NOTE TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL THE CHEF DE CABINET

Launch of the Secretary-General's Millennium+5 repor As we prepare for the launch of the Secretary-General's Millennium+5 report, I thought it might be useful to review some lessons learned from the launch of the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, last December. (Since the lead on this issue has been shared by both of you, I am taking the liberty of addressing this note jointly). I am pleased to attach a report prepared by DPI on the communications work for the HLP report, as strategized and carried out jointly with EOSG, UNF and other partners. We have also prepared this as part of our ongoing efforts to evaluate the impact of our work. Some of the main conclusions that might be applied to the launch of the Secretary-General's March report include the following: • There is a major advantage in having a multiplicity of spokespeople who can be deployed in advance of, on the day, and shortly after the launch; • Collaboration with UNF and the Stanley Foundation, and their outreach to governmental and civil society sectors, as well as the media, were overwhelmingly positive factors;

• It should be easier to maintain an embargo in the present case than in December. But if alleged leaked versions do in some fashion get out, we should be more stalwart in holding the embargo, by maintaining that the leaked material is not the full and final text and cannot be verified for accuracy; • The Executive Summary of A more secure world, prepared in advance (but only barely so) of the launch, was found to be useful by nearly all reporters polled by UN information centres, and was also observed to be well-used by those attending public briefings on the report outside UN Headquarters; • Two weeks is the bare minimum required to publish a report of this size, from availability of the final edited texLuntiLdelivery. b.y_the printer; n

JUN 2 7 2005 J I • It was possible to instill a broad similarity in messaging and presentation among the Panel members, the Panel secretariat and the Secretariat, and this was worth the effort. This should be even more feasible, and worthwhile, for a report that is produced within the UN Secretariat.

I hope this "lessons learned" report proves useful. We look forward to working with the EOSG team on the launch of the Secretary-General's report this month.

Shashi Tharoor 10 March 2005

cc: Mr. Orr Mr. Stedman Mr. Mortimer Communications Report

On the launch of A more secure world: our shared responsibility 2 December 2004

Prepared by the Department of Public Information

Overview The report of a distinguished panel appointed by the Secretary-General to issue comprehensive recommendations about collective security and UN reform was received with considerable interest both before and after the 2 December launch date. It was to be positioned as the first in a series of important policy-driven activities leading up to the 2005 Summit, focusing on different aspects of UN reform. It would be followed in mid- January by the release of the Millennium Project report and in March by the Secretary- General's own recommendations based on discussions of the previous two reports.

The 16 members of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change reflected a wide range of expertise and regional diversity and included former heads of State, foreign ministers and security, military, diplomatic and development officials.

Appearing in the midst of a harsh political and media environment, the report overall was lauded for opening up prospects for collective action and renewal of the United Nations, and covered widely and intensely in major newspapers, news magazines and broadcast media worldwide. In the United States, the launch allowed an opportunity for friends of the UN and advocates of multilateralism to contest strident criticism of the world body, at least temporarily shifting public discussion from backward-looking recrimination to constructive engagement in change.

The printed version of the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change is in strong demand. It is likely to be closely read, and to maintain a position on bookshelves in public institutions and offices of policy makers.

Stated objectives and strategic considerations An advance strategy paper (16 November) listed two main objectives for the launch and related promotional campaign: • To convince policy makers, opinion leaders and political elites that the report is important and that they need to take action on it at the 2005 Summit. • To convince a more general audience that 2005 is a year of decision and that their leaders must step up to the plate.

The strategy paper also listed key considerations that needed to be taken into account: • A major concern was to direct media attention to issues broader than just Security Council reform; most likely journalists away from UNHQ would be more likely to venture beyond "insider" themes. • In the three weeks between the fmalization of the report and its public release, we sought to position the report's release in the best context by managing the pre- publicity and countering any negative stories that might result from leaks. • An important concern was to generate positive discussion within Member States, in particular in the United States, on the need to engage constructively at the UN on global threats and challenges with a view to taking action at the 2005 Summit.

Advance briefings To help shape the news story, and respond to many incoming requests, DPI in collaboration with the UN Foundation, organized embargoed advance briefings of editors or editorial boards, on behalf of lead Panel research staffer Panel members. Comparing the content of the briefings with that of subsequent news articles, it is apparent that these briefings in fact contributed to media perception of the report. In addition, the briefings served to pique the interest of journalists and news organizations that were not reached by these briefings, but now felt they needed to bring themselves up to speed with their competitors.

