Preface*

The following paper is meant to be a background for a presentation on best practices of partnership initiatives to promote security, human rights and sustainable development in the Middle East Region, from the perspective of the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND). It is also meant to focus on ANND’s views on best practices from the experience of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the Arab region, especially in the fields of capacity building, service delivery, and the promotion of good governance, advocacy, and technological advancement.

Although it will not concentrate specifically on best practices, the following paper will tend to draw upon the challenges of forging effective and successful partnerships in the Arab region. It is a contribution to the debate of the United Nations (UN) Secretary General’s report “In Larger Freedom, Towards Development, Human Rights, Peace and Security” from an Arab civil society perspective. Accordingly, it aims at clarifying the approach by which civil society in the Arab region has looked upon the report and what it implied to them in light of the challenges they face while struggling to contribute to social and human development.

The paper is divided into five sections;

- The first section tries to briefly highlight the new understanding of partnership and the UN’s discourse in this regards

- The second section discusses the issues of global partnership as reflected by the Secretary General’s report, emphasizing the needed role of civil society regarding the three suggested pillars of this partnership; aid, debt, and trade.

- The third section focuses on the understanding of partnership between civil society and the UN, governments, private sector, and parliamentarians as it was reflected by the Cardoso Report entitled “We the People: Civil Society, the United Nations, and Global Governance”. In addition, it discusses the suggested conceptions and mechanisms of partnership on development, human rights, peace and security as it was presented by the Secretary General’s report “In Larger Freedom, Towards Development, Human Rights, Peace and Security”.

- The fourth section focuses on partnerships in the Arab region and tries to analyze the main characteristics of Arab civil society and its challenges. In this context, it presents a look into the implications of the Secretary General’s Report on main challenges for the Arab region, including terrorism, reforms and democracy, development, sanctions and weapons of mass destruction, and technical and financial capacities of civil society organizations. This section is based on the outcomes of a discussion seminar on the Secretary General’s report, which was held last July in Lebanon at the UN house, with the participation of 145 civil society representatives from NGOs, academia, trade unions and social movements.

- The fifth section talks about some of the partnership initiatives that ANND is involved in. It concentrates on partnerships with various UN agencies both at the regional and the national levels, including programs and efforts to tackle the challenges of foreign occupations, and others in the areas of human sustainable development, trade issues, human rights, and democratic change.

I. Partnership in the New Literature and Concepts of Development

Partnership has been often integral to mechanisms and processes linked to sustainable development, socio-economic change, and human rights protection. According to the predominant global perspective during the 20th century, the market and the state were the two sets of organizational and institutional tools to reach the goals of development. Now, these two sets of tools have inherent limitations and neither can make up for the deficiency of the other. It is within the context of this public good failure that civil society and non-profit or non-governmental sector develops.

Partnership among public, private, and civil society has been pursued by the international financial institutions (IFIs) when they were looking to promote their structural adjustment policies (SAP) in the eighties, and later in the nineties when they launched the initiative on poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs). The stress on partnership reached a peak with the increase of debate around the need to reform the IFIs, mainly the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Accordingly, partnership has been increasingly used in the discourse of the UN as well as other international organizations. It has been strongly promoted since the Rio Summit in 1992 and it was a main factor in the implementation process of the resulting Agenda 21.

The discourse on partnership was maintained throughout the series of global summits during the nineties, including discussions on partnerships for sustainable development, human rights, environmental protection, and social and economic development. The multi-stakeholder partnership approach has been linked to good governance. Accordingly, this concept “has been championed by business groups since the days of the original Earth Summit in Rio….for by institutionalizing their role as stakeholders in official fora, corporations gain considerable influence in any outcomes and benefit from an image boost as they are seen to be part of the solution” .

Within the partnership discourse, civil society organizations (CSOs) have been the center of attraction, given the values they stand for and positive image they hold. The IFIs, the UN agencies, as well as several governments have quested partnership with various kinds of CSOs. For example, common projects were implemented by many European governments or the European Commission (EC) and NGOs during the eighties. Later, the European Union (EU) took a step further by enhancing the role of CSOs in the whole Barcelona process which was launched in 1995. Moreover, CSOs have increasingly worked towards enhancing partnership and collaboration among each other, in a quest to develop networks and initiate broad-based social movements that could exert enough pressure towards achieving change.

During the preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) , partnership was reinforced as the key word. Yet, much debate has been raised on the implications of such a concept, many of which are still lingering to date. The inequality of the three sectors, among which partnership is emphasized, threatens the success of their cooperation, given that outcomes could be engineered to the interest of the powerful. Before the WSSD, several NGOs warned of the risks of partnerships undermining the intergovernmental implementation program and the fact that business, with a much stronger economic power than other groups, will drive the multi-stakeholder dialogue processes. In fact, the troika partnership among public, private, and civil society sectors was sometimes considered as a kind of return to the tiers-état of the pre-French revolution, where two dominant minorities- the public and the private sectors- are in control while the majority- civil society- are marginalized .

In 2002, the UN has set some criteria on which partnership initiatives would be branded as official outcomes of the Summit. Projects had to be: international both in scope and reach; be new - or if on-going have a demonstrable 'added value' in the context of the Summit - and aimed at implementing Agenda 21, the Millennium Declaration Goals (MDGs) or sustainable activities in developing countries and countries with economies in transition . It is clear that such criteria were not strict or clear and thus could not serve as basis for an efficient and effective selection criterion.
Although effective partnership is becoming more urgent and necessary given the mounting and interlinked challenges we face today in development, human rights, peace, and security, the appropriate grounds for partnership is still not set yet. Today, partnership still reflects upon the same questions and challenges.

