Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - The European Union and the United Nations: the choice of multilateralism
Date: 2003-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union, UNO, environmental protection, human rights, international affairs, international security, international trade, peace

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 10.9.2003
COM(2003) 526 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The European Union and the United Nations:
The choice of multilateralism

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.

2.

Ensuring that multilateral targets and instruments have the impact they
deserve: the EU’s contribution ................................................................................. 5

1.1. The front-runner commitment: taking an ambitious approach to negotiating and
implementing UN instruments ..................................................................................... 5

1.2. Making multilateral and bilateral policy mutually supportive.............................. 9

The EU and the UN: towards greater efficiency and impact
by working together ................................................................................................. 11

2.1. Laying the foundations for a wider partnership .................................................. 11

2.2. Beyond development: enhancing co-operation on peace and security issues..... 13

3.

Promoting the EU’s values and interests effectively in the UN system............... 16

3.1. The EU at the UN: good progress so far ............................................................. 16

3.2. Giving the EU the means to contribute more effectively to UN debates............ 17

Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 23

ANNEX I: Action plan for implementation of the Communication ........................................ 24

ANNEX II: The UN system – main bodies and acronyms ...................................................... 31

2

INTRODUCTION

The European Union’s  commitment  to  multilateralism  is  a  defining  principle  of  its  external
policy.  Taking  international  co-operation  as  a  precondition  for  meeting  numerous  global
challenges,  the  EU  has  a  clear  interest  in  supporting  the  continuous  evolution  and
improvement of the tools of global governance. Building and maintaining global institutions
is painstaking work. Success rests with the determination of states to obey the rules they have
set  themselves,  and  their  commitment  to  persuade  others  to  obey  them  when  they  are  most
tempted to do otherwise. And as the coverage of our institutions slowly expands, the tests we
face to keep them standing are set to multiply, not diminish.

In  the  years  ahead,  therefore,  Europe’s  attachment  to  multilateralism  –  and  to  the  United
Nations, as the pivot of the multilateral system – will help determine whether,  and how, the
institutional architecture established in the years after World War II can continue to serve as
the bedrock of the international system. The alternative would be devastating – not only in its
implications  for international  peace and security, but also  for  the  wider  multilateral  agenda,
ranging from the follow-up to recent international conferences to the development of a rule-
based international trading system.

This is all the more relevant and important at a time when it is essential to renew the Union’s
support for the multilateral and UN system, particularly in view of the grave  concern raised
by  acts  of  violence  against  humanitarian  personnel  and  UN  and  associated  personnel
including, most recently, in Iraq.

An active commitment to an effective multilateralism means more than rhetorical professions
of faith. It means taking global rules seriously, whether they concern the preservation of peace
or the limitation of carbon emissions; it means helping other countries to implement and abide
by these  rules; it  means engaging  actively in  multilateral  forums, and  promoting a  forward-
looking agenda that is not limited to a narrow defence of national interests.

Great strides have already been taken by the Union towards fulfilling its potential as a central
pillar  of  the  UN  system1.  The  importance  of  enhancing  co-operation  with  the  UN,  and  of
strengthening  the  EU’s  voice  in  the  UN,  has  been  underlined  repeatedly  by  all  major
institutions of the Union2. Yet much more can be done.

The starting point: substantial challenges remain for the EU if it is to fulfil its potential
in the UN.

While  the  EU  has  moved  progressively  towards  speaking  with  a  common  voice  in  UN
debates, its real influence – and its ability to project European values – on the world stage still
falls  short  of  its  economic  and  combined  political  weight,  or  indeed  its  contribution  to  the
funding of UN organisations3. The example of those cases where the EU has acted decisively

1

2

3

The  United  Nations  system  is  taken  in  this  Communication  to  mean  the  principal  organs  of  the  United
Nations,  notably the General Assembly  and  the  Economic  and  Social  Council  as  well  as  their  subsidiary
bodies, the Security Council, the Secretariat, as well as the UN programmes and funds and the specialized
agencies, including the Bretton Woods institutions.
See also the Gothenburg European Council Conclusions of June 2001.
The EU (EC and Member States) accounts for some 55% of international official development assistance.
EU  Member  States  provide  around  37%  of  the  UN  regular  budget  and  around  50%  of  all  UN  Member
States’ contributions to UN funds and programmes, and both Member States and the EC provide substantial
voluntary contributions.

3

                                                
and  cohesively,  such  as  the  promotion  of  the  Kyoto  Protocol,  the  preparation  of  the
International Conference  on Financing for  Development, or  the creation of the  International
Criminal Court, provides a sound indication of what the EU could potentially achieve across a
much  wider  range  of  issues.  Yet  too  often,  the  EU  is  still  content  to  play  a  reactive  role.
Taking a more proactive stance would involve more extensive dialogue and preparatory work
with  other  countries  and  groups.  Furthermore,  while  the  EU  has  adopted  the  practice  of
systematic EU co-ordination in most key UN policy bodies, votes in which the EU is unable
to agree on a common line continue to occur, mainly on issues in the area of CFSP. While in
the  past  the  practical  implications  of  such  split  votes  have  generally  been  marginal,  their
impact  on  the  EU’s  credibility  is  disproportionate  –  particularly  in  cases  where  there  are
established CFSP  Common  Positions  on  the  issues  in  question.  Moreover,  after  the  internal
divisions which occurred in the case of Iraq, there is a strong case for serious reflection within
the EU.

A general reflection on the role of the Union in the UN system is timely.

“We  need  to  build  an  international  order  based  on  effective  multilateralism”  is  one  of  the
three  strategic  objectives  contained  in  the  Security  Strategy  presented  by  the  EU  High
Representative  for  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  to  the  European  Council  in
Thessaloniki  on  20  June  2003.  It  also  states  that  “The  fundamental  framework  for
international  relations  is  the  United  Nations  Charter.  Strengthening  the  United  Nations,
equipping it to fulfil its responsibilities and to act effectively, must be a European priority”.

results  of 

the  outcome  of 

the  European  Convention,  and 

the  subsequent
The 
Intergovernmental Conference, have the potential to shape profoundly the way in  which  the
EU contributes to the work of multilateral institutions. The enlargement of the EU will create
both significant opportunities and serious challenges for the way in which the EU functions at
the UN: it will increase the numerical weight of the EU; it will create new challenges for the
day-to-day co-ordination of EU positions; and it will open up questions like the composition
of the regional groups in the UN. The role of the EU in international organisations is one of
the main themes in the ongoing work in the Council on the effectiveness of the EU’s external
relations – and the effectiveness of the EU in the UN is necessarily a central aspect of this4.
Finally,  the  UN  system  itself  is  going  through  a  major  reform  process  and  faced  with
enormous challenges, including in the field of peace and security and as regards implementing
the  commitments  made  at  recent  major  Conferences  –  and  the  EU’s  contribution  to  these
processes will be crucial to their success.

In  short,  there  is  a  strong  case  for  the  EU  to  take  stock  of  the  significant  progress  already
achieved in building an effective common presence in and vis-à-vis the UN, and to reflect on
the measures which will enable it to face upcoming challenges with confidence. The present
Communication  looks,  first,  at  how  the  EU  can  help  to  ensure  that  decisions  taken  in  the
multilateral system are effectively followed up and implemented. Second, it suggests how the
EU  and  the  UN  can  work  together  more  effectively.  And  third,  it  looks  at  possible
adjustments in the EU’s modus operandi in the UN – a necessary precondition for adopting a
more active, and indeed militant, multilateral poise.

4

See  the  General  Affairs  Council  Conclusions  of  18/19  February  2002,  which  deal  inter  alia  with
“reinforcing the role of the EU in international organisations, and in particular the UN”.

4

                                                
1.

ENSURING  THAT  MULTILATERAL  TARGETS  AND  INSTRUMENTS  HAVE  THE  IMPACT
THEY DESERVE: THE EU’S CONTRIBUTION

The challenge: helping the multilateral system to deliver on its key objectives

The  challenge  currently  facing  the  UN  is  clear:  ‘global  governance’  will  remain  weak  if
multilateral  institutions  are  unable to  ensure  effective  implementation of their decisions  and
norms  –  whether  in  the  ‘high  politics’  sphere  of  international  peace  and  security,  or  in  the
practical  implementation  of  commitments  made  at  recent  UN  conferences  in  the  social,
economic and environmental fields. The EU has a particular responsibility in this regard. On
the one hand, it has made multilateralism a constant principle of its external relations. On the
other,  it  could  and  should  serve  as  a  model  to  others  in  implementing  –  and  even  going
beyond – its international commitments.

Two aspects, in particular, of the EU’s contribution to the effectiveness of multilateral legal
instruments  and  commitments  established  under  UN  auspices  could  be  further  developed.
First, the EU’s ability to act as a ‘front-runner’ in developing and implementing multilateral
instruments and commitments. And second, support, where necessary, for the capacity of
other countries to implement their multilateral commitments effectively.

1.1.

The  front-runner  commitment:  taking  an  ambitious  approach  to  negotiating
and implementing UN instruments

As  well  as  driving  the  momentum  of  the  international  community  towards  ambitious
a)
shared targets, the EU must demonstrate its own commitment to these with prompt, concrete
measures.  Where  the  EU  has  lent  its  active  and  undivided  support  to  the  adoption  and
effective implementation of key multilateral legal instruments – such as the Kyoto Protocol or
the  International  Criminal  Court  (ICC)  –  its  voice  has  often  been  decisive  in  ensuring  the
‘critical  mass’  to  facilitate  their  entry  into  force.  The  EU  has  recently  demonstrated  its
willingness to take the lead with an ambitious approach to the implementation of measures in
support of global (UN) goals across a wide range of issues. Examples include the Everything
but Arms initiative, lifting  all tariffs and quotas on imports from least developed countries,
and  the  Regulation  on  tiered  pricing  of  medicines  to  promote  the  sale  of  pharmaceutical
products  to  developing  countries  at  substantially  reduced  prices;  the  EU  Water  and  Energy
Initiatives, as well as the Renewable Energy Coalition, launched at the Johannesburg World
Summit for  Sustainable Development  (WSSD). It is specifically worth  mentioning  in  this
context  the  commitments  made  by  the  EU  at  the  Monterrey  Conference  of  Financing  for
Development  (FfD),  especially  those  relating  to  taking  tangible  steps  by  2007  towards
reaching  the  UN’s  0.7%  ODA  target,  advancing  the  effectiveness  of  aid  through  better  co-
ordination of policies and harmonisation of procedures, the untying of aid, increasing trade-
related capacity building and actions in favour of debt sustainability.

