Novosady and Werkerz's recent paper does confirm many perception of international affairs watchers. "Who Runs the International System? Power and the Sta ffing of the United Nations Secretariat" looks at senior positions (80 out of 43,000 staff) in the United Nations (using the word Secretariat can be a bit misleading as heads of UN agencies also hold senior positions and are counted) and studies how representation (and the respective influence, if we accept the premise) has evolved over the years. Below is the abstract:
"National governments frequently pull strings to get their citizens appointed to senior positions in international institutions. We examine, over a 60 year period, the nationalities of the most senior positions in the United Nations Secretariat, ostensibly the world's most representative international institution. The results indicate which nations are successful in this zero-sum game, and what national characteristics correlate with power in international institutions. The most overrepresented countries are small, rich democracies like the Nordic countries. Statistically, democracy, investment in diplomacy, and economic/military power are predictors of senior positions - even after controlling for the U.N. staffing mandate of competence and integrity. National control over the United Nations is remarkably sticky; however the influence of the United States has diminished as U.S. ideology has shifted away from its early allies. In spite of the decline in U.S. influence, the Secretariat remains pro-American relative to the world at large."
The fact that Western countries (and Nordic ones specifically) are overrepresented (45% of positions) is an easy observation to make. The decline of United States of America presence does also match with perception of anti-UN rhetoric, I actually expected it to be under-represented however it is not the case (proof that words and actions do not always go together). US decline has been compensated by increase of Western presence and not necessarily by an increase of diversity; in light of that, the authors explore influence through like-minded countries or alliances, showing continued US influence until the 80s. However, increased divergence between the US and its allies on global issues in recent times have taken its toll; and from 1981 to 2007, "Secretariat affinity with the U.S. remains largely negative, with a slight upturn during the Clinton administration and a monotonic fall during the subsequent Bush years".
Nevertheless, the Secretariat remains with a pro-US bias. Here the authors make an interesting comparison with UNESCO, with which the US have had a conflictive relationship and showing the divergence with the Secretariat on bias.
Overall, they find that democracies, countries that invest in bilateral diplomacy (lets not forget that senior positions are also approved by the General Assembly), and economically/militarily powerful countries are the most effective at placing staff in the Secretariat (assuming this countries also believe there is a value in being represented, that is not a universal feeling). The study does not look at voluntary contributions (specially to Agencies), how they may correlate with presence/influence and how strategic some of this contributions may be by countries (some countries may value certain posts over others, so they may be under-represented in the average but over-represented in certain sectors/agencies).
For those celebrating the election of Spain as a Security Council member for the next couple of years, in terms of share of senior staff posts Spain is ranked 53 (right below Panama and Niger and equal to Guatemala) and once they do a weighted ranking it fall all the way to 81. Maybe the Spanish government believes that more influence can be yielded through a non-permanent seat in the SC that through senior staffing and has allocated the resources accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment