From analysing developing countries, our attitudes towards them, debating areas of real concern, to reflecting on how best to cater to the needs of the world's most vulnerable - most of us would say we've had a good stab at understanding development. And I wouldn't disagree.
But in all our haste to find answers, have we perhaps overlooked the one of the most crucial components of this whole process? I'm talking about the origin of the Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations. If all we've got in our toolbox to fix the problem is a set of MDGs, shouldn't we be making sure we've got the right ones to do the job?
Four months ago, on the brink of Th!nk 3 starting I busied myself writing to virtually every development-related NGO under the sun...
To whom it may concern,
I'm a freelance film-maker bla bla bla.
I'd really like to interview someone from your organisation to talk about MDG (number X). Are the targets set appropriate, ambitious enough, and of course, achievable? Also, are we on track to meet these targets?
Nobody wanted to talk to me. Too busy? Possibly. Weary of an unknown journalist digging around? Quite possibly. Cautious of criticising the UN on camera? Most definitely. This of course was not something I had, in my perpetual state of naivety, even entertained, let alone realised until a few email-writing filled weeks later. But when it finally hit, it hit hard. Nobody was going to stand-up and speak out, not against an institution as established and as well respected as the United Nations.
Then one person finally agreed to talk to me. He almost laughed when I explained what I was trying to do. 'That's not going to happen,' he said half smiling. He refused point-blank to criticise the UN, and even to talk specifically about the Millennium Development Goal he was supposedly an expert on. He blamed political will for the lack of progress, and he left it at that.
I wasn't asking them to do it for the sake of it. Not even for a bit of controversy, but because I think we have to. Surely, we shouldn't follow the eight MDGs blindly, just because they are from a respected organisation? Too much is at stake. So we tread on a few prestigious toes, so what?
My original plan was to take my findings to the Head of Communications at the UN London office for some feedback on comments and suggestions made. Of course this never happened, though I haven't given up. But would it have been such a bad thing to question them?
All the doors shutting in my face did make me stop and think. Was I barking up the wrong tree? Was I doing something really stupid? The doubt did not last long, I knew it was something that had, and still has to be done.
Yesterday's headline, 'In Historic Vote, UN Declares Water a Fundamental Human Right', restored what little doubt remained. How it can take a global organisation until 2010 to recognise the plight of over 2.5 people is almost beyond belief. That the world is relying on said organisation to monitor all other aspects of developing countries' is beyond me. Even more puzzling is that over 40 countries out of a possibly 122 abstained from voting, including the US, Canada, and a handful of European countries.
With it taking such a long time for only two-thirds of the organisation to recognize something as fundamental as access to clean water and sanitation, should we let the UN get off scot free?
Hi Lara - Having worked for the UN for three years, I can completely understand the responses that you got… The UN likes to stipulate how things should be done, but is not receptive at all to criticism unfortunately…
Hey Lara… here’s something for your investigation:
New York Post / UN corruption investigator says Ban is “embarrassing” himself
“The woman in charge of investigating corruption at the United Nations is leaving her post, but not before letting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon how lousy a job he’s doing . “Your actions are not only deplorable, but seriously reprehensible. . . . Your action is without precedent and in my opinion seriously embarrassing for yourself,” Swede Inga-Britt Ahlenius wrote her 50-page outgoing memo to Ban. “I regret to say that the secretariat now is in a process of decay.”“
Huffington Post / Inga-Britt Ahlenius Confidential Memo Portrays UN Chief As Secrecy Obsessed, Against Accountability
“A portrait of Ban Ki-moon as a secrecy-obsessed U.N. chief seeking to wrest control of internal investigations emerges from a blistering 50-page confidential memo by his former oversight chief. The unusual memo by Inga-Britt Ahlenius, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, describes Ban as more concerned with preventing news leaks than with releasing possible criminal evidence to prosecutors. It also details how she fought Ban’s efforts to set up a competing “new investigative capacity” within the United Nations.”
I noticed the same thing as Bart. The UN and I guess most big institutions are not that reception to criticism. This post is a good reminder. Thanks Lara.
Important observations, Lara. Doesn’t the UN actually think it is above everything else? Hasn’t it become a monster too big to move, too important to fail, too arrogant to change?
@ All: I think you’re right. The UN (like a child) does not take well to criticism. It tends to throw the toys out of the pram and refuse to co-operate. Child-like indeed. It’s a pity as an organization like th UN has so much potential.
@ Clare: Your comment made me think a lot and realıze how meanful it is! Never thought about it this way…