PROJECT REPORT OF IIND SEMESTER, JANUARY 2019

POLITICAL SCIENCE- I

ROLE OF SPECIALISED AGENCIES OF UNO IN

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Submitted By:

1 Year, 2 Semester, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

ST ND

Submitted to:
PROF. S.P SINGH
H.O.D of POLITICAL SCIENCE- I

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am very thankful to everyone who has supported me, for I have completed my project
effectively and moreover on time. I am equally grateful to PROF. S.P. Singh. He gave me
moral support and guided me in different matters regarding this topic. He has been very kind
and patient while suggesting me the outlines of this project and correcting my doubts I thank
him for his overall support.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank everyone who helped me in gathering different
information, collecting data and guiding me. I also thank my friends who were there with
their suggestions and comments for my project.

2
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Method of Research

The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made
extensive use of the library at the Chanakya National Law University and also the internet
sources.

Objective

To explain about various roles of specialised agencies of United Nations Organisation like
International Labour Organisation (ILO), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) etc.

Hypothesis:

Specialized agencies of the United Nations are carrying out operations to promote
multilateral cooperation from professional and technical viewpoints in an extremely broad
range of areas, such as Labour, education, science, culture, agriculture and public health.
While discussions at specialized agencies, by their nature, should be purely professional and
technical, international politics continued to filter into them till date.

Sources of Data

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

1. Books
2. Websites

Method of Writing

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation:

The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this research
paper.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.…………………………………………………………….2

INTRODUCTION.………………………………………………………………...…..5

CHAPTERISATION

1. UNITED NATIONS: AN INTRODUCTION………………………………………..…..

2. SPECIALISED AGENCIES OF UN………………………………..……..

3. ROLE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES………………………….………….

3.1. India…………………………………………………..

3.2. Bangladesh

3.3. South Africa

3.4. Mexico

3.5. Qatar

3.6. Pakistan

3.7. Jamaica

4. CHALLENGES…………………………..…………………….

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….………

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………….…………………………………………………….

4
 INTRODUCTION

The United Nations has many specialised agencies which work usually away from the public eye.
While the United has become part of the news via its political involvement in such issues as the East,
Korea and the Congo, the work of its agencies goes on year in and year out addressing such problems
as humanitarian aid, world health and the international improvement in working conditions.

The four main agencies are the World Health Organisation (WHO), the International Labour
Organisation (ILO), UNESCO and the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA). The ILO and
UNESCO were established in 1944; the WHO was established in 1946 and the IAEA was established
in 1957. In total there are 40 agencies/organisations that are part of the United Nations and each has a
specialist role to play in advancing the standards of living for the world’s population as a whole.
Twenty non-United Nations agencies also work for the organisation. All these organisations cover
what are considered to be the main targets to improve society as a whole.

The ILO has the task of ensuring that all people are entitled to equal opportunities and of economic
security; UNESCO has the task of ensuring that education and the sharing of knowledge will lead to a
universal respect amongst all people; the WHO strives to eradicate all diseases and the ensure that all
people enjoy the highest attainable standards of health; the IAEA seeks to ensure that the development
of atomic power will lead to a peaceful and prosperous world.

While some of the above goals may be fine on paper and possibly unreachable in reality, some of
these agencies have done a great deal to improve society. In 1967, the WHO started a world-wide
campaign to eradicate smallpox by the use of mass vaccinations. It gave itself until 1977 to achieve
this goal. Smallpox had been a disease that had blighted all societies. The success of the vaccination
programme was astonishing. In 1967, in the year the campaign was announced, over 130,000 cases of
smallpox were reported in 43 countries. By 1984, not one case was reported anywhere in the world.
The smallpox virus was declared extinct.

By 1980, the ILO had produced a wide ranging programme of Labour reforms and working practices.
151 nations agreed to implement this reforms that ranged from maximum hours that could be worked
to trade union rights. The one major problem that ILO experienced was when America withdrew
from it in 1977 as a result of their complaint that the ILO did nothing to address human rights abuses
in the old Soviet Bloc.

UNESCO faced more serious problems. Between 1945 and 1970, UNESCO was dominated by
western nations. However, with greater independence in both Asia and Africa, more nations joined
both the UN and UNESCO. By 1980, the western powers that had previously found themselves in a

5
majority found themselves in a minority. These powers felt that their financial contribution should be
taken into account when decisions were made by UNESCO. This was not upheld and in 1985 both
America and Britain left the organisation believing that it was under the influence of too many
extreme and unstable nations.

