Briefing 4

May 2013

Why We – Especially the West – Need the UN Development System Kishore Mahbubani

Western countries have created a UN development system that is underfunded and hamstrung by politics. As the relative power of the West declines, these countries should invest more in the UN to ensure global stability.

Institutions of global governance are weak by design not default. Another constant of Western strategy has been to bypass established As Singapore’s permanent representative in New York, I encountered universal institutions for ad hoc groups like the G7 and G8 or senior members of the American establishment who lamented the multilateral organizations dominated by them like the Organization UN’s poor condition. The explanation was the domination by the for Economic Co-operation and Development and the North poor and weak states of Africa and Asia and the poor quality of Atlantic Treaty Organization. But they are not UN substitutes its bureaucrats. because they lack legitimacy. Even the G20, which is broadly representative, lacks a constitutional mandate and standing under To the best of my knowledge, no one seemed aware of a long- international law. It cannot replace the universal membership standing Western strategy, led primarily by Washington, to keep organizations of the UN family. The global convergence on norms the United Nations weak. Even during the Cold War, when Moscow and institutions to manage our global village requires inputs from and Washington disagreed on everything, both actively conspired legitimate global institutions. to keep the UN feeble: selecting pliable secretaries-general, such as Kurt Waldheim, and bullying them into dismissing or sidelining Most of our key global village councils are related to the United competent and conscientious international civil servants who Nations. A deep fissure exists between the dominant narrative in showed any backbone; squeezing the organization’s budgets; and the West and in the rest of the world. Most well-informed Western planting CIA and KGB agents across the UN system. citizens view the UN system as a bloated bureaucracy that does little good. By contrast, which is the good fortune of our world at As we move into an era of great convergence, the West must this historical juncture, the vast majority of those who live outside fundamentally rethink its policy that its long-term interests are the West retain massive trust in the UN system. If the West served by keeping institutions of global governance weak. With understood global trends, it would take advantage of this trust to only 12 percent of the population of the global village and a declining secure its long-term strategic interests. share of economic and military power, the West’s long-term geopolitical interests will switch from trying to preserve its At one time, it may have made sense for the West to keep global “dominance” to safeguards to protect the West’s “minority” position village councils weak because its strength meant that it could defend in a new global configuration of power. itself unilaterally, especially from military threats. Indeed, its undeclared policy was weakening the UN system. However, the Having lived as a member of an ethnic minority (Sindhi) within primary security threats to the West are no longer military. No an ethnic minority (Indian) in an ethnic majority (Chinese) state, armies of tanks are poised to invade any Western country. I know that the best way to protect minority rights is strengthening Instead, the main threats range from illegal immigrants to the rule of law and the institutions that promote it. As most dangerous viruses, from new forms of economic competition to organizations of global governance are designed for this purpose, cultural isolation. the West should work to strengthen not weaken them.

FUNDS supports and helps accelerate change in the UN development system to increase effective responses to global development challenges—especially after 2015, the target date for the Millennium Development Goals. Recognizing the many frustrations that have accompanied UN reform efforts, FUNDS envisages a multi-year process designed to help build consensus around necessary changes. Financial support currently comes from the governments of Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. Funding The UN mission is to provide global public goods? Is it rational that the In this dramatically changed strategic environment, it would be United States spends $2,400 out of every $10,000 of GNI to finance foolish to continue spending more on defense and less on global the national budget, but the global citizen spends 37¢ out of every village councils. Although this strategic folly becomes clearer every $10,000 to finance the UN organization’s regular core budget? day, there is virtually no major voice in the West advocating a geopolitical master stroke. Nothing illustrates the global irrationality National budgets clearly do more than UN budgets: they pay for better than the absurd decision to cut the UN budget in December defense, homeland security, welfare payments, educational 2011 by 5 percent. The pressure to slash the budget came primarily resources, and other essential services; and they cater to national from Washington and other major Western countries. No one needs. I am not arguing that UN budgets should rise to the scale opposes fiscal discipline and continued reform. At the same time, of national budgets. But they should increase at the same pace as key departments and agencies should have adequate resources when global needs, especially as they have increased faster than national demands increase, as they will. needs in some instances.