Panel staff met with editorial boards and international affairs editors in the following cities (many of the briefings were organized by UN information centres).

In London: The Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, the BBC, Financial Times and The Economist.

In Frankfurt and Berlin: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, Tagesspiegel, Die Welt, Financial Times Deutschland, and Der Spiegel.

In Paris: Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Jeune Afrique.

There were also pre-release briefings by telephone to editorial boards in Delhi and Johannesburg.

UNIC Washington organized a briefing on 23 November for Stephen Stedman and Bruce Jones to meet with editorialists from USA Today, National Public Radio, and the Washington Post (Washington Times declined). Stedman met on his own with the US Policy Planning Office, State Department and National Security Council. On 1 December, UNIC organized a briefing for 20 House and Senate staffers and distributed advance copies of the reports.

Stephen Stedman also briefed the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times before the UN headquarters briefing. He also held an editorial board meeting by telephone with the Wall Street Journal.

The main advance briefing took place Tuesday, 30 November, at Room S-226 in UN Headquarters. Nearly the entire body of the UN press corps turned out for a background briefing by Steve Stedman, head of the Panel research staff, and to receive advance xeroxed copies of the Panel report. Just prior to the briefing, the decision was made to lift the embargo on the report text (see more below, under Launch day and embargo management).

DPI also liaised with the Stanley Foundation, which had organized a series of roundtables in the early part of 2004 around issues suggested by the HLP Secretariat (for example: use of force, and humanitarian intervention). The Stanley Foundation promoted the work of the HLP and UN reform as its UN theme and UN Next Decade topics in 2004. It continues to be instrumental in promoting the HLP report and UN reform through its NGO networks and other activities, most recently organizing the appearance of Nafis Sadik at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre.

In the months leading up to the report's release, the UN Foundation, with support from DPI and UNIC Washington, organized roundtables and other foreign policy events together with the Woodrow Wilson International Center, the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies and other foreign policy organizations in London, Cape Town, Rome, Delhi and Cairo.

The HLP launch could have benefited in the U.S. public eye from more vocal support from non-UN sources. There was a concerted effort by DPI, the UN Foundation, the Stanley Foundation and others to target third parties to be offered as sources for coverage of UN reform and other key issues. Efforts will continue to concentrate more energy on identifying sources in the U.S. foreign policy establishment, whether congressional members or academics, to serve as media contacts,

Talking points and internal guidance To facilitate the advance briefings and prepare UN officials and information officers, several guidance documents were prepared. These included guidelines to the media on the use they could make of briefings and terms of the embargo, a Q&A prepared by the Panel research staff, a paper on messages related to the Millennium Declaration by the EOSG and the DPI communications strategy, including a compilation of approved messages.

Press kit, publications and web site Working from advance texts provided less than a week ahead of the launch, DPI typeset and published the Panel's report in a bound edition with a distinctive full-colour cover design, in English and later in French. Along with the report, DPI prepared an executive summary in brochure form that was published in five official languages, as well as press releases and background press material. Pocket folders containing the press materials and the brochure were prepared using the same design as the report itself, and press materials were copied onto signature masthead.

All materials were printed and ready for distribution in English ahead of the 2 December launch at UN Headquarters in New York. They were also shipped to Washington in time for press events on the same day in that city, and were made available under strict embargo to UN information centres and the Panel secretariat. During translation and preparation for printing, texts were exchanged by hand only and not by e-mail, to maintain security. There are no known or suspected instances of leakage of the text during this process.

Publication on short notice was facilitated by the UN Foundation, which provided funding to hire an external printer. All typesetting and art work were carried out by DPI designers.

The report had an initial print run of 15,000 (and 5,000 French) and the executive summary brochures were printed in a quantity of 20,000 in English, and lesser numbers in other languages (10,000 each in French and Spanish, and 2,000 each in Arabic and Russian). The Chinese version of the executive summary is accessible electronically only.

Since all 15,000 copies of the first printing of the report were disseminated within two weeks of release, UNF agreed to finance a second printing of 20,000 that was readied during the first week of January 2005.