II. Issues of Global Partnership as Reflected upon by the UN’s Secretary General Report entitled “In Larger Freedom, Towards Development, Human Rights, Peace and Security”

The Secretary General’s report “In Larger Freedom, Towards Development, Human Rights, Peace and Security”, discussed goal number eight of the MDGs titled “Global Partnership for Development” in a section called “Making Goal 8 Work: Trade and Financing for Development”. The report outlined the discussion in three paragraphs on aid, debt, and trade. Although partnership among government, civil society, and the private sector is not confined to these three areas, it is worth looking into how the UN has perceived them.

II- 1. On Aid:

The Secretary General’s report talks about the failure of developed countries to reach their commitment of 0.7% of GDP in aid, which emerged in the 1970’s and was reaffirmed in the series of summits during the nineties, especially in the Monterrey Summit on Financing for Development in 2002. The report highlights that aid amounts decreased from 0.33% in the 1980’s to 0.25% currently. The report also urges all developed countries to set timetables for reaching 0.7% by no later than 2015.

However, the report does not make reference to how things are expected to change given that the trend has been in consistent deterioration since the 1980’s. It also does not consider the impact of current trends of budget deficits in developed countries, including most European countries, in addition to the failure of the United States’ (US) congress to support its president’s commitments. It further refers to proposals being discussed by countries like Brazil, Chile, France, and Germany on innovative financing, but it does not reflect on any mechanisms for further developing such innovative proposals and increasing foreign aid.

Moreover, the report indicates that “starting in 2005, developing countries that put forward sound, transparent and accountable national strategies and require increased development assistance should receive a sufficient increase in aid, of sufficient quality and arriving with sufficient speed to enable them to achieve the MDGs” . Yet, the reference to sound, transparent, and accountable national policies is often linked to the conditions set about by the WB. The results of implementing these policies during the eighties and nineties often proved inadequate to developing countries. The report lacks a clear statement on the complete realization of the impact of IFIs’ policies, including that of the WB, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the IMF on the development processes of developing countries.

The report also talks about “the immediate action to support a series of “quick wins” — relatively inexpensive, high-impact initiatives with the potential to generate major short-term gains and save millions of lives” . In all the above, the report does not mention any role for CSOs, although their capacities to reflect the needs of communities and to facilitate reaching out to most vulnerable groups is most needed in these areas.

It is essential to stress that external aids should be related to poverty reduction policies, dependant on the harmonization of the development assistance agencies’ policies, practices, and procedures, and dependant as well on the national public capacities in absorbing, managing and distributing this aid. Thus, in all the abovementioned, the role of civil society would be a crucial factor in the process of reforming aid mechanisms and making them more adequate to local and national needs, and, accordingly, more sustainable within the development policies of developing countries.

II- 2. On Debt:

The Secretary General’s report talked about the need to “…redefine debt sustainability as the level of debt that allows a country to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and reach 2015 without an increase in debt ratios” . Accordingly, the report called for 100 per cent debt cancellation of highly indebted poor countries’ (HIPCs) and significantly more debt reduction for many heavily indebted middle-income countries. Indeed, progress on debt has been positive given that the debt relief that was lately committed to by the G8 leaders includes debt to the IMF and includes 100% permanent debt cancellation for some poor countries.

The current proposed debt relief and cancellation schemes immediately benefit 18 countries and could benefit 38 countries in the upcoming years. However, it leaves a lot of other countries that are burdened by their debts, including highly indebted countries such as Sri Lanka, Kenya, and Vietnam . Oxfam, Action Aid, Jubilee 2000 and other international NGOs and advocacy groups on debt calculate that over 60 countries will need 100 per cent of their multilateral debts cancelled if they are to reach the MDGs by 2015 . It is worth noting that the processes related to HIPCs and set according to WB and IMF policy conditions and budget ceilings still play a big part in the qualifying procedures for debt cancellation.

According to Christian Aid calculations, the HIPC program covered only 6.4 per cent of total debt of the world’s poorest countries. Also, in 2002, only 42 out of 165 developing countries were eligible to the HIPC, out of which 20 complied with the IFIs conditions. In September 2002, a report issued by the WB, on the Status of Implementation of the HIPC, showed that the Bank’s strategy for countries in the HIPC program “exporting themselves out of debt” through exports of primary commodities did not work . Yet, till date, the HIPC and IFI’s policies are being used as basis for debt relief and cancellation programs. Their failure and negative impact on the development process of most involved countries are not addressed in the Secretary General’s report. It ought to be stressed that debt cancellation should be unconditional, taking into consideration the need for mobilizing more resources for development

Therefore, the report fails to indicate the gaps in the way of dealing with the global debt problems. It does not refer to the failure of real partnerships on programs related to debts such as HIPCs. Moreover, it does not take account of the long term advocacy being led by coalitions of CSOs regarding the need for 100% cancellation of debts in many poor countries in order to make the achievement of the MDGs possible. Accordingly, the positive role that CSOs play in reflecting the needs of communities and their capacities, upon which sustainable debt relief and cancellation can be based, is ignored in the report.

II- 3. On Trade:

In paragraphs 55 and 56, the Secretary General’s report addresses the issues of trade. It is evident that trade has not been comprehensively and effectively tackled in the report. The United Nations still has not provided a clear definition of fair trade which works for the people and what it stands for in comparison with free trade. In the latest G8 Summit, the language presented in the communiqué on the ability of countries to decide their own reforms was disappointing from a trade perspective, as it implicitly referred only to African and Least Developed Countries (LDC), while leaving out other developing countries . The Secretary General’s report proceeds in the same direction while calling to successfully complete Doha negotiations by 2006. However, it does not realize that effectively committing to the time of ending the negotiations does not imply that all involved parties have achieved a benefit for their development processes. In this matter, the report fails to address the impact of the disadvantaged position of developing countries under the current system of the WTO.

