These pictures are a little late...most were taken in February 2010. And highlight the fun that I had exploring the grounds with friends in the snow.
I love being in New York City. I love seeing the reality of all my studies in Politics being lived by real people. I love how real things that I had only previously read about is. It is amazing how alive the United Nations is. When I studied global governance, it was easy to objectively analyse the mechanisms, decision making processes, policy and applications of mechanisms of global governance such as the UN or NGOs. Being in New York and actually attending a UN Commission makes the reality feel so much closer and tangible. Walking the hallways, having Java City Coffee in the UN basement and considering the naffness of getting stamps with my face on them are all aspects that I had never associated with the UN. Furthermore, my expectations were limited by my lack of knowledge. I had never considered that aspect to be true before. I grew up in Tanzania, I traveled extensively and therefore, I naively always considered myself to be a multicultural person.
But I enjoy the diversity here. Not just among the UN, NGOs, and New Yorkers. It is fascinating to constantly be challenging my own expectations and expanding my plans. Once (a year ago) I would have been perfectly content with what I had considered my future to be. Now, I want to travel the world. I want to learn, experience, explore, question, discover and benefit the progress of humanity. I love my current position as a research assistant. I get to question, evaluate, analyse and learn.
The opportunities available in New York City are astonishing...I have only been here for four months and I have grown professionally and personally.I have had the opportunity to attend
lunch time midday Forums run by the United Nations
University on topics that range from"Fault lines of International Legitimacy", to "Global Governance: The G20 and the UN". I attended a Current Affairs lunch time event that discussed "Climate change between trust and trade." The speaker was good but I was strangely annoyed by his constant reference to the European Union as a country. As a citizen of Ireland and as a person who considers herself to be a world citizen...I was shocked by my own reaction to the speaker...an educated academic referring repeatedly to the "EU as a country". As a person who believes that the world is but one country and mankind its citizens it surprised me that I cared.
I found the presentation on the book...from Fault lines of International Legitimacy insightful. Jean-Marc Coicaud discussed how legitimacy is about making sure power is exercised in a just way (Assuming that we know what a just way is). He mentioned just war theory as a key aspect of international legitimacy. He argued that the international system does revolve on legitimacy. He raised the question of how to build legitimacy? Mentioning competing claims at an international level.
Ian Johnstone mentioned how he gages legitimacy of decision making on the quality of the discussion. Good argument in legal discourse is a type of discussion that results in legitimacy. Does legal consultation (i.e International Law) not matter? ( considering that interventions in Kosovo and Iraq are technically illegal?) Legal interaction as dialogue was discussed as being empirically true, diplomatic conversations and legal justifications.
This was followed by a discussion about the inter subjective (not objective or subjective) nature of legal arguments and an interpretive community (based on Stanley Fish). In international law....whose consent is needed? The relationship between power and legitimacy was questioned. This raised questions such as; How to balance capitalism and democracy? Who participates in the interpretive community (i.e the collective judgement of the international community) ? Is it any more legitimate?
This led to a discussion of the UN and consensus voting (concluding that it alone does not ensure legitimacy) Debate, deliberation and expectations / agreements. He mentioned deliberative democrats such as Habermas and three conditions for effective deliberations.....
1. Participants -equal standing and voice
2. Public
3. Must share commonalities (e.g language, history, culture).
Johnstone mentioned that the security council does not fit these requirements. The security council has a 4 tiered decision making;
1. Permanent
2. 10 elected members
3. Appeal to broader membership
4. Non-governmental actors (appeal rather than listen...)
Vasuki Nesiah then introduced the concept of what legitimacy enables. She raised the question of whether the UN is legitimate based on self determination.
I also really enjoyed Global Governance: The G20 and the UN. This event focused on how the "global economic crisis has underscored the need for more effective global governance mechanisms". The speaker H.E Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon (Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York), skillfully articulated how the Breton Woods Accord and the UN was insufficient to handle the reality of the economic crisis. He mentioned how the G20 emerged as a response to this. He mentioned how this highlights the need for a "revitalisation" to prevent major powers from being bypassed in decision making.
He posed some questions for the audience like How will future decisions be made? What are the long term implications of the G20 on member states? Is the G20 a new G8? And the need for mechanism to engage the G20....the future of the G7 / G8 was presented as problematic. The need for the G20 to enhance and not undermine the UN was stressed. The need for transparency and the development of mechanisms was mentioned. The most striking was the mention of a need for the participation of the UN in the G20 to be formalised. From a pragmatic perspective, I felt that the G20 has a lot of the flaws of the G8 and while it represents progress it still has a lot of evolving to do before I would personally consider it to be a serious contender with the UN. Furthermore, I felt it was more important for the G20 to engage with the UN than vice versa.
IT is true that the G20 made necessary economic decisions when needed but the danger that it would simply spiral out of hand without safeguards was ignored. There is no system of checks and balances and while it is vital for certain decisions to be made fast...consensus is important for lasting and legitimate decisions to be made. Furthermore, the G20 itself did not reach consensus...But I do agree that without China and the US (The two big giants) decisions, especially economic ones are not going to be the solution.
I will update you on the next events that I attend and find outstanding. These views are my own and are not supposed to present an official opinion....just my current thought processes as I sponge up new amazing possibilities and attempt to understand them based on my current capacities....
No comments:
Post a Comment