The report and associated materials were placed on a specially designed website, www.un.org/secureworld. In addition, a footnoted version of the report is posted at this site, for academicians or those with close policy interest.

Interest in the secureworld web site has been steady although it peaked around the time of the launch (2 and 3 December). In the month of December, the site registered over one million hits (1,281,089) but a more realistic idea of usage can be gathered from the numbers of daily pages and visits. The average daily page tally was 4,805 and visits averaged 247. The actual number of visitors is easily in the tens of thousands, although the exact number is unknown without a visitor sign-in register.

Visitors from every corner of the globe have been drawn to the site. Although almost 90 per cent of country origins are unknown, in December, the site recognized addresses originating from 113 countries. The number of visits to the French and Spanish report sites were somewhat modest and more effort may be needed to publicize these sites. The tsunami crisis temporarily bumped the secure-world button from the UN website top page as well as from the UN news centre but a running banner on the top page and critical links in the news centre were restored in early February.

Op-eds A long interpretation and commentary on the Panel report by the Secretary-General and printed in The Economist in the edition that came out the day after the report launch. A shortened version of this text was carried as an op-ed in more than 30 newspapers worldwide including the Los Angeles Times, Le Monde, International Herald Tribune, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, AlAkhbar, El Pats, El Mercuric (Santiago) and The Nation (Bangkok). More than twenty of these op-ed placements were handled by UN information centres. The op-ed appeared in Le Monde on 1 December and the following day in the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, El Mercurio (Chile) and El Pais (Spain). It appeared in 18 other major newspapers on 3 December and continued to be reproduced even up to 7-10 days later (Wprost in Poland, Reforma in Mexico and The Hindustan in India).

Launch day and embargo management While maintaining the embargo on the report was posited as a high priority, there also was a realization that parts of the report might be leaked, or that wayward comments to the press by Panel members or copies of earlier drafts might produce pre-2 December stories about the contents of the report. This indeed was the case, for example in two long stories that appeared a week ahead of time in the Economist.

To a certain extent, these stories were helpful. They were largely positive in tone and piqued anticipation for the release of the main report, but did not purport to have the final word on exactly what the Panel's recommendations would be.

Nevertheless, it was decided on 30 November that enough of the main outlines of the Panel's conclusions were circulating in the public domain that it was no longer useful to maintain the embargo. Accordingly, the embargo on the advance (xeroxed) text was lifted just as the 10:00 a.m. briefing of the UN press corps began in New York.

Several decisions had to be made in short order to accommodate this sudden policy shift. The UN press release which was to come out on 2 December was instead issued that afternoon, 30 November. An important adjustment was made: quotes concerning the Secretary-General's response to the Panel, which were to be found in his Foreword to the printed version, were excised. This was technically necessary because the printed version of the report would not be off the printing presses until just before 2 December, and the Secretary-General's letter of transmittal, which also reacted to the Panel recommendations, had not yet been issued. So in fact, the Secretary-General had not yet officially said anything about the Panel's conclusions.

More importantly, this approach established the possibility of media getting "two bites" at the same story with the benefit of generating an additional opportunity for coverage of the report. While the embargo was lifted on the advance copy, the final report -- with crucial apparatus from the Secretary-General — would still be launched on schedule, on 2 December. This served to create a second media event and, perhaps more importantly, assuage Member States who were irritated that the press received the report before they did.

Accordingly, it was decided after the 30 November briefing that advance copies would be provided exclusively to journalists and Member State representatives, and only upon request; and that the report would be kept off UN web sites until after the 2 December launch.

In retrospect, this policy seems to have worked well, although in the crush of events there were a few slip-ups. Some staff in the Spokesman's Office apparently did not receive clear instructions on the new policy, and for a time denied requests from out-of-the- building journalists for advance copies. Panel members sent some copies of the book that included the SG's forword electronically to journalists who had received Panel briefings, rather than just the report text, as had been previously agreed. Thus, some reports (that included the Secretary-General's comments) were posted on media web sites in advance of the launch.

A second press release, featuring the Secretary-General's strong support, was prepared by DPI for the 2 December launch at Headquarters. The 2 December press conference, led by the Panel Chair Anand Panyarachun and Panellist Gro Harlem Brundtland, was well attended. At the conclusion, the two panellists departed to carry out one-on-one interviews, as Stephen Stedman continued to brief the press conference and answer questions on the substance of the report.

