UNESCO – the UN’s most fascinating Agency

UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organisation. It contributes to peace and security by promoting international cooperation in education, sciences, culture, communication and information. UNESCO promotes knowledge sharing and the free flow of ideas to accelerate mutual understanding and a more perfect knowledge of each other`s lives. Furthermore UNESCO`s programme contributes to the achievement of the UN`s Sustainable Development Goals as defined in the 2030 Agenda, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015. UNESCO`s greatest contribution is the preservation of our cultural heritage.

David Wardrop has chaired the Westminster United Nations Association since 2001, having joined UN Association in 1974. In the 1990s, he led the national campaign to return the UK to membership of UNESCO. He has introduced annual events marking the UN’s work in international law and peacekeeping, and also secured the naming of United Nations Green facing Westminster Abbey and Central Hall Westminster, host to the UN’s inaugural meeting in 1946.

David has been responsible for establishment and organising the annual memorial ceremony at the Cenotaph for UN Peace-Keepers and a day conference held in partnership with UN Association Westminster and the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and UNA-UK. Westminster UN Association hosts the news service on the UN’s re-opened inquiry into the death in 1961 of the UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. For over 50 years David has made many contributions to the UN and the UN Association.

He has been awarded the MBE for services to the United Nations and its institutions.

Professor Matt Qvortrup gave a brief summary of the history of Democracy. He is Chair of Political Science in the Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations at the University of Coventry. He believes political institutions and constitutions can improve the lives of all – especially those who are victims of war, poverty and other forms of hardship. He was a member of President Obama’s Special Envoy Team in Africa and served as a Specialist Advisor to the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Professor Michael Saward then considered what the future holds for democracy. Michael works in the Department of Politics and International Studies (PAIS) at the University of Warwick. His key area of research is contemporary democratic theory. His work includes the book Enacting European Citizenship published by Cambridge University Press in 2013. He is currently working on a range of issues, including performance and democratic representation; democratic designs; and the role of political ideas in practical political life.

These presentations were followed by a discussion with the audience.

The event was introduced by Philip Brown, secretary of the United Nations Association Coventry Branch.

[slideshow_deploy id=’700′]

Former Coventry City football club star Cyrille Regis MBE and the leader of Coventry Refugee and Migrant Centre Sabir Zazai describe their life experiences and discuss what it means to be a migrant and a refugee. They answer questions about how these experiences have affected their lives, and what Coventry, city of peace and reconciliation, means to them.

The event is chaired by the Very Revd John Witcombe, Dean of the Cathedral.

Participants

António Guterres – Former UN High Commissioner for Refugees and former Prime Minister of Portugal

Vuk Jeremić – Former Foreign Minister of Serbia and former President of the UN General Assembly (2012-13)

Igor Lukšić – Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Montenegro

Introduced by UNA-UK Executive Director Natalie Samarasinghe

1. How will the outcome of the EU referendum affect the UK’s role on the world stage, including its relationships within other multilateral institutions such as the United Nations?
2. How will the outcome of the EU referendum support a strong multilateral role for the UK in terms of the international agendas on peace and security, development and human rights
3. How do you see the UK’s relationship with the United Nations changing as a result of the referendum?

Here is the statement from the “Vote Leave” campaign. You can read and listen to the “remain” campaign statement elsewhere on this website.

Statement from Vote Leave

1. How will the outcome of the EU referendum affect the UK’s role on the world stage, including its relationships within other multilateral institutions such as the United Nations?

Leaving the EU will promote the UK’s ability to play a more effective, more independent role on the world stage, one that is more aligned with British priorities. By definition, Brussels only adds value to our foreign policy insofar as we agree with the action being taken. But our weight in the EU and our ability to defend our corner has declined steeply over the 43 years we have been members.

In theory, the EU’s common foreign and security policy requires unanimity. This can be a recipe for paralysis. Additionally, the EU’s definition of foreign policy excludes areas such as trade and development. Decisions on these issues are subject to qualified majority voting so can be pushed through against British opposition.

By leaving the EU, Britain will regain its voice on key international bodies such as the World Trade Organization, enabling us to accelerate the opening of trade. The EU has failed to reach agreements with any of the world’s major economies.

The EU’s ambition to take over national representation on financial bodies like the International Monetary Fund was set out explicitly in last year’s Five Presidents’ Report. This would be a serious risk given the hostility in much of Europe towards Britain’s strength in financial services.