Regardless of these problems, the many agencies of the UN have done valuable work throughout the
world. Their failures tend to be well documented while their many successes are taken for granted and
do not receive the appropriate applause.[1]

6
 CHAPTER- 1

UNITED NATIONS: AN INTRODUCTION

1. Overview

(1) Specialized agencies of the United Nations are carrying out operations to promote multilateral
cooperation from professional and technical viewpoints in an extremely broad range of areas, such as
Labour, education, science, culture, agriculture and public health.

(2) While discussions at specialized agencies, by their nature, should be purely professional and
technical, international politics continued to filter into them also in 1986.

(3) Japan, serving on governing bodies of all specialized agencies other than the World Health
Organization (WHO), made active contributions to operations of each agency and provided large
sums of voluntary contributions in addition to assessed contributions.

2. Activities of United Nations Specialized Agencies

(1) International Labour Organisation (ILO)

(a) Between January 1986 and March 1987, the ILO held the 72nd session of the International
LABOUR Conference and the 232nd through 235th sessions of the Governing Body.

The 72nd Conference adopted a Convention (No. 162) and a Recommendation (No. 172) on safety in
the use of asbestos.

(b) Japan contributed about $13.00 million to the ILO (10.23 per cent of the total contributions) in
fiscal 1986, and also made voluntary contributions of about \16.00 million for "a seminar concerning
the diversification of training and employment for women" and "a survey concerning technical
cooperation by the ILO" as technical cooperation under a multi-bi formula.

(2) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

(a) As a result of the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 1984, the 1986-1987 budgets for
UNESCO was reduced by 25 per cent, or the equivalent of U.S. contributions to the budget.

7
Following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom and Singapore at the end of 1985, the Executive
Board at the 124th session in May decided to freeze another 4.9 per cent of the budget, or the
equivalent of contributions from these countries. At the 125th session of the Executive Board held
from September to October, the Secretariat reported that the withdrawal of the three countries had
necessitated the reduction of 655 Secretariat posts and the relocation of 270 staff employees but that
everything was settled except for several employees. Japan strongly urged for the equitable treatment
in the process of staff reduction and relocation regardless of the nationality of staff.

(b) The Special Committee, which was given a mandate for monitoring and promoting reforms at
UNESCO, reported that recommendations for reforms were being carried out in accordance with the
implementation schedules. Japan underlined the necessity of seeking further reforms.

(c) Since the current term of office for Director-General Amadou Mahtar M'Bow ends in November
1987 (He was first appointed in 1974 and re-elected in 1980.), the election of a new Director-General,
including a possible third term for him, called attention. M'Bow announced he would not seek a third
term at a closed meeting of the 125th session of the Executive Board. Procedures for the election are
now under way, with several candidates already running for the post.

(d) In addition to assessed contributions of $19.54 million (10.71% of the total assessed
contributions) in fiscal 1986, Japan contributed about $890,000, including $300,000 for the
Intergovernmental Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC), $100,000 for a regional
cooperation project for basic science in Southeast Asia, $30,000 for a joint maritime survey project in
the Western Pacific, about $160,000 for five project trust funds in the field of education, $20,000 for
the Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB) in Southeast Asia and $110,000 for the Nubia-Cairo
Museum project and a project to save the ruins of Mohenjo-Daro.

(3) Commission on Human Settlements

The ninth session of the Commission on Human Settlements held in May at Istanbul, Turkey,
discussed a report on the activities of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), and
adopted resolutions on such matters as promotion of activities for the International Year of Shelter for
the Homeless 1987, promotion of community participation in human settlements work, the
importance of small-scale production of building materials, and the holding of the next session in
Nairobi.

Upon recommendations by the Commission, the 41st session of the United Nations General Assembly
also adopted a resolution concerning the 10th session of the Commission commemorating its 10th
anniversary and another resolution on the promotion of activities for the International Year of Shelter
for the Homeless.

8
As in the previous year, Japan contributed $500,000 to the United Nations Habitat and Human
Settlements Foundation (UNHHSF).

(4) World Health Organization (WHO)

(a) At the 39th session of the World Health Assembly in May 1986, discussions were held on AIDS
(acquired immune deficiency syndrome), WHO's measures on smoking and the issue of increasing the
number of members from the Western Pacific Region, to which Japan belongs, entitled to designate a
person to serve on the Executive Board.

(b) In April 1986, Conference on Leadership in Nursing for Health for All was held in Japan under
the auspices of the WHO, in cooperation with the Foreign Ministry and other organizations. Dr.
Halfthan Mahler, Director-General of the WHO visited Japan as a guest of the Foreign Ministry.

(c) Japan provided the WHO with $24.93 million in assessment and made voluntary contributions of
$2.70 million in 1986. Japan also paid about $631,000 in contributions to the International Agency for
Research on Cancer, an associated agency of the WHO.

