Conversation with ... Robert C. Orr on the UN mandate review process.

Robert C. Orr of the United States (left) was appointed Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General on 6 August 2004. He was interviewed on 30 May 2006 by Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, founder and Director of Global Interfaith Peace.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

KAVEH L. AFRASIABI: In light of your involvement in the current UN management review process, what are the key issues and prospects for substantial changes in the way the United Nations manages its own affairs?

ROBERT C. ORR: The reform process is a broad one, and the management changes are very important pieces of this process. While we have made progress on some substantive issues, including specific management areas, some of the reforms are yet to be adopted by Member States. The debates are ongoing. The Secretary-General has put a bold agenda in his report, Investing in the United Nations--For a Stronger Organization Worldwide, that is under consideration. He is committed to make sure that he leaves the Organization in a better managerial state than when he came in--and that will require some changes, which is why he has put forth the package.

KA: There is a United Nations management reform crisis, as reflected in a resolution of the G-77 countries blocking the Secretary-General's proposal. Do you agree?

RO: Well, some describe this as a crisis. I have a long-term view on United Nations reform, having been through its many phases over the years. As contentious and difficult as this issue is, Member States somehow always find a way to come to an agreement on some of the issues. So I remain optimistic that the right decisions will be taken, at least on the major proposals put forth by the Secretary-General.

KA: Is the United Nations making any headway with respect to financial discipline and transparency?

RO: I think so. Case in point, looking at the process underway in terms of mandate review, that is a splendid example of an open and transparent process that could have implications for the financing and substantive aspects of the Organization. All Member States are participating in a full, transparent and serious discussion. On transparency, the Secretary-General has proposed the idea of an enhanced regime of information being available not only to Member States but also to the public. This is an ongoing process--trying to define what categories of information could be available on a routine basis.

KA: In his report, Mandating and Delivering: Analysis and recommendations to facilitate the review of mandates, the Secretary-General has called for allocating more resources to monitoring and evaluation functions. Has this been followed? And do you expect to see the end of duplicative, ineffective or obsolete programmes any time soon?

RO: The reason the Secretary-General has made this recommendation is that the United Nations community currently lacks adequate monitoring and evaluation of its mandates. He thought of completing properly the life cycle of a mandate and bringing each to its successful completion. Enhancing the resources to monitoring and evaluation will also be an important part of that "cradle to grave" system. This will help Member States to be better custodians of the directives they adopt. Regarding programmes, I think that the debate in the General Assembly has been very encouraging in this regard. Member States have taken this very seriously; their approaches may differ slightly, yet the overall agreement on the need for this process has been quite striking. I think that there will be an agreement on eliminating some mandates and consolidating many others, given the fact that all the major UN organs--the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council--are involved in the work under way.

KA: The UN High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence has a report due--any clues on what it will contain?

RO: Their main focus is on three areas: development, humanitarian and environment. This is a very high-level group of individuals, who have had productive meetings. All the signs are that we will have a serious product by the fall.

KA: There appears to be a new polarization between developed and developing nations on major issues on the UN agenda. Is there any creative way to bridge the gap?

RO: There has to be a way. The United Nations can only function if Member States cut across the economic lines. Any kind of polarization is contrary to the Organization's spirit. All States have to work together if we are to realize the potential of the reform agenda, which is, in fact, the UN potential.

KA: Do you agree that the momentum for the Security Council's expansion has fizzled?

RO: The reform of the Security Council certainly has its own rhythm. Many Member States clearly do not see this as a closed issue. There is a broad agreement on the need to reform the Council, and the differences of opinion are on how to achieve that. That is an important point of departure, that Member States do recognize the legitimacy and the strength of the Council, and will require a serious look at its composition.

KA: Given some concern about the General Assembly's "decline" in light of the proposals with respect to the Fifth Committee, do you foresee any major changes with the Committee's role on administrative and budgetary matters?

RO: Over the past year, the General Assembly has made itself ever more relevant by taking major decisions--on peacebuilding, the Human Rights Council, the responsibility to protect, etc.--therefore, the rumour of its decline has been greatly exaggerated. Having served on the Fifth Committee myself, I am well aware of its importance--and if it works well, then the United Nations benefits across the board, but if it doesn't and there is no agreement on issues, then the repercussions will be felt throughout the house.

KA: Will there be a more meaningful and substantial role for the General Assembly in the selection of the next Secretary-General?

RO: So far, there have been very constructive discussions over the respective role of the General Assembly and the Security Council on this matter. It is too early to tell how this will be played out. The fact that the discussion is happening is in itself a healthy sign. I think that reform and renewal have turned into an integral aspect of the Secretary-General's role. In the area of development, in light of the several summits we have had on that, it will also be a crucial part of the next Secretary-General's agenda.

KA: Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been very successful in reaching out to civil society--what impact has this had on the United Nations?

RO: The Secretary-General has indeed made a great effort to reach out to civil society constituents globally--the private sector, non-governmental organizations, academia, etc.--and this has had very important impact on the types of discussions we have had. Case in point, the discussions on peacebuilding in the recent months has been aided by the input of civil society organizations, since so much of peacebuilding is done not just by the Governments but also by various non-state actors. Similarly, civil society organizations have been very active participants in the debates on the Human Rights Council, thus enriching them. The Secretary General's initiative called the Global Compact, geared towards the business sectors globally, is thriving. Mr. Annan has just returned from a trip in Asia, where he met top business leaders to get them involved. This is a very important development for both the United Nations and the global business community to enhance the latter's sense of social responsibility. This collaboration is extraordinarily important and will be even more so in the future.

KA: What are the current challenges to UN peacekeeping, and how would you rate the UN contribution to the campaign against global terrorism?

RO: Right now the biggest challenge to the UN peacekeeping role is the supply and demand curves. The global demand curve for peacekeeping is extremely high right now and what we are able to supply is stretched quite thin. This is a macro problem that world leaders need to consider. Maintaining world order in this day and age requires sophisticated multilateral mechanisms. To deliver the security needs in a number of countries requires an increasing commitment of financial and other resources, and our challenge is to meet those demands. The United Nations has had an important role in setting the norms on terrorism, both before and after 9/11. There are 13 conventions on the table at this time and the Security Council has been playing an important role through its Counter-terrorism Committee. The Secretary-General has put forward this year a new task force involving 23 entities throughout the United Nations, and it is striking how much the chairman of that task force has achieved so far. If we continue this trend, we can accomplish a great deal, and if Member States agree on a global counter-terrorism strategy, we will be even more empowered to move forward. Hopefully, that will be one of their key decisions in the next several months.