In the field of Information Society, the EU made a significant contribution to the preparatory
process of the World Summit on Information Society to be held in two phases, Geneva 10-12
December  2003  and  Tunis,  November  2005.  This  field  may  offer  new  opportunities  for
international co-operation.

b)
The EU must also assume a more active role in the UN reform, support the institutional
ability of the UN system to follow up on its main objectives, and promote greater coherence
between all branches of global governance. This will require in particular:

5

(cid:1)  Taking  new  initiatives  to  drive  the  UN  Reform  agenda  forward:  the  EU  action  should
focus on the key decision-making bodies (General Assembly, ECOSOC and its functional
commissions),  bearing  in  mind  not  only  the  need  to  make  the  UN  more  efficient  and
relevant in a rapidly changing world, but also the impact of reform on implementation of
the  development  agenda.  Ensuring  that  the  objectives  of  the  reform  process  are  further
reflected  in  the  UN  annual  budget,  and  in  future  budget  cycles,  will  also  be  important.
The EU has an interest in further developing existing institutions and supporting new ones
such as the International Criminal Court.  A renewed spirit of partnership between the UN
system,  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  will  help  further  the  UN  reform  agenda.
Efforts  to  achieve  a  comprehensive  reform  of  the  UN  Security  Council  in  all  its  aspects
should  be  intensified.  The  Commission  believes  the  EU  could  and  should  play  a
constructive role in advancing these discussions.

(cid:1)  Ensuring  an  integrated  follow-up  to  the  major  Conferences  and  the  Millennium
Declaration  Goals,  including  monitoring  of  progress  towards  targets.  The  role  of  the  EU
will be crucial in ensuring that this process is successful – both by keeping up the political
momentum  in  the  UN,  and  by  ensuring  that  there  is  a  coherent,  streamlined  follow-up
rather than a multiplication and fragmentation of resolutions and processes.

(cid:1)  Promoting  greater  coherence  and  balance  between  institutions  of  global  governance  –

economic, environmental and social. To that end:

–  Coherence between the core UN system,  the  Bretton  Woods  Institutions and the
WTO5 should continue to be promoted. If the EU is to play a ‘front-runner’ role
here, it will be necessary, in the context of an examination of the governance of
the Bretton Woods Institutions, to consider strengthening the EU representation in
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

–  Co-operation between  the  United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)  and
the Secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) on one side and
the  World  Trade  Organization  (WTO)  on  the  other  should  be  reinforced.  The
relationship  between  MEAs  and  WTO  rules  should  be  clarified,  with  a  view  to
enhancing their mutual supportiveness.

–  A  coherent  approach to issues of social  governance  by  and  across  all  concerned
UN  bodies  and  a  strengthening  of  the  key  institutions  representing  the  ‘social
pillar’ of global governance (notably the ILO) are needed as well as reinforced co-
operation between the ILO and the WTO6. Further reflection on the creation of an
Economic and Social Security Council should be encouraged.

5

6

See  also  the  Commission  Communication  on  Trade  and  Development:  Assisting  developing  countries  to
benefit from trade, COM(2002) 513 final of 18 September 2002.
UN  bodies  dealing  with  social  issues  include  in  the  first  instance  the  International  Labour  Organization
(ILO),  but  also  the  Economic  and  Social  Council  (ECOSOC),  the  Commission  for  Social  Development,
and the Third Committee of  the  UN  General  Assembly  (UNGA),  as  well  as  the  major  Conferences.  The
Commission  has  significantly  strengthened  its  co-operation  with  the  ILO,  and  put  forward  concrete
proposals  for  an  institutional  strengthening  of  the  ILO  in  the  Communication  “Promoting  Core  Labour
Standards and Improving Social Governance in the Context of Globalization”, COM(2001) 416 final of 18
July 2001.

6

                                                
c)
In addition, given the EU’s long-term progress  towards a more  effective  and  cohesive
common  foreign  and  security  policy,  it  should  envisage  a  similarly  proactive  role  in  areas
related to international political, security and human rights issues:

(cid:1)  With  the  creation  of  a  European  military  capacity,  the  question  of  the  EU’s  possible
contribution to UN-mandated peacekeeping and peace-making operations becomes more
urgent  than  ever.  As  CFSP  and  ESDP  are  underpinned  by  the  wish  to  act  to  uphold  the
principles and Charter of the UN, providing  active  and  early support to UN-mandated or
UN-led operations is a clear track for the progressive framing and deployment of the EU’s
security  and  defence  policy  and  capabilities  (Chapter  2.2  will  address  this  issue  in  more
detail).  Particularly  against  the  background  of  recent  events  in  Iraq,  and  following  the
adoption  of  Security  Council  Resolution  1502  on  the  security  of  UN  personnel,  the  EU
should also lend its unequivocal support to ongoing efforts in New York to strengthen the
protection afforded by international law to humanitarian personnel and UN and associated
personnel.

(cid:1)  In  the  global  fight  against  terrorism,  the  EU  has  an  important  lead  role  to  play  in
implementing key UN instruments – both because of the unique degree of integration of its
internal policies in many areas covered by UN action against terrorism, and because of its
potential role as a model and catalyst for other regions of the world. The EU already has a
solid record in this regard, having acted swiftly to implement Security Council Resolution
1373 within the Union, and co-operating fully with the work of relevant UN bodies7.

(cid:1)  At  the  EU  Summit  of  Thessaloniki,  the  EU  endorsed  a  set  of  Basic  Principles  and  an
Action  Plan  for  an  EU  Strategy  against  Proliferation  of  Weapons  of  Mass  Destruction.
This is the result of the recognition of the threat posed by WMD and their delivery missiles
to  international  peace  and  security.  The  acquisition  of  WMD  or  related  materials  by
terrorists represents an additional threat with potentially uncontrollable consequences. The
EU  will  place  particular  emphasis  on  defining  a  policy  reinforcing  compliance  with  the
multilateral  treaty  regimes.  Such  a  policy  must  be  geared  towards  enhancing  the
detectability  of  significant  violations  and  strengthening  enforcement  of  the  norms
established by the regimes. The role of the UN and in particular the UNSC as a final arbiter
on the consequences of non-compliance – as foreseen in multilateral regimes – needs to be
effectively strengthened.

(cid:1)  To implement UN sanctions, action has to be taken in many cases at EC/EU level. For this
to  be  done  as  effectively  and  smoothly  as  possible,  a  higher  level  of  EU  co-ordination
would  be  desirable,  in  accordance  with  Article  19  TEU,  while  respecting  the  special
responsibilities of EU members of the Security Council.

7

See the two reports on implementation of Resolution 1373 submitted by the EU to the Counter-Terrorism
Committee,  S/2001/1297  and  S/2002/928;  the  EU  adopted  specific  measures  designed  to  implement
particular  aspects  of  the  Resolution  at  the  level  of  the  EU,  and  co-operated  closely  with  the  Counter-
Terrorism  Committee  of  the  UN  Security  Council,  as  well  as  with  sectoral  bodies  like  the  International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

7

                                                
(cid:1)  In  the  promotion  of  human  rights,  the  EU’s  practical  commitment  to  working  with  the
UN  is  evident  in  the  very  active  role  it  plays  in  the  work  of  the  main  UN  forums,
conferences  and  initiatives  concerned  with  human  rights8.  In  the  context  of  the  UN
Commission  on  Human  Rights  (CHR)  in  particular,  the  ‘front-runner’  commitment  is
reflected  in  the  large  number  of  country  and  thematic  initiatives  pursued  by  the  EU.
Proposals to make the EU’s contributions to the CHR and other bodies more effective are
set out in Chapter 3.2. below.

(cid:1)  With  regard  to  UN  initiatives  on  combating  transnational  organised  crime  and  drug
trafficking, the EU has been active in supporting the work of such bodies as the UNDCP,
UNCND,  UNODC  and  the  Commission  on  Crime  Prevention  and  Criminal  Justice.  The
EC has participated  actively in negotiations on the UN Convention against Transnational
Organised  Crime  and  its  three  Protocols  on  Smuggling  of  Illegal  Migrants  and  against
Trafficking in Persons and Firearms. The EU should continue to support the work of these
institutions and to encourage them to work effectively together.

(cid:1)  In the area of refugee and asylum policy (which has to a great extent become a common
policy at the EU level), UN instruments and institutions already play a crucial role for the
EU  both  internally  and  beyond  Europe’s  borders.  The  Office  of  the  UN  High
Commissioner  for  Refugees  (UNHCR)  is  an  essential  partner  for  the  Commission,  both
against  the  background  of  the  establishment  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System,
and  as  a  partner  for  EC  actions  in  enhancing  asylum  capacity-building  and  refugee
protection  in  candidate  and  other  third  countries  world-wide.  The  EU  (EC  and  Member
States) is the major donor to the budget of UNHCR. The current shared challenges for the
EU  and  UNHCR  are  the  modernisation  of  the  international  protection  system  and  the
implementation of UNHCR’s Agenda for Protection, which aims at improving the  global
governance of refugee issues9.

(cid:1)  The EU could make a significant contribution to the UN in developing dialogue between
civilisations  and  cultures  –  an  effort  which  has  been  given  renewed  impetus  in  the
aftermath  of  11  September  2001,  and  for  which  UNESCO  has  been  given  a  specific
mandate. The EU’s contribution in this regard could focus on ensuring that such a dialogue
delivers practical results for ordinary citizens, and targets education and citizen-to-citizen
contacts as a means of promoting intercultural understanding. Similarly, the EU could play
an  active  role  in  the  international  debate  on  cultural  diversity,  as  a  follow-up  to  the
November 2001 UNESCO Declaration and Action Plan on Cultural Diversity, notably on
the question of whether a new standard-setting instrument should be drawn up on cultural
diversity.

8

9

Notably  the  UN  Commission  on  Human  Rights  (CHR)  as  well  as  the  Third  Committee  of  the  General
Assembly, the Commission on the Situation of Women, the World Conference against Racism of 2001, the
UN  General  Assembly  Special  Session  on  Children  of  2002  and  in  its  active  support  for  the  High
Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
See Communication from the Commission “The Common Asylum Policy and the Agenda for Protection”,
COM(2003)  152  of  26.3.2003  and  Communication  from  the  Commission  “Towards  more  accessible,
equitable and managed asylum systems”, COM(2003) 315 of 3.6.2003.

