By S. R. Insanally, former Minister of Foreign Affairs
The purpose of the New Global Human Order (Resolution A/RES/62/213 adopted by acclamation at the United Nations 79th General Assembly, 7 March 2008) was fundamentally to address the political, social and economic issues which have long challenged its membership. The subsequent design and adoption of Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), were expected to assist the Membership to effectively chart a course for the operationalization of the Global Human Order Project, in full awareness of the complexity and difficulty of the undertaking. These included: i) the great diversity of member states, each with differing ideas of how good global governance might be best achieved; ii) the obvious reluctance of the big powers to relinquish their dominance in global affairs; iii) the disparity in the negotiating strength of the parties (the developed versus the developing world); iv) the deep suspicion and distrust which divided the parties, even on common issues; v) the ideological differences which motivated the parties; and vi) the fear that if we tamper with the text of the Charter, it will all come apart.
The lack of political will and nationalism are clearly still powerful forces at play. We are yet to reach the level of multilateral diplomacy that is required to address global problems through global solutions. It is not unusual now that persons are reticent in their response, when asked for their opinion on the current performance of the international system. The average world citizen is of the view that the magnitude of our global problems overwhelms the capacity of the international community to provide adequate solutions. For most countries, the UN now serves as a significant catalyst for international dialogue and cooperation. It is therefore not surprising that a renewed call for a new Global Human Order is being made in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war and other major catastrophes.
Within the UN organization itself, there are several processes looking at the possibility of reforming the present governance system to make it more responsive to the needs of the 21st Century. Apart from the Security Council, these involve the revitalization of the General Assembly, the empowerment of the Economic and Social Council, the Reform of the Bretton Woods Institutions, and the strengthening of the Secretariats. Admittedly, some progress has been made in the consideration of options for change and, in some cases, in actually making changes that have enhanced the performance of some bodies. Some of these improvements, however, are hardly commensurate with the time and efforts expended in the reform exercise. Undoubtedly, the greatest obstacle to progress has been the lack of sufficient political appetite for reform among those states who wish to maintain the status quo.
Guyana’s post-independence participation in the UN, not unlike that of many developing nations, was limited. It was only until the 48th General Assembly in 1993-94 when Guyana was unanimously elected to preside over the General Assembly and to chair a Special Working Group on the Reform of the Security Council that its proposal for a New Global Human Order, included in the UN Agenda since the 1970s, was formally discussed and endorsed. The international community, including CARICOM, is now challenged to find more instruments which might help us to secure our future welfare. The value of public diplomacy ought not to be underestimated since, if properly used, it can provide effective advocacy for multiple causes. Broadly speaking, in international relations, “public or people’s diplomacy is the communication with the foreign public to establish a dialogue designed to inform and influence” (Wikipedia).
In my view, CARICOM’s priorities will be more peace – and development – oriented and consequently, generally non-controversial. Additionally, as small and vulnerable states, we should take advantage of every opportunity to broaden and intensify the campaign for special treatment in the international trading system so that we might find a safe niche for ourselves in the global economy, in light of the prevailing world economic and financial crisis, and the attendant threat of a reduction in Overseas Development Assistance. In the absence of a legally-binding agreement on the environment, we would also be well-advised to mobilize public funding in addition to official resources, to provide for adaptable and sustainable development. Last but not least, given the dangers of transboundary crime –including arms and drug-trafficking – impacting both our development and security, we should aim our diplomacy at making the Caribbean a Zone of Peace.
It is for the governments and people of the Caribbean Community to decide what is now important to them that would benefit from special advocacy, and to seek partnerships where there are shared visions and aligned plans of action.