(5) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

(a) ICAO held the 26th session of the Assembly in Montreal in September-October 1986 to decide on
its annual budget for each of the fiscal years 1987, 1988 and 1989 and to examine its work
programme for the years, matters on aviation security etc. In the election of contracting States to be
represented on the Council, Japan maintained its membership on the Council by being elected in the
first place along with Brazil under the first category for the States of chief importance in air transport.

(b) As part of its active efforts to prevent terrorist action against civil aviation, the ICAO Council in
June 1986 worked out a model clause on aviation security for insertion into bilateral agreements on
air services. Also, in the light of the recurrent terrorist acts at airports in recent years the Assembly
decided in particular to prepare a draft instrument for the suppression of unlawful acts of violence at
airports serving international civil aviation.

(c) Japan contributed $2,717,000 (9.02 per cent of the total contributions) to ICAO in 1986.

(6) Universal Postal Union (UPU)

(a) The UPU Executive Council met in April-May 1986 and discussed its budget, personnel changes,
postal services and technical cooperation. The Consultative Council for Postal Studies at its session
held in October studied such matters as computerization and international business mails.

9
(b) In 1986, Japan paid 1.15 million Swiss francs in assessment (5.1% of the total contributions).

(7) International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

(a) The ITU Administrative Council held its session in June 1986 and considered its budget and
technical cooperation.

(b) The second session of the World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) for the Planning of
the HF Bands allocated to the Broadcasting service in February-March 1987 discussed the use of
frequency bands allocated to short-wave broadcasting.

(c) In 1986, Japan paid 6.95 million Swiss francs in assessment (6.5 per cent of the total
contributions).

(8) World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

(a) The 38th session of the WMO Executive Council took place in June 1986 and discussed the
World Weather Watch Programme, World Climate Programme, Research and Development
Programme, Applications of Meteorology Programme, Technical Cooperation Activities, the 1987
budget and the budget for the 10th financial period (1988-1991).

(b) The Commission for Atmospheric Sciences held its ninth session in October 1986. Japan
remained as an activity centre for short- and medium-range weather forecasting and newly took up a
role as an activity centre for very short-range forecasting.

(c) In 1986, Japan made contributions of $852,000 (5.41% of the total contributions).

(9) International Maritime Organization (IMO)

(a) The 57th session of the IMO Council was held in November 1986 and decided to set up an ad hoc
committee to consider a proposal for a "Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the
Safety of Navigation (tentatively named). "

(b) The Maritime Safety Committee continued its study on the introduction of the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).

(c) In 1986, Japan contributed $1,154,000 (9.69 per cent of total contributions).

(10) World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

(a) A ceremony to mark the centennial of the Berne Treaty was held in September 1986 while the
Coordination Committee was in session.

10
(b) WIPO held expert committee meetings on protection from counterfeit products (May),
harmonization of patent laws (May), international protection of integrated circuits (June) and
international registration of trademarks (November).

(c) A consultative committee meeting was held for the revision of the Paris Convention.

(d) In 1986, Japan contributed 1,146,523 Swiss francs, including operational costs.

(11) World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)

WCED, an independent commission on environmental problems established at the proposal of Japan

and headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, held its eighth and final meeting
in Tokyo from February 23 to 27, 1987, and adopted a final report and the Tokyo Declaration. The
final report was submitted to the United Nations General Assembly after discussions at the Governing
Council of the United Nations Environment Program.

With contributions of $250,000 for the holding of the Tokyo session in 1986, Japan's total
contribution to WCED came to $1.75 million. This represents the largest share, or about 30% of the
total contribution. [2]

11
 CHAPTER- 2

SPECIALISED AGENCIES OF UN

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), established in 1945, is a UN specialized agency that
provides global data and expertise on agriculture and nutrition, fisheries, forestry, and other food and
agriculture– related issues. FAO is the UN system’s largest autonomous agency, with headquarters in
Rome, 78 country offices and 15 regional, sub–regional, and liaison offices, including one located in
Washington, D.C. FAO’s highest policy–making body, the biennial General Conference, comprises
all 183 FAO member countries plus the European Commission. The General Conference determines
FAO policy and approves FAO’s regular program of work and budget. The 31st Conference, meeting
in November 1999, re–elected Director–General Jacques Diouf (Senegal) to a second six–year term
through December 2005. Each biennial Conference elects a 49–member Council that meets semi–
annually to make recommendations to the General Conference on budget and policy issues. The North
America region, which comprises the United States and Canada, is allocated two seats on the Council
and one seat each on FAO’s Program, Finance, and Constitutional and Legal Matters (CCLM)
Committees. The United States holds the North American seats on the Finance and Joint Staff Pension
Committees through December 2003. Canada holds the North American seat on the CCLM and
Program Committees through December 2003. The United States participated at the World Food
Summit: Five Years Later meeting held at FAO headquarters June 10–13, 2002, to discuss progress
towards attaining the 1996 World Food Summit target of reducing the world’s number of hungry and
malnourished by half by 2015. The United States presented new initiatives to improve agriculture