Assessed contributions come from member states’ financial Global Public Goods obligations and provide a regular and reliable source of funding Let’s examine two cases of such public goods emanating from the for core UN functions and are based on a member state’s ability to UN development system, health and nuclear energy. In the first pay. Voluntary contributions are at the discretion of each member decade of the twenty-first century, the danger of global pandemics state. They are used to finance the bulk of the UN’s humanitarian was obvious from the SARS virus in 2002–3 and the H1N1 bird flu operations and key agencies, such as UNICEF, the World Food virus in 2009 and again today. Similarly, nuclear proliferation is a Programme, and the UN Development Programme (UNDP). vital security issue worldwide. So why are we squeezing the budgets of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International This distinction between assessed and voluntary contributions is Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? essential because, as an earlier essay in this series pointed out,1 the West as well as non-traditional donors have blocked the growth of theis UNthat systemthe demand by restricting has grown assessed exponentially contributions. and These will predictablecontinue to sources grow asof fundingthe world are population out of favor increases because fromdonors 7 cannotto 8 billioncontrol inthe the agenda next supported ten years. by A assessed higher contributions. demand for Whatfood beganand energyas a policy will of takepromoting a corresponding “zero-budget” toll growth on thefor environment, exacerbating risks such as global warming. assessed contributions has now escalated to “negative-budget” UN organizations are to mitigate these risks, ranging from growth.the environment (UN Environment Programme) to population (UN Population Fund), from development As(UNDP) the biggest to criticchildren and (UNICEF)contributor toand UN the budgets, displaced it is useful(Office to examineof the UNthe recordHigh Commissionersince 1960, when for the Refugees). US federal Ifbudget so, why was $81.34are we billion. shrinking By 2010, the it hadbudget grown of tothe $2.9 one trillion, global an institution increase of thirty-sixwhose primary times. Meanwhile, mission is tothe provide US economy global had public grown goods? from $520.5Is it rationalbillion to that$14.6 the trillion, United a twenty-eightfold States spends increase. $2,400 In out 1960, of theevery UN budget$10,000 was of $65.7 GNI million, to finance and by the 2010 national it had grown budget, to $2.7but billion,the global an increase citizen of spends forty-one 37¢ times. out Meanwhile,of every $10,000 the global to economyfinance hadthe UNgrown organization’s from $1.35 trillion regular to core $63 budget?trillion, a forty- National budgets clearly do more than UN budgets: seven-fold increase. As a percentage of the global economy, the UN they pay for defense, homeland security, welfare budgetpayments, shrank educationalfrom 0.0049 toresources, 0.0037 percent. and other essential services; and they cater to national needs. I am not Asarguing we look that at how UN the budgets US budget should has grown rise torelative the toscale the USof economynational and budgets. at how theBut UN they budget should has diminished increase atrelative the sameto the globalpace economy,as global we needs, have to especially ask: has the as demand they havefor global increased public goodsfaster shrunk than national in the past needs few decades? in some The instances. answer to that rhetorical question is that the demand has grown exponentially and will continueGLOBAL to grow PUBLIC as the world GOODS population increases from 7 to 8 As we move inexorably toward living in a more and billion in the next ten years. A higher demand for food and energy Asmore we movecompact inexorably village, toward one living clear in commona more and threat more compactis the Let’s examine two cases of such public goods will take a corresponding toll on the environment, exacerbating village,rapid spread one clear of common pandemics. threat Distances is the rapid havespread disappeared. of pandemics. emanating from the UN development system, health and risks such as global warming. UN organizations are to mitigate DistancesViruses jump have disappeared.effortlessly acrossViruses continents. jump effortlessly Hence, acrosswe nuclear energy. In the first decade of the twenty-first these risks, ranging from the environment (UN Environment should be doing our utmost to strengthen the global health century, the danger of global pandemics was obvious continents. Hence, we should be doing our utmost to strengthen Programme) to population (UN Population Fund), from institutions, especially the WHO. Yet as Kelley Lee points from the SARS virus in 2002–3 and the H1N1 bird flu the global health institutions, especially the WHO. Yet as Kelley out in her recent book, we have done the opposite.2 She developmentvirus in 2009(UNDP) and to childrenagain today.(UNICEF) Similarly, and the displacednuclear Lee points out in her recent book, we have done the opposite.2 She (Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees). If so, why are dissectsdissects many many flawed flawed policies policies affecting affecting the theWHO, WHO,in particular in proliferation is a vital security issue worldwide. So why particular three major strategic errors. we shrinking the budget of the one global institution whose primary three major strategic errors. are we squeezing the budgets of the World Health The first is to allow short-term and often sectional Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy special interests to override enlightened longer-term Agency (IAEA)? interests in stronger institutions. As the fastest-shrinking 2 and most affluent members of the global village, Western countries have a clear interest in strengthening the WHO to improve global health conditions and to develop its capability and legitimacy to fight major global epidemics. SARS began in a small village in China. From there it went to Hong Kong, and from Hong Kong it leapt to two cities on opposite sides of the global village: Singapore and Toronto. WHO helped ameliorate this crisis and gets high marks from respondents worldwide in a recent poll conducted by this project (see Figure 1).3 Rather than strengthening the organization and providing more resources, however, the major Western contributors have starved WHO. In 1970–1, the WHO received 72 percent of its budget from Regular Budget Funds (RBFs) and 18 percent from Extra-Budgetary Funds (EBFs). By 2006–7, the ratio had reversed to 28 percent from RBFs and 72 percent from EBFs. The WHO can make long-term plans only on the basis of RBFs. But EBFs can disappear overnight, at the whim of donors (see Figure 2).4