8

                                                
(cid:1)  The  EU  should  adopt  a  determined  ‘front-runner’  approach  to  the  negotiation  and
implementation  of  important  UN  initiatives  in  the  fields  of  sustainable  development,
poverty  reduction  and  international  security,  taking  a  more  proactive  approach  to  the
development  of  international  instruments  and  specific  EU  implementing  actions.
Moreover, the EU should give renewed impetus to the UN reform.

Acting as front-runner implies the earliest possible ratification of UN instruments by Member
States  (and  where  appropriate,  the  Community),  and  then  taking  decisive  action  at  an  early
stage  to  implement  key  UN  measures  at  the  EU  level  –  thus  setting  an  example  and
demonstrating  a  ‘clean  record’.  On  the  external  front,  it  means  identifying  where  possible
specific EU initiatives to build on and take forward objectives agreed in the UN, and ensuring
that important multilateral institutions have the means to deliver results effectively. The EU’s
approach to the implementation of WSSD targets could serve as a model in this regard. The
EU  should  also  encourage  the  UN  to  follow  more  consistently  an  approach  based  on
benchmarking and clear targets in the follow-up to the major Conferences, such as WSSD.

Opting  for  a  front-runner  approach  would  also  make  it  necessary  for  the  EU  to  establish
common positions as early as possible in major UN events and meetings, including those of
the Security Council, and to build alliances with its partners so as to create the ‘critical mass’
necessary for the success of important multilateral initiatives.

If there is to be tangible progress in current UN reform efforts, the EU and its Member States
must,  in  a  spirit  of  partnership,  be  active  in  supporting  the  reform  process  and  taking  new
initiatives - notably in promoting greater coherence and balance between institutions of global
governance  such  as  between  the  core  UN  system,  the  Bretton  Woods  Institutions  and  the
WTO.  In this context, a strengthening of the EU’s representation on the World Bank and IMF
will have to be considered.

1.2.

Making multilateral and bilateral policy mutually supportive

a)
There  is  often  a  serious  gap  between  targets  adopted  at  global  level  and  their
implementation on the ground. In seeking to fill the ‘implementation deficit’, the EU needs to
address  the  capacities  of  its  partners  in  the  developing  world  in  particular  to  meet  their
international  commitments,  and  to  explore  the  possibilities  for  a  more  consistent  focus  on
assistance linked to specific global targets and commitments. The EC, as one of the world’s
largest providers of development  assistance, already  makes  a significant contribution in this
regard  by  integrating  the  necessary  support  for  the  implementation  of  key  targets  and
commitments into its assistance programmes to third countries.

(cid:1)  The EC will examine how to effectively take into account global targets and instruments

in the programming and delivery of assistance aimed at third countries.

The  areas  concerned  range  from  the  existing  priorities  of  external  assistance  –  which  may
need  to  be  adjusted  to  take  into  account  the  new  goals  defined  by  the  Millennium
Declarations, WSSD, FfD and the Doha Development Agenda – to the political, security and
human rights issues which are now increasingly in the EU’s remit:

9

(cid:1)  The  Commission  is  working  towards  mainstreaming  the  sustainable  development
objectives  established  at  the  Johannesburg  Summit  into  its  external  assistance.  The
Commission is  examining new  activities  to  support  the  EU  Water  and  Energy  Initiatives
defined  at  Johannesburg,  and,  to  this  end,  will  work  in  close  partnership  with  both  EU
Member  States  and  civil  society.  Similarly,  trade-related  assistance  and  capacity-
building, including in the field of trade and environment, should continue to be enhanced
as work proceeds on the Doha Development Agenda.

(cid:1)  In  order  to  ensure  that  the  work  of  UN  human  rights  bodies  (notably  the  CHR)  is
accompanied  by  tangible  improvements  on  the  ground,  the  EU  should  strengthen  its
support for efforts to promote human rights (and democratisation) in third countries.  The
Commission will envisage a greater use of its bilateral instruments to that end, drawing on
the human rights priorities identified in the Country Strategy papers and combined with the
use  of  the  European  Initiative  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights  (EIDHR).  The
Commission  will  also  look  at  ways  of  increasing  significantly  the  delivery  of  capacity-
building assistance focusing on the promotion of core labour standards.

(cid:1)  If Security Council Resolution 1373 is to be effective in the fight against terrorism, it will
need  to  be  implemented  universally,  leaving  no  loopholes  for  terrorists  and  their
supporters.  The  EU  is  committed  to  supporting  the  capacity  of  other  countries  to
implement  Resolution  1373,  and  the  Commission,  working  closely  with  the  Council  and
Member  States,  is  implementing  a  new  strategy  for  delivering  targeted  capacity-building
assistance  to  countries  outside  the  EU  in  support  of  the  implementation  of  Resolution
1373. These efforts will complement the long-term development and institutional capacity-
building  programmes  which  remain  a  fundamental  means  of  reducing  the  threat  of
disaffection and terrorism.

(cid:1)  Linked  to  this,  the  EU  should  offer  strong  support  to  the  UN  in  its  efforts  to  combat
transnational organised crime and drug trafficking, not only by engaging actively in the
work of the Commission on Crime  Prevention and Criminal  Justice  and  the  Commission
on Narcotic Drugs, but also by helping other countries apply key UN instruments such as
the Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. To this end,  the Commission is  inter
alia  examining  the  scope  for  enhanced  co-operation  with  the  UN  Office  on  Drugs  and
Crime (ODC).

What  is  called  for  in  the  long  run  is  nothing  short  of  a  systematic  integration  of

b)
multilateral and bilateral policy objectives.

Very often, the agenda of bilateral meetings between the EU and its partners does not reflect
the objectives pursued by the Union in multilateral forums – and vice versa. Greater use could
be made of the regular meetings that take place between the EU  and  countries  or  groups of
countries  within  the  framework  of  the  EU’s  bilateral  agreements,  with  a  view  to  building
bridges between the EU’s positions and objectives in the UN and those of its partners – and
this  could  be  helpful  both  in  preparing  resolutions  or  other  political  initiatives  and  in
conducting  negotiations  under  the  aegis  of  the  UN.  Equally,  in  the  consultations  which  do
take place between the EU and its partners in the margins or in the preparation of UN events,
the Union does not sufficiently use the ‘leverage’ which its bilateral relations should provide
it  with.  Further  efforts  should  be  undertaken  to  overcome  this  lack  of  efficiency  and
dispersion of influence.

10

(cid:1)  The EU should introduce points relating to the multilateral agenda more systematically
into  regular  bilateral  discussions  with  its  partners,  and  should  free  up  time  currently
spent on internal co-ordination in order to make use of its privileged bilateral ties more
extensively at the major UN sites.

In  concrete  terms,  the  Council  Secretariat  and  the  Commission  should  ensure  that  the
multilateral  context  is  reflected  consistently  in  the  agendas  of  bilateral  meetings  with  third
countries  or  groups  of  countries  –  such  as  Summits  and  Ministerial  meetings,  Association
Council or Joint Committee meetings, as well as troika meetings. Given that the EU’s existing
bilateral  consultations  with  its  partners  in  multilateral  forums  often  take  place  too  close  to
relevant  UN  events  to  have  any  significant  impact,  and  are  usually  disconnected  from  the
bilateral context, the influence which the EU enjoys by virtue of its extensive ties with other
countries  and  groups  of  countries  could  thus  be  brought  to  bear  more  effectively  on  the
multilateral  agenda.    The  closer  and  more  regular  UN-Commission  desk-to-desk  dialogue
detailed below will help in this aim.

2. 

THE EU AND THE UN: TOWARDS GREATER EFFICIENCY AND IMPACT BY WORKING
TOGETHER

2.1.

Laying the foundations for a wider partnership

In  recent  years,  there  has  been  a  sea-change  in  the  way  the  EU  and  the  UN  perceive  each
other. Reconciling the unique institutional shape and role of the EU (and before that, the EEC
and  EC)  with  a  UN  system  founded  on  sovereign  member  states  may  initially  have  posed
challenges for both organisations. Yet, the benefits of co-operation, combining the universal
legitimacy of the UN with the EU’s economic and political clout, are now beyond debate and
have given rise both to regular high-level contacts and extensive co-operation on the ground.
A process of twice-yearly high-level meetings between the UN and the EU has been initiated,
permitting regular contacts between the UN Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General
and the Council and Commission. Consultations and co-operation now take place as a matter
of course across numerous policy areas.

The Commission itself has begun to move its relations with the UN system into a higher gear,
starting  with  development  and  humanitarian  issues,  as  testified  in  the  2001  Communication
on  “Building  an  Effective  Partnership  with  the  UN  in  the  field  of  Development  and
Humanitarian  Affairs”10.  Many  of  its  recommendations,  dealing  with  policy  dialogue,  the
general framework for operational co-operation and strategic partnerships have already been,
or are well on the way to being, implemented:

(cid:1)  In the context of increasing policy dialogue, both high-level  and  working-level meetings
have become habitual and more forward-looking, taking stock of existing co-operation and
identifying  common  ground  to  take  it  further.  In  many  cases,  the  Commission  has
concluded agreements with UN agencies, funds or programmes, which lay down a general
framework for co-operation11. As regards co-operation with the WHO, for example, joint
strategies are being developed to address a wide range of health issues12.

10

11

12 

COM(2001) 231 final of 2 May 2001
Notably,  the  EC-UNHCR  exchange  of  letters  of  6  July  2000;  the  EC-WHO  exchange  of  letters  of  14
December 2000 and the EC-ILO exchange of letters of 14 May 2001.
For example joint Commission-WHO efforts were instrumental to establish a strong and globally binding
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (SCTC). Co-operation should also  be  extended  to  the
recently launched EC initiative for a Clinical Trial Platform.

11

                                                
(cid:1)  An  increasing  effort  has  been  made  to  ensure  a  regular  presence  of  EC  officials  at  the
meetings  of  UN  governing  and  policy  bodies  and  in  the  wider  context  of  the  UN
Conferences.  However,  representation  of  the  EC  in  UN  forums  has  still  to  be  further
strengthened.

