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.