My second UN visit: An historic occasion!

I arrive at Laguardia 2:01 PM with a Canadian Airlines ticket in an American Airlines plane paid for by Pan Pacific Strategies Inc., a Canadian company doing business in United States and China. This is a United Nations day for me. I find a bus to the UN asking the driver to let me off just after the Tunnel - which he agrees to do. He forgot that I had an extra piece of luggage and his stopping would not be within the existing New York City laws. . As we were breaking the law, and I did appreciate his going along with my needs, I gave him a friendship pin and $2 in Canadian loonies, which are almost like real money except the Canadian government manages to negotiate their value down almost on a daily basis. I apologized on behalf of my government as it was not considered real money in the Big Apple. Getting out of the bus, I hopped into a cab and rushed to the UN to arrive just before the 3:00 session. This is amazing when you consider that I had traveled all the way from Gabriola Island, British Columbia. Two ferry rides, two airplanes, one taxi, one bus, and four friends helping out. I was going to be "on time".

Well, things never go as you plan. The "sentry" at the front gate confiscated my badge. I was under the impression that my badge was good until June of 1998, as this is what Charles Mercieca the founder of the IAEWP had led me to believe. It was not. I had to go through the regular system of registering, which meant that I had to fax my credentials to the office, and then wait three days until they could process me. I was a little perturbed to say the least. I telephoned Charles and fortunately I got him and not the answering machine. Within fifteen minutes I was in the office that issues the passes to NGO’s, and after another fifteen minute wait for Michele Federoff, my credentials were approved, and I was back at the UN only to find out that they had moved the issuing office (photo and ID card) back across the road from where I had just come.

I think I went through security five times today. The fellow at the pass issuing office remembered me, from my June visit, and we shared a little laugh about the process. He had my old picture in the machine, digitized. This time he took a picture with a better smile. For those of you who always look grumpy on your passport photos, this was a good photo. Finally at 4:10 I was in the Conference Room 2 with the appropriate badge hanging from my neck. One hour and eight minutes. Possibly a world record.

I did not know it at the time, but this was an historic moment. It was the first time that the Executive Boards of three United Nations organizations met together. UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA It was interesting to hear each of the speakers commenting on this aspect of the meeting. Not on content - just on the mere fact that it was an historic moment taking place. I had just arrived, and as I got comfortable in my seat at the back of the room with other NGOs, including the director of the Canadian UNICEF organization whom I was sitting beside.

I had missed the formal presentation of the Country Team from Viet Nam who had apparently successfully submitted a plan on how the new system might work. Everyone praised the presentation and the work of the Viet Nam team. I later reviewed the documents presented, and I certainly have concerns about programming content contained in the presentation. Business as usual one might say.

I listened to a number of presenters most expressing their fears and their hopes for the future, focusing more on the hopeful side. The Group of 77 and China made a supportive presentation but more for positioning than any ideas of substance. I was pleased to hear the United States representative Dick Sklar make a presentation about raising more money from the corporate sector and I think I even heard him use the term leveraging, although that may be more a hope than really hearing it. Either way, I felt this was fitting well into my agenda for raising corporate awareness as well as hope for the future. I applauded his presentation: Two heads turned in front of me. Then two more: Then two more; pretty soon the whole room was turned to see who was applauding. Apparently this is never done. Even the speaker whom I applauded commented that it was unusual for an American to be applauded. I had not been in the room for fifteen minutes and people were coming over to ask me who I was. In retrospect this is very funny, but serves our purposes really well. Not that I needed an excuse, but I used the opportunity to hand out my recently created "rough brochure" which explains the www.homeplanet.org, the International Peace City 2000 program, the World Citizenship Challenge, and our Vision for Greenwich in the year 2000.

I went and asked permission to place this document on the table for distribution but such permission was not granted as the Secretary felt it was out of context. - so much for raising $100 Billion Dollars - out of context. Fair enough, she did not have time to read and digest the implications of this document.