The tone of the 30 November and 2 December briefings in New York was positive in both cases, especially as to the value of an overall review of security policy and UN capacities. Sceptical notes were struck largely in regard to how much change Member States would be able to accomplish, and to what extent the report could be construed as an emergency response to current UN credibility difficulties.

Panellist Media outreach In New York for the launch, Panel Chair Anand Panyarachun and Panellist Gro Harlem Brundtland were heavily engaged in media outreach. Brent Scowcroft also handled a heavy schedule of media interviews in Washington, D.C. DPI helped set up several of the interviews and conducted follow-up calls with producers and journalists.

On the launch day, Mr. Anand was interviewed by Mainichi and Asahi Shimbun after a Nikkei interview on 1 December. He also participated in the BBC World news programme Asia Today and immediately after the press conference was interviewed by Al-Jazeera and O Globo television as was Gro Brundtland.

Ms. Brundtland also was interviewed by Mainichi newspaper (Japan), TV-2 (Norway), Aftenposten (Norway), Dagbladet (Norway), NRK (Norway), Norwegian radio, News Herald (China), and UN Radio with Don Bobb.

On launch day, Brent Scowcroft was interviewd by Paula Zahn on CNN and appeared on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. In the evening, he attended a briefing for columnists organized by UNIC Washington/UN Foundation attended by Hella Dale (Washington Times), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), Michelle Keleman (National Public Radio), Andrea Koppell (CNN), and the Washington correspondent for Austrian television, leading to favourable coverage, except in the case of the Washington Times which, as usual, depicted the UN initiative as suspect and unworthy of support. On 7 December, he discussed the report with Margaret Warner on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (PBS).

Scowcroft, David Hannay, and Stephen Stedman were guests on Michelle Keleman's three-part series on UN reform that aired on NPR. On 2 December, the HLP Report took centre stage on NPR's Talk of the Nation with Neil Conan. Guests included Diane Geddes from The Economist and the Permanent Representatives of Japan and Germany.

On 1 December, Panel member Gareth Evans was interviewd by CBC television (Canada) for the programme Politics with Don Newman. He was also interviewed by CBC Radio One for the programme As It Happens by host Mary-Lou Finalay.

Panel member David Hannay gave an interview to The Independent on 1 December. His op-ed appeared in the Financial Times on launch day (Global threats require a global response) and the following day, 3 December, under the heading: World body faces up to tough new challenges in Business Day (South Africa).

In Tanzania on launch day, Panel member Salim Ahmed Salim briefed international and local media in both English and Kiswahili. Approximately 45 journalists attended the briefing and the report received wide coverage in East Africa.

Robert Badinter held a press conference in Paris on 3 December at the CAPE (international press centre) attended by leading French and international correspondents. He also conducted interviews for French radio (France Info, Radio Classique and RFI).

Follow-up events A standing-room crowd of over 400 civil society leaders, intellectuals and UN staff turned out on the night of the second for the first public discussion of the Panel report since its launch, at the New York Bar Association in midtown Manhattan. Panellists Gro Brundtland and Gareth Evans spoke, along with Ed Luck from Columbia University, at the UN Foundation-organized event. The summary brochure was distributed to the entire audience.

The next morning, Ms. Brundtland and Mr. Evans addressed a breakfast of New York business leaders, at the Hotel Intercontinental, also under the auspices of the UN Foundation.

Perhaps the most significant occasion relating to the Panel report was its presentation to Member States by the Secretary-General, on 8 December in the General Assembly Hall. Comments from Member States were very much supportive and congratulatory, albeit with some expected uneasiness as to specific recommendations, such as Security Council enlargement. Their remarks were preceded by prolonged applause and a standing ovation as a gesture of support for the Secretary-General.

Five copies of the Panel report were sent to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), a Congressional body that will report on UN reform in May 2005. DPI, UNIC Washington and its NGO supporters will continue to target USIP staffers because of the critical impact this report could have on public opinion in the United States.

Reports and information kits were also distributed during the presentation made by the Secretary-General and Brent Scowcroft at the Council on Foreign Relations on 16 December. An additional 300 information kits, including report books, accompanied the Secretary-General during his visit to the European Council in Bruxelles on 17 December.