12
productivity as a significant contribution toward meeting that goal. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann
Veneman, leading the U.S. delegation, joined other ministers and heads of state and government in
adopting a Declaration, “The International Alliance Against Hunger,” which reiterated the goals of the
1996 World Food Summit and stated, inter alia, “we are committed to study, share, and facilitate the
responsible use of biotechnology in addressing development needs.” The United States entered a
reservation to paragraph 10 of the Declaration concerning the “Right to Food.” (See also Part 2,
World Food Summit: Five Years Later.) In 2002, the United States and other major contributors
continued to promote reforms at FAO. Their efforts ensured that a major reform issue, term limits,
was placed on the 123rd Council agenda, initiating a process that is expected to lead to a revision to
the FAO Basic Texts and the reinstatement of term limits for the Director–General position. On the
Finance Committee, the United States actively encouraged accountable, results–based management
(including sunsetting provisions) and efficient governance. In joint sessions of the Finance Committee
with the Program Committee, the United States recalled problems encountered in implementation of
FAO’s Special Program for Food Security (SPFS), and urged FAO to follow up on the
recommendations of the 2002 evaluation of SPFS in order to ensure that SPFS projects were
sustainable and well designed. The evaluation was undertaken both in response to the request of the
Governing Bodies and to meet internal management needs. A team of nine senior external consultants
undertook the evaluation. The evaluation recommended that FAO prioritize countries eligible for
SPFS activities; that SPFS give greater priority to household food security; that the project design be
improved in order to increase the impact and sustainability of SPFS–related activities; that, at the
outset of every SPFS project, FAO explicitly design an exit strategy in terms of handing over
responsibility to the recipient government; and that SPFS develop three complementary strategies,
namely (a) increasing the effort devoted to food security mapping in order to facilitate the
identification of food insecure areas, (b) introducing systematic, simple, and efficient monitoring
systems to improve management, and (c) introducing South–South Cooperation programs. The United
States worked successfully with FAO management and with other members to put in place
management reforms, such as ensuring the independence of the internal oversight function and
reducing the U.S. assessment to 22 PER CENT consistent with Helms–Biden benchmarks. These
reforms made possible the payment of $100 million in U.S. arrears to FAO in 2002. Improving
governance and streamlining the organization continued to be a top priority for the United States.
FAO’s Strategic Framework 2000– 2015, the first ever approved for the organization, supported these
efforts by calling for more efficient use of scarce resources, providing criteria for priority setting, and
specifying FAO’s areas of comparative advantage. The United States continued to encourage the
organization to hire more Americans in order to meet the desirable range of 16–22 PER CENT for
study, share, and facilitate the responsible use of biotechnology in addressing development needs.”

13
The United States entered a reservation to paragraph 10 of the Declaration concerning the “Right to
Food.” (See also Part 2, World Food Summit: Five Years Later.) In 2002, the United States and other
major contributors continued to promote reforms at FAO. Their efforts ensured that a major reform
issue, term limits, was placed on the 123rd Council agenda, initiating a process that is expected to
lead to a revision to the FAO Basic Texts and the reinstatement of term limits for the Director–
General position. On the Finance Committee, the United States actively encouraged accountable,
results–based management (including sunsetting provisions) and efficient governance. In joint
sessions of the Finance Committee with the Program Committee, the United States recalled problems
encountered in implementation of FAO’s Special Program for Food Security (SPFS), and urged FAO
to follow up on the recommendations of the 2002 evaluation of SPFS in order to ensure that SPFS
projects were sustainable and well designed. The evaluation was undertaken both in response to the
request of the Governing Bodies and to meet internal management needs. A team of nine senior
external consultants undertook the evaluation. The evaluation recommended that FAO prioritize
countries eligible for SPFS activities; that SPFS give greater priority to household food security; that
the project design be improved in order to increase the impact and sustainability of SPFS–related
activities; that, at the outset of every SPFS project, FAO explicitly design an exit strategy in terms of
handing over responsibility to the recipient government; and that SPFS develop three complementary
strategies, namely (a) increasing the effort devoted to food security mapping in order to facilitate the
identification of food insecure areas (b) introducing systematic, simple, and efficient monitoring
systems to improve management, and (c) introducing South–South Cooperation programs. The United
States worked successfully with FAO management and with other members to put in place
management reforms, such as ensuring the independence of the internal oversight function and
reducing the U.S. assessment to 22 PER CENT consistent with Helms–Biden benchmarks. These
reforms made possible the payment of $100 million in U.S. arrears to FAO in 2002. Improving
governance and streamlining the organization continued to be a top priority for the United States.
FAO’s Strategic Framework 2000– 2015, the first ever approved for the organization, supported these
efforts by calling for more efficient use of scarce resources, providing criteria for priority setting, and
specifying FAO’s areas of comparative advantage. The United States continued to encourage the
organization to hire more Americans in order to meet the desirable range of 16–22 PER CENT for
production. The United States provided $9.7 million in voluntary contributions to FAO in 2002,
primarily for emergency activities in Africa and Afghanistan.