(cid:1)  Coherence  between  the  policy  priorities  of  the  EC  and  those  of  the  UN  in  the  field  has
been  strengthened  by  introducing  consultation  and  co-operation  with  the  UN  bodies
present  in  the  country  in  question  when  drawing  up  the  Commission’s  Country  Strategy
Papers  (CSPs).  Work  is  in  progress  to  identify  ways  of  co-operating  more  closely  on
country-level  analysis  including  data  sharing.  This  issue  is  also  to  be  considered  on  the
occasion of the mid-term review of the CSPs.

(cid:1)  The Commission has successfully created an improved enabling environment for EC/UN
co-operation  at  the  financial  level.  This  involves  the  new  EC-UN  Financial  and
Administrative  Framework  Agreement,  signed  on  29  April  2003,  on  EC  funding  of  UN
actions,  including  the  application  of  the  Verification  Clause,  which  covers  the  UN
Secretariat and associated funds and programmes. It allows for funding of multi-donor UN
operations  and  adopts  a  result-oriented,  rather  than  input-oriented,  approach.  The
agreement creates a better enabling environment for the EC to finance UN operations and
speed  up  the  handling  of  pending  projects.  The  Commission  will  also  propose  to  UN
specialised agencies that wish to benefit from Commission funding to apply the agreement.
On 8 July 2003 the ILO signed an agreement to that effect, and on 17 July 2003 the FAO
did the same.

(cid:1)  The  Commission  is  taking  concrete  steps  towards  the  establishment  of  strategic
partnerships  with  UN  agencies,  funds  and  programmes  (UNAFP)  in  the  fields  of
development  and  humanitarian  affairs.  A  pre-selection  of  the  strategic  partners  has  been
made on the basis of an analysis of the concordance of the mandate of the UNAFP with EC
objectives, their operational capacity, management capacity, efficiency and accountability
record, with due consideration also for the EC’s policy priorities. The Commission is now
entering into bilateral dialogues with the selected UNAFP13 with a view to establishing the
strategic partnerships, the main features of which will be greater EC involvement in policy
dialogue  and  governing  bodies;  more  stable,  predictable  financial  co-operation  in
operational  activities;  and  support  for  core  capacities  of  the  selected  UNAFP.  The
establishment  of  strategic  partnership  is  an  open  and  evolving  process.  In  the  future  the
Commission might also consider strategic partnerships with other UNAFP.

(cid:1)  In  parallel,  the  Commission’s  Humanitarian  Aid  Office  (ECHO)  has  developed  Strategic
Programming Dialogues (SPD) in humanitarian affairs to ensure that ECHO funding of
operations  carried  out  by  the  UN  focuses  on  activities  where  the  UN  has  a  proven  track
record  or  has  a  comparative  advantage,  as  recommended  by  the  Communication.
The  scope  of  the  SPDs  has  been  widened  since  2001,  from  discussing  mostly
administrative  issues  to  discussing  horizontal/political/tactical  issues.  SPDs  have  also
allowed  ECHO  and  its  UN  partners  to  progressively  gain  a  better  mutual  knowledge  of
each other and thus build a more effective relationship.

13

Discussions in view of strategic partnership are being initiated with UNDP, FAO, ILO, WHO, UNCTAD,
UNHCR,  WFP,  UNICEF,  UNIDO  and  UNRWA.  In  parallel,  similar  work  is  in  hand  to  strengthen  co-
operation with UNEP.

12

                                                
2.2.

Beyond development: enhancing co-operation on peace and security issues

The next challenge is to extend a reliable and systematic framework for co-operation to other
areas  which  are essential  to  effective  global  governance  –  most  notably  those  related  to  the
EU’s  widening  role  in  contributing  to  international  peace  and  security.  The  evolution  of
CFSP/ESDP  has  significantly  increased  the  EU’s  options  for  engagement  in  the  political,
diplomatic and military spheres, adding impetus to the Community instruments that have thus
far provided the principal means of supporting political strategies towards crisis regions.

Ensuring  the  coherent  and  effective  deployment  of  the  range  of  tools  now  at  the  Union’s
disposal already requires substantial co-ordination between the relevant players at EU level –
the  Member  States  and  the  Presidency,  the  High  Representative  for  the  CFSP  and  the
Commission.  Given  that  EU  actions  in  this  area  will  invariably  be  consistent  with,  and  in
many cases complementary to, decisions and frameworks developed by the UN, the need for
effective complementarity with the UN is also crucial.

Recognition  of  this  fact  has  already  resulted  in  high  level  dialogue  being  stepped  up  since
2001, with, for example, the UNSG or his Deputy meeting at least twice yearly with the EU
troika,  the  UN  Deputy  Secretary  General  Fréchette  having  twice  met  the  Political  and
Security  Committee (PSC)  of  the  Council,  and  the  EU  participating  actively  in  the  biennial
high-level  meetings  between  the  United  Nations  and  Regional  Organisations.  The  latter
provides  an  opportunity  to  take  stock  of  progress  on  implementing  the  “13  modalities”  for
practical  co-operation.  One  such  action  was  the  August  2002  EU  regional  conference  on
conflict  prevention  in  Helsingborg,  Sweden.  These  high-level  contacts  should  now  lead  to
improved  contacts  at  operational  level  on  issues  ranging  from  country  analysis  and  early-
warning mechanisms  to co-operation in  crisis management.  Translating  closer  co-ordination
into more effective results will require bold steps to be taken in terms of information-sharing
and the adoption of common operational standards, for example. Yet, the potential dividends
of smooth and effective links are beyond doubt.

Conflict  prevention  and  crisis  management  lie  at  the  intersection  of  the  development  and
security agendas. They are also areas in which the goals and activities of the EU and UN are
united  by  the  premise  that  the  case  for  multilateralism  and  international  co-operation  is
unequivocal.  The  need  for  complementarity  of  purpose  and  operations  is  therefore  beyond
debate14. In particular, in its Conclusions of 21 July 2003, the Council of the EU “reasserted
the commitment of the EU, as well as of its Member States, to contribute to the objectives of
the UN in conflict prevention and crisis management”.

At  the level of country  assistance, the  Commission and the UN have already  taken  the  first
steps  towards  better  synchronization  of  their  activities  for  conflict  prevention.  The
Commission and the UN  Secretariat thus  agreed  earlier  this  year to  initiate  a  ‘desk-to-desk’
dialogue on conflict prevention and risk assessment in certain focus countries. The objective
of this dialogue, which should also be open to relevant specialised agencies, will be to ensure
a  regular  upstream  exchange  at  the  operational  level  on  policy,  programming  and  project

14

This need has been recognised by the Commission, Council and UN, notably in the General Affairs Council
Conclusions  of  11-12  June  2001,  the  EU  Programme  on  prevention  of  violent  conflicts,  adopted  in
Gothenburg  on  15/16  June  2001, 
the  Commission  Communication  on  Conflict  Prevention,
COM(2001)  211  final  of  11  April  2001,  and  the  2001  Report  of  the  UN  Secretary  General  on  the
Prevention  of  Armed  Conflict,  which  specifically  calls  for  co-operation  with  regional  organisations.
Progress in implementing the EU Programme on the Prevention of Violent conflicts is reported annually,
most recently to the Thessaloniki European Council of 20 June 2003.

13

                                                
assessments.  This  should  help  to  ensure  co-ordinated  action  in  target  countries  -  and,
wherever possible, identify possibilities for joint activities on conflict prevention and peace-
building.  The  first  set  of  target  countries  have  already  been  identified  by  the  UN  and  the
Commission.

For the Commission, which manages  the bulk of instruments deployed  in EU civilian crisis
management  operations,  the  need  for  open  lines  of  communication  with  the  UN  is  further
accentuated by the creation of the Rapid Reaction Mechanism (RRM), which is increasingly
being used to support UN operations directly15.

Comparative  advantages  in  terms  of  experience  or  field  presence  of  each  partner  should  be
exploited16.  Regarding  crisis  management  actions,  enhancing  the  compatibility  of  practices
will extend to the recruitment and training of field personnel17, efforts to facilitate exchanges
of headquarters officials, and joint training activities18. All such partnership activities should
above all be practical, whether at policy level or on the ground.

Recent years have seen a clear evolution of joint activities by the EU and the UN in the areas
of  crisis  intervention  and  post-crisis  reconstruction.  Experience  of  collaboration  now
extends  from  the  rebuilding  of  failed  states  and  territories  emerging  from  conflict  to  the
deployment of military peacekeeping personnel.

In Afghanistan, there has been close co-operation with UNAMA, UNDP and other agencies.
The  EU  Police  Mission  in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  took  the  baton  from  the  UN  task  force
which preceded it. The EU Pillar of the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMiK) is an integral part
of the interim administration, with effective co-operation  being pursued by  the Commission
and  the  UN  for  the  implementation  of  EU-compatible  standards  and  legislation.  And  most
recently,  the  EU  launched  the  ‘Artemis’  emergency  military  operation  in  the  Democratic
Republic of Congo (Bunia), in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1484 and at
the UNSG’s request, in anticipation of a strengthened UN military deployment.

In addition to these headline examples of EU-UN co-operation in peace and security actions,
there  has  been  substantial  co-ordination  between  the  EU  and  the  UN  on  disarmament,
demobilisation  and  reintegration  programmes,  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  Cambodia.  For  its
part, the Commission now works regularly alongside the UN when putting in place tools of

15

16

17

18

Examples of operations funded under this ‘kick-start’ fund (€30m for 2003) include support for the UNDP-
administered  trust  fund  for  the  Afghan  Interim  Administration  and  funding  for  a  disarmament  and
demobilisation  process  led  by  the  UNDP  in  Congo  (Brazzaville).  Other  EC  instruments  have  also
contributed  to  UN  activities  in  conflict  prevention,  such  as  contributions  by  the  European  Initiative  for
Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) to the UN Trust Fund for Preventive Action and to a UNHCHR
project on criminal procedures in crisis situations.
A  more  detailed  overview  of  the  Commission’s  experience  in  these  areas  is  presented  in  the
Communications  on  Conflict  Prevention  and  on  Linking  Relief,  Rehabilitation  and  Development,
COM(2001) 153 final of 23 April 2001.
The modules for the Commission pilot project on training for civilian aspects of crisis management already
take  into  consideration  the  training  standards  and  training  materials  developed  by  the  UN,  which  has
provided a number of course speakers. Personnel will be trained for peace missions and field activities of
the United Nations, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and other international organisations, as well as for
possible  EU-led  missions.  The  Italian  Presidency  of  the  Council  is  organising  a  conference  on  training
standards in the second half of 2003, with the participation of the UN.
Staff secondments have already taken place on an individual basis in other areas of EC-UN co-operation,
such  as  between  the  Commission  and  the  WHO  or  between  the  Commission  and  the  UN  Economic
Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Moreover, Commission staff have already taken part in
UN training courses on conflict prevention.

