|
14 September 2009 Helen Clark: Remarks at Launch of UN Ideas that Changed the World
Remarks by Helen Clark, Administrator of United Nations Development Programme Let me thank the Secretary-General for his remarks setting the stage for an open discussion of the issues raised in this
very important final volume of the UN Intellectual History Project. Before I introduce the panelists, let me also say a few words on the importance of this morning’s discussion. The world today is faced with a major and ongoing debate about the future of multilateralism. This debate is far reaching,
touching on every area of multilateral endeavor, from the global financial infrastructure to climate change and how to respond
to complex security challenges. The role of the UN is at the core of this debate, as member states, policy makers, and the
public ask the question: “what can the UN do?” In this debate it is critical that the UN is fully appreciated as a driver of and contributor to the intellectual and
policy discourse. That is why this last volume of the UN Intellectual History Project plays a critical role in reminding
us all of the tremendous record of intellectual contributions made by the United Nations which have made such a difference
to peoples’ lives. As Part 2 of the book recognizes, the UN has consistently served as an incubator of new and powerful global ideas, which,
over the course of decades have changed or shaped policies at all levels. Indeed the ongoing global economic and financial crisis reminds us of the need to re-think and re-formulate paradigms
which until recently may have appeared as intellectually unassailable. This book demonstrates that the UN has a track record of alternative thinking, and of producing global ideas and proposals
which are not abstract but, rather, translate into policies capable of implementation. Allow me to mention a couple of these in the area of development in particular, ideas which the book rightly lists as
credits in its “intellectual balance sheet” of the UN. There is tangible progress to report on the MDGs, in spite of the new challenges of the global recession. Even in the
current economic climate, it is more important than ever to achieve these basic development benchmarks, with their promise
of a better tomorrow for billions of people. But, well before the MDGs were conceived of, there was the formulation of the seminal Human Development paradigm, which
Chapter 11 of the book identifies as having the potential to be a driver of coherence for the whole UN system. Next year marks the 20th anniversary of the Human Development Report (HDR). It is therefore very timely that the Intellectual
History Project should honour the concept of human development and of those who provided its inspiration, Mahbub ul Haq
and Amartya Sen. The Human Development Reports have attracted tremendous attention and have been influential in shaping debate and policy
in many parts of the world. They are tools for policy analysis reflecting people's priorities, strengthening national capacities,
engaging national partners, identifying inequities, and measuring progress. This year’s Human Development Report is on the
theme of migration, and will be formally launched in Bangkok on 5 October. Let me conclude by saying that with this latest publication of the UN Intellectual History Project, we now have a series
of volumes which decisively refute the unfair and, alas, all too common dismissal of the United Nations as a static, uncreative
bureaucracy. This book presents ample evidence of the UN as a vibrant and leading intellectual force, contributing substantial
ideas – as well as promoting ideals. Against the backdrop of the ongoing global debate on multilateralism, this is a welcome reminder of the crucial role
of the UN. I very much hope that representatives of the UN, throughout the system, will leverage this intellectual inheritance,
continue to expand it, and use it to engage all stakeholders. Let me now turn to our panelists and discussant. Before broadening the discussion, I will first ask the authors of
the book, Sir Richard Jolly, Louis Emmerij, and Professor Thomas G. Weiss to summarize its central conclusions, and the
Jose Antonio Ocampo to provide his comments. |
|
|
|
