A smile and a thought….
By Eelco H. Dykstra, MD.
Introduction
Eelco Dykstra writes a column called “A smile and a thought…” The columns put a playful spotlight on the interface between the Dutch and the International Community it hosts. Yes, his musings may appear at times to be mildly provocative at first sight but they are first and foremost playful – with a little irony thrown in here and there… You be the judge!
His columns are intended to give you ‘a smile and a thought’. A smile because perhaps you hadn’t quite looked at something that way and a thought because the column may leave you wondering…
—————————————————————————————————————–
A Look Behind the Scenes…
Diplomacy at work: Disaster Risk Reduction at the United Nations
Nearly 200 countries were represented in Sendai (Japan) to finalize the post 2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction – previously known as the Hyogo Framework. The choice to hold this meeting from March 14-19 in Sendai was not co-incidental – the consequences of the triple disaster known as “Fukushima” from March 11, 2011, are still there to see.
Despite this sense of urgency implied by location, a lot of frustration surfaced during the meeting due to political gamesmanship and manoeuvring.
Let’s take a look behind the scenes.
Worldwide, the trend is clear: disasters cause an ever-increasing number of victims and ever-growing socio-economic damages. So much so, that even the private sector nowadays considers investing in disaster risk reduction to be part of their core business. In other words, they see this no longer as a luxury but as a necessity.
Major – and not so major – corporations have aligned themselves with the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and are putting resources such as money, knowledge, or both, in a global trust fund called “R!SE”. One example is the Rockefeller Foundation who is spending around $100 million to set up a global network of Chief Resilience Officers in cities around the world.
And here we hit the first snag.
Climate Change.
Much of the international discussions on disaster risk reduction focuses on rising sea levels, global warming and more extreme weather patterns. While some parts of the world accept the overwhelming evidence that it is high time to prepare for hitherto unseen emergencies and disasters, other parts of the world stick to a more-of-the-same, business-as-usual approach. Negotiations such as the ones in Sendai are complicated by distrust and opposing fractions and regional power blocks. Not even diplomatic principles such as the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) tool, is then of much help. Trying to reach an agreement when there is only an agreement to disagree is notoriously difficult…
As recent as six months ago, nobody had foreseen these difficulties as it was widely believed that everybody considered the Sendai meeting as a technical and neutral meeting on disaster risk reduction, a topic that everybody recognized as important.
A second problem with these kind of meetings consists of a combination of confusion, time pressure and loss-of-face.
Confusion…
Instead of a stand-alone meeting on a neutral and technical topic (how to arrange for public-private cooperation, funding and technology transfer for disaster risk reduction) the Sendai summit all of a sudden became a station on the route of controversial and heated international summits on climate change, i.e. Addis, New York and Paris.
Time pressure…
Because amid all the disagreement an agreement had to be reached on a framework for disaster risk reduction, a marathon of negotiations started over a period of 36 hours during which smaller groups of 20 countries ironed out the most controversial issues during sessions from 10 pm to 4 am (!).
Loss-of-Face…
The hosts, i.e. Japan, looked at the confusion on the last day of negotiations and felt that time was slipping away. To avoid loss of face, the Japanese took over the meeting but not after first besieging and berating the delegation of the USA which was seen as a major roadblock to reaching agreement.
Eventually, an agreement was reached. An agreement which was not bad at all. An agreement with which all kinds of tools for disaster risk reduction can be developed and implemented.
But the conclusion after Sendai was also this: “This process is a disaster…”
In line with the name of my column “A smile and a thought…”, I’d like to make the following suggestions to diplomats and the diplomatic community involved in preparing next summits:
- Do not merely share the final product of these summits with the world but tell them how the agreement was reached, where the pitfalls were and how the problems were overcome.
- Tell the world about the many hours, the many stressful moments and the advanced skill levels that are needed to reach an agreements amid disagreement.
- Consider hiring completely independent chairs for these meetings, international people who are very experienced as crisis managers.
- Do involve the host-nation as soon as possible in co-determining what the desired impact of the meeting will be. With these suggestions, the world will never wonder what the fuss was all about and will never consider these summits as mini-holidays for well-paid diplomats. Never.Trust.Reality rules. Respect. And the benefits for the diplomatic community?