2. How will the outcome of the EU referendum support a strong multilateral role for the UK in terms of the international agendas on peace and security, development and human rights?

Outside the EU, Britain would continue to cooperate closely with our friends and allies, including the Union and its member states. We are often at our most effective when we work directly with partner countries, for example fighting Islamic State or, as part of Nato, deterring Russian aggression. The British armed forces are among the best in the world and Britain has the fourth largest defence budget. It is important that our contribution is distinctive and deployed to maximum effect.

European cooperation will continue to be vital in many fields where it already exists such as air travel, sanitary controls, disease, and counterterrorism. But we should not subcontract our international role to a supranational organisation. As we have seen with the EU’s faltering and divisive attempts to deal with mass migration into Europe, trying to harmonise the policies of 28 countries with often very different interests can be counter-productive. There is no need for a European army.

Britain is legally committed to spending 0.7% of GDP on international development. This will not change. We will continue to seek improved results in development, human rights, transparency and the fight against corruption.

3. How do you see the UK’s relationship with the United Nations changing as a result of the referendum?

The relationship would not change significantly if we left the EU. Britain’s permanent seat on the Security Council is central to its ability to play a useful global role and the UK will retain it while continuing to support wider reform of the council. In November 2015, the European Parliament endorsed a report calling for the abolition of the UK’s seat on the UN Security Council. Its preference was for “the EU to become a permanent member of that body, with one permanent seat and one single vote.” Leaving the EU will remove the threat of Brussels taking over the UK’s role.

By leaving the EU and taking back control over our foreign policy, Britain will become more engaged internationally, not less.

1. How will the outcome of the EU referendum affect the UK’s role on the world stage, including its relationships within other multilateral institutions such as the United Nations?
2. How will the outcome of the EU referendum support a strong multilateral role for the UK in terms of the international agendas on peace and security, development and human rights
3. How do you see the UK’s relationship with the United Nations changing as a result of the referendum?

Here is the statement from Britain Stronger in Europe. You can also find the statement from the “leave” campaign on this website.

Britain Stronger in Europe is the officially designated lead organisation campaigning for a ‘remain’ result in the forthcoming referendum on the UK’s EU membership. We are supported by Conservatives In and the Conservative Group for Europe, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, the Green Party in Northern Ireland, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party, as well as The European Movement, London First, Friends of the Earth, Scientists for EU, the National Association of Women’s Organisations, Universities UK, Community the Union, Environmentalists for EU, Henna Foundation, City Sikhs and the National Union of Students. We have dedicated campaign organisations in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, over 50 university-based student organisations, and well over 200 MPs, peers, MEPs, members of the devolved assemblies and local council leaders acting as our ‘political champions’. Britain Stronger in Europe’s Chairman is Lord Rose of Monewden and its Executive Director is Will Straw.

Like UNA-UK, Britain Stronger in Europe believes that the result of the referendum will have important consequences for the UK’s international role. Accordingly, Britain Stronger in Europe welcomes both UNA-UK’s initiative to air this aspect of the referendum debate among UNA-UK members, and the opportunity to present its position.
If the UK were to leave the EU, it would remain an important global player. This would be, not least, because of its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
However, Britain Stronger in Europe believes that the UK would be a more effective international actor, in support of progressive ends and the international system, if the UK remains in the EU. In the contemporary world, engaging in cooperative decision-making gives us more control, not less. It gives us global power, not the illusion of sovereignty.

If we voted to leave, Britain Stronger in Europe believes that the UK would be less able to play an effective international role in support of progressive ends. This is for six reasons:

1. Negotiating withdrawal arrangements and a new relationship with the EU, and seeking to replace the preferential trade agreements that we enjoy with over 50 countries around the world through the EU, would absorb UK diplomatic capacity for years and divert diplomatic, bureaucratic and political resources from other priorities. The government has estimated that settling post-withdrawal arrangements could take a decade. We would also need to develop new ways of working, as a non-EU state, with representatives of the EU institutions around the world and in international institutions – especially, given our permanent UNSC seat, at the UN in New York and Geneva. At least for a time, this would disrupt the UK’s diplomatic operations in these important bodies.
2. By being inside the EU, the UK has been able to use the bloc’s added clout to pursue foreign policy objectives more effectively. The EU brings with it greater scale than the UK would have on its own – in diplomatic reach, economic weight, and development assistance and other funding. It also carries a different moral and historical identity than the UK acting alone, which can complement or compensate for features of the UK as an international actor. Recently, the resolution through diplomatic means of the Iranian nuclear issue counts as a successful case of the UK bringing EU economic clout in behind its preferred ‘sanctions + negotiations’ policy. From outside, the UK would be in a weaker position to bring EU action to bear on its priorities.
3. After voting to leave, the UK would retain a vital interest in the EU’s international action. The EU would remain the world’s largest trade bloc, a major development assistance donor and provider of political, financial, technical and security support around the world, including in post-conflict situations. It would remain the organisation with the broadest political and economic reach in our continent and our neighbourhood. Geographical proximity, dense economic and human links, and shared values would often make the EU and its member states still the UK’s first foreign policy partner of necessity and choice. However, if the UK were not a member, shaping the EU’s action would be harder. Influencing the EU and its member states would become a greater foreign policy task, again diverting diplomatic capacity from other priorities.
4. In the EU, we have a unique position as the only country inside all major international organisations. This enables us to play a convening and coordinating role that helps to deliver more effective international action. The December 2015 Paris UN climate change conference was a recent example. President Obama has said: ‘When the climate agreement in Paris needed a push, it was the European Union, fortified by the United Kingdom, that ultimately helped make that agreement possible’
   The loss of our place inside the EU would make the UK a less valuable partner for countries and organisations around the world. This would reduce our ability to catalyse international outcomes. President Obama has said: ‘We want to make sure that our partner…maximises its leverage…The UK will have less influence in Europe and as a consequence less influence globally…We like you having more influence. We like you being at the table helping to influence other countries.’ The leaders of Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand have also made clear they would like the UK to remain in.
5. If the UK voted to leave, disentangling the two parties would negatively affect the EU, as well as the UK. At a minimum, it would take up EU political and bureaucratic capacity, at a time when the EU and its member states are struggling to cope with their agenda. But a UK vote to leave could also embolden nationalist forces in other member states, while being seen inside and outside the EU as a vote of no-confidence in the union. Into the longer term, the EU would have diminished diplomatic, military and intelligence capabilities among its member states, and the voice among them for an outward-looking, globally engaged EU, with a serious approach to security issues, would be lessened. This could further strain the EU’s ability to engage effectively in international action. The EU could be weakened overall, undermining one of the pillars of the post-1945 international order and one of the most important attempts in history to institutionalise cooperation between nation-states.
6. Leaving the EU could be taken as a retreat from a commitment to address international issues cooperatively, through multilateral institutions and policy regimes. Britain Stronger in Europe believes that, through the negative power of example, this could weaken the UK’s ability to work in support of other multinational institutions and regimes. The effect could be especially strong given that the EU is the most ambitious multinational regime ever attempted, with a particularly high-profile identification with human rights and the rule of law.

For these reasons, Britain Stronger in Europe believes that the UK would be stronger, safer and more influential internationally if we remain in the EU.

Mr Jeremic is Serbia’s candidate for to be the next Secretary General of the United Nations.
He is also President of the Centre for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD).

António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres, GCL GCC (Portuguese pronunciation: [ɐ̃ˈtɔnju ɡuˈtɛʁɨʃ]; born 30 April 1949) is a former Portuguese politician who was Prime Minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002. He also served for a time as President of the Socialist International. He served as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from June 2005 to December 2015.

Opening Remarks

2 Hour Question and Answer Session

Media Stakeout

Vision Statement

Vote for the candidate you prefer

Danilo Türk (pronounced [daˈníːlɔ ˈtýɾk]; born 19 February 1952) is a Slovenian diplomat, professor of international law, human rights expert, and political figure who served as the President of Slovenia from 2007 to 2012. Türk was the first Slovene ambassador to the United Nations, from 1992 to 2000, and was the UN Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs from 2000 to 2005.

He is a visiting professor of international law at Columbia University in New York City, a professor emeritus at the Faculty of Law of the University of Ljubljana, and non-resident senior fellow of Chongyang Institute for Financial studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing. Türk is the founder of the Danilo Türk Foundation, devoted mostly to the rehabilitation of child victims of armed conflict. He is also the chairman of the Global High Level Panel on Water and Peace and the chairman of the board of the Global Fairness Initiative, a Washington-based NGO dedicated to economic and social development in developing nations.

As of February 2016, Türk is a candidate for the post of Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Opening Remarks

2 Hour Questions from General Assembly

Media Stakeout

Vision Statement

Vote for the candidate you prefer