3 The first is to allow short-term and often sectional special interests Despite the success of these relatively inexpensive public health to override enlightened longer-term interests in stronger institutions. efforts, the United States opposed them. As the fastest-shrinking and most affluent members of the global village, Western countries have a clear interest in strengthening The third major strategic error has been to dilute the role of the the WHO to improve global health conditions and to develop its WHO as the leading global health agency and augment resources capability and legitimacy to fight major global epidemics. SARS of the World Bank for health. The Bank’s lending on health went began in a small village in China. From there it went to Hong Kong, from roughly half of the WHO budget in 1984 to more than two and from Hong Kong it leapt to two cities on opposite sides of the and a half times larger in 1996, which reflected Western influence global village: Singapore and Toronto. WHO helped ameliorate this over the Bank’s leadership and agenda. Moreover, the creation of crisis and gets high marks from respondents worldwide in a recent large private foundations, especially the Bill and Melinda Gates poll conducted by this project (see Figure 1).3 Rather than Foundation, also undermined the central role of the WHO. As strengthening the organization and providing more resources, Anne-Emanuelle Birn says, “In part-funding selected initiatives, however, the major Western contributors have starved WHO. the [Gates] Foundation has influenced the decisions of other donor agencies, and thus global health priorities in general.”6 As a result, In 1970–1, the WHO received 72 percent of its budget from Regular Lee concludes, “for the WHO, it has meant a substantial bypassing Budget Funds (RBFs) and 18 percent from Extra-Budgetary Funds of its role as the lead UN health agency.”7 (EBFs). By 2006–7, the ratio had reversed to 28 percent from RBFs and 72 percent from EBFs. The WHO can make long-term plans As the most prosperous occupants of an ever-shrinking global only on the basis of RBFs. But EBFs can disappear overnight, at the village, Western populations have a clear interest in preventing the whim of donors (see Figure 2).4 emergence of epidemics. No Western state has the moral or political authority to investigate the internal health conditions of other states. The WHO does. Similarly, neither the World Bank nor the Gates FoundationGates Foundation has the authority has the or authoritylegitimacy orto galvanizelegitimacy instant to galvanize instant global cooperation to deal with an global cooperation to deal with an epidemic. The vast majority of epidemic. The vast majority of Third World countries who Thirdlive outside World countriesthe West whooften live hesitateoutside the to allowWest often the Worldhesitate to allowBank the or Worldthe Gates Bank Foundation or the Gates to Foundation come into to their come countries into their countriesand investigate and investigate their contributions, their contributions, directly directly or orindirectly, indirectly, toto anyany new new global global epidemic. epidemic. But theyBut normallythey normally open their open doors their to WHOdoors representativesto WHO representatives because they because perceive they the perceive WHO tothe be defendingWHO to beglobal, defending not narrower, global, interests. not narrower, interests. The mistakes in dealing with global health are Thereplicated mistakes infor dealing nuclear with globalproliferation. health are replicated The forlogical nuclear proliferation.consequence ofThe a logicalfear about consequence such proliferation of a fear shouldabout such be proliferationto strengthen should the beglobal to strengthen council the thatglobal deals council with that dealsthis problem, namely, the IAEA. As a member of the To make matters worse, the “Geneva Group” of 14 with this problem, namely, the IAEA. As a member of the major Western donors introduced zero real growth to the Commission of Eminent Persons to review the future of To make matters worse, the “Geneva Group” of 14 major Western Commissionthe IAEA, I ofwas Eminent shocked Persons to learn to review that thedespite future the of therhetoric IAEA, donorsRBFs introducedof all UN organizations, zero real growth including to the theRBFs WHO. of all This UN I was shocked to learn that despite the rhetoric after 9/11, it had policy continued under both the more internationally after 9/11, it had been subjected to the same zero-budget- organizations, including the WHO. This policy continued under beengrowth subjected policies to theapplied same tozero-budget-growth all UN organizations. policies applied to bothminded the more Clinton-Gore internationally mindedadministration Clinton-Gore and administration the less all UN organizations. enlightened Bush-Cheney one. In short in Washington and One of its key roles is the inspection of nuclear power and the less enlightened Bush-Cheney one. In short in Washington elsewhere, the decision to starve UN organizations was plants to ensure compliance with international standards andnot elsewhere, driven by the ideology decision but to starvea myopic UN organizationsdesire to control was thenot Oneand ofverify its key the roles absence is the ofinspection diversion of nuclearof fuel powerfor weapons. plants to drivenglobal by agenda. ideology but a myopic desire to control the global