian leaders got a highly organized fighting force that contribued to the atrocities that took place.
There are also other shocking examples of hooliganism and violent rivalries between teams, such as the one in Glasgow, Scotland between Celtic (a catholic team) and Rangers (a protestant team). However, football can also catalyze the more positive forces of human nature and globalization, with Iran being a good example.
The Football Revolution in Iran
Believe it or not, football has played an important role in the fight for gender equality in Iran. After the game was introduced in the 1930's and gained popularity, women increasingly demanded access to the games and to be able to celebrate the achievements of the national team, which were forbidden along with many other rights for women. By watching games from around the world on TV, Iranian women saw how women in other countries were allowed into stadiums and started demanding the same at home. In a historical event in the 1970's, when the Iranian national team played an important game, thousands of women demonstrated outside the stadium and demanded access to the game. By sheer force of numbers, the police had no other choice than to let them in. Eventually women were granted full access to the games.
However, after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, women were again denied access. In the last couple of years, especially before the Iranian national team's participation in the World Cup in June 2006, there have again been strong movements for the rights of Iranian women to attend a football game. In an interesting turn of events, which illustrates the current power dynamics in Iran, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in April 2006 announced the lifting of the ban, only to be reinstated by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a month later.
The culture wars in the US
Football has never been very popular in the US, but the interest for it has grown as it has become easier to follow the sport through the media and the internet. But there is a very interesting difference between the fans in the US, compared to the fans in the rest of the world. While in other parts of the world football is hugely popluar among the working class, in the US it has been the middle class that has embraced the game. Foer argues that football became the sport of choice among the baby-boomers that were protesting against the Vietnam war and US imperialism. Football was the sophisticated and provocative alternative to the traditional American sports such as American football and baseball, which represented traditional American values. Conservatives hated the sport.
The divide between football lovers and haters also extends to the political, sociological and cultural arena. Football is popular in liberal states and among the educated middle class that are open to and embrace foreign impulses. These are often also art and literature lovers, a strong contrast to the typical European football fan. The European aristocracy usually considered football a game for the working class and kept their distance to it. In the US, it is the working class that hates the game. Football is less popular in conservative states where people treasure traditional American values and sports, and are sceptical of anything new and foreign. Finally and obviously, but also a telling tale of the impact of globalization, football is a lot more popular in areas with large immigrant communities.
Overall, the book is very interesting and enjoyable, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in globalization and identity.
It's been a while since I have been able to enjoy snow like I used to when I was a kid. Living in New York, snow is mostly annoying and uncomfortable, especially when walking to work. Also, when cars start driving again the snow turns grey, ugly and polluted.
Still, the first snowfall is always magical, and for a day or two New York can be covered in white. That's what happened a couple of weeks ago, when a blizzard hit New York, leading to the biggest snowfall in one day in history. Walking out in the streets and in Central Park was fantastic.
Ben, Shannon, Erik and I, after much pressure from Shannon, decided to go to Central Park and enjoy the snow and take in the atmosphere. There were more people in Central Park than on a regular summer day, and people seemed to really enjoy the change of scenery.
It was also fun to have a good old snowball-fight again, even though I disappointed myself and others with my much hyped Norwegian snow-ball tricks (the tricks worked, my aim was just way off...).
And when I saw a layer of untouched snow, I just HAD to jump in it. I haden't taken a proper snow-dive in years, and it felt really refreshing to do it again. See the video:
We spent a couple of hours in the park before we got cold, but we were also able to see the sun setting - an amazing view with the Manhattan skyline in the background.
All in all, a wonderful day. Thanks to Ben who took all the pictures with his supercool new SLR-camera!
A few days ago I attended a lecture at the Scandinavian House in New York. Professor Christine Ingebritsen, Associate Professor at the University of Washington, presented her new book, Scandinavia in World Politics. The book examines the role of Scandinavian countries in world politics, and during the lecture Ingebritsen brought up a few points from the book that were very interesting.
First of all, she talked about the strong sense of community that has been built in Scandinavian countries, even from the days of the Vikings! Yep, the Vikings, although brutal to other groups, had systems in place for the equal sharing of resources among members of their community. Due to the lack of natural resources (before the oil...), the difficult climate and the isolation from trade, Scandinavians historically have been forced to build communities where resource-sharing and sustainability were important factors. This sense of community eventually led to the development of the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure equality and provide an adequate standard of living for all citizens. Ingebritsen argues that Scandinavians have brought this concept into world politics, and that Scandinavian countries enjoy a disproportional large influence in multilateral negotiations.
Ingebritsen talked about the concepts of objective power and subjective power in world politics. Objective power is based on the actual resources a country has, such as the size and capabilities of the army, financial resources, the number of citizens, and so on. Subjective power is based on how a country is perceived and the willingness of other countries to listen to the ideas that a country bring to the table. Ingebritsen suggests that Scandinavian countries have more subjective power than objective power, and may I suggest the US as a country with more objective power than subjective power?
I found these concepts very interesting, and I have always wondered whether Norway's role in world politics is more shaped by the fact that it is a large donor country (objective power), or because other countries actually want to listen what Norway has to say (subjective power). I do believe Norway and the other Scandinavian countries have developed some social models that are worth considering exporting to other countries, but at the same time one cannot discount the role of development aid, which may prompt some countries to be more open to Scandinavian ideas in the hope of being on the receiving end of this aid.
At the same time, Scandinavians should be very careful about claiming “moral superiority”, which unfortunately many do. We are not as loud and insisting of our success as the US sometimes is – it’s more of a subtle, quiet recognition among ourselves that “we know better.” Still, most Scandinavians are well-traveled and well-educated, and I don’t think there will ever be a problem of “idea isolationism.” It’s just important, especially in multilateral negotiations, that we don’t impose our models and systems on countries that do not want them, and that our development aid does not come with a requirement to adapt Scandinavian policies. Participation and local ownership, especially by young people, of decisions and policies is one of the most important factors in making implementation a success.
A couple of days ago I had one of those eye-opening experiences where something you can see and hear just drives a point home so much more than merely reading about it. I went with a friend to the hospital here in New York, and I spent a few hours in the Emergency Room waiting area while she was being checked (she's OK). I witnessed several people coming in to seek help, just to turn around and walk away when they found out their health insurance (or lack thereof) would not cover the costs of medical treatment.
I read about it almost daily how millions of Americans don't have health insurance. Still, the cost of health insurance keeps rising, making it a luxury item for even many working families. Yet, the reality of that situation has never really hit me until I saw it with my own eyes at the hospital that night.
People came in, some of them clearly in pain, and went to the register to fill out the necessary forms. No one can be denied treatment, but if you don't have insurance you get billed by the hospital for all charges incurred, and it is not cheap. I saw people battling with the decision - pain versus financial ruin - and most people chose the former.
The contrast to the abundance of material wealth that exists in New York City could hardly be bigger. A city that offers people any imagineable and unimagineable way of spending money cannot offer basic and affordable medical treatment to some if its citizens. The inequalities in the American society causes these hardships, and the inequalities are reinforced and widened when those that need it the most cannot afford to stay healthy.
This is where the socialist in me screams out for a government-led plan to ensure basic health care for everyone. The privatization of the American health care industry has brough along state-of-the-art facilities with quick and efficient medical treatment - for the rich. When profits enter the equation the poor are left out - they are simply not valuable customers. I believe there are certain areas where the government should not outsource and privatize. Basic services such as health care, education and infrastructure should not be subject to the instability of market forces.
7 out of 8 of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) target these three basic services, the foundations upon which a healthy and prosperous society is built. International development should focus on enabling local governments to provide these services. Educated people in good health, and provided with basic infrastructure, will be productive citizens.
Many donor countries have gone from a needs-based to a rights-based approach to development. That is, instead of considering health care and education as something that would be beneficial for most people, it is considered something every person has the RIGHT to. Perhaps if American citizens were aware of this way of thinking, they would not accept the current situation of the American health care system and the direction it is heading.
On September 12, there will be a parliamentary election in Norway. It looks to become one of the more interesting elections in recent history. Two three-party coalitions have formed, one on each side of the political axis. The debate has been pretty intense, with the level of personal attacks and dirt-digging reaching levels never seen before in Norway. The biggest issues have been education, health care, spending oil money, immigration, and taxes.
Concurrently, there are intense negotiations at the United Nations Headquarters ahead of the World Summit that will take place from September 14th to the 16th. After John Bolton sneaked into the position as US Ambassador to the UN, the US position has drastically changed on several issues. Most importantly, he has suggested to remove all references to the Millennium Development Goals from the outcome document of the summit.
So, what are the connections between these two events taking place next week? None, if we were to believe the media and the issues Norwegians reportedly are concerned with. But, considering Norway's historically strong support of the UN and Norway's strong support of the MDGs, the negotiations taking place at the UN is something that every Norwegian should be aware of.
The future of the UN as a global leader of development is at stake, as is the lives of millions of people who will benefit tremendiously if the MDGs are achieved. The world needs a real commitment from world leaders at the Summit to achieve the MDGs and to commit the resources required to achieve them. If we fail to meet the MDGs, people will still go hungry, children will still not get the education they need, women and girls will still be discriminated, killer diseases will still take lives, and the environment will suffer, even after 2015!
Yet in Norway, the debate rages over whether the government can afford to give each student a free daily hot school meal, in addition to free books and tuition. Some parties argue that we should spend some of the 200 billion dollars currently in the Petroleum Fund today, while other parties argue we should save for coming generations. Many people are outraged that senior citizens who go to the free nursing homes when they retire, do not get their own private room. Students complain that the grant part of the student financing package is too small, forcing them into part-time and summer jobs.
I know these issues are real for many people, but I simply cannot take them 100% seriously when I know how people fight for their simple existence around the world. Norway, on top of the UNDP Human Development Report for the fifth year in a row, is a wonderful place to live and grow up. We really don't have much to complain about.
Yet, the "missing" MDGs and UN reform is not even close to being an issue in the Norwegian election. In fact, to find out where the different parties stand on these issues I had to dig deep into their websites, and even then it was obvious that they were not of much concern. Millions of lives are at stake, and life-altering decisions will be made at the UN next week, but we are more concerned with our own welfare.
I know many Norwegians prefer to stay out of international issues and "keep to ourselves", but we simply cannot afford to just give our share of development aid and then be happy about it. The whole world needs to come together to achieve the MDGs, and we need to act as global citizens, not national citizens. If there was a party that articulated these issues clearly, it'd have my vote in a heartbeat. Now I'm still not sure. Hmmm, free schoolmeal vs. private rooms for senior citizens - tough choice...