14

                                                
post-conflict  rehabilitation,  ranging  from  mine  clearance  projects  to  comprehensive
reconstruction and assistance strategies as in the Western Balkans.

All of this provides mounting evidence of positive co-operation between the EU and UN in
conflict  prevention  and  crisis  management,  both  on  the  ground  and  between  headquarters
institutions.  Maintaining  the  momentum  of  this  process  of  concertation  will  require  further,
systematic  steps.  For  example,  the  country-specific  dialogues  for  conflict  prevention  cited
above should cover crisis management and peacekeeping matters too, enhancing both Council
Secretariat and Commission engagement with the UN in these areas. Only through long-term
improvements in mutual knowledge and confidence will the EU and UN be able to scale up
the effectiveness of short-term, complementary responses to emergency and crisis situations.

If  dialogue  in  these  areas  is  to  remain  streamlined  as  it  becomes  more  frequent  and  more
operational, it will need to be carefully organised, on the basis of the respective competences
of the relevant EU and UN institutions. Key partners on the UN side, include the Department
of Political Affairs (DPA), the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), the United
Nations Development Programme  (UNDP)  Bureau  for  Crisis  Prevention  and  Recovery,  and
the  Office  for  the  Coordination  of  Humanitarian  Affairs  (OCHA).  On  the  EU  side,  the
Council  Secretariat,  Commission,  Presidency  and  Member  States19  are  involved.  In  this
domain  more  than  in  any  other,  it  is  important  that  future  developments  in  the  EU’s
arrangements  for  external  representation  facilitate  rather  than  inhibit  clear  and  productive
communication with UN counterparts.

(cid:1)  The  EU  (Presidency,  Commission  and  General  Secretariat  of  the  Council)  should
deepen the regular dialogue with the UN Secretariat on their respective roles in the EU
contribution to peacekeeping operations, including civilian aspects.

(cid:1)  The  Commission  will  work  with  the  UN  (including  specialised  agencies,  where
appropriate)  to  establish  an  effective  upstream  dialogue  on  country-level  assessments,
building  on  steps  already  taken  in  the  Commission’s  reform  of  external  assistance  to
ensure complementarity with other donors.

(cid:1)  The EU and the UN should work  together to ensure that standards of training of field
personnel are compatible (as well as, where appropriate, with those of the OSCE). The
Commission will continue to work with the UN to ensure the compatibility of standards
for recruitment where the EC is providing personnel for crisis management operations.

(cid:1)  The Commission will explore ways of further promoting the exchange of personnel and

facilitating joint training activities with organisations of the UN system.

(cid:1)  The Commission will encourage closer and more regular working-level contacts between
staff working on crisis regions in the UN (notably DPA, DPKO, OCHA and UNDP) and
the Commission at headquarters and in the field. Such desk-to-desk dialogue will focus
increasingly on specific geographical areas of concern.

19

The Gothenburg Programme commits the EU and its Member States to implementation and states that “the
Union and its Member States will, in accordance with article 19 of the Treaty of the European Union, co-
ordinate their action to promote conflict prevention in international organisations where they are members”.

15

                                                
Finally, the steps already taken for better co-ordination between the EU, the UN and regional
organisations such as the OSCE and the Council of Europe  need to  be pursued20,  for which
effective follow-up to the Helsingborg EU regional conference on conflict prevention will be
essential.

(cid:1)  The  EU  and  UN  should  co-ordinate  systematically  with  regional  organisations  in
conflict prevention and in crisis and post-crisis situations, and complement each other’s
resources where possible.

3. 

PROMOTING THE EU’S VALUES AND INTERESTS EFFECTIVELY IN THE UN SYSTEM

If the EU is to contribute effectively to strengthening the multilateral system, it needs to be in
a position to participate actively and dynamically in policy debates in multilateral forums. As
underlined  at  the  outset  of  this  paper,  the  EU  is  founded  on  values  which  are  inherently
supportive of the wider multilateral system. Yet, in order to promote its values in the global
arena it must engage effectively and regularly in dialogue with other countries and groupings.
Remarkable progress has already been made in recent  years towards establishing a cohesive
EU  presence  in  policy  debates  at  the  United  Nations.  In  order  to  better  promote  both  EU
values and interests, this positive evolution should continue, taking into account the proposal
of  the  European  Convention  to  grant  legal  personality  to  the  EU,  and  parallel  work  to
consolidate the Union’s external representation on the basis of the proposals of the European
Convention21.  The  arrival  of  ten  new  Member  States  will  create  both  challenges  and
opportunities for the EU’s role in the UN system – and may require a serious effort by the EU
if it is to maintain an effective and responsive presence. Furthermore, there are issues which
the  EU  may  need  to  address  irrespective  of  the  precise  institutional  adjustments  that  may
emerge out of the Convention and the IGC – such as enhancing the role of Council groups in
Brussels in providing strategic guidance to EU representatives on the ground, or making EU
co-ordination procedures more effective.

3.1.

The EU at the UN: good progress so far

Since  the  inception  of  the  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy,  the  EU  has  become  a
permanent  fixture  in  policy  debates  at  the  UN.  Thanks  to  the  efforts  of  successive  Council
Presidencies and the EU Heads of Mission at the main UN sites, the EU now co-ordinates its
position effectively in most important UN policy  forums,  such  as the General  Assembly (in
which there  is an EU common position  on almost  95%  of  resolutions),  ECOSOC,  the  main
committees  and  functional  commissions,  other  subsidiary  bodies  such  as  the  Economic
Commission  for  Europe,  and  most  specialised  agencies  as  well  as  in  major  Conferences.
Recent public information initiatives undertaken jointly by the Council and the Commission
have considerably heightened the visibility of the EU in this regard22. Good progress has also
been  made  in  recent  years  in  the  exchange  of  information  and  co-ordination  among  EU
Member  States  on  Security  Council  affairs.  Awareness  of  the  EU’s  political  role  has  been
heightened by the frequent participation of the Presidency – and on some occasions, the High
Representative  for the CFSP - in open meetings of the Security Council.  The application of

20

21

22

The EU welcomed the Security Council high-level meeting of 11 April 2003 on the topic of “The Security
Council and regional organizations: facing the new challenges to international peace and security”.
See in particular articles III-188 and III-201.
Notably the interinstitutional ‘EU@UN’ website (http://europa-eu-un.org), launched in January 2002.

16

                                                
Article  19  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union,  where  fully  applied,  has  also  improved
coherence between the CFSP and positions taken in the Security Council23.

The  European  Community,  for  its  part,  has  emerged  as  an  important  participant  in  policy
debates  in  the  UN,  notably  in  areas  of  normative  activity  in  which  the  EC  has  specific
responsibilities in the EU’s institutional architecture – thus contributing to coherence between
the internal and external policies of the Union. In one specialised agency, the  UN  Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), the EC has full membership; and the EC will also soon have
full  membership  of  the  Codex  Alimentarius,  following  the  amendment  to  the  Rules  of
Procedure  recently  approved  by  the  Codex  Commission  and  the  Directors-General  of  the
FAO  and  WHO.  This  option  should  also  be  pursued  for  other  relevant  organisations  that
belong to the UN system. In this respect, the Commission has submitted a recommendation to
the Council for full membership of the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) and the
International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO)24.  Furthermore,  the  EC  has  been  able  to
participate actively in an increasing number of other UN forums and events25

The evolving role of the Delegations of the European Commission at the main UN sites has
made an important contribution to this process.

3.2.

Giving the EU the means to contribute more effectively to UN debates

a) More ‘upstream’ preparation of EU positions

All too often the EU’s stance in multilateral forums is still a reactive one, with the agenda set
by other players. The EU should promote its core objectives in the UN more actively – this
would not only further its own interests, but also advance the agenda of the UN overall26. The
role  and  functioning  of  the  Council  bodies  responsible  for  UN  matters,  notably  the
Working Party on the United Nations (CONUN) and the Working Group for the Preparation
of Major UN Conferences, need to be addressed in this context. This will mean ensuring that
they are enabled to deal with substantive policy issues and to set EU objectives for major UN
events. That would inter alia mean that those groups would meet with sufficient frequency to
be able to deal proactively  with important UN  events and  to  steer the  co-ordination  process
more efficiently.

Strengthening  the  role  of  Council  bodies  should  also  help  the  EU  address  the  occurrence  –
rare  but  nonetheless  detrimental  to  the  EU’s  influence  –  of  split  votes  by  the  EU  in  UN
forums27.  These  split  votes  are  usually  the  result  of  a  lack  of  consensus  between  Member
States  in  Brussels.  They  should  in  particular  be  addressed  by  intensifying  coordination
between  the  Member  States  within  the  EU  institutional  framework.  Particularly  in  cases
where  proposals  considered  in  the  UN  touch  on  areas  covered  by  the    CFSP  ,  the  greatest

23

24

Article  19  TEU  provides  inter  alia  that  “Member  States  which  are  also  members  of  the  United  Nations
Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States fully informed. Member States which are
permanent members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, ensure the defence of
the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions
of the United Nations Charter.”
See document SEC(2002) 381 final.
In a number of UN bodies and in the preparation of major Conferences such as LDC III, WSSD and FfD, as
well as in the negotiation of many UN legal instruments, the EC has been able to participate fully.
26
The EU Priorities Paper prepared for each General Assembly session could provide a basis in this regard.
27 Most  recently,  this  concerned  a  small  number  of  votes  in  the  UNGA,  and  several  important  votes  in  the
Commission on Human Rights. There have moreover been situations in which a common position already
adopted by the EU was subsequently disowned by individual partners.

25

17

                                                
possible  use  should  be  made  of  relevant  Council  bodies  to  ensure  consistency  between  the
two.  In  principle,  this  implies  that  there  should  be  no  split  EU  vote  on  issues  covered  by  a
common position. Under the Present Treaties, the Presidency, the High Representative for the
CFSP and the Commission have a particular responsibility in this regard. The appointment of
a  European  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  as  provided  for  in  the  draft  Constitutional  Treaty,
should  provide  a  further  impetus  for  ensuring  consistent  common  positions  within  the  EU
and, in the line of Article III-206 of that draft, for their presentation in the UN28.