A real step forward in this area would necessitate a practical proposal with a set timeframe and mechanisms that address the subsidization system of developed countries, which impacts agriculture- the most important sector for developing countries. Also, practical steps would be needed regarding the implementation of special and differential treatment for developing countries within multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. Moreover, the report fails to address several dynamic trade-related issues, including the global movement of financial assets. According to the latest statistics of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), financial flows reached $400 billion from the South to the North in 2004, while in 1994 the amount was limited to $20 billion. Such issues should be addressed given that the flow of financial assets could represent lost development engines in many developing countries.

While stressing the importance of committing to the negotiations within the WTO system, the Secretary General’s report did not give any indication on the relevance of the UN Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in pushing the multilateral trade negotiations towards fulfilling their development promise. In civil society’s Forum declaration to UNCTAD XI , civil society groups called upon UNCTAD to “participate actively in the creation and management of multilateral mechanisms…”. They stated that “UNCTAD was created precisely to elaborate and promote Southern development policies by creating a more equitable environment and enabling international economic growth. It must retain and build on this overarching mandate, to further the debate on how to deliver a global trade system that benefits all people and protects the environment” .

Within this context, no mention has been included on the needed reforms and transparency in the international trade mechanisms, whether it is bilateral, regional, or multilateral. It was expected that reference to a larger role for UNCTAD and a more institutionalized role for relevant CSOs would be core to the UN’s discourse on partnership for better and fairer trade; that which could serve the development policies of developing countries and not vice versa.

Accordingly, the report highlights the areas on which global partnership is needed, but fails to discuss the mechanisms in which this global partnership is going to be achieved. In addition, none of the nine paragraphs of the report that tackle global partnership refer to the needed roles of CSOs and accountable businesses. It is worth stressing that partnership should lead to changing the traditional donor-recipient relationship and enhancing country ownership and equity between partners. Accordingly, a real partnership is a country led one and could not be achieved without the three sectors; government, civil society, and accountable private sector. While the report does not present a scheme for real partnership in the three main areas: aid, debt, and trade, one cannot but question the extent to which the UN has been able to develop a comprehensive and effective vision for progress on global partnership.

III. Regarding the Current Conception and Mechanisms of Partnership; the Importance of Partnership between Civil Society and the United Nations

III-1. A Look into the Cardoso Report Entitled “We the People: Civil Society, the United Nations, and Global Governance”

In the Cordoso report, the vision for a future conception of civil society and its relation with the UN was laid out. In the words of Cardoso , chair of the panel that prepared the abovementioned report, collaboration between UN and civil society is a necessity and not an option ; it is entrenched in Article 71 of the 1945 United Nations Charter .

Accordingly, the UN needs to make full use of the capacities of the civil society sector. Yet, the approach of the Cardoso report towards setting a broader perspective on what civil society is implies several questions that impact the core of future relations between civil society and the UN, government, and the private sector. The report talks about the importance of the UN’s convening power, which is vital for enhancing partnerships among various sectors. However, the approach and conceptions presented in the report do not lead us to a vision of clearer relations between the three sectors and accordingly to more effective and efficient mechanisms.

Primarily, it is important to realize that enhancing the relationship between the UN and civil society ought to be a priority. Through this relation, a better and more balanced relation between civil society and governments as well as civil society and the private sector can be achieved . Accordingly, the UN holds the challenge of working with civil society to develop a more adequate environment for CSOs to develop such partnerships; one which will not impact their neutrality, credibility, and transparency.

In this context, it is important to realize that specifically in countries where spaces for democratic processes are still limited and where CSOs are faced with an inadequate association law, the threat to their independent existence is much higher. The UN, in its quest to develop the concept of effective and needed partnerships, is thus required to address the impact of the current undemocratic State processes which do not align with international conventions on human rights, including the emerging unilateralism in global affairs as well as some countries’ undemocratic and suppressive practices against civic engagement.

In setting the grounds for the thirty proposals it outlines, the Cardoso report assimilates among civil society and the private sector, represented here in the form of associations of businesses, local authorities, and parliamentarians. Such an approach is worth reconsideration. For the fundamental characteristics of NGOs referred to in Article 71 of the United Nations charter include :

• Separation and independence from the structures and functions of government
• Aims and purposes that are not primarily commercial, or 'for profit'

The inclusion of civil society, profitable businesses, and parliamentarians together under the Office of Constituency Engagement and Partnerships, which is called for by proposal 24 of the Cardoso report, could lead to increased confusion about NGOs and their Charter relationship to the UN . It also opposes efforts to enhance the special role that non-governmental and non-profitable entities can play with and within the UN system, towards strengthening more “civic space in which ideas can be freely held and in which law is paramount and assistance is rendered on the basis of needs and nothing else” .

III-1.a. Partnership with the Private Sector:

Given the difference in the nature and mechanisms of their work and engagement with society, there is a lack of trust between CSOs and the private sector, which all UN proposals on partnership fails to address. CSOs have had serious reservations about endorsing the proposal of incorporating the Global Compact into the proposed UN Office of Constituency Engagement and Partnerships. Several multinational companies have been engaged in violations of human rights and environmental standards in many parts of the World. When the negative impact of globalization is blamed on big multi-national corporations a real partnership which is built on “shared commitment by all stakeholders, participatory processes, and common definition of tasks, professionalism, respect, and equity …” is not very feasible. For any kind of partnership should not avoid considering corporate responsibility in dealing with aspects of social misconduct.
Going back to the WSSD in 2002, it was clearly noticed that “the most vocal supporters of the partnership approach were generally corporations from some of the most environmental and socially dubious industries - namely oil, gas, chemicals, and mining” . Partnership projects with NGOs and the UN agencies are seen as means for cover up and for marketing industries as socially responsible. This being said, till date the impact and effectiveness of Type II partnerships between governments, UN, civil society, and the private sector have not been assessed.
The relationship between these sectors, which was further proposed in the Cardoso report, fails to clarify the kind of engagement it aims at. It also creates a lot of tension by clustering civil society and private sector in one group, which blemishes the image that civil society is built on; that of defenders of human, social, environmental, economic, and cultural rights. While civil society groups are committed to proving their accountability, transparency, and legitimacy to the UN, there is an absence of any regulations that requests of companies to present evidence of their commitment to social responsibility. This adds to the complexities in the relationship between CSOs and their proclaimed partners in the private sector, especially larger multinationals which have often been related to endeavors of social, environmental, and human misconduct.