14
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), established in 1957, serves U.S. national security,
counter–terrorism, and nuclear non–proliferation interests. The international safeguards system
implemented by the IAEA is intended to provide assurances that nuclear materials used in peaceful
nuclear programs are not diverted to military or clandestine activities by states or sub–national groups.
The IAEA’s work in physical protection helps ensure that nuclear material is protected in a manner
consistent with internationally recognized guidelines and standards. Similarly, its work in nuclear
safety provides assurance that nuclear activities are being conducted consistent with radiation
protection requirements. In 2002, there were 134 member states in the IAEA, which is headquartered
in Vienna, Austria. The 35–member Board of Governors (on which the United States has a de facto
permanent seat) is responsible for directing and overseeing the Agency’s policies and program
implementation. The Board meets quarterly in March, June, September, and November. The General
Conference, attended by all members and held in September, carries out broad oversight of the
IAEA’s work by approving the recommendations and decisions of the Board. The fourth Director–
General of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei (Egypt) assumed office on December 1, 1997, and was
elected to a second four–year term in September 2001. In March, the Board of Governors approved
the Nuclear Safety Action Plan, designed to combat nuclear terrorism in the wake of September 11,
2001. The plan seeks to coordinate activities in eight areas that include physical protection, state
systems of accounting and control, control of radioactive sources, and detection of illicit trafficking of
materials. In 2002, IAEA member states voluntarily contributed over $12 million to the Nuclear
Safety Action Plan, including $8.7 million from the United States. As a depository state and party to
the Nuclear Non–Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1970, the United States has provided long–standing
diplomatic, financial, and technical support to IAEA’s safeguards mission. Under the NPT, non–
nuclear weapon state (NNWS) parties are required to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements
with the IAEA. In addition, the IAEA applies safeguards to certain nuclear facilities in non–NPT
states and in all five declared nuclear weapons states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France,
and China) pursuant to their voluntary agreements with the IAEA. As of 2002, IAEA safeguards

15
agreements with 143 states and Taiwan was in force. However, safeguards agreements with 48
NNWS parties to the NPT either had not yet been concluded or brought into force (down from 52 at
the end of 2001). Inspections continued at U.S. plutonium and high enriched uranium storage
facilities, following a 1993 U.S. decision to offer IAEA safeguards at facilities storing nuclear
material declared excess to defence needs. Since the early 1990s, the IAEA has worked on
strengthening the safeguards system. A key tool for doing so is the Model Additional Protocol,
approved by the Board of Governors in 1997, which requires states to provide a broader range of
information and gives more access rights to Agency inspectors. Despite an increase in the number of
states for which additional protocols were concluded (61 to 67) and the number of protocols in force
(24 to 28) in 2002, progress remained slow. The United States signed an additional protocol in 1998,
but has not yet ratified it due to routine procedural matters that take time to work through. Promoting
universal adoption of the Model Additional Protocol is an important aspect of the Bush
Administration’s nuclear non–proliferation policy. In 2002, the IAEA remained unable to verify the
absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in two states of proliferation concern, Iraq and
North Korea (DPRK). After a four–year absence in Iraq, the IAEA resumed inspection activities on
November 27, as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The IAEA worked in
partnership with the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to set up
a new inspection regime with enhanced authorities. However, Iraq refused to comply with the
resolution’s demand for immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation in verifying its
disarmament. In 2002, the United States led an initiative to streamline procedures for the export of
goods into Iraq under the UN Oil–for–Food Program. This new export control system was
implemented under UN Security Council Resolution 1409, adopted in May. It expedited authorization
for the export and subsequent flow of all goods, except those prohibited under the arms embargo or
contained on a list of dual–use (civilian and military) items. UNMOVIC and IAEA technical experts
were responsible for identifying items to include on the Goods Review List, which would then be
subject to Security Council review. In December, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1454,
which made procedural changes to the process and clarified UNMOVIC and IAEA responsibilities in
making their evaluations. The IAEA continued inspections to monitor the freeze of the DPRK’s
plutonium production facilities under the terms of the Agreed Framework. Because the DPRK
continued its refusal to permit full safeguards inspections, the IAEA remained unable to verify the
correctness and completeness of the DPRK’s 1992 nuclear material declaration, or to provide any
assurance that nuclear material had not been diverted to a weapons program. In response to DPRK’s
admittance in October 2002 of an active nuclear program, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a
resolution on November 29 calling on the DPRK to comply with its safeguards obligations and to
resolve questions about enrichment activities. In December, the DPRK removed IAEA seals on its

