|
|
|
Intervention of the United States
On the Medium Term Strategy
October 5, 2006
|
Thank you Madame Chairperson.
Mr. Director General: Excellencies: Friends and Colleagues:
This afternoon we continue the difficult process that will ultimately lead to UNESCO’s program and budget for the next biennium, and to its next Medium Term Strategy. I know that all of us here want to see a UNESCO with high quality programs that have measurable, concrete results, especially for those who are most disadvantaged. However, the debates of yesterday and today have made it clear that there is a divergence of views as to what a stronger, more effective UNESCO should actually do.
I assume that we all agree that our work must be guided by the democratic principles upon which UNESCO was founded 60 years ago: universality, diversity, justice, dignity, tolerance, respect for human rights and the rule of law—all essential ingredients for world peace.
I hope that we also agree that our work should be guided by the World Summit Outcome Document so that we do not duplicate work being done by other UN organizations.
As we look at the six overarching objectives proposed for the Medium Term Strategy, we see that “championing education for all” is at the top of the list. This is as it should be, for education is the top priority for all of us. Education plays a fundamental role in economic development, in the prevention of disease, and in promoting democracy and human dignity. Because UNESCO is the lead agency within the UN system for education, it is our duty and responsibility to help countries provide quality education to their citizens.
Regarding education, we would like to see an emphasis on five strategic program areas: literacy; civic education; teacher training; health education, especially HIV-AIDS; and higher education. We would also like to see an emphasis on gender parity.
In regards to both the Natural and Social and Human Sciences Sectors, we feel that we must be careful not to pre-judge the work of the Science Review Panel, but should instead await the outcome of their review before making decisions on overarching and strategic objectives for those sectors.
However, the United States would like to see UNESCO continue its strong commitment to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC). Given its important role in disaster risk mitigation and in the expansion of the tsunami warning system, the IOC rightly belongs among the strategic program objectives, as does the
Intergovernmental Hydrological Program (IHP). Even though 23 international organizations claim competence in fresh water issues, we must ensure that the IHP remains the pre-eminent international organization devoted to potable water and associated ecosystems.
We hear from time to time in this house that globalization and the free market are threats and must be reined in. But in reality, globalization presents huge opportunities for development and for building inclusive societies. As the former President of Mexico, Mr. Ernesto Zedillo, stated yesterday, people are poor “not because of the market economy, but because they are not part of it.”
Given the close relationship between knowledge and development, we would like to see the Communication and Information Sector continue its commitment to the free flow and exchange of information through media freedom, and media development programs that strengthen good governance, civic participation, transparency, and accountability. All of these are recognized in the World Summit Outcome Document as key components of sustainable development.
UNESCO has much to contribute in the area of culture. Given UNESCO’s commitment to cultural diversity, the United States urges UNESCO to promote genuine cultural diversity through programs that foster a free and open exchange of cultural expressions and products across the globe. Any program or policy that uses UNESCO’s name to hinder cultural exchange would run counter to the vision of the founders of this organization and counter to its intended mandate.
No UNESCO cultural program is more identified with UNESCO than the World Heritage program. The United States hopes that the somewhat overdue management audit of the World Heritage Center will be completed in time to inform the Medium Term Strategy.
I find it curious that the last of the overarching objectives in the draft Medium Term Strategy is “fostering mutual understanding, reconciliation and peace.” This is truly an intersectoral objective that lies at the heart of UNESCO’s work. This is a pre-eminent reason why UNESCO was established. This is why we still look to UNESCO to propose ideas to address the hatred, misunderstandings, and conflicts that still plague us sixty years after the Organization’s founding. This is an area where UNESCO’s role as a kind of UN “think tank” needs to be brought fully to bear.
UNESCO can only accomplish these objectives by continuing to implement significant management reforms. Accountability must become the norm at UNESCO, and evaluation seen as a positive tool that helps improve performance, both at headquarters and in the field offices. Resources should be used for UNESCO’s priorities, and support should be given to those individuals and programs that produce measurable results.
Financial evaluation is as important as programmatic evaluation. UNESCO must be able to assure its donors that their funds are being spent effectively. Proper fiduciary oversight will also help build the trust and confidence necessary to persuade potential new partners to work with UNESCO. In this regard, special attention needs to be paid to extra-budgetary funds.
We also need to focus on governance issues, and to reflect on how we can make the three organs more coherent. This will require clarifying the appropriate roles of those bodies. For example, the Executive Board should provide improved guidance and oversight to the Organization, but it must resist the temptation of micro-management.
We must also make sure that every UNESCO program, publication, and prize embodies the highest of standards, so that they reflect credit upon the organization.
Although the draft Medium Term Strategy recognizes the value of intersectoral and interdisciplinary cooperation, I agree with my colleague from France that the document is still too unfocused. We look forward to strengthening this document so that UNESCO can fulfill its potential as a forum for the debate of innovative ideas, as a clearinghouse for the exchange of best practices, as an effective capacity-builder for Member States, as a catalyst for international cooperation and development, and even perhaps as a standard-setter for well-crafted non-binding instruments.
However, normative instruments should only be considered when there is a clear consensus----at the outset---on the need for a new instrument.
As far as the budget is concerned, the comparative budget document distributed by the Secretariat shows that, thanks to the return of the United States, UNESCO’s budget rose from $544.4 million for the 2002-2003 biennium to $610 million for the 2004-2005 biennium. This large increase should be kept in mind as we discuss issues relating to the budget.
We will have more detailed comments to make over the next few days during the meetings of the F/A and P/X Commissions.
Clearly we have a lot of hard work in front of us, and we may need to make some unpopular decisions if we are to help UNESCO achieve its goals of promoting mutual understanding, tolerance and peace. Can we do it? Yes, I firmly believe that we can, and more importantly, that we must. The people of the world are counting on us, and we must not disappoint them.
Thank you Madame Chairperson.
|
|