agenda. ensureThe IAEA compliance needs withto keep international on its regular standards payroll and averify strong the The second strategic error was to allow the traditional absenceand large of diversion team of of dedicated fuel for weapons. nuclear The inspectors, IAEA needs who to will keep TheWestern second interest strategic inerror biomedicine, was to allow thewith traditional its focus Western on onstay its withregular the payroll IAEA a strongonly andif they large have team ofguaranteed dedicated nucleargood interestindividual in biomedicine, behavior and with biology, its focus toon trumpindividual growing behavior global and inspectors,remuneration who andwill staylifelong with thecareer IAEA prospects. only if they The have IAEA guaranteed can provide these terms and conditions only from reliable and biology,interest to trumpin social growing medicine, global interest with in socialits emphasis medicine, withon good remuneration and lifelong career prospects. The IAEA can predictable contributions. The West should be increasing itsunderstanding emphasis on understanding and transforming and transforming social social conditions conditions provide these terms and conditions only from reliable and underlying health and disease. Policies toward the WHO the assessed and not voluntary contributions. But the underlying health and disease. Policies toward the WHO are heavily predictableexact opposite contributions. has occurred. The West should be increasing the influencedare heavily by the influenced big pharmaceutical by the corporations, big pharmaceutical whose bottom assessed and not voluntary contributions. But the exact opposite linescorporations, reflect individual whose bottomhealth spending lines reflect not collective individual well-being. health has occurred. spending not collective well-being. CONCLUSION Lee adds that “the rise of neoliberal-based fiscal Leepolicies adds that brought “the rise even of neoliberal-based greater restrictions fiscal policies on publicbrought ConclusionIt is time, especially for the United States, to invest in evenspending greater restrictionson health.” on5 publicIn short, spending once on health.”again 5ideology In short, Itthe is time,UN especiallysystem. forThe the impactUnited States, of ending to invest its in thezero-budget UN system. oncetrumped again realideology life-and-death trumped real experience. life-and-death In Colombia, experience. for In Thepolicies impact on ofthe ending American its zero-budget economy policiesand national on the budgetAmerican Colombia,example, for only example, 9 percent only 9of percent children of children were covered were covered by the by economywould be and inconsequential. national budget would The bebudget inconsequential. of the New The Yorkbudget theDPT DPT vaccine vaccine inin 1975. This This increased increased to to87 87percent percent by 1990. by ofCity the FireNew YorkDepartment, City Fire Department,which serves which one serves city, one is city,$1.5 is 1990. Despite the success of these relatively inexpensive billion a year. The budget for the UN’s core functions— public health efforts, the United States opposed them. the Secretariat operations in New York, Geneva, Nairobi, The third major strategic error has been to dilute the Vienna, and five regional commissions, which serves the role of the WHO as the leading global health agency and 3 whole world—is $1.74 billion a year. Yet this financially augment resources of the World Bank for health. The inconsequential decision by the US government would Bank’s lending on health went from roughly half of the bring enormous benefits if it led other donors in the North WHO budget in 1984 to more than two and a half times and the global South to invest more in global public goods larger in 1996, which reflected Western influence over the for our small global village. It would be good for Bank’s leadership and agenda. Moreover, the creation of America; it would enhance global stability and trust; it large private foundations, especially the Bill and Melinda would be a win-win investment. Gates Foundation, also undermined the central role of the To revive weakening multilateral institutions, the WHO. As Anne-Emanuelle Birn says, “In part-funding place to start is reversing the “zero-growth” for UN selected initiatives, the [Gates] Foundation has influenced budgets, with trivial costs. Global defense spending the decisions of other donor agencies, and thus global amounted to $1.63 trillion in 2010. The UN regular health priorities in general.”6 As a result, Lee concludes, budget stood at $2.58 billion per year for the year 2010– “for the WHO, it has meant a substantial bypassing of its 11, or 0.16 percent of global defense spending. role as the lead UN health agency.”7 As stronger multilateral processes and institutions As the most prosperous occupants of an ever- serve long-term Western interests and are inexpensive, we shrinking global village, Western populations have a clear can and should abandon zero-growth budget policies and interest in preventing the emergence of epidemics. No also begin to adapt other simple and sensible policies to Western state has the moral or political authority to strengthen multilateralism. For example, we should investigate the internal health conditions of other states. introduce the concept of meritocracy in the selection of The WHO does. Similarly, neither the World Bank nor the

