Q&A: Where is the UN heading? USG Hochschild explains need for 'course correction'

NEW YORK — United Nations Undersecretary-General Fabrizio Hochschild launched the yearlong process of envisioning a U.N. fit for the next generation in early 2020. At the time, climate change, inequality, and new technologies were among the issues driving the hundreds of conversations that his office planned for around the world. Then the coronavirus pandemic hit, quickly prompting the UN75 initiative to reorient its practical operations, as well as its broader purpose. The urgency in rethinking international cooperation has never been greater, Hochschild told Devex in a recent interview. “If we go down in history, there’s a very big danger that we’re going to go down as the ‘me’ generation — the ‘me first, now first’ generation. The founders of the U.N. were thinking about the welfare of future generations; it's written into the charter. What’s happened is, 75 years on, it's very hard to see that care for the welfare of future generations,” Hochschild said. “We had envisaged ... in-person conversations in classrooms, in parliaments, in boardrooms and refugee camps, and we've had to switch to digital.” --— Fabrizio Hochschild, undersecretary-general, United Nations Earlier this month, member states approved a declaration pledging to update the U.N. and will adopt the agreement formally in September. The UN75 process has so far produced about 800 virtual and in-person dialogues in 80 countries, plus 300,000 responses to the U.N.’s one-minute online survey, which was recently updated with questions related to COVID-19. “The real work will begin to take those voices and use them as a means of bringing about change to make sure that the U.N. better lives up to the expectations of ‘we the peoples.’ They'll be very rich material for a reinvigoration of international cooperation. But that reinvigoration is going to take a huge amount of political will,” Hochschild said. Hochschild spoke with Devex about how COVID-19 has reoriented the UN75 process and the new urgency needed to foster better international cooperation. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You started this process of rethinking the U.N.’s future before the pandemic hit. How has COVID-19 altered your practical approach to this work? The whole objective of this exercise was to start a global conversation around what sort of future we want, what future we might be on track to get, if current megatrends are not better addressed, and also how the U.N. in particular could better address the gap between the world we aspire to and the world we may get. We have a growing set of challenges, like climate change and growing inequality, that can only be resolved through international cooperation. And on the other hand, there’s a retreat from the methodology of international cooperation to provide a means of dealing with global challenges. Now with COVID, that contradiction has only become more real and painful. We had envisaged that at the heart of our initiative would be in-person conversations in classrooms, in parliaments, in boardrooms and refugee camps, and we've had to switch to digital. And we've had to create means for people who are not digitally connected that could be brought to them without endangering them through in-person consultations. And in broader terms, how has the pandemic reoriented what it means to imagine a U.N. fit for the future? COVID, in a very tragic and a very painful way, makes what multilateralism means much more real. It's not an academic exercise; it's about countries working together to bring solutions to global problems. “Many feel this is a moment for the world to pause, to say: ‘Where are we heading? Is this really where we want to head? And if not, what is the course correction?’” --— Fabrizio Hochschild, undersecretary-general, United Nations COVID has illustrated that lives are saved where countries cooperate well together in combating the pandemic. And where they don’t, where there’s disunity, there are lives lost. COVID has brought home just how critical international cooperation is, and it’s given new urgency to our initiative. It’s also brought the question of how the world will emerge from it. It's sort of thrust us toward a fork in the road, where we will either come out of this more divided, with greater cracks and more isolationism, or — like after other crises, like the Second World War — this terrible tragedy will help us come to our senses and we will come out with with a reinvigorated, modernized approach of dealing with global challenges. And the jury's still out. It's very unclear. Have you received the amount of public response to your campaign that you were hoping for? The number of responses actually took off during the pandemic. I think COVID reminded people of the impact this reality is having on their welfare and the relevance of international cooperation. Over the past 75 years, we've had an unprecedented period of global peace and a reduction of poverty. But I think we've reached a certain pivotal moment where it's very uncertain what the future holds. I think many feel this is a moment for the world to pause, to say: “Where are we heading? Is this really where we want to head? And if not, what is the course correction?” National governments are tremendously important, but the need for a complementary international action is something I think people are acutely aware of, and the dysfunctionality of it — I think people are very worried about it. And what are you hearing from these consultations, regarding ideas on how to correct this dysfunctional global response, and what needs to change? The U.N., as we know it today, broadly reflects the power structures of 75 years ago. The levers of power are in a very different set of hands — much more varied set of hands. And I think people want to see a U.N. that reflects less the structures of a few decades ago and more the structures of today. People just get that the world is now interconnected, whether we like it or not. And that needs to be better managed. So I think there's a huge demand for that. But having said that, people want to see a more effective U.N. They want to see a more inclusive U.N. They will see a U.N. that brings in much better the voices of young people, civil society, and the business community. When we last spoke at the beginning of the year, we discussed some of these same ideas, but I now sense a much greater sense of urgency in quickly pursuing these conversations and actions for change. Is that right? The COVID response has been something of a rude wake-up call. The secretary-general has pointed out the lack of unity that has defined the response. And there's no question that responses should be adapted to national or local conditions. It’s also very hard to ignore that unless we do better at combating this everywhere, everyone remains vulnerable. And so I think this sort of urgency has become very apparent.