11th International Security Forum, Closing Panel, “Looking ahead - Exiting from Disorder”

Professor Heisbourg, [Chairman, Foundation Council, GCSP]
Ambassador Janjua, [Permanent Representative of Pakistan]
Ambassador Winkler, [Director, DCAF]
Excellencies,
Dear Colleagues,
Ladies and gentlemen:

I am pleased to join you for this closing panel of the 11th International Security Forum. Through the ISF, the many actors in International Geneva get an opportunity to share their know-how and to exchange ideas and experiences with experts from all around the world. I would like to thank the Geneva Centre for Security Policy for continuing to host this excellent forum in such a collaborative and constructive manner.

The topic that you have chosen for the forum this year – “Global Disorder – Security in a World Disrupted” – is obviously extremely relevant. It captures the chaotic scenes we are seeing in too many places of conflict and, unfortunately, also in the international attempts of dealing with them and there consequences. The refugee crisis is a vivid example. And I am particularly pleased, that the conference is ending with this more forward-looking panel to reflect on whether – and how – we could exit from disorder, if we get it right.

Let me briefly summarize the main drivers of disorder that I see in today’s global governance landscape, particularly in the field of peace and security. Broadly speaking, the world is undergoing transformations that are much more profound than most of us realize. And this is happening much faster than the speed at which our international institutions and many individuals have been able to adapt to.

One of the main drivers of these transformations is technological progress. The move into the digital age is having important implications, including in the peace and security domain. For example, with over 7 billion mobile phones world-wide, information spreads in new, instantaneous ways. Citizens can more easily hold their governments accountable over what they do and don’t do.
Autonomous weapons systems, cyber security, and the possibility of placement of arms in outer space are other pressing examples where technological ability advances at a faster pace than global regulations. I am glad to see that you have discussed related topics at this forum. I have been advocating for some time now that our Member States should urgently move ahead and adopt rules on how to react to these new security challenges and manage them, as positions in this domain are not yet as entrenched as those on nuclear disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament here in Geneva.

An overlaying factor to the multifaceted disorder is a lack of trust across all governance layers. People see institutions that do not deliver – the Conference on Disarmament is a point in case. They see decision-makers at all governance levels break rules with impunity. In the eyes of the public, ‘authorities’ at all governance levels have pretty much lost their integrity.

Increasing inequality in income and opportunities brings about tensions. A deep sense of injustice across many societies is taking root. The resulting divisive narrative of “us against them” dangerously undermines the fact that our common future in an interconnected world demands a much greater sense of shared responsibility. Adding to this a disturbing lack of political leadership – when it’s most needed - paving the way for populist movements and parties which further contributes to the complexity of the current fragmentation we are living.

These factors are supplemented by demographic changes and movements of populations of significant proportions of which we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Not only are we faced with the large migration flows that are covered widely in the news, but we also see a major move towards cities. By 2050, 75% of the world’s population will be living in cities. Increasingly, key decisions affecting citizens will be taken at city and communal level. The functions and expectations of the State as we have known them are being recalibrated. This has far-reaching implications for how we manage our societies, including the matters of safety and security.

In today’s world, issues can no longer be neatly separated and labelled as either “security” or “economic” for example. Security threats cut across borders, in the form of terrorism, criminal networks or flows of arms, questioning the traditional distinction between inter-State and intra-State conflicts. Our increasing individual mobility changes identities, alliances and allegiances. All this challenges existing structures, and requires a serious re-think of how and with whom we cooperate for a more peaceful future.

So how can we best address this state of disorder?

The United Nations, needs a governance structure and working culture reflecting today’s realities to face the current challenges. This refers first and foremost to the Security Council, tasked with addressing issues that threaten international peace and security. But it goes far beyond this body. The whole United Nations system has yet to become sufficiently flexible and inclusive to fulfil the tasks that the 21st century defines.

This is particularly germane when we look at how to improve the effective operational work with which the United Nations continuously and positively impacts each and every individual around the world, in every 24-hour period. By most objective measures of human well-being and despite the tragic humanitarian disasters that continue to put millions in peril, the past decades have – on average – been the best in the history of human kind: the human race is healthier, better educated and lives longer than ever before. The United Nations family and its partners have decisively contributed to this development. This is the foundation on which we must build.

Since its creation 70 years ago, the UN has developed an impressive pool of expertise, tools and human capital. Combining this know-how with its convening power, the UN can bridge fragmentation. The policy frameworks that were adopted last year provide us with an opportunity to capitalize on this. It was a historic moment when our 193 Member States agreed to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda last September. This Agenda, together with the Agreements on Disaster Risk Reduction, Financing for Development and Climate Change, constitute our common road map for the future of our planet.

The new 17 Sustainable Development Goals are a clear manifestation of the understanding that has evolved over the last several decades that there will be no peace without development, no development without peace and neither of these without human rights. That understanding is and will remain the bedrock of our collective action to improve all our lives.

But to mainstream these connections into our organizations and the wider multilateral system, we need a fundamental shift in our working culture. At local, national and international governance levels, we have to work horizontally across issues, reflecting the interconnectedness of today’s challenges and transformation processes taking place around us. Most national systems are organized into individual ministries which do not coordinate enough between each other. The international system mirrors this structure, organized vertically, and this needs to change into a more integrated, collaborative and inclusive approach.

This includes further strengthening the links between international organizations and parliaments, who are essential for the national implementation of any agreement made at the global level. Add to this the increasing importance of mayors and of regional organizations and it becomes clear that the United Nations must become more than an organization by States for States, as it was created. The current, but ageing Westphalian model of governance will have to be complemented by the inclusion of non-State actors, including NGOs, the private sector and academia, who will increasingly need to have a seat at the decision making table.

All of this collaboration needs to take place within a framework firmly focused on prevention and long-term thinking. Prevention, in the form of better investment in institutions and programmes that reduce the risk of conflict and natural disasters is cheaper than the humanitarian aid required to respond to them. Despite this well-known truism, short-term thinking – often tied to political electoral cycles – still dominates.

There is still a lot of work left to do, in implementing these changes. But I think we are starting to get on the right track. Negotiations on multilateral agreements are increasingly inclusive, as recent summits on development, climate change or the World Humanitarian Summit have shown. In some areas, this is easier to implement than in others. Unfortunately, the discussions on peace and security often lag behind in this aspect. Nevertheless, even in our mediation processes, we are seeing changes. Peace talks in Geneva include more and more consultations with civil society groups, particularly women’s groups. And there are many other examples here in International Geneva, that make me optimistic.

Thank you very much.