EU  Member  States  in  the  Security  Council,  and  notably  the  Union’s  two  permanent
members, should explore more systematic ways of fulfilling their commitments under Article
19 of the Treaty on European Union. Where there is a common EU position on an issue under
discussion,  this  could  involve  the  permanent  members  ensuring  that  one  of  them  (in  turns)
explicitly presents that position. . EU members of the Security Council should intensify their
efforts  pursuant  to  Article  19,  regarding  consultation  and  concertation  on  Security  Council
discussions, building on recent efforts to this end by the current EU members of the Security
Council. There is still substantial scope for improving the practical implementation of Article
19, thereby reinforcing the efficiency and coherence of EU external action.

(cid:1)  The role of the Council working groups dealing with United Nations issues in providing
guidance  for  EU  positions  in  the  major  UN  sites  should  be  strengthened.  The
presentation of common EU positions should be stepped up in all UN bodies, including
the Security Council.

Where  an  issue  considered  in  a  UN  forum  is  covered  by  the  CFSP,  the  role  of  the
relevant  Council  bodies  in  Brussels  should  be  reinforced  actively  as  regards  the
monitoring, and where necessary, adequate preparation of the implementation of agreed
policies in a cohesive manner.

(cid:1)  CONUN should be reinforced. This would entail:

- 

ensuring  that  the  group’s  agenda  corresponds  more  consistently  to  substantive  policy
issues  being  dealt  with  on  the  ground  at  the  major  UN  sites,  so  as  to  provide  clear  and
relevant guidance to EU representatives on the ground; to this end, coordination between
CONUN and the relevant sectoral Council working parties should be reinforced.

-  using CONUN more systematically to identify EU objectives for meetings of bodies like

the main committees or the functional commissions;

- 

- 

adapting the schedule of meetings to coincide with UN business; and

convening the CONUN at UN Directors level twice a year to provide a steering function.

(cid:1)  A  high-level  steering  function  could  also  be  performed  by  the  Political  and  Security
Committee –  ensuring  cohesion between CFSP positions  and  the  EU stance  at  the  UN  -
depending  on  the  importance  and  urgency  of  the  issues  at  stake.  An  important  objective
would be to avoid split votes on issues where an EU position exists.

28  Article III-206 of the draft Constitution notably provides that where the Union has a defined position on a
subject on the Security Council’s agenda, the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be asked by EU members
of the Security Council to present the Union’s position.

18

                                                
The objective of better upstream preparation could also be furthered by a more extensive use
of  EU  position  papers,  guidelines  or  argumentaires.  The  existing  practice  of  single-issue
expert meetings  to  prepare for  major  UN  events  –  again,  already  used  in  the  preparation  of
certain major Conferences – could be extended to other UN events as necessary.

(cid:1)  The EU should consolidate and reinforce the practice of establishing concise orientation
notes,  guidelines  or  position  papers  for  selected  UN  events  and  meetings;  where
necessary,  preparatory  sessions  could  be  organised  to  identify  key  issues  and  EU
priorities.  The  Commission  is  ready  to  contribute  to  such  a  process  with  discussion
papers.

Moreover,  while  the  practice  of  co-ordination  has  allowed  the  EU  to  affirm  its  presence  in
most  major  New  York-based  bodies,  as  well  as  in  most  specialised  agencies,  a  coherent
approach  by  the  EU  would  call  for  an  extension  of  EU  co-ordination  to  better  cover  the
entire UN system, as well as other related institutions of global governance.

(cid:1)  The  EU  should  consolidate  and  reinforce  systematic  EU  co-ordination  across  the  UN
system,  while  ensuring  that  co-ordination  is  focused  and  unbureaucratic,  and  enables
the EU to engage effectively in dialogue with other actors.

In the case of international social policy issues, the EU should aim to speak more consistently
with  one  voice.  Speaking  with  one  voice  in  forums  such  as  the  Third  Committee  and  the
Commission for Social Development, while approaching similar issues only from a national
perspective in the International Labour Organization (ILO), is both inconsistent with the EU’s
overall  commitment  to  a  more  coherent  international  approach  to  social  development,  and
detrimental  to  the  EU’s  effectiveness  in  promoting  the  European  social  model  at  the  global
level.

The EU’s credibility and impact on health and health-research related issues, such as the fight
against  HIV/AIDS  and  other  communicable  diseases,  would  also  be  strengthened  by  more
consistent  co-ordination  across  the  UN  system  (notably  WHO  joint  strategies,  ,  UNGA  3rd
Committee and the Commission on Population and Development). In recent years, the EU has
mounted  strong  and  proactive  approaches  to  international  health  and  population  issues  in
‘newer’ multilateral bodies (e.g. WTO - access to medicines, Global Fund to Fight AIDS TB
& Malaria). These approaches, which are fully in line with the relevant UN declarations and
conclusions, should be pursued with equal vigour in the UN system, especially at a time when
shared international goals are most in need of reinforcement.

Further progress should moreover be made in introducing EU co-ordination in certain forums
dealing  with  development  co-operation  and  humanitarian  assistance,  such  as  the  United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Food Programme (WFP).

The need for adequate ‘upstream’ preparation of EU positions and effective co-ordination is
particularly acute in the case of the UN’s human rights bodies – and this is one area in which
considerable  work  has  already  been  done  in  the  appropriate  Council  bodies,  notably  as  a
result of the disappointing outcome of the 58th session of the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR).

19

It is vital that the EU works to reinforce the soundness and credibility of the UN human rights
system. The CHR has recently displayed an increasing tendency to reject country resolutions,
with the vast majority of UN members reluctant to issue invitations to the special procedures29
which would trigger detailed scrutiny of the human rights situation in a given country or on a
chosen theme.

In this context, the EU should ensure greater recourse to the instruments at its own disposal,
using  its  range  of  political  dialogues  with  third  countries  and  regional  groups  to  promote
improved  co-operation  in  the  CHR  and  other  forums.  One  lever  for  such  dialogue  is  the
human rights ‘essential  element’  clause  contained  in  Community  agreements.  This  not  only
relates to a third country’s respect for human rights in a domestic context, it also impacts on
the approach of the third country to human rights in the international arena30.

In particular, countries elected or seeking election to the CHR should be challenged to support
the  special  procedures  which  the  CHR  creates  and  to  look  closely  at  their  ratification  and
implementation of key international human rights instruments.

This  reinforcement  of  political  dialogue  on  human  rights  should  be  complemented  by  a
careful  consideration  of  how  external  assistance  can  assist  third  countries  in  meeting  their
international commitments, or in addressing concerns which have been raised in CHR special
procedures. In turn, the positions adopted by the EU in the CHR should reflect improvements
in the human rights situation in a particular country, with due consideration given to whether
an EU initiative is required and, if so, what shape such an initiative should take31.

(cid:1)  The EU should intensify its efforts to act in a co-ordinated and united way in UN human

rights bodies.

The EU should ensure greater coherence in its use of political dialogue, its programming of
relevant assistance, and its positions in UN human rights forums. A number of improvements
are already being implemented in this regard in the Council, including a calendar for action by
the EU, shorter draft resolutions focusing on key human rights problems, earlier finalisation
of texts and burden-sharing. These efforts are being evaluated in the wake of the 59th Session
of  the  CHR  and  further  initiatives  –  including  rationalisation  of  the  number  and  length  of
statements  delivered  by  the  EU  –  are  under  consideration.  These  efforts  should  be
complemented by an EU contribution to reinforce the credibility of the UNCHR.

Similarly,  in  order  for  the  EU  to  contribute  more  effectively  to  the  strengthening  of  the
multilateral system regarding finance, economic and development issues, and to ensure that
its policy preferences are more consistently reflected, the nature of EU representation in the
World Bank and the IMF should be kept under review. Given the impact of the work of the
IFIs  on  trade  and  sustainable  development  policies,  and  against  the  background  of  EU
economic  integration,  notably  in  the  Eurozone,  the  lack  of  an  effective  EU  presence  in  the
IFIs looks increasingly anachronistic.

29

30

31

‘Special Procedures’ comprise the establishment of Working Groups (composed of experts acting in their
individual capacity).
For  example,  the  Cotonou  agreement  (which  came  into  force  on  1st  April  2003)  states  in  Article  9  that:
“respect  for  human  rights,  democratic  principles  and  the  rule  of  law,  which  underpin  the  ACP-EU
Partnership,  shall  underpin  the  domestic  and  international  policies  of  the  Parties  and  constitute  the
essential elements of this Agreement”.
For example, a resolution might be moved from Agenda Item 9 (Country Resolutions) to Item 19 dealing
with technical assistance.

20

                                                
(cid:1)  The EU should seek to reinforce progressively its representation in the governing bodies

of the Bretton Woods Institutions.

In the first instance, greater EU co-ordination in the IFIs should be envisaged – and eventually
a move towards a  unified EU (or Eurozone) representation.

Finally, as with other facets of the EU’s role in the UN, the EU’s upcoming enlargement may
have a substantial impact on the functioning of EU co-ordination. The numerical expansion of
the EU will see the Union eventually comprising up to 15% of the UN’s membership, creating
both opportunities and challenges – notably for the effectiveness, and indeed viability, of EU
co-ordination. Enlargement should prompt the EU to consider a general shift in the way co-
ordination takes place: rather than focusing on the time-consuming preparation of precise EU
statements,  a  more  extensive  use  of  mandates  and  guidelines  for  the  pursuit  of  UN
discussions could be envisaged.

(cid:1)  The  Presidency  (or  other  EU  representatives)  should  be  given  greater  flexibility  to
promote  EU  positions  effectively  in  UN  forums,  on  the  basis  of  agreed  mandates  or
guidelines, rather than on the basis of detailed EU statements.

Giving  the  partner  who  is  representing  the  EU  in  a  given  forum  more  flexibility  in  the
presentation and advocacy of EU positions, would help the EU to become a more active and
operational participant in UN discussions.

Also in  the  context  of EU  enlargement,  the  EU will  need to address  the  composition of  the
regional  groups  in  the  UN,  as  it  will  find  itself  in  the  position  of  having  its  membership
distributed  across  more  than  one  regional  group.  It  would  be  desirable  for  the  EU  to  work
towards a common position on the issue at an early stage.