It is therefore worth noting that the UN’s initiative “Global Compact”, should secure an efficient implementation of corporate social responsibility in order to develop the relation and trust between CSOs and the private sector. CSOs mistrust the commitment of corporations to human rights, environmental sustainability, and social responsibility. Accordingly, the UN ought to ask corporations to present social responsibility reports that address their commitment to society. Moreover, public-private partnership should be complemented by a partnership with civil society, as a prerequisite for the implementation of national strategies.

It is worth mentioning in this regard that the report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change stated under the reform of the Security Council that “reforms should, in honoring Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations, increase the involvement in decision-making of those who contribute most to the United Nations financially, militarily, and diplomatically…..”. This proposition was completely adopted by the Secretary General in his report to the upcoming General Assembly (GA). In this context, and given the growing support of the private sector’s role within the UN’s processes, there is a threat that this will eventually mean a greater influence of huge multinationals on policy making within the Security Council. If not directly, then through the financial contributions of these companies to their states, intervention into the Security Council’s affairs could be achieved. This is of relevance given that from the start, the relationship of the UN with the private sector, reflected by the Global Compact initiative, was built on the financial contributions of the private sector. This in turn could have serious implications on the kind and balance of partnership being currently promoted by the UN.

III-1.b. Partnership with Parliamentarians:

The Inter-Parliamentary Union has been already set in place to play the role of systematically engaging parliamentarians and sensitizing them to global issues. The new proposition for partnership with parliamentarians in the Cardoso report extends the current structure, and proposes a four-point strategy which includes:

• Taking UN issues to national parliaments more systematically
• Ensuring that parliamentarians coming to UN events have more strategic roles at those events
• Linking parliaments themselves with the international deliberative processes
• Providing an institutional home in the UN to engage parliamentarians

Yet, it is worth noting that the role of parliamentarians is to monitor the executive body and processes at the national level, and therefore, the participation of parliamentarians in the multilateral decision-making process could affect and ultimately limit their national monitoring role. Indeed, the Cardoso report propositions can benefit in enhancing the motto of “thinking locally, acting globally”, on which the team of eminent persons have based their approach. However, there is a real threat to be taken into consideration; when taking part in forming policies at the global level, parliamentarians could be caught up in the political trade-offs that influence the current processes of global decision making. This could limit the effectiveness of their role at the national levels and their neutrality on policy making.

III-2. The Secretary General’s Report “In Larger Freedom; Towards Development, Human Rights, Peace and Security”, and its Implications on the Understanding of Partnership

Based on outcomes of all the UN Summits during the nineties and the review of the five years since the launch of the MDGs in the year 2000, the Secretary General’s report presented an indispensable link between development, human rights, peace and security, as well as the reform of the UN. Accordingly, the global issues we face today cannot be the responsibility of officials alone, whether elected or assigned. Individuals and CSOs have an essential role in the decision-making process. Moreover, given this link, partnership with civil society cannot be limited to one of the above mentioned fields. To be comprehensive and effective, partnership should be developed on all interlinked dimensions.

Here from, reforms of the bodies and mechanisms through which partnership of civil society and the UN is administered are definitely needed in order to enhance this partnership. Reforms need to address means to overcome the limited role that civil society plays with the UN on issues of peace and security, compared to the role they play on issues of development and human rights.

These reforms should target a partnership where objectives and targets are clearly defined. Partnership should mainly target the challenges of sustainable human development within a framework of comprehensive vision and strategies, and thus should have clear implementation strategies In order to attain its objectives, partnership can effectively exist only if it is between equal partners, whose partnership extend in policy-making, setting mechanisms, implementation, as well as assessment and evaluation. In this regards, a strong and independent civil society is a vital pillar of a successful and comprehensive partnership plan.

III-2.a. On Development:

The MDGs are leading development processes in the world today. The 60th GA of the UN will look into the achievements on the MDGs’ tracks since five years.

On one hand, when looking into how the Secretary General’s report tackled development and partnership, we realize that the role of the private sector was overemphasized in sections compared to that of CSOs.

Paragraph 32 of the report stated that “each developing country has primary responsibility for its own development —strengthening governance, combating corruption and putting in place the policies and investments to drive private sector- led growth…” Also, paragraph 37 similarly stated that “without dynamic, growth-oriented economic policies supporting a healthy private sector capable of generating jobs, income and tax revenues over time, sustainable economic growth will not be achieved….”.

This approach could be a step towards limiting the scope of the public sector’s role, especially that the report goes on with discussing needed national investment and policy strategies in seven clusters- gender, equality, rural development, urban development, health systems, education, and science and technology- based on private-sector led growth. Accordingly, it is of high importance to redefine the commitment of the public sector regarding basic services such as education as well as the processes of investing in human resources.

On the other hand, the role of civil society has been described as critical in the implementation process, delivering of services, and mobilizing of grassroots on accountability issues. This description is limited to the implementation phase and does not reflect the needed full partnership and thus equality of all groups on various levels of policy making, implementation, and assessment.

In the same direction, paragraph 38 dedicated to describing the envisioned role of civil society, talks about the role of CSOs in service delivery and in advocacy and lobbying by mobilizing grassroots and interest groups, and at the international level in exerting pressure and lobbing on core issues .

Yet, unlike what was recommended in regards to the private sectors’ role, the report does not recommend that the government open more space for civil society groups to exercise a real partnership role with other sectors. Even if CSOs are involved on these various levels in some countries, their involvement at the policy making level will not be effective except if the government makes available enough space for their voices to be heard, in a consistent and institutionalized manner and not merely on occasions. Not just on development and human rights issues, but also on political and security issues, CSOs involved in advocacy and lobbying could have a critical role in complementing the efforts of their respective states.

Moreover, the eighth goal of the MDGs, which is key among other goals, given that it tackles global partnership as prerequisite for the realization of the millennium challenges, is still vague in its presentation. Goal number eight revolves around the global economic system and trade relations, control of mechanisms for international exchange, job creation and unemployment problems, as well as aid and debt, among other issues. As discussed in section II of this paper, the Secretary General’s report tried to set medium-term mechanisms to address those issues. Long has been the debate around these issues in various literatures; yet, till now, no practical mechanisms has been set in place for a comprehensive and effective partnership between government, international institutions, civil society, and the private sector.

III-2.b. On Human Rights:
Although CSOs have been relatively more active within the UN’s human rights processes than in other areas, the current structure of human rights follow-up needs a lot of scrutiny . Principle weaknesses in the processes of the UN Commission on Human Rights result from the violations of human rights that the Commissions’ own members commit.
In light of this, the UN report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change tackles the criteria of membership in the commission, calling for its expansion to a Human Rights Council including all 191 members of the UN. However, it is evident that such a recommendation will lead to weakening the focus of the Commission instead of enhancing and strengthening its mechanisms of cooperation. Also, this recommendation does not serve the betterment of civil society’s role with the Commission, since it could lead to a similar problem of inefficiency that the GA faces while trying to engage with non-state members , in addition to inefficiency of the consultative status given to CSOs with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
In general, the approach and proposals, presented under section IV of the Secretary General’s report entitled “Freedom to Live in Dignity”, are not enough to guarantee the respect of human rights. The Secretary General says that respect of human rights will preserve our moral and ethical positions and commitments, explaining in paragraph 140 that: “Strategies based on the protection of human rights are vital for both our moral standing and the practical effectiveness of our actions”. Accordingly, the Secretary General asks for consideration of human rights while he does not talk about the need to commit to human rights.

However, the level of commitment cannot be merely an ethical issue but should be of legal – practical dimensions, including the ratification of the conventions and the modification of national laws and regulations accordingly, thus meeting the standards set by the international laws and conventions. Through making commitment a legal process, the mechanisms for partnership between various stakeholders, including human rights country teams and involved CSOs is automatically strengthened. This reassurance is the first step towards reforming this aspect of the UN’s work and harmonizing guidelines on all treaties.

Thus, the partnership process concerning human rights rests mainly on their actual implementation as the principle purpose of the UN. This could require a major reform in the reporting procedures, by which the parallel reports presented by CSOs on national human rights conditions become obligatory. Moreover, a set of human rights criteria should be applied to the members of the Commission on Human Rights, which ought to be transformed into a mixed commission where CSOs have an institutionalized role. Civil society’s membership would be led by accredited civil society groups within the UN system, and covers the same countries which are members of the Commission.

III-2.c. On Peace and Security:

The Secretary General’s report calls the UN for the adoption of responsibility for protection and security. Paragraph 135 of the report states that: “The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty and more recently the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change…endorsed what they described as an emerging norm that there is a collective responsibility to protect” .

However, the mechanisms and measures for implementing such a responsibility and the role of the Security Council in such processes are not clear, especially under the impact of the veto power, double standards, and balances of political powers. In addition, the report talks about the International Criminal Court in adjudicating disputes among states to preserve peace. Yet, experiences of special courts for Yugoslavia and Rwanda highlight the challenge between international and national laws, which has not been addressed by the report.

In the section on Freedom from Fear, only one mention of a possible role of civil society has been included under the section on “Preventing Catastrophic Terrorism”, which is stated in paragraph 88 . This reflects a lack of vision on partnership with CSOs regarding peace and security issues, which is essential for a comprehensive vision of partnership on the interlinked factors of development, human rights, and peace and security.

The absence of adequate consideration of mechanisms for civil society’s role on issues of peace and security could lead to a situation where CSOs play the role of agents in the fight against terrorists and not partners in the struggle to end the social and economic reasons that lie at the roots of emerging terrorist groups. Under these circumstances and in the absence of a clear definition of terrorism, which realizes the rights of people to self determination and to organize resistance against occupation, the Secretary General’s call upon civil society groups could lead to internal destabilization and thus threatens their role in general.

It is worth noting that the interlink between development, human rights, peace and security should not lead to an inadequate focus on the bi-products of the lack of sustainable development, respect of human rights, and human security. Accordingly, terrorism, which is the bi-product of numerous ills in society, should not be the focus. But, the achievement of sustainable human development and security, within a system based on human rights should be the focus of partnerships. Everything else, including a clear definition of terrorism and the way to struggle against it should represent a support to these processes.

The future visions on peace and security issues are further developed through tackling reforms of the Security Council. The Security Council represents the most politicized organ of the UN and it is the main decision-making body regarding peace and security issues, as referenced in section V and VI of the UN’s Charter. It is also the most complex entity in terms of trying to achieve the ‘think locally act globally’ approach, which was recommended by the Panel on the UN-Civil Society relations. The Cardoso report discusses means of enhancing civil society engagement with the Security Council. Accordingly, it calls for strengthening dialogue with civil society, improving the planning and effectiveness of the Arria formula meetings by lengthening lead times and covering travel costs to increase the participation of actors from the field, ensuring that the Security Council field missions meet regularly with appropriate local civil society leaders, international humanitarian NGOs and perhaps others, such as business leaders, installing an experimental series of Security Council seminars to discuss issues of emerging importance to the Council serviced by the Secretariat, and convening independent commissions of inquiry after Council mandated operations.