16
frozen plutonium–production facilities and expelled IAEA inspectors. In 2002, IAEA inspections of
declared Iranian nuclear–related facilities continued, on the basis of Iran’s full–scope safeguards
agreement with the IAEA. Iran continued in 2002 to decline to sign an additional protocol. Iran’s
declared facilities included the Bushehr–1 light water reactor under construction in Bushehr, the zero–
power research reactor at the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre, a uranium conversion plant under
construction at Esfahan, and other facilities at the Esfahan Nuclear Technology Centre. Iran also
received significant nuclear assistance from the IAEA under the auspices of the IAEA’s Technical
Cooperation (TC) Fund. In August 2002, an Iranian opposition group affiliated with the terrorist
group MEK revealed to the press the existence of two clandestine Iranian nuclear–related facilities
under construction: a gas centrifuge enrichment facility in Nantanz, and a heavy water production
plant at Arak. As a result, IAEA Director–General ElBaradei requested to visit those facilities. Iran
did not give ElBaradei permission to visit in 2002. The IAEA continued to provide guidance,
technical support, and training programs in the areas of physical protection of material and prevention
of nuclear terrorism in 2002. These activities included the presentation of the 17th International
Training Course on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Facilities, as well as a regional
training course in China and national training courses in Egypt and Brazil. The United States is a
primary supporter in this area, having developed the training curricula and presented the courses on
behalf of the Agency. Since this training began in the 1970s, over 800 physical protection
professionals from around the world had participated by the end of 2002.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

Established in 1944 and a UN specialized agency since 1947, ICAO has fostered the safe and orderly
growth of international civil aviation. It sets international standards and recommended practices for
civil aviation, and provides technical assistance to enhance aviation safety and security worldwide.
The U.S. public and private sectors have great interest in its work due to the U.S. leading role in civil
aviation research, safety and security innovations, and aviation manufacturing and transport. ICAO
has seven regional offices. St. Kitts and Nevis joined ICAO in 2002, bringing total membership to
188. The United States has consistently been elected to the ICAO Council, which had 33 members in

17
2002. ICAO held a high–level ministerial conference in February 2002 to enhance aviation security in
light of September 11 threats. The ministerial conference endorsed the U.S. proposals to enhance
security, including the hardening of cockpit doors, new flight crew procedures, and the establishment
of a program to audit countries’ compliance with ICAO security standards. The ICAO Council
adopted these recommendations on March 21. ICAO conducted its first security audit in November.
At the ministerial conference, several members presented a draft resolution condemning Israel’s
reported destruction of Gaza International Airport. Members deferred action on the resolution until
the next regular ICAO Council session, set in March 2002. The United States opposed the draft
resolution because it was unbalanced, politicized ICAO’s work, concerned one of several issues
subject to negotiations among the parties themselves, and was not a constructive use of the Council’s
time. Despite the Council’s strong tradition of reaching consensus on resolutions, the United States
called for a vote at the next session. The Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 24 to 2 (U.S.),
with 7 abstentions. In 2002, ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection began work on
guidelines for aircraft noise based on an ICAO resolution adopted on October 5, 2001. The United
States sought this resolution, which called for an airport–by–airport balanced approach to managing
noise. The European Union (EU) decided to repeal a discriminatory noise regulation in April, in part
due to a U.S. challenge in 2000, and to replace it with a directive that reflects the consensus of the
2001 Assembly resolution. Belgium, however, subsequently promulgated a decree that was
inconsistent with both the ICAO resolution and the new EU directive. On June 12, 2002, the United
States notified ICAO of its desire to discontinue the proceedings against all of the EU parties except
Belgium. The EU wanted the complaint dropped against all 15 EU members. Council President
Kotaite, who had facilitated negotiations with the EU, was unable to resolve the dispute by the end of
the year. ICAO in 2002 approved the expansion of the scope of its Universal Safety Oversight Audit
Program to include air traffic services, airports, and accident investigation, in line with U.S.
objectives. This program contributes to the safety of U.S. citizens traveling abroad. Audits were
conducted on personnel licensing and airworthiness of aircraft. Future audits should show if countries
provide adequate oversight for these activities. When deficiencies are found, ICAO will develop
remedial action plans. The country that was audited is responsible for fixing the deficiencies. The
Council on June 14 approved in principle the establishment of a war–risk insurance scheme to provide
insurance beyond what is available commercially. It would be funded by premiums paid by
participating airlines and backed by guarantees provided by participating countries. The program
would begin once member states representing 51 PER CENT of assessed contributions agreed to
participate as guarantors of last resort. As of the end of 2002, ICAO had not received sufficient
expressions of interest, nor had the United States decided whether to participate. Regarding liability,
in 1999 a convention to replace the 1929 Warsaw Convention on liability for airline accidents was