Media coverage One of the advantages of the launch was the opportunity for distinguished figures from outside the United Nations to speak out on collective responses to global security threats and to endorse the future of the world organization. In particular, Brent Scowcroft made strong appearances on the night of the launch in the volatile US television market, in the form of interviews with Paula Zahn of CNN and Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball.

The campaign was successful in avoiding the feared one-topic coverage, on Security Council reform only. In part, the job was made easier by the modulated recommendation of the Panel, which presented dual options for expansion and avoided referring to any individual countries by name. It was also helped by the fact that all our briefings and materials emphasized other aspects of the HLP report's recommendations, not just SC reform.

On the other hand, the goal of keeping development, environmental and poverty issues in the story was largely unmet. Interest, one Panel staff member summarized, was on three main areas: Security Council, terrorism, and criteria for use offeree. A recurring question, in regard to the latter, was whether the Panel criteria constituted a rebuke to the United States-led invasion of Iraq. However, as anticipated, the launch in mid-January of the Millennium Project Report on the MDGs was successful in finally bringing some media focus on development issues.

Below is a survey of responses from daily newspapers worldwide, prepared by DPI's News and Media Division with additional input from UNIC reports: The report of the high-level panel on threats to global security received generally favourable notices when it was formally released (to blanket global news coverage despite the numerous earlier leaks), with its 101 recommendations earning more positive than negative reviews. Many papers, however, were sceptical about whether the recommendations would ever be implemented, particularly given the expected resistance of some Member States, and also the continuing controversy over the oil-for-food programme and its impact on UN leadership. The media were also divided over whether the proposal about the legal use of pre-emptive force was a rebuke to the US action in Iraq or a concession.

The Secretary-General's statements backing the report received wide play, although they were often buried within articles. At the same time, his op-ed article on the subject appeared in numerous papers around the world; as of 11 December, the piece had been published in 30 papers: Le Monde, The International Herald Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, El Mercurio (Chile), and El Pais on the lauch day. And in the days that followed: Asharq Al-Awsat (UK), Al-Hayat (UK), Al Akhbar (Egypt), The Irish Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Presse (Austria), La Libre Belgique, De Standaard (Belgium), La Voix de Luxembourg, Tribune de Geneve, Achourouq (Tunisia), Assahafa (Tunisia), Al-Nahar (Lebanon), L'Orient le Jour (Lebanon), The Jordan Times, Yomiuri Shimbun, Asian Age (India), La Nacion (Argentina), The Nation (Thailand), AI-Balad (Lebanon), Clarion (Argentina), InfoQuest.com (Thailand), Wprost (Poland), Reforma (Mexico), and Hindustan (India).

Declaring the UN was proposing "the most sweeping changes in its history," The New York Times reported the panel's findings in a lengthy front-page article, a reflection of the prominent treatment of the story by many outlets. The article was carried by numerous "second tier" papers in the US, including The Houston Chronicle, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Wilmington Morning Star. Elsewhere, most news articles played the issue straight, with many relying on wire reports. As a result, very similar stories appeared in newspapers as diverse as The Australian Financial Review, The Times of India, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, China Daily, AI-Hayat, The Daily Times of Pakistan, The Chicago Tribune and The Sacramento Bee. Among more colourful news assessments, The Calcutta Telegraph talked of a "war report" and Ta Nea of Greece chose the headline "100 ways to save the world."

Most papers led with the proposed expansion of the Security Council. The Christian Science Monitor called it "super-sizing the UN," while outlets from countries directly affected tended to focus on what it meant for them. New Delhi's The Statesman said India had been "short-changed" because any new permanent members would not have veto rights. Frankfurter Allgemeine thought Berlin would not be happy with the report. Some Italian newspapers (Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, Manifesto, II Foglio, II Secolo XIX) also expressed disillusion with the report and its omission of Italy from permanent SC membership and depicted it as a diplomatic failure (Europa, L'Unita) for Rome.

Yomiuri Shimbun stated that one of the two Council expansion proposals was a "viable option" for Japan, while Mainichi Shimbun reported immediately on the positive reaction of senior Japanese officials. Independent Online of Cape Town considered South Africa to be "a step closer" to a Council seat and Clarin noted Argentinian concerns about Brazil receiving a permanent berth. Newsday worried that regional rivalries in South Asia, north Asia and Latin America could block "overdue" Council reform, a view reflected in many other papers.