Yet, in the report on the Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, discussion of the Security Council reform included a fast and unclear mention in paragraph 260 of the role of civil society, in the form of a “welcome for greater civil society engagement in the work of the Security Council”. The report did not endorse any of the mechanisms presented by the Cardoso report nor did it introduce new mechanisms of implementation of such steps. As for the Secretary General’s report, it came to endorse all what the Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change introduced regarding the reform of the Security Council, but dropped the invitation for civil society engagement.

This further reflects the lack of commitment to enhance partnership with CSOs on issues of peace and security. It thus indicates a gap in the understanding of the nature of threats the world faces today, which necessitates a consideration of the voices of CSOs and what they represent.

IV. Where is Partnership for the Arab Region?

The Arab Region is witnessing an increase in the number of national and regional civil society groups, including networks, organizations, and platforms. This is due to the rise of political, economic, social, and cultural challenges, both at the national and regional levels. Consequently, new dynamics for facing the negative impacts of globalization and for enhancing the adequate integration in the global system are emerging. Yet, developing partnerships should take into consideration several factors regarding the nature and current role of CSOs in various Arab countries.

The concept of charity within Arab culture and religions has had a central influence on the emergence of civil society activities and structures. Services to special social cases such as orphans, people with disability, the poor, and many other hardship cases are mainly offered by social welfare associations affiliated to religious institutions. Both Islamic and Christian entities encourage welfare activities. Moreover, such kinds of institutions attain a high level of trust, and consequently support from the public, given their religious affiliations. Despite the important role that charity-based organizations play in the service provision sector, their role does not extend to advocacy and policy-influencing activities. Accordingly, partnerships fostered by these organizations are often developed with other service provision organizations, and are often limited within the scope to a specific community.

In countries that experienced war and internal conflicts, such as Lebanon and Palestine, CSOs have been focused on emergency and relief activities. Given the partial or complete absence of government structures and related social services in periods of conflict, CSOs, specifically NGOs, have had a major role in providing such kinds of services. Under such conditions, NGOs were an essential factor in sustaining the daily lives and needs of the citizens and had an essential role in providing humanitarian aid and medical services. They showed specialization in several areas, such as social and human development, health, education, rural development, and human rights. Both Palestinian and Lebanese NGOs provided service delivery, networking, mobilization, and creation of “support systems” of various kinds, ranging from day-care centers to income-generating projects. However, in the post-conflict period, CSOs in both countries faced a big challenge in moving from purely humanitarian and relief activities to a more comprehensive role that tackles service provision, capacity building, as well as advocacy and lobbying on policy-making processes.

The challenges of human development in the world today necessitates the formulation of comprehensive development approaches that can target and influence the formation of a political will, through national and/or regional strategies and programs based on the solid understanding of partnership. Yet, the conditions for such an approach are still incomplete in the Arab region. Given the impact of the abovementioned realities on the emergence of civil society, the role of this sector remains incomplete, whereby it lacks advocacy capacities and influence on national policies and strategies.

IV-1. Categories of the Arab Countries and Civil Society Prospects in Each

When looking into the current and prospective partnerships between civil society organizations and the public sector, it should be considered that each of the Arab countries has different experiences, a different history, different priorities, different approaches, and different working conditions. Accordingly, the countries of the Arab region could be divided into four main categories given the enabling environment and the roles CSOs play in each:

A first category covers countries where CSOs are increasingly becoming partners in some social fields.

These countries are either democratic systems or are emerging democracies. Partnerships are often limited to social services such as education, health and primary health care, as well as environmental programs. In addition partnerships are emerging in areas of poverty alleviation, community development, particularly in the rural areas, and popular education. In some of the these countries, special consultative councils were established such as the Economic and Social Council in Lebanon to serve as an area for consultation and exchange between the various civil society groups (NGOs, trade unions, academia, social movements, private and business sectors, media, and experts). However, these councils remained formal and inefficient in most of the cases.

In several other emerging democracies, CSOs have been nominated in public sector committees for reform and administrative development. In addition, human rights organizations have been actively defending political, economic, social, and cultural rights. They are active in protecting the rights of vulnerable groups such as women, children, elderly, and people with special needs. Accordingly, some Arab NGOs have been taking an effective part in the annual meetings of the High Commission on Human Rights in the UN headquarters in Geneva. They present the Commission with alternative reports on issues of democracy, human rights, and development, but mainly on foreign occupation and the right to self-determination.

Sometimes, association laws in these countries are adequate and protective of CSOs, yet governments could periodically disrupt the proper implementation of these laws. This reflects the lack of a stable relationship between civil society and government and thus the unavailability of full acceptance of the role of civil society from the government.

A second category covers countries where the dominance of the state is still very strong, although some are currently witnessing a period of transition. In these countries, CSOs exist and are developing; however partnership is very limited with their governments whereby often there exists a confrontational relationship between the two sectors.
Some of these countries have a very active civil society. But at the same time, its impact is not strong and efficient enough in order to introduce changes at the political level and in the socio-economic policies, because the system is highly centralized and has a strong control over society. These conditions could sometimes lead to an oppressive environment and offensive practices that limit civil societies’ work, especially that of human rights groups.
A third category covers the countries where totalitarian regimes are in power. Under such regimes CSOs are perceived as a threat to government’s control over society. Also, there is a lack of any space for civil society to be organized independently, given that emergency laws/ Marshal Laws restrict the formation of such associations. These countries have some of the weakest civil society groups and the most hostile environments to operate in. Also, their governments often tend to create groups that operate as non-governmental organizations, which are the creation of the state and the implementers of its policies.