4 $1.5 billion a year. The budget for the UN’s core functions—the As stronger multilateral processes and institutions serve long-term Secretariat operations in New York, Geneva, Nairobi, Vienna, and Western interests and are inexpensive, we can and should abandon five regional commissions, which serves the whole world—is $1.74 zero-growth budget policies and also begin to adapt other simple billion a year. Yet this financially inconsequential decision by the and sensible policies to strengthen multilateralism. For example, US government would bring enormous benefits if it led other we should introduce the concept of meritocracy in the selection of donors in the North and the global South to invest more in global the heads of all multilateral institutions by picking the strongest public goods for our small global village. It would be good for possible candidate to run these organizations. America; it would enhance global stability and trust; it would be a win-win investment. Common sense would take us a long way. Since humanity at large is becoming better educated and more reasonable as a result of the To revive weakening multilateral institutions, the place to start is great convergence, we can now apply these powers of reason and reversing the “zero-growth” for UN budgets, with trivial costs. common sense to create a better United Nations and a more effective Global defense spending amounted to $1.63 trillion in 2010. The UN development system. UN regular budget stood at $2.58 billion per year for the year 2010–11, or 0.16 percent of global defense spending.

Kishore Mahbubani is Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Notes Professor of Practice, National University of Singapore. A former permanent 1. Asmita Naik, “Can the UN Adjust to the Changing Funding Landscape?” FUNDS representative in New York, he is the author most recently of The Great Briefing 2, March 2013. Convergence: Asia, the West, and the Logic of One World (New York: Public 2. Kelley Lee, The World Health Organization (London: Routledge, 2009). Affairs Press, 2013). 3. Stephen Browne and Thomas G. Weiss, Making Change Happen (New York: WFUNA, 2012), 33.

4. WHO annual financial reports, and Lee,WHO , 40.

5. Lee, WHO, 79.

6. Anne-Emanuelle Birn, quoted in ibid., 116.

7. Ibid., 117.

Future United Nations Development System, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York 365 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5203, New York, NY 10016-4309 Tel: (212) 817-2100 Fax: (212) 817-1565 www.futureUN.org

4