Notwithstanding the fairness of her decision I feel that I may still use her language to make a point. You bet we are out of context. If you listened to the discussion in the room, while it is hopeful on one level, if you listen between the spoken words, you certainly will not desire to be in context. Hopefully someone in the room will read our document and translate the hope that it carries into the language of the day. Our program is about new ways of thinking about the United Nations and its funding. Our program does not take the funding away from the "nation states". It adds to it by extracting necessary funding from corporations doing business on planet earth. It does not hurt any one. It takes money that is floating in the ether and puts it to work in the hands of "we the people", a familiar ring to those who founded the United Nations. The notion of a global tithing has been discussed on the global scene for many years. It makes sense. It is not done. Curious observation. We are out of context.

One of the hopeful considerations at this historic event was the creation of a new position: that of Resident co-ordinator. This person is to be the designated person in authority in a country who would wear several "hats". The wearing of hats would be for each of the agencies represented. But his responsibility would be for the "greater good" and would not be intended to insulate the "old" system, or regime if you would prefer to say it that way. The idea is to shift to genuine goal oriented collaboration at country level with a resident co-ordinator system. These are the words of Gus Smith the head of the UNDP. He also talked about a UN Development Group with an integrated strategy. His concern here was the need for "core funding" and also the need to have resources to follow up decisions made at conferences - two very practical considerations, and also heavy financial demands.

The subtext of everything that Mr. Smith put forward was that UNICEF was going to be relegated to a secondary position, although he did not say it. Certainly the third component of the meeting was put in as an after thought (the UNFPA) - the director of this agency did not attend this meeting. Of course the appropriate "busy" signal was expressed - and those of us that forgot that this was an historic moment actually believed the "busy" story. The population Fund Agency is going to be integrated into UNDP and that is that.

Then Carole Bellamy spoke: and remember she was the one who broke with precedent to put Reform on the Agenda at the last Executive Board meeting in June. The substance of this current meeting demonstrated why she had to take the action she did in the past. She did put her concerns on the table, and frankly I have some concerns about the nature of her concerns.

She pointed out the "challenge of co-ordination" at Headquarters in the areas of procurement and Information technology (IT) She said she was hoping that there would be an acceptance of common standards to realize savings and to slightly change roles, not the system. She also addressed the notion of how the Resident co-ordinator was to be selected, and if the position was to be a full time position. ( I may have got this information slightly wrong). She did not explain her concern about Information Technology component. (if she did, I missed it).

She did sum up her presentation by stating her support was there if the goal was to strengthen programming for women and children and if this was also the end result.

My interpretation of Ms. Bellamy’s position is that she wants to keep the old system in place. The system that according to Janet Nelson (Director of the UNICEF ngo program) does not want a program to raise $100 Billion dollars because it will reflect badly on the National Committees. Seriously!

While we support UNICEF’s importance as an independent agency, we do not support the logic behind an organization that is looking to implement "standards in its procurement policy" as an alternative to a centralized authority. Especially when the National Committees have the concerns they have expressed. It is clear that the bureaucracy that has been created through UNICEF, UNDP, etc. has got to be looked at, and the hope is that the Resident Co-ordinator will be that person.- unfortunately we did not hear anyone discuss the selection process, nor the specifics of the instructions and mandate that will be issued to this person. There was a suggestion that the "new agency" values would take precedent. An optimistic approach.

Certainly it is too early to tell. This process may work if the Resident co-ordinator does the job as suggested. Certainly it will be a difficult task. If the resident co-ordinator wants to effect serious change, the very first step they can take, is to look at how they can support the www.homeplanet.org website that was created for UNICEF. It does not even have to be analyzed. There is no down side to supporting it. Even if one wanted to analyze it, pick it apart, and then put it back together taking only that which is relevant to their self interest. Our intention is to raise $100 billion dollars and we are going to do it. The task with the support of the intended beneficiaries UNICEF, UNDP UNFPA and other UN NGO’s etc. not only makes sense, it will be confusing to anyone who hears that they do not.

There are still 190 plus bureaucratic agencies fighting over a pie that no longer exists. We need a new pie, and it should have substance to it, not empty air.

Let’s have meaningful Reform and let’s change the context of the United Nations. Now that would be an historic occasion. Education for World citizenship is how to do it effectively!

The IAEWP, through its International Peace City 2000 project is celebrating the raising of $100 billion dollars for the children of the world in July of the Year 2000 in Greenwich England. As of to-days date $1 billion has been raised. Teaching values of world citizenship in schools, in the community and to leaders at the same time is how to effect change.