18
opened for signature in Montreal. The Montreal Convention represented a considerable improvement
by eliminating arbitrary limitations on airline liability in the event of death or bodily injury of a
passenger. It also expanded in most cases the basis for jurisdiction for claims by enabling lawsuits on
behalf of U.S. accident victims abroad to be brought in the United States. As of the end of 2002, 71
countries and the European Union had signed the Convention, and 25 countries had ratified it. It
enters into force 60 days after the 30th notice of ratification is received. The Montreal Convention
was transmitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent to ratification in September 2000, but the
U.S. Senate had not scheduled a hearing to ratify it in 2002. A Preparatory Commission supervising
the establishment of the international aircraft registry, as provided in the Convention on International
Interest in Mobile Equipment and its Protocol on aircraft, held its first two meetings in Montreal in
May and November. It established a working group, including the United States, to review the draft
regulations of the registry. However, it was unable to begin the process of selecting a register because
it had not received adequate voluntary contributions for the task. The Convention and Protocol had
been adopted on November 16, 2001, at a Diplomatic Conference in Cape Town, South Africa, under
the joint auspices of ICAO and UNIDROIT (a non–UN organization that promotes private
international law). They provide for an international registration system for aircraft that would reduce
the risk associated with the sale of aircraft. The system would clarify and strengthen the rights of
parties who have interest in the equipment (such as owners of the aircraft, financers of the building of
the aircraft, lien holders, etc.), and lower the cost of financing, which should allow for lower interest
rates and more sales. The United States strongly supports the Convention, but had not signed it by the
end of the year. By December 31, 2002, 24 countries had signed the Convention and Protocol, but
none had ratified the instruments. Only three ratifications are needed for the entry into force of the
Convention and eight are needed for the entry into force of the Protocol. ICAO held the 13th plenary
session of the Technical Advisory Group on Machine Readable Travel Documents in February. The
Group accepted security standards for travel documents and abolished multi–applicant and non–photo
visas from the standard, as sought by the United States. The United States played a significant role by
chairing the Document Content and Format and Education Working Group and the Education and
Promotion Working Group, and participating actively in the New Technologies Working Group. The
ICAO Council on December 4 established the International Financial Facility for Aviation Safety
(IFFAS) to provide assistance for developing countries to remedy aviation safety deficiencies
identified by ICAO safety audits. The United States was concerned that ICAO was going beyond its
traditional standards–setting role into an area in which it had little expertise, and insisted that IFFAS
be funded by voluntary, rather than assessed, contributions. The United States did not contribute to
IFFAS in 2002. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) The International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) was established in 1977 as a multilateral financial institution

19
focused on promoting rural agricultural development in poorer countries. Nearly 75 PER CENT of the
world’s 1.2 billion poorest people live in rural areas, largely as small–scale producers and subsistence
farmers. IFAD’s specific mandate is to increase their productivity and incomes, improve their
nutritional levels, and help integrate them into larger markets by designing and funding innovative
and appropriately scaled programs in such areas as rural institution building and micro–finance. IFAD
is the only multilateral development bank (MDB) that devotes all of its resources to combating rural
poverty. IFAD’s specific mandate is consistent with the U.S. Government’s efforts to reduce poverty
and improve food security worldwide. The Fund’s highest authority is the Governing Council, on
which all 162 member states (including the United States) are represented. The President, elected by
the Council, is the Fund’s chief executive officer. Lennart Bage (Sweden), the current President and
the first President from a developed country, was elected in February 2001. The United States is
IFAD’s largest shareholder, with 9.24 PER CENT of the voting power, followed by Saudi Arabia
with 5.76 PER CENT, Germany with 4.03 PER CENT and Japan with 4.01 PER CENT. Since
IFAD’s establishment, the United States has contributed a total of $587.7 million, 16.5 PER CENT of
cumulative contributions. To date, IFAD has financed 600 projects in 116 countries for total
commitments of approximately $7.7 billion. These projects usually address such needs as agriculture
and livestock development, micro–enterprise and rural finance, natural resource management, local
capacity building, and gender mainstreaming. Commitments for new projects in 2002 total $405
million for 25 loans averaging approximately $15 million each, and for 15 technical assistance grants.
Examples of recent loans designed to increase growth, improve productivity, and reduce poverty
through a variety of means include:

• IFAD loaned $16 million to the Rwandan Government to maximize and diversify the income of
poor farmers and develop export markets through sustainable production, and processing and
marketing activities for coffee, tea, and new cash and export crops.

