By Otto Spijkers
At the moment, I am in New York, doing a short internship at the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations. Apart from the work I do for the Office of Legal Affairs, I also have lunch in the cafeteria of the UN Secretariat, and attend some meetings of the Security Council and the General Assembly (of course, I also have plenty of time, after work and in the weekends, to explore New York, one of the most exciting cities in the world, together with a wonderful group of fellow-interns from all four corners of the world). Today (12 February) I went to a debate on children and armed conflict at the Security Council, and another on climate change, at the General Assembly. In the future I will write more substantive posts, but now I just want to give an impression of what it is like to attend these debates. Of course, I keep in mind what happened to my compatriot, mr. Jan Pronk, former Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations in Sudan, who had to step down when the Sudanese government disapproved of some of the things he wrote on his personal blog and labeled him "an unwelcome person" (or in Latin: a ‘persona non grata’). If you work for the UN (even as an intern?), I guess you have to be careful. The debate at the Security Council was very interesting. The starting point of the discussion was a report by Radhika Coomaraswamy, Under-Secretary-General and Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict. You can find the report here. You can watch the entire conversation online (to watch the whole thing in English, click here, and to watch the whole thing in the original language, click here; it is amazing how much of what the UN does can be found on the internet, and how swiftly it is published there). With a very powerful voice, Radhika Coomaraswamy, a human rights advocate from Sri Lanka, presented her report. She listed some specific groups that recruit or use children in situations of armed conflict that were not yet on the Council’s agenda, such as the Government of the Sudan-backed militias, known as the Janjaweed, operating in Chad; the Lord’s Resistance Army, operating in Uganda; and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, operating in her own state, Sri Lanka. Groups that already attracted the attention of the Council include the Taliban Forces, and various groups in the DRC, the Sudan, and Myanmar/Burma. After she finished, some members of the Security Council responded by issuing short statements. The Panamanian President of the Council suggested that all members speak for five minutes or less, and all members took that suggestion to heart. Most delegates simply emphasized the importance of halting the violence against children in armed conflict. Lybia spoke mainly – if not solely – about Israel and the way Palestinian children were treated. The United States had two interesting comments on Coomaraswamy’s Report, of which the first was an objection to those parts that affirm the importance of the International Criminal Court in bringing to justice individuals responsible for the recruitment and use of children and other grave violations against children through national justice systems. For example, Coomaraswamy "encouraged [the Security Council] to refer to the International Criminal Court, for investigation and prosecution, violations against children in armed conflict that fall within its jurisdiction." Obviously, for the US, one of a minority of states that never ratified the Rome Statute (105 states did already ratify), this kind of encouragement is somewhat problematic. The General Assembly session was less interesting. It was the second day of a thematic debate on climate change. On the first day, various people, including Sir Richard Branson, Chairman of Virgin Group, and Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of the City of New York, delivered their speech (all available here); and on the second day, all member states had the opportunity to make brief statements. There were very few people actually present in the Assembly when I was there. Representatives of various countries made brief statements, emphasizing the importance of battling climate change. That was basically all that happened, and never did I have the feeling that something important, something crucial to the survival of our planet and all its people, was being discussed here. The first day must have been more exciting. It is interesting to actually be there when these debates take place, and to see how essential it is that people show up to listen to one another, if only to show they care. I highly recommend doing an internship here. I don’t think the two debates I witnessed today will be considered landmark debates, or result in landmark resolutions, but they were certainly helpful in drawing – or keeping – the attention of the world on two very important issues. – Otto
I never meant to refer to you as one of those who dislike the United Nations. I know better than that! It’s just that when one says, as I often do, that at the UN you meet people from all different cultures and it’s like one big family, or something to that effect, I know some people think that sounds mawkishly sentimental, but I actually mean it. So when I referred in my previous comment to those people who will always dislike the UN, that was sort of a preemptive strike, to prevent others (not you!) from pointing out that the world of international politics, and human beings in general, is not one big family, but in fact a brutal fight for survival etc. etc. Personally, I’d love to work for the United Nations, but I also like academia a lot. By the way, to respond to your comment: it might be true that many people at the UN go from one short-term contract to another, and thus need to make friends; but that’s more the case for those on missions in the field, I think. In any case, I know little to nothing about this issue, so I’d better not make accusations that are entirely unfounded.
I ask only because I have a friend who also did a UN internship in New York. He was not overly fond of what he considered the bureaucracy of it all, and didn’t get the feeling that by working for the UN one could really change the world. I was just curious how your own personal work experience compared, since there is always a possibility I might work for the UN someday. It is not that I dislike the UN – I very much like the idea of the UN and many of its functions – I am just a bit skeptical of it as an organization or managed bureaucracy. All organizations, government or private sector, rely to some extent on personal connections, but I sometimes get the impression that the UN relies a little bit more on these than some of the others. That personal connections and international politics (such as the desire to have representation from all member countries at various levels) tend to make it less of a meritocracy than some of the other economic organizations I might work for, which would make working there less intellectually rewarding. It is only because I am interested in the UN that I bother asking you these questions Otto – if my mind was really already made up I wouldn’t have to ask you about your impressions, as if your subjective experience could possibly trump my ideologically entrenched priors 😉
Hi Nick,
I very much like to respond to that comment. However, I am afraid my response will sound very ‘politically correct’ and naive to those that dislike the United Nations, and will probably always dislike the United Nations.
Being present at all these assemblies (actually, I only went to two such assemblies so far) was for me an enriching experience. It was enriching because it showed me that there is nothing ‘magical’ about those meetings. No grandiose speeches anymore; it’s just people doing politics, and that shows that the organization is maturing. If meetings are boring (and yes, even a meeting about climate change, perhaps the biggest threat to our survival these days, can be boring), that means it is no longer a show, or a dream, but just work. And that, I believe, is a good thing.
Being an intern is a wonderful experience, because you get to hang out with people from many different cultures, and then you find out how much you actually share with these people ( a sense of humor for example; I always believe that is the most important thing of all). And New York has that same feel to it: i.e. that people from all over the world get together and it works well. So I guess the location of its Headquarters, New York City, explains to a great extent the success of the Organization. Being an intern is never a prestigious thing, so I guess I cannot say that I feel very ‘important’ now. But to say I feel ‘insignificant’; what exactly did you mean by that question?
I am not going to comment on the supposed nepotism, not because I am not allowed to or because I don’t want to, but simply because I do not know anything about that. I know for sure that I know no actual examples of nepotism; that’s all I can say. Sorry.
Otto
Otto, does being a UN intern and sitting on all of those assemblies make you feel more important or more insignificant? I know you probably won’t want to comment on this, but what is your impression of the supposed nepotism that runs rampant at the UN?