Other papers, such as South Africa's Mail & Guardian, preferred to highlight the issue of when the Council or individual countries can use force legally. The Times of London thought the warning on the need for an imminent threat was a "rebuke to the White House" over Iraq - a view shared by The Daily Telegraph, The Washington Post, The Age of Melbourne and The Financial Times Deutschland. All warned that Washington might react negatively as a result. The Australian noted the US was "cool" on the plan.

Offering a different perspective, The Independent and The Toronto Star pointed to the significance of the fact that the proposal meant the UN would actually support pre- emptive strikes under some circumstances. In that context, The Gulf News considered the suggestion "a dramatic escalation" of UN rules and Pakistan Observer thought it "pushes the limits" of the UN Charter. The generally approving Financial Times thought the US would find something to like in the recommendation on the preventive, albeit not unilateral, use offeree. Similarly, writing in The Washington Times, Parag Khanna from the Brookings Institute and Georgetown University lecturer Thomas Weston suggested that the Panel "has sketched a roadmap the Bush administration should take as an invitation to re-engage with the international community." Similarly, in its editorial, The New York Times saw the report as "a good starting point," and that what really matters is that the world, and particularly the US, revitalize a UN it still badly needs.

Most papers were enthusiastic about the recommendations, if doubtful about the chances of them ever coming into effect. Typically, Portugal's Jornal de Noticias thought it "highly unlikely" that many of them - especially the Council expansion plan - would be achieved. Slovenia's Delo was of a similar mind, while Austria's Kurier wondered whether reforms of the Council would even matter "when the most powerful member can do whatever it wants." The Ottawa Citizen feared that a more relevant and representative UN was no more to Washington's taste than an irrelevant one, a sentiment echoed by The Canberra Times.

Highlighting the positive, The Guardian said the panel "has come up with sensible and practical suggestions," while the Finnish Helsingin Sanomat saw it as pragmatic. A more hesitant South China Morning Post nevertheless argued that a proposal for a peace-building commission could become just as important in the long run as any expansion or reform of the Council. For its part, Suddeutsche Zeitung categorized the proposals as "an exciting mixture trying to satisfy as many national interests as possible." Bronwen Maddox, Foreign Editor at The Times of London, called the panel "brave" and praised "the caustic criticism of the Organization and the blunt lecture about the urgency of reform."

Others, however, viewed the report through a more critical lens. Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed wrote in Dawn that the Panel should have gone further, giving greater power and influence to the General Assembly and democratizing the Council. Islamabad's The Nation also thought it was odd that as "nearly a quarter of mankind," Muslims have no permanent seat, and that the people of Africa, Australia and South America find themselves in the same position. In The International Herald Tribune, journalist Michael Vatikiotis said Africa's conflicts and problems were receiving too much attention compared to those in Asia.

In The Washington Post, columnist Jim Hoagland outlined what he considered "a failure of nerve," and accused the Panel of "incremental tinkering on the edges of a hurricane of change." An op-ed in The Plain Dealer also found the report's findings "mild," but urged serious debate to ensure the effectiveness of the only organization able to deal with global threats such as nuclear war and terrorism. The New York Post's Amir Taheri was scathing, saying real reform would only start when there was new leadership at the UN. Columnist Greg Sheridan wrote in The Australian that expanding the Council would only enhance its uselessness. Similarly, The Wall Street Journal, while finding many positive things in the report, argued it "collapses" on its proposal for

10 Security Council expansion, and instead makes a pitch for a more "democratic" caucus, perhaps within the UN. Both The Chicago Tribune and The Miami Herald also found good in many of the report's findings, but any meaningful reform, they argued, was dependent on resolving the oil-for-food scandal. Berlingske Tidende (Copenhagen) described the recommendations as "too vague and characterized by compromises and [they] cannot seriously change anything of the Organization's defects." Stockholm's Dagens Nyheter complained that, without a veto, the new permanent Council members would have second-class status, and in La Stampa former Italian ambassador Boris Biancheri attacked the new "pyramidal" structure.

