Blue Ribbon Power: Independent Commissions and UN Reform

In planning a reform project, it is essential to take into account existing political realities and the limits they are likely to impose on what is achievable. At the same time, it should be recognized that a primary purpose of such studies by civil society groups is to expand and redefine those boundaries, in the process rebuilding political will. Most of these blue ribbon panels have included few, if any, conservative voices, nor have they addressed questions of national interest systematically. These omissions have limited the breadth of their appeal and left them vulnerable to criticism from the right flank. Almost all of these studies were funded and undertaken by organizations based in Northern developed countries, reducing their credibility and impact among the developing country majority at the UN. Therefore, as much North-South geographical balance should be achieved as possible, in terms both of the sponsorship and of the participants in such a project. The process of change at the UN is highly political, both within and among member states, and this should be taken into account at every stage of planning and carrying out a reform study. Initially, it is better to try to persuade a few member states, including some of the smaller ones, to be actively committed to an idea than to have many delegations with warm and fuzzy feelings about it. Targeting is essential when dealing with a scattered organization with 188 directors and no CEO. The impact of this series of studies has been much more profound in the aggregate than the results of any single project might suggest. These studies have made important contributions to shaping the international agenda and to spurring the process of change in what the UN does and what it stands for, even though this may not be considered to constitute institutional reform in a formal sense. Most of these studies have built on the intellectual and political foundations of earlier efforts and, in turn, will contribute to the conceptual basis of future work. There was substantial cross-fertilization of ideas among these studies and, in most cases, this process contributed to the prospects for getting recurring ideas accepted by UN decision-makers. The key to the movement of ideas from blue ribbon panels to policy implementation has often been the movement of key leaders or staff from one side of this equation to the other. The more influential ideas are backed by politically significant constituencies, not just by the logic and style of their presentation. The success of these studies should not be gauged simply on the basis of how many of their recommendations have been accepted in the short run, but rather on their long-run influence on the way these issues are discussed and understood by decision-makers and opinion leaders alike. As expected, there has been an inverse relationship between how ambitious a report's proposals were and how likely they were to be adopted. None of the suggestions for Charter amendment, for instance, have been accepted. It appears that having the blessing of the Secretary-General at the outset of a study is no guarantee that its results are any more likely to be adopted than those produced by their civil-society-inspired counterparts. There is some evidence that the maintenance of a singular substantive focus over a number of years may help the prospects for eventual acceptance. In at least one case, a report with a powerful and timely message has had an impressive shelf-life, even though only a handful of its specific proposals have been adopted. It clearly matters a great deal whether a project has sufficient funding, staff, and time built in for follow-up work aimed at reaching policy influentials, the media, educators, and the public. Project leaders and managers may want to look for an open door for subjects for which there is an existing constituency or interest on the part of key policymakers or member states. Project organizers should also remain flexible, ready to follow up on those aspects of their study for which unexpected opportunities to move forward appear. In terms of policy implementation, success has usually been achieved in places where the authors did not necessarily expect it. It pays to be responsive to changing circumstances and opportunities. In one case, a series of reports with specific proposals by a pair of widely respected authors has proven as influential as those by larger and geographically more balanced panels, suggesting that there is more than one way of going about this. Project plans should incorporate viable strategies both for gaining the serious attention of key policymakers and for fostering the political will to encourage them to act on the project's proposals. Successful follow-up strategies must take into account the agendas and needs of the officials receiving the report, not just those of its authors. It is helpful, in that regard, to engage in a dialogue with those policymakers one hopes to influence throughout the project from its inception, and not just at the end. It should be recognized that political will is not immutable or static, and that a highly visible civil society study, coupled with active outreach, can help to build the political foundations for action over time. With political support for UN reform currently on the wane, it is doubly important (1) to look for targets of opportunity, (2) to work with those in the system who are still dedicated to change, and (3) to be flexible. This is also a good time to focus on rebuilding public and NGO interest in a progressive change agenda, the first step toward reactivating political will. From this perspective, the September 2000 Millennium Assembly should be seen less as a culmination of past efforts and more as the starting point for a new era of reform and renewal.