(cid:1)  The  EU  should  adopt  a  common  position  as  soon  as  possible  on  the  future  shape  of

regional groups in the UN.

Another  level  of  co-ordination,  which  the  EU  may  need  to  address  concerns  elections  and
candidacies for UN posts. While these have largely been excluded from the scope of EU co-
ordination until now, the question has been raised by a number of recent elections in the UN
system.  In  the  Commission’s  view,  moving  towards  more  consistent  co-ordination  on  posts
and  elections  –  without  reducing  the  role  of  the  regional  groups  –  might  well  reinforce  the
EU’s  aggregate  influence  in  key  UN  bodies,  and  would  certainly  enhance  the  Union’s
credibility.

b)

Towards enhanced EU capacity for dialogue and outreach

The  above  improvements  in  internal  EU  co-ordination  would  free  up  time  to  engage  more
consistently  in  dialogue  with  other  key  actors,  notably  other  groups,  so  as  to  further
understanding  of  the  EU’s  objectives  and  build  alliances  in  UN  forums.  As  suggested  in
Chapter 1, this should be backed up by better integration of multilateral questions in the EU’s
regular bilateral dialogues. The EU, in the form  of  the  Troika,  already  engages  in extensive
regular  dialogue  with  other  countries  and  groupings  on  UN  issues,  and  successive
Presidencies have taken great strides in establishing the EU  as a credible interlocutor for its
partners in the UN. However, there is scope for developing a stronger multilateral dimension
in the privileged bilateral relations the EU already enjoys with certain countries and groups of
countries, particularly in the context of important UN events.

21

(cid:1)  The EU should engage  in more  extensive  and  regular  dialogue  with  other  groups  and
countries in the UN, and make sure that such dialogue is better focused and more timely
with regard to the main issues discussed at major UN events and meetings.

The EU should notably develop more regular informal contacts ahead of and in the margins of
key UN events – which should be made possible, in particular, by a shift towards a mandate-
based approach to EU co-ordination. It should also seek, where possible, and more frequently
than  at  present,  to  move  towards  more  long-term  preparation  of  issues  discussed  in  UN
forums with key partners from other regions and across a wide range of policy areas.

A more consistent effort to engage in dialogue with its partners outside the EU should lead the
EU  to  consider  a  greater  use  of  burden-sharing  among  the  Presidency,  different  Member
States and the Commission where relevant and taking into account the responsibilities under
the Treaty.

This ‘division of labour’ approach, enabling given Member States or the Commission to act
as facilitators for specific tasks, notably in the preparation of EU initiatives and contacts with
other countries and groups, is already being adopted with the EU’s WSSD follow-up on water
and energy.

(cid:1)  The  practice  of  ‘burden-sharing’  between  the  Presidency,  Member  States  and  the
Commission  in  outreach  to  third  countries  and  other  groups  in  UN  forums  should  be
further developed and consolidated.

The  practice  of  burden-sharing  has  already  been  explored  by  the  EU  in  some  major  UN
Conferences  such  as  FFD  and  WSSD,  by  allocating  specific  Member  States  and  the
Commission  specific  tasks  as  well  as  in  the  context  of  the  CHR.  It  should  be  examined
whether  this  approach  could  equally  apply  elsewhere  in  the  UN  system.  Without  detracting
from the current central role  of  the  Presidency  in  representing  the  EU,  and  without  moving
towards a multiplicity of voices speaking for the EU, the specific expertise and experience of
individual partners could thus be used to greater effect.

Ensuring an effective interface with policies agreed at the European level

c)
The  EU  needs  to  ensure  that  measures  taken  at  the  European  level  are  consistent  with,  and
where  necessary  complemented  by,  measures  adopted  at  the  global  level.  At  present,  UN
instruments  and  activities  touch  on  policies  of  the  European  Communities  (EC)  across  a
wide  range  of  sectors,  ranging  from  international  trade  to  environmental  protection,  health
and  consumer  protection  to  energy  policy.  Many  of  these  are  areas  in  which  globalisation
accentuates the need for effective international instruments, and it is important to ensure that
the  Commission  participates  to  the  fullest  extent  possible  in  work  in  the  UN  system  which
concerns issues for which it is responsible within the Union.

The  observer  status  of  the  European  Economic  Community  (precursor  to  the  European
Community)  in  the  UN  was  initially  granted  in  1974,  at  a  time  when  the  EEC  was  almost
alone  in  having  permanent  observer  status  (there  are  now  41).  Since  then,  there  has  been  a
significant  extension of the  EC’s  competence.  It  could  thus  be  argued  that  the  EC’s  overall
status  in  the  UN  no  longer  reflects  the  level  of  integration  the  Community  has  attained.
Progress has already been made in finding pragmatic solutions in a number of specific cases,
and  in  the  long  run,  the  EU’s  external  representation  will  be  boosted  through  the  European
Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the meantime, further efforts should be undertaken to ensure
that the EC is able to contribute to the work of UN bodies, in close concertation with Member
States.

22

(cid:1)  The  EC  should  be  given  the  possibility  to  participate  fully  in  the  work  of  UN  bodies
where  matters  of  Community  competence  are  concerned,  and  Member  States  should
contribute effectively towards this.

Specific  examples  include  the  need  to  ensure  that  the  EC  is  in  a  position  to  participate
effectively in negotiations for global environmental conventions to which the EC must later
become a Party  and to participate in the  work  of the Global  Environmental  Facility32;  or  to
participate  effectively  in  UN  bodies  dealing  with  refugee  and  asylum  issues  –  and  notably
pursuing  efforts  to  enable  the  EC  to  make  a  fully  effective  contribution  to  the  work  of
UNHCR through enhanced observer status in the UNHCR Executive Committee33.

CONCLUSION

This  Communication  has  set  out  from  two  basic  premises.  First,  that  a  commitment  to
multilateralism is more essential than ever, and therefore must remain a central strand of the
EU’s  external  action.  Second,  that  the  role  of  the  United  Nations  as  the  backbone  of  the
multilateral  system,  and  the  need  to  make  it  deliver  concrete  solutions  to  many  key  global
challenges, are beyond doubt. On that basis, the Communication has sought  to  take  a wide-
ranging  look  at  the  way  in  which  the  EU  works  in,  and  with,  the  UN,  with  a  view  to
determining  whether,  and  how,  its  effectiveness  in  helping  the  UN  deliver  effective  global
governance  can  be  improved,  especially  in  the  fields  of  sustainable  development,  poverty
reduction, security and peace. One basic conclusion in that regard is positive: interaction and
co-operation  with  the  organisations  of  the  UN  system  is  already  present  at  unprecedented
levels across a wide range of areas. At the same time, the EU could be more effective in its
contribution to shaping policy within the UN; and both the EU and the UN stand to gain from
further improvements and greater synergy in their operational co-operation.

A series of practical proposals are put forward in the Communication as to how the EU might
make a more effective contribution to global governance with the UN. Only some of these are
within the exclusive responsibility of the Commission – many would require action from the
Council and Member States; and in many cases, a concerted effort by several institutions and
at different levels is needed. To clarify the implications and respective roles of different actors
in the process of implementation, an action plan for implementation of the Communication is
annexed to the text.

The  Commission  invites  the  Council  and  Parliament  to  consider  the  analysis  and  the
Recommendations put forward in this Communication; and looks forward to working closely
with the Member States and with the United Nations to advance the shared objective of more
effective global governance and strengthening the architecture of the multilateral system.

32 

33 

The Global Environmental Facility is a multilateral fund that finances actions to address six critical threats
to  the  global  environment:  biodiversity  loss,  climate  change,  degradation  of  international  waters,  ozone
depletion, land degradation, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
Such a move towards enhanced observer status for the EC has already been supported by the Council of the
EU (cf. GAC Conclusions of 11 March 2002).

23

                                                
1. Ensuring that UN targets and instruments have the impact they deserve: the EU’s contribution

ANNEX I: Action plan for implementation of the Communication

Recommendation

Implementing action

Timeframe

Chef de file / institution

to 

The  EU  should  adopt  a  determined
‘front-runner’  approach 
the
negotiation  and  implementation  of
important UN initiatives in the fields
of  sustainable  development,  poverty
reduction 
international
security,  taking  a  more  proactive
approach  to  the  development  of
international 
and
specific  EU  implementing  actions.
the  EU  should  give
Moreover, 
renewed impetus to the UN reform.

instruments 

and 

The  EC  will  examine  how 
to
effectively  take  into  account  global
the
targets  and 
programming  and 
of
assistance aimed at third countries.

in 
delivery 

instruments 

discussions  with 

The  EU  should  introduce  points
relating  to  the  multilateral  agenda
into  regular
more  systematically 
its
bilateral 
partners,  and  should  free  up  time
currently  spent  on 
internal  co-
ordination  in  order  to  make  use  of
its  privileged  bilateral  ties  more
extensively at the major UN sites.

Continuous

Council  (CONUN;  relevant  groups);
Commission

1.  Early  identification  of  key  EU
interests,  and  preparation  of  EU
appropriate
through 
initiatives, 
Council groups

consideration  of
2.  Systematic 
/
EU 
specific 
implementation  actions 
for  UN
instruments  /  targets  by  relevant
Council groups

follow-up 

3. New initiatives on UN reform.

As of the 58th UNGA

Examine,  with  recipient  countries,
integration  into  EC  programming  of
specific  objectives  related  to  e.g.
WSSD;  counter-terrorism;  organised
crime/drugs; human rights

Continuous

Commission

/ 

Ensure  that  important  multilateral
issues (both normative and follow-up
to 
implementation  of  major
Conferences)  are  regularly  included
on 
Association
Council/Joint  Committee/Troika  (or
similar) meetings

agendas 

of 

Continuous

Council 
(Presidency; 
Secretariat); Commission

General

24

2. The EU and the UN: Towards greater efficiency and impact by working together

Recommendation

Implementing action

Timeframe

Chef de file / institution

The  EU  (Presidency,  Commission
and  General  Secretariat  of 
the
Council)  should  deepen  the  regular
dialogue with the UN Secretariat on
their  respective  roles  in  the  EU
peacekeeping
contribution 
to 
operations, 
civilian
aspects.

including 

Council Secretariat and Presidency to
build  on  recent  experience  of  co-
operation with UN forces in Western
Balkans and D.R. Congo.

Commission  to  ensure  co-operation
on  relevant  civilian  aspects  and
conflict prevention activities.