Web-based news sites around the world ran mostly agency reports (attributing Reuters, AFP and AP) on the launch. Coverage on francophone sites was mostly favourable and included bulletins posted on the following: Courrier International, Africa.com (with articles from 1'Humanite, Xinhuanet, and Le Messager), Le Monde.fr, La-Croix.com, Le Temps.ch, Edicom.ch, Liberation.fr, Dernieres Nouvelies d'Alsace, MesNouvelles.com (Quebec), AngolaPress, JeaneAfrique.com, and Cyberpresse.ca.

In the week that followed the report's release, worldwide media opinion remained divided over its value and efficacy. There was increasing consensus, however, that the stance of the United States would be critical in determining which of the report's 101 proposals would be implemented. Editorials of support for the HLP report appeared in the New York Times (also carried by The International Herald Tribune) as well as The Irish Times, the Indian Express, and Finland's Turun Sanomat. The Syria Times and The Daily Star also praised the report.

The human rights aspects of reform were highlighted in an article in De Morgen (Belgium) that opined that the Commission on Human Rights had been "taken hostage" by countries that did not respect rights including Sudan, Cuba and Libya. In the same newspaper, an interview with Jan Wouters, President of the Flemish UNA, called on the UN to renew its own integrity by insisting on good governance, transparency and zero tolerance for scandal.

Opponents of the report gained in number and volume, although most confined their attacks to uncertainty over mustering sufficient global support to bring about meaningful reform. Unsurprisingly, The Washington Times was among the loudest, arguing the report was of dubious quality as "too often its policy prescriptions appear to be so bland as to be useless or more of the same." In The Deccan Herald, Punapriya Dasgupta said the report's failure to confront the issue of the Security Council veto made it "an exercise in futility." while in The Times, Janan Ganesh thought the two Council proposals missed the point because countries such as Germany and Japan, whatever their economic power, remain consumers rather than providers of security. The Hindu considered it disappointing that the role played by capital market speculators, particularly in developing economies, was completely overlooked. The Kansas City Star argued the report, while not without some merit, did not do enough to challenge the UN. In Canada's The Globe and Mail, Marcus Gee was sympathetic to the problem of "herding 191 cats"

11 but suggested the report would have been better leaving the Council's composition alone. The Bangkok Post printed many letters arguing for and against the report.

Many media outlets continued to view the report through the lens of their countries' concerns about international affairs. The German press uniformly attacked Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for demanding a veto for Berlin. Die Welt termed the Chancellor's position "oscillating between puzzling and foolish" and Frankfurter Rundschau suggested that reason had given way to domestic political calculation. Siiddeutsche Zeitung, Financial Times Deutschland, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zietung and Der Spiegel variously characterized him as stupid or conniving. In India, columnist Inder Malhotra wrote in The Tribune that a Council enlargement, even without veto rights for nations such as India, would at least make the organ more representative.

What chance do the reforms have of succeeding? According to such disparate sources as The Star-Ledger of New Jersey, Nepszabadsag of Budapest, The Dominion Post of New Zealand and Radio Free Europe, the rate of success depended mainly or entirely on the US. In Iceland's Frettabladid, Jon Ormur Halldorsson was doubtful that the US wanted an international security system with universal rules at a time when it "seems adamantly against such a system." John Hughes wrote in The Christian Science Monitor that the US can help the UN "sink or swim" and urged Americans to realize how much the UN can do for it on many issues, including the current efforts to stabilize Iraq. Speaking on The Jim Lehrer NewsHour on PBS, Panellist Brent Scowcroft also urged the US to consider the numerous benefits of an improved UN. The Detroit Free Press said that if the UN failed, then the bulk of its work would fall to the US.

Writing in the Khaleej Times, Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria also emphasized the idea that the UN is only as strong as its individual members and said the Rwandan genocide of 1994 was a good example of how the UN failed because key Member States, such as the US, UK, and France, failed in their responsibilities. Finland's Helsingin Sanomat argued that too many wealthy Member States show they are not living up to their responsibilities by contributing paltry amounts to UN peacekeeping missions. The former New Zealand Prime Minister and World Trade Organization Director-General Mike Moore, in an opinion column for The Gulf News, warned "the UN can only do what governments allow it to do."