A fourth category covers special cases of countries in conflict. These include:

- Palestine, which has a very strong civil society that represents solid grounds for building partnerships. For example, the Palestinian Agricultural relief Committees (PARC) and the Ministry of Agriculture have joined efforts to build the capacities of the employees and workers in the sector. CSOs in Palestine are well-organized and they have built coalitions based on clear and strong objectives, as well as well-defined strategies and well-developed implementing bodies. Palestinian civil society groups work in numerous fields, often trying to contribute to alleviating the impact of the occupation. During the peace process, Palestinian civil society groups found themselves competing with the Palestinian Authority as it tried to co-opt CSOs while trying to establish government services. But with the outbreak of the second Intifada, they resumed their former role.

- Sudan, which has a strong civil society that is active in poverty eradication, women empowerment, as well as the national reconciliation process and peace building. The Sudanese civil society realizes the importance of the role they should play in supporting national unity, building democracy, and enhancing good governance practices, as well as in fighting trends towards cocooning within political and tribal affiliations. Yet, Sudanese CSOs face critical financial problems in the post-war period, given the high needs in the process of rebuilding the country and resettling refugees in their lands. They also face the complexities of tribal, ethnic, and geographical affiliations of people in Sudan, which could often be a barrier to fostering more coordination and eventually partnerships Moreover, Sudanese CSOs face some tension with the government regarding an adequate legal framework that could allow them to play the needed role in the post-war period.

- Iraq, which has an emerging civil society, whose role is still not very well defined given the chaotic living conditions and situation in the country. Currently, the status of civil society in Iraq presents one of the major challenges for civil society in the Arab region. There is a tremendous need for investing in building a civil and democratic society in Iraq, which would be a precondition for building a strong national government. The best way, and maybe the unique way to end the foreign occupation and to conserve the Iraqi national unity is to invest in building a strong and capable civil society and civic movements. Although human resources in Iraq are highly qualified, there is a need to contribute to the capacity building of civil society structures and institutions after decades of totalitarian regimes and deprivation from democracy and human rights.

Iraqi CSOs could play a major role in healing social wounds through networking and learning from each other, especially since, well before the occupation, many NGOs in Northern Iraq had acquired significant experience in various fields like healthcare, education, gender, emergency and relief, post conflict reconstruction, and human rights. Thus, Iraqi CSOs ought to assess their needs and to build their capacities, so they would lead the process of development in Iraq.

Yet, in general there is a trend of change in the Arab region as a whole. Even the governments themselves are feeling that there is a need to change, taking into consideration the recent meetings on democracy in Sana’a - Yemen and in Alexandria - Egypt as positive signs. It is inevitable that a strong partnership with governments is needed when civil society seeks participation in decision-making, in the implementation of taken decisions, and in the evaluation of policy implementation. However, real partnership is based on equal relations, mutual respect, and autonomy. In reference to the Arab Human Development Report 2002 , the main challenges facing development, besides gender inequality and the knowledge gap, are freedom and democracy, particularly freedom of association, freedom of political organizations, and freedom of expression. Therefore, real partnership based on equal relations, mutual respect, and autonomy cannot be achieved unless we witness real political changes towards more democratic regimes, more respect of human rights, and more spaces for various social actors to voice out their concerns.

IV-2. The Implications of the Secretary General’s Report on Terrorism, Reforms and Democracy, Development, Sanctions and Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Technical and Financial Capacities of CSOs

In the Arab region, the need for partnership between governments, the UN, and civil society is very strong; however, the ability to build this partnership is very weak. In the context of the interlinked issues laid out by the UN’s Secretary General in his report to the GA, the main concerns for civil society organizations in the Arab region, while considering the attempt to build national, regional, as well as global partnerships, abide in several factors including:

V-2.a. Terrorism, Occupation, and Conflicts

The Arab region has been caught up in challenges of foreign occupation and conflict for more than fifty years, most notably the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the war on and occupation of Iraq. The impact of these conflicts was never country specific, but impacted the region as a whole. In addition to many internal conflicts where foreign interferences were obvious such as in Lebanon, Sudan, and also in Kuwait, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria and many other countries, Arab governments have often resisted change under the claim that the challenge of occupation and foreign intervention in the region necessitates the state to have a strong control over society and people’s association.

Currently, the Arab region faces the challenge of terrorism, not only as a target of several terrorist attacks in many countries, but also because it holds the blame of being the main origin of terrorist groups in the world today. These issues represent main challenges for all civil society groups and individuals in the Arab region; as they represented a determinant of their past will as well represent a determinant of their future.

Given the new approach of interlinking development, human rights, and peace and security together as indivisible challenges, civil society in the Arab region was positively looking towards a real global partnership for addressing these issues collectively and fairly. Yet, several questionable areas in the latest report of the Secretary General in regards to these issues could represent a hinder for any prospects in this area.

First of all, the report represents a bias in addressing the threats facing the world today through stressing the impact of threats on specific regions in spite of its global nature. In paragraph 80 of the report, it is stated that: “In our globalized world, the threats we face are interconnected…A nuclear terrorist attack on the United States or Europe would have devastating effects on the whole world…”. This paragraph solely refers to the US and Europe with no reference or consideration to other countries or regions. This ambiguity can lead to a situation where threats are only treated when they are directed to the super powers and thus impact their interests regardless of their effect on other countries.

Such bias is also clear in the Middle East region; for example Israel is given the right to own weapons of mass destruction while all other countries are fought against due to claims of owning such weapons. This exists despite the fact that all the countries in the region are threatened by the overall situation. Moreover Paragraph 91 states that: “It is time to set aside debates on so-called “State terrorism”. The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law. …”. This approach leads to an inability to take action against states such as Israel, which still do not abide by these agreements.