Continuous

Council; 
Secretariat 
Commission

Presidency; 
the 

of 

General
Council;

The Commission will work with the
UN  (including  specialised  agencies,
where  appropriate)  to  establish  an
effective  upstream  dialogue  on
country-level  assessments,  building
on  steps  already 
the
Commission’s  reform  of  external
ensure
assistance 
complementarity with other donors.

taken 

in 

to 

The  EU  and  the  UN  should  work
together to ensure that standards of
training  of  field  personnel  are
(as  well  as,  where
compatible 
appropriate,  with 
the
OSCE).  The  Commission  will
continue  to  work  with  the  UN  to
ensure 
of
standards for recruitment where the
EC is providing personnel for crisis
management operations.

compatibility 

those  of 

the 

1.  Issue  guidelines  on  concertation
with UN to country desks.

Continuous

Commission

2.  Follow-up  /  regular  reporting  on
these contacts

3.  Evaluation  of  coherence  with
UNDAFs etc.

1.  Where  the  EC  has  developed
specific  training  modules  these  will
systematically  be  made  available  to
the UN.

2.  Contacts  between  EC  and  UN
training focal points to ascertain  UN
training standards.

3. Where necessary, adjust standards
to  ensure  compatibility, 
in  co-
ordination with UN.

By end-2003

Commission; Council

25

The  Commission  will  explore  ways
of  further  promoting  the  exchange
of  personnel  and  facilitating  joint
training 
with
organisations of the UN system.

activities 

The  Commission  will  encourage
closer  and  more  regular  working-
level contacts between staff working
on crisis regions in the UN (notably
DPA,  DPKO,  OCHA  and  UNDP)
at
and 
headquarters and in the  field.  Such
desk-to-desk  dialogue  will  focus
increasingly 
specific
geographical areas of concern.

Commission 

the 

on 

with 

The EU and UN should co-ordinate
systematically 
regional
organisations  in  conflict  prevention
crisis  and  post-crisis
and 
situations,  and  complement  each
other’s resources where possible.

in 

First results by end 2003

Commission

First meetings to be held in 2003

Commission

Initiate  discussions  with  UN

1. 
Secretariat and agencies

2.  Establish  a  database  of  eligible
posts  and  an  inventory  of  relevant
EC and UN training activities

1.  Initiate  annual  meetings  between
Commission  headquarters  staff  with
DPA/DPKO/OCHA counterparts.

2. Develop more systematic directory
of  UN  and  EC  desks  (building  on
New  York 
experience);  update
regularly.

Implementation of “13 modalities”

First  results  by  end  2003  (after  July
2003 meeting)

Commission;  Council;  General
Secretariat of the Council

26

3. Promoting the EU’s values and interests effectively in the UN system

Recommendation

Implementing action

Timeframe

Chef de file / institution

The  role  of  the  Council  working
groups dealing with United  Nations
issues in providing guidance for EU
positions  in  the  major  UN  sites
strengthened.  The
be 
should 
presentation 
common  EU
of 
positions should be stepped up in all
UN  bodies,  including  the  Security
Council.

Where an issue considered in a UN
forum  is  covered  by  the  CFSP,  the
role  of  the  relevant  Council  bodies
in  Brussels  should  be  reinforced
actively  as  regards  the  monitoring,
and  where  necessary,  adequate
preparation  of  the  implementation
of  agreed  policies  in  a  cohesive
manner.

short, 

future  meetings 

focussed
1.  Encourage 
discussions in CONUN on key issues
of  main
in 
committees 
functional
/ 
commissions, with a view to defining
clear EU mandates

As of autumn 2003

Council (CONUN; WG on major UN
Conferences; 
relevant  working
groups as appropriate)

EU members of Security Council

2.  Arrange  CONUN  calendar  with  a
view  to  calendar  of  important  UN
meetings  (notably  UNGA/ECOSOC
and main subsidiary bodies)

3.  Schedule  twice-yearly  CONUN
meetings at UN Directors level

sufficiently 

Ensure 
‘upstream’
consideration  by  horizontal  (PSC,
CONUN)  and  geographical  Council
bodies 
issues
of  CFSP-related 
considered in UN forums

Immediate and continuous

27

(PSC 

Council 
groups); 
geographical 
Secretariat of the Council

/  CONUN 

/
General

practice 

The  EU  should  consolidate  and
the 
reinforce 
of
orientation
concise 
establishing 
notes,  guidelines  or  position  papers
selected  UN 
for 
and
necessary,
where 
meetings; 
could  be
sessions 
preparatory 
organised to identify key issues and
EU  priorities.  The  Commission  is
ready to contribute to such a process
with discussion papers.

events 

systematic  EU 

The  EU  should  consolidate  and
reinforce 
co-
ordination  across  the  UN  system,
while ensuring that co-ordination is
focused  and  unbureaucratic,  and
enables the EU to engage effectively
in dialogue with other actors.

As of autumn 2003

Council;  Commission;  General
Secretariat of the Council

Immediate and continuous

Council  (HoMs/experts  at  UN  sites;
CONUN; 
groups);
relevant 
Commission

1.  ‘Lead’  EU  partners  (MS  or
Commission) 
to  prepare  papers
identifying  EU  priorities  in  advance
of key meetings of UN bodies

2.  Preparatory  sessions to  be  held  in
framework of  (and  possibly  back-to-
back with) CONUN or other Council
groups ahead of key UN meetings

1.  Ensure  that  EU  co-ordinates  and
intervenes  consistently  in  all  main
UN  bodies  and  policy  bodies  of
AFPs  dealing  with  social  and  health
policy issues

2.  Important  sectoral  issues  to  be
prepared  adequately  by  Council
groups  (CONUN/sectoral  group)  in
Brussels

28

The  EU  should  intensify  its  efforts
to  act  in  a  co-ordinated  and  united
way in UN human rights bodies.

1. Appraisal of progress made so far
the  57th  UNGA  Third
following 
Committee  within  COHOM  and
identification  of  further  possibilities
for  improvement  prior  to  the  60th
CHR.

Immediate and continuous

Council; Commission

issue  – 

including 

2.  Systematic  inclusion  of  Human
Rights 
the
CHR/Third  Committee  angle  –  at
countries
meetings  with 
throughout 
the  year.  Thorough
analysis  of  a  third  country’s  stance
and  voting  record  at  the  CHR/Third
Committee  will  be  required  in  order
to make this effective.

third 

The  EU  should  seek  to  reinforce
progressively  its  representation  in
the  governing  bodies  of the  Bretton
Woods Institutions.

The  Presidency 
(or  other  EU
representatives)  should  be  given
greater  flexibility  to  promote  EU
positions  effectively  in  UN  forums,
on  the  basis  of  agreed  mandates,
rather  than  on  the  basis  of  detailed
EU statements.

Strengthening of EU co-ordination as
a  first  step  towards  a  unified  EU
representation

1.  Promote  mandate-based  approach
in  co-ordination  on  the  ground  in
sites,  with  detailed
main  UN 
negotiated 
for
statements  only 
opening / formal sessions

2.  Agree  on  mandates  for  major  UN
events  in  advance  in  Brussels-based
Council groups

Progressive

Council; Member States

Progressive

Council (CONUN / HoM and experts
at UN sites); Commission

29

The  EU  should  adopt  a  common
position  as  soon  as  possible  on  the
future  shape  of  regional  groups  in
the UN.

The  EU  should  engage  in  more
extensive and regular dialogue with
other  groups  and  countries  in  the
UN,  and  make  sure 
that  such
dialogue is better focused and more
timely  with  regard  to  the  main
issues discussed at major UN events
and meetings.

The  practice  of  ‘burden-sharing’
between  the  Presidency,  Member
in
States  and 
outreach  to  third  countries  and
other  groups  in  UN  forums  should
be developed and consolidated.

the  Commission 

Internal consultations with a view to
preparing an EU position

Before accession of the new Member
States

Council (CONUN); Member States

Develop practice  of regular  informal
contacts  (notably  in  troika  format)
with other key groups in UN, notably
ahead 
of  main
committees / functional commissions

of  meetings 

Immediate and continuous

Council; 
Commission; HoM

Member 

States;

Burden-sharing  to  be  encouraged  in
main UN bodies and policy bodies of
AFPs

Immediate and continuous

Council; 
Commission

Member 

States;

The  EC  should  be  given 
the
possibility to  participate  fully  in the
work of UN bodies where matters of
are
Community 
concerned,  and  Member  States
should 
effectively
towards this.

competence 

contribute 

enhance 

Progressively 
EC
participation  in  bodies  where  EC
competences  are  not  yet  sufficiently
articulated

Continuous

Commission; 
(in
consultation with UN partners where
appropriate)

Council 

Abbreviations and acronyms:

AFPs: UN Agencies, Funds and Programmes
CONUN: United Nations Working Group
PSC: Political and Security Committee
UNDAF: UN Development Assistance Framework

CHR: Commission for Human Rights
COHOM: Human Rights Working Group
HoM: Heads of Mission

30

ANNEX II: The UN system – main bodies and acronyms

Principal organs and main subsidiary bodies

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and Main Committees

United Nations Security Council (UNSC)

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and functional Commissions

Trusteeship Council

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

United Nations Secretariat

Economic Commission for Africa (ECA)

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)

Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

Economic Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA)

United Nations Programmes, Funds and Offices

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)

United Nations Volunteers (UNV)

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)

United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women
(INSTRAW)

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

World Food Programme (WFP)

United Nations Population Front (UNFPA)

United Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP)

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR)

31

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA)

United Nations University (UNU)

United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD)

United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI)

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)

United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)

Specialized Agencies

International Labour Organization (ILO)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

World Health Organization (WHO)

World Bank

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

Universal Postal Union (UPU)

International Telecommunications Union (ITU)

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

32

Related organizations

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

World Tourism Organization (WTO)

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty Organization (CTBTO)

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

Principal departments and offices of the Secretariat

Office of the Secretary-General (OSG)

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)

Office of Legal Affairs (OLA)

Department of Political Affairs (DPA)

Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA)

Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)

Department of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services (DGAACS)

Department of Public Information (DPI)

Department of Management (DM)

Office of the United Nations Security Coordinator (UNSECOORD)

Office for Drugs and Crime (ODC)

UN Office at Geneva (UNOG)

UN Office at Vienna (UNOV)

UN Office at Nairobi (UNON)

33