RESOURCES & PUBLICATIONS
Notes of Jan Egeland’s Lecture
By Anna Alekseenkova, Laura Di Cicco, Pauline Mesurolle and Marlène Moulin
“How we can together make the world better?” was the main question of this conference of Jan Egeland, former under-secretary-general for Humanitarian Affairs and emergency relief coordinator and current Special Advisor to the United Nation Secretary General for prevention and solving of conflicts. Is the world really going better, or is it just a wrong perception of the figures on wars and poverty? It is impossible to give an objective answer in the changing world of today. The situation sometimes worsens, sometimes improves but the rhythm of progress stays slow and low. However, fighting against injustice, hunger and premature death is today possible. The important rule is to take into account the numerous factors that influence the work of a humanitarian: multiple realities, different goals, great responsibility.
According to statistics, since 1989 there has been an important improvement in domains of poverty, refugees, wars, illnesses and child’ death. Today there’s 40% more peace in the world than in 1989 and only 1/3 of the conflicts comparing to 20 years ago. The Human Security Report states that there were 10 genocides in 1990, and there maybe only one today depending if we consider the conflict in Darfur as such or not. There were 52% of people living under the poverty line and twice as less in 2007. The number of refugees has reduced too: 20 million in 1989 and 12 to 14 million today. Finally, the most important factor, child’s death has diminished from 20 million to 10 million of cases a year (according to UNICEF).
However optimistic these factors can seem, they nevertheless don’t reflect the reality. During the last 20 years the gap between the poor and the rich has considerably increased and social injustice has settled down.
In order to better understand the new aspects of international conflicts it seems important to point out the recent changes. The United Nations are no longer an unattainable and respected force but a target of terrorist attacks.
Jan Egeland himself experienced it for the first time in august ,the 19th ,2003 by a bomb attack in the headquarters of UNO in Baghdad, that killed 22 aid workers and UNO agents, and injured 155 people.
This attack shocked the UN community that was absolutely not prepared for that sort of situation being convinced that UNO, because of the help it provides in conflicts, would never be a target of attacks.
But now the world is changing and international actors have to face a new reality: the old forces are no longer the only ones to deal with in the international community.
Consequently, the world architecture should correspond to the new world reality. Countries like India, China, Brazil or Nigeria are increasing their international radiation now. Their powerful and fast development should drive them to more influence in global relationships. These countries should get their seat in the Council of Security of the United Nations within the next few years. In that way it would contribute to clear their legitimacy in the resolution of armed conflicts.
There are too many realities to understand in a conflict,our own reality is not the only one. The first experience of Jan Egeland in Colombia and his meeting with Manuel Marulanda, FARC's leader, was a perfect illustration of the complexity to understand and deal with the numerous parameters of a conflict. The importance of drug industry, politic troubles and paramilitary forces show the necessity to adopt several points of views about this civil war, which is one of the biggest war of the 50 last years in the Occidental world.
The world could sometimes be compared to a lottery : « Some win, some loose ». The UN strives to provide the essential support to suffering populations. However, the need is more important than the humans and materials mittles.To illustrate that, see the situation in Darfur and the deplaced populations since the beginning of the conflicts can be given. That’s why states have to find answers. Some political and security solutions have to be found. The events which happened to UN headquarters in the Ivory Cost in 2006, when the buildings were put on fire, show this necessity. The world is full of paradoxes. On one hand, 40 years ago, men for the first time walked on the moon. Huge progress and discovers have been done, technologies have been developed. And, on the other hand, the situation of millions people is worth than ever. Men are not able to defend their women and children, who are the main victims of criminal atrocities. That’s why it’s important to make people face their responsabilities. They must be sued by a court and be judged, in the best case by the International Criminal Court.
To get the situation of the world better, some things are necessary.
Today, coordination has to be improved. The UN, the NGOs and the countries must work together. A good coordination on international scale is the key of an efficient intervention. The help brought during the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 illustrates this statement. Indeed, 90 countries and 36 militaries have helped the victims of this disaster. The same happened when the assistance was brought to the 3 millions people who lost their home after the earthquake in Kashmir in 2005. That shows that everything is possible when the whole world works together. Thus during the civil war in Liberia in 2003, peace was made thanks to international financial contribution. Help from the USA enabled the implementation of great projects. During this civil war, this state was the biggest donator. The USA invested 26% of the global sum required which corresponds to what they spend for 15 hours of war in Iraq.
It is also important to have ambitious goals. Negociations for the peace process between Israel and Palestine in 1993 demonstrates this. To solve conflicts, it is essential that states and international institutions work in a sincere and transparent way.
NOTE: this text is a student work. It reflects and involves opinions and observations of the authors only. It does not reflect the ideas and official position of the Institute for Advanced Studies on the United Nations, its directors, the managers, employees, partners or of persons who were consulted during its elaboration.