Moreover, not having a clear understanding and definition of terrorism and the factors that breed such trends leads to a mistreatment of this threat. It is worth noting that today, terrorism’s definition is set through the understanding that the super powers are advocating for, while all other forms of terrorism are disregarded, including terrorism of the state. The latter do not fall under the adopted definition and understanding because they do not threaten the interests of the super powers. Despite the highly complicated task to define terrorism due to the diverse approaches, a definition of terrorism and terrorists remains a baseline for any efforts invested in dealing with the issue of terrorism and its effects on world security. In this regards, the UN should be the reference to elaborate a definition reflecting the interests of all member states, and not only specific interests.

Paragraph 90 of the Secretary General’s report states that: “… the moral authority of the United Nations and its strength in condemning terrorism have been hampered by the inability of Member States to agree on a comprehensive convention that includes a definition”. Moreover, the report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change clearly states in paragraph 160 that: “The search for an agreed definition usually stumbles on two issues; the first is the argument that any definition should included State’s use of armed forces against civilians…..the second objection is that people’s under foreign occupation have a right to resistance and a definition of terrorism should not override this right………”. The report explains here that: “The central point is that there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians”. Accordingly, it is important to stress the vitality and urgency of reaching a clear and well stated definition of terrorism, in which there is a clear reference to people’s right to self-determination and to organizing resistance against foreign occupation.

Within the existing and possible double standards, resulting mistrust could form a real barrier for enhanced relations between CSOs from the Arab region and various UN agencies. This would limit the possibility of a convening role for the UN between CSOs and governments in the region.

IV-2.b. Reforms and Democracy

Reforms and democratic processes are a priority on the agendas of Arab States. Several developments have been taking place in the region, among which are the participation of Kuwaiti women in voting, the organization of municipality elections in Saudi Arabia, the elaboration of a new constitution in Qatar, the modification of the electoral law in Egypt, as well as the issuing of the Arab League that convened in Tunisia on reforms and democracy. These steps ought to be supported and internally pushed by the UN structures.

Regarding issues of democracy, the UN’s report stresses the Secretary General’s efforts to make the UN activities more coherent and coordinated. This was reflected for example in linking activities of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Electoral Assistance Department. Accordingly, the Secretary General recommends that the UN should not limit its efforts to setting standards and criteria, but it should move towards supporting its member countries in enhancing internal democratic processes. Here lies an unanswered question on the role of the UN in protecting citizens against states that refuse to respect citizens’ rights. It highlights the debates on reforms and democratization in the Arab region and the conflicts between external dynamics and pressures on one hand and internal processes on the other.

Moreover, the ambiguity regarding mechanisms for implementing international laws at the national levels and achieving a real, but not a contested role for the UN in national processes of democratic change could weaken the role of CSOs in such process. CSOs, whose role is referenced in the international conventions of human rights, will lack a supportive role from the UN, especially in countries where they still struggle for an adequate operating environment and association law.

IV-2.c. Development as a Priority

When it comes to sustainable development, Arab states often lack a concrete agenda defining clearly set priorities. Accordingly, development issues have not been a priority on the agenda of Arab governments, in comparison to other national issues such as sovereignty, independence, occupation, and instability. CSOs struggle to put development issues on the official agenda. This reality has a significant impact on the ability to find common grounds between agendas of states and that of civil society. Accordingly, partnerships on development issues are hard to develop.

Furthermore, development policies have often been overshadowed by the complex political dynamics that the region faces. Arab countries have been long involved with national liberation agendas and regional anti neo-colonial policies, while marginalizing the need for national development agendas based on local needs, specifics, and priorities. Arab leaders and decision-makers did not consider that strengthening democratic processes and sustainable development policies at a local level would enhance and support the sovereignty of the Arab States at the regional and international levels. The Arab region does contain huge resources that are supposed to be the wheel for development, however regional and national conflicts have made these resources useless. In this context, and with the continuing of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict and the occupation of Iraq, most Arab states have reached a stagnant and deteriorated situation where civil society is controlled and weak, human development indicators are low, and trends are negative.

Moreover, while concentrating on issues of reforms and regional threats, Arab States have had limited capacities dedicated to issues of development. Accordingly, the weakness of the public sector’s role often led to a lack of solid foundations for partnership. In spite of this, States also tend to set a limit on the role of CSOs, which struggle for development at the local and national levels. In many countries, CSOs do not enjoy the simple right to exist, where the freedom of association is a lacking concept. They are not yet recognized as legitimate partners for social change and progress towards sustainable development and they often face pressures and obstacles from the government. Given the limitations on freedom of association and the lack of democratic practices, CSOs find themselves fighting for their right to exist and for the defense of basic human rights, instead of participating in achieving progress at the development front.

Regarding the processes of the MDGs, most reports have stressed that a successful campaign requires strong and consolidated partnerships, coherence of efforts and sharing of information. Yet, in the Arab countries, it is clear that the relationship and coordination described above has not been developed. For example, in several Arab countries, the government has been leading the processes of preparing MDGs reports’ (MDGRs) in close coordination with the UN agencies, mainly the UNDP. In others, the government’s role was relatively limited and the UN was leading the process. The exclusion of both CSOs as well as the business sector from the preparations of the MDGRs in most Arab countries is a clear indicator that the relationships between the two sectors and Arab governments have not been enhanced within the campaign.

Besides the failure of governments and UN agencies to enhance the processes of partnership with civil society on the MDGs, it is worth realizing that CSOs should consider whether they have been able to successfully shift from the raising awareness phase to the phase of implementing practical steps that could lead to real change in people’s living conditions. Real partnership would necessitate that CSOs be partners at all levels, including policy formulation and evaluation. Arab CSOs ought to realize that the MDGs can serve as an effective