Volume 11, No 2.

Introduction

The United Nations and word power

Naren Chitty

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,

Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,

Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;

Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain’d a ghastly dew

From the nations’ airy navies grappling in the central blue;

Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,

With the standards of the peoples plunging thro’ the thunder-storm;

Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,

And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson, 1842

Alfred, Lord Tennyson may have been a seer who anticipated the development of air commerce and air power three-quarters of a century before their development in the early 20th century, but his vision of a ‘Parliament of man, the Federation of the world … and universal law’ remains a fond dream of the Grotian genius in mankind, ever at odds with the Hobbesian view of the world. This is not to say there is not ‘a kind of’ parliament, ‘a sort of’ confederation and at least the semblance of law. The United Nations system occupies the space of Tennyson’s vision, but as the creature of states (some more and some less sovereign – in a world viewed differently by realists, liberals and contstructivists) the UN system is without sovereignty and sans independent means of law enforcement. This is not to say that the UN has not achieved a great deal in its progression to sexagenarian status. The Blue Berets on the cover remind us of some of the UN’s successes in peace-keeping. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s message for this issue makes reference to other areas of human security as well.

The aim of the current issue is not to celebrate the UN. It is not the role of a scholarly journal to be laudatory. Nor would the UN in its 60th year want to miss out on scholarly analysis and criticism. Indeed the Secretary-General has shown a keenness that scholars should look critically at communication processes in the UN so that the organisation could benefit from their reflections.

In ‘The United Nations at 60: Time to go home?’ Cees Hamelink begins with the proposition that ‘whatever its many weaknesses and failures may be, the world community cannot send the UN into retirement’. However he does call for introspection and draws our attention to recommendations related to communication rights, an internal introspective faculty for the UN system, re-evaluation of enforcement of cultural rights broadly defined (from the persecution of individuals to ethnic cleansing) and strategies for democratic governance in the UN, and calls on the United Nations General Assembly to take the lead towards teaching the world to engage in dialogue.

It is not Tennyson’s air power or air commerce that distinguishes the UN. Rather, it is word power that is its strength and at times can even be a weakness. The UN system, its inputs, processes and outputs are of interest to international communication scholars. The words exchanged and crafted into agreements in the UN are the building blocks of formal pathways of international cooperation in particular functional areas. The UN system is a crucible of international communication, one which through some of its products, notably sets of rules and procedures, has an impact even on aspects of international communication.

The UN system provides a network of spaces in which diplomatic communication takes place, communication that leads to the production of texts that are agreed on by participants and inform behaviour. Some texts emphasise values that can be agreed on and to which the community of states might aspire. Other texts describe procedures for cooperation in various areas. Another set of texts depicts the workings of the UN either in the printed word, the spoken word or images, important in taking the UN to the world.

The language of international regime theory is useful in discussing this world of multi-state multi-issue networks of governance. Krasner defines international regimes as ‘sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given area of international relations’ (Krasner 1983, p.2). International regime theory offers insights on how rules about rule-making and ruling are negotiated, in the intergovernmental diplomatic space. Areas of international relations, or ‘issue areas’, may or may not have formal agreements, secretariats or even agencies. Apart from being ‘formal’ or ‘informal’, they may also be either ‘specific’ like women’s rights, or ‘diffuse’ like human security (Puchala & Hopkins 1983, pp.64-66). Additionally there are ‘substantive norms’ (non-discrimination, liberalisation, reciprocity, safeguard and development norms) and ‘procedural norms’ (multilateralism and major interests norms) (Finlayson & Zacher 1983, pp.276-298). The language of intellectual regime theory requires expansion in order to accommodate the non-state and non-IGO actors, both multiple and multi-level, that seek to engage in global governance.

The articles that were selected for the issue have been written by three research students, four members of the academy (one of whom is also a broadcaster), one NGO worker and one international civil servant. This varied group of contributors has written on the issue areas of human rights (specifically communication rights and women’s rights), telecommunication and peace-building. They have discussed participation in processes of international governance, noting the importance of considering the role of local culture in the construction of patterns of governance. They have shown concern about the contradictions of cultural universalism, as enshrined in iconic declaratory texts, and relativism in the interpretation of these texts from within states and even multinational cultures. Additionally they have identified a role for the UN in the promotion of communication research and in the nurturing of the public sphere in areas where this important space for political expression has not had the opportunity to unfold.

In ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in today’s world’ Elizabeth More revisits the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and notes that it represented in 1948 the hope for a new future. She explores the two major competing schools of thought, universalism and cultural relativism, in relation to international human rights, focusing mostly on women’s rights. She argues for cross-cultural communication and education, with the participation of grass-roots communities.

On our cover we see a depiction of Portuguese ‘Blue Berets’ befriending the children of Timor-Leste. Descendants of former upholders of the diffuse regime of colonialism (Puchala & Hopkins 1983, pp.67-79) are now defenders of a diffuse human security regime. The UN system may be conceptualised as a governance structure for the diffuse regime of human security. As a governance structure, consisting of networks of states and non-state actors, rather than a government exercising sovereignty on behalf of a people, the UN system must relentlessly seek to decrease the natural distance between ordinary folk throughout the world and the steel and glass organs and Weberian processes of the UN. The soldiers’ friendly interaction with the children, as well as the message conveyed by the photograph, are ways of generating perceptions of proximity. But access needs also to be built into structures of governance, and the creative use of telecommunication technology can allow for participation between actors at different levels and within different cultures.

Evita Karamagioli, in ‘The role of ICT in strengthening United Nations–civil society relations’ examines some of the paradoxes of the relationship between the UN as a diplomatic and bureaucratic space that facilitates global governance, discussing the recommendations of an expert panel established by the Secretary-General ‘of 12 eminent persons drawn from both the governmental and the non-governmental sectors in order to explore the potential of UN relations with civil society’. She notes that ‘(n)ew information technologies can become vital tools for participatory democracy which can transform and enhance the relationship between the UN and civil society, as they enable social actors to participate in decision-making processes and offer a unique opportunity to deepen and broaden democratic dialogue among all social actors at local, national and global levels’.

In ‘Advancing global ethics through research and education: The case of the United Nations’, Alex Otieno notes that claims of obsolescence, cultural relativism and universalism and debates regarding human rights, social and economic development, and global ethics are inescapable in UN discourse. Arguing that the UN’s role in various settings and contexts can also serve as a resource for research and learning, he uses a case study approach to explore the role of information and communication technologies in the pursuit of UN mandates emerging from the UN Millennium Declaration. He proposes the incorporation of ‘global ethics’ in undergraduate and graduate curricula. He also considers the implications of his arguments on theory, practice and policy analysis in global health and social change.

In ‘Culture and the structure of international communication’, George A. Barnett and Eunjung Sung explore the relationship between national culture and the structure of international information flows. Taking the view that world system theory suggests that economic relations within nations are the primary organising principles of international communication, they point out that recent research suggests that other factors, particularly culture, may also impact on the process. They examine the role of culture as an organising mechanism of the internet and international telecommunications, and report that national culture is significantly related to the centrality and the overall structure of both networks.

Ann-Christin Raschdorf, in ‘Towards a communicative reform of the United Nations: A critical theory perspective’, argues that ‘the present structural functional discourse on peace-building fails to capture the full spectrum of peace-building practices’, thereby excluding ‘competing normative concerns and actors at lower levels’. Employing a critical theory based model to peace-building, Raschdorf offers ‘two possible starting points for a successful promotion of perceptual peace in different cultural contexts’, highlighting areas of perceptual distortions and proposing multi-levelled communication processes to remedy the structural functionalist distortion.

Saba ElGhul-Bebawi, in ‘The United Nations’ role in Arab media: A voice for the community?’, notes the UN’s long-term interest in political and social development in the Arab world and proposes further assistance in the development of the public sphere in this region. It is important that Arab intellectuals form the vanguard of regional and international processes that seek to nurture civil society in the Arab world, and ElGhul-Bebawi’s contribution is a noteworthy one.

Nicola Simpson Khullar, in ‘The role of the United Nations in communications research: Affect or effect?’, notes that the UN system has had a long and institutionally broad history of supporting media research and outreach in an increasingly complicated global media environment. She suggests that, as media audiences fragment and contract around the world, the UN may want to consider a shake-up in the organisational structure that addresses contemporary communications concerns, in order to maintain effectiveness and credibility. The discipline of ‘communication’ remains contentiously vague for many, and the cumbersome bureaucracy inherent to many UN programs may only exacerbate this disconnection. Another option for the UN would be to focus on specific areas of research, and better identify how this research can aid policy goals. To remain efficient and reflective of current communications policy concerns, the UN should consider sponsoring a new institute devoted to this research, into which the splintered programs of other UN agencies can be folded.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my co-editor of this issue, Ramu Damodaran, who is chief of the Civil Society Service in the Department of Public Information of the UN and editor-in-chief of the UN Chronicle, as well as a historian and political scientist, for his role in the production of this important issue. He first suggested the issue in 2004, when he was an honorary associate at the Macquarie University Centre for International Communication. He has contributed to the editing of the issue in his personal capacity, but always having in mind the Secretary-General’s wish that the UN should seek, and profit from, the views and research of the academic community on issues vital to its membership and, indeed, itself.

References

Finlayson, J.A. & Zacher, M.W. (1983) ‘The GATT and the regulation of trade barriers: Regime dynamics and functions’, in S.D. Krasner (ed) International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983, pp.273-314.

Krasner, S.D. (1983) ‘Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables’, in S.D. Krasner (ed) International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp.1-22.

Puchala, D.J. & Hopkins, R.F. (1983) ‘International regimes: Lessons from inductive analysis’, in S.D. Krasner (ed) International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp.61-92.

Tennyson, A. (1842) ‘Locksley Hall’, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Poems, Boston: W.D. Ticknor.