By the third week of December, media coverage of UN reform had tapered off significantly but some columnists still weighed in, especially in the developing world. Mahir Ali praised the report in Dawn (Islamabad), described the proposed Council reforms as constructive and urged Pakistan not to play an obstructive role because of India's interest in a permanent seat. In another positive response, this time in The Daily Times (Lahore), Miranda Husain called for "power with principles" in any UN reform process. But she warned that the events in Darfur showed that inaction can still occur despite apparently good intentions. Another op-ed appeared in the same paper welcoming the emphasis on the inter-connectedness of development, environment and human rights issues with international peace and security but objecting to the proposed expansion of the Human Rights Commission. Scholar Michael Fullilove wrote in The Sydney

12 Morning Herald that the proposed peace-building commission and the renunciation of terrorism were two underrated achievements. However, in Arab News, Hassan Tahsin was less impressed, arguing that Council members should not have the power of veto or permanency, and the General Assembly should have much greater authority. From a completely different perspective, Brookings Institute scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Omer Taspinar worried in The Washington Times that the Council proposals reward nuclear weapons acquisition (India) and are indifferent to democracy (Egypt). While the Arab and Muslim worlds deserve a voice, they argued, democratization must be encouraged.

UN Information Centres Thirty-one UNICs participated in a survey with 488 respondents from the media who were asked to provide feedback on the usefulness of the information materials produced for the launch of the report. With the exception of the panelist bios *(which had very little information and no photos), the media reported that the materials were very useful and nearly half of respondents utilized them to write a news story. UNICs reported that some 249 articles were published as a result. [Data: Percentage of media respondents who found the following to be useful: Pressrelease: 94% ; Executive summary: 84%; Panelists bios: 21%; S-G op ed: 80% Utilized in writing a news story by 41 %]

UNICs reported that they could have done more had the executive summary been sent to them well in advance so they could have provided it as background to key editors. Media also indicated that there was too much competition for news in December because of the oil-for-food crisis, World AIDS Day (1 Dec.) and Human Rights Day (lODec.). Others reported that their audiences were more interested in region-specific information, while the report presented global concerns.

In addition to intensive media outreach, many UNICs took other complementary initiatives around the report release. UNIC Washington was instrumental in supporting media outreach before and immediately following the launch. It also played a critical role in circulating the report to influential policy makers and NGOs. On launch day, for example, sixty copies of the report were distributed to key Senate and House members involved with UN issues and to specialists at the Library of Congress. Another 40 copies were sent to think tanks, academics and NGOs.

On 3 December, UNIC Washington organized a briefing at the Woodrow Wilson International Center with David Shorr from the Stanley Foundation and Don Krauss from Citizens for Global Solutions. Representatives from 60 NGOs attended and one copy of the report was distributed per organization, forty in all. UNIC Washington continues to disseminate the report to key congressional committees, NGOs and academics.

* Note: This was because DPI had been instructed to use the bio material already on the website, rather than creating anything new.

13 UNIC Tunis placed the Secretary-General's op-ed in two national newspapers as well as briefed local journalists and posted information on the report on the UNIC web site in French and Arabic.

UNIC Mexico City distributed information materials electronically to 500 key policy and opinion makers and the report received widespread and favourable reaction from the media and government officials despite some concern over Brazil's prominence in a reformed Security Council.

With input from RUNIC Bruxelles, the Union of European Federalists organized a debate at the European Parliament on 1 December on UN reform. On 6 December, the think tank group the Centre organized a discussion comparing EU and UN models of governance. On 8 December, the European Policy Centre and the Konrad-Adenauer-Shiftung organized a panel including HLP member Gareth Evans, Fraser Cameron from the European Policy Centre, and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU Commissioner for External Relations. The Benelux-EU desk officer promoted the report during a presentation delivered in Luxembourg on Human Rights Day.

UNIC Buenos Aires noted national press reports of a visit by the President of Pakistan in which it was said the two countries shared a "common interest" in stopping any initiative aimed at Security Council expansion, in particular, to prevent their neighbours (India and Brazil) from dominating their regions.

UNIC Moscow organized a roundtable with participants from government, academia and civil society. One of the speakers from a human rights NGO criticized the process as "reforming the United Nations from within" and urged making room for more civil society involvement.

Report prepared by: Timothy Wall Vivienne Heston-Demirel, Development Section, Strategic Communications Division, DPI 6 January 2005 (updated 25 February 2005)

14