• IFAD loaned $14 million to the Dominican Republic to support organizations of rural poor along
the Dominican–Haitian border through a comprehensive economic and social development program.

• IFAD loaned $12.7 million to Egypt to improve the welfare and reduce the poverty of 13,000 poor
households through improved and sustainable natural resource management.

• IFAD loaned $18.43 million to the Ugandan Government to fill gaps in the country’s rural micro–
finance sector and facilitate expansion of sustainable financial services to underserved rural areas.
Over two–thirds of IFAD loan commitments are on concessional terms (40–year maturity, 10–year

20
grace period, service charge of 0.75 per annum). The remainder of the loans is provided on either
intermediate terms (a blend of concessional and market–based terms, with a maturity of 20 years), or
on ordinary terms (market–based variable interest rate, and maturity of 15–18 years). IFAD leverages
its limited resources through cofinancing from borrower governments, bilateral and other multilateral
donors, and nongovernmental organizations. In fact, up to 30 PER CENT of funding for IFAD
projects has been mobilized from other financing sources. At the request of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, the Treasury Department assumed lead–agency responsibility for IFAD in
February 2000. The Treasury Department concluded negotiations on IFAD’s Sixth Replenishment
(IFAD–6) in December 2002. The target level for donor contributions to the Sixth Replenishment was
set at $560 million. With its pledge of $45 million, the United States was the largest contributor to
IFAD–6. At IFAD–6, the United States was successful in achieving the following key policy reform
objectives consistent with the Administration’s overall goal of improving MDB performance:

 Performance–Based Allocation System: IFAD will develop and implement a transparent

performance–based system for allocating resources.
 Results Measurement: IFAD will further improve its processes related to measuring and
quantifying the results and impact of its projects.
 Grants: IFAD’s grant program will be raised to 10 PER CENT of its total annual work
program beginning in 2004. This compares with a cumulative historical level of 5 PER CENT
of total assistance and recent levels of about 7 PER CENT.
 Independent Evaluation Unit: The agreement included key elements for structuring an
independent evaluation unit. Among other elements, the unit’s head will be accountable to the
Executive Board, which must approve his/her appointment or termination. All evaluation
reports will be provided directly to the Executive Board without clearance by management,
and the head cannot be re–employed by the institution after leaving the post.
 External Evaluation: For the first time, an independent and external evaluation of IFAD will
be initiated during 2004, which will examine all aspects of IFAD’s work critical to IFAD’s
success.
 Private Sector Strategy: IFAD will develop a strategy for achieving greater involvement of
the private sector in IFAD programs through co–financing and other forms of partnership
consistent with IFAD’s mission.
 MDB Coordination: The agreement broadened the scope of IFAD’s partnership–building
initiatives with bilateral and multilateral agencies.

21
International LABOUR Organization (ILO)

The International LABOUR Organization (ILO), founded in 1919 and based in Geneva, Switzerland,
is the oldest UN specialized agency and the only one in which representatives of the private sector
participate on an agreed basis. Representatives of workers’ and employers’ organizations are members
of the ILO executive board, or Governing Body, and of national delegations to its supreme legislative
body, the annual International LABOUR Conference (ILC). Juan Somavia (Chile) was elected
Director–General of the International LABOUR Secretariat in 1998. His five–year term began in
March 1999. The U.S. working relationship with the ILO in 2002 was excellent. The ILO has 175
member states. As the Government of one of ten countries of “chief industrial importance,” the United
States has a permanent seat on the ILO’s 56–member Governing Body. Representatives from the
Department of LABOUR lead the U.S. delegation. In addition, an American worker (from the AFL–
CIO) and an American employer (from the U.S. Council for International Business) each have won
election in 2002 to seats on the Governing Body; these terms expire in 2005. They speak and vote
independently of the U.S. Government. The ILO’s mandate is to advance humane conditions of
LABOUR and social stability around the world by promoting democracy and human rights,
employment and the alleviation of poverty, and protection of workers’ rights, including unions
independent of states. The ILO seeks to define common standards of decency applying to workers
among nations involved in international trade. The ILO serves U.S. business and LABOUR by
providing a forum for participation in the development of international LABOUR standards. It
contributes to the notion of fair trade by advocating for the universal application of core LABOUR
standards, as enunciated in the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
(1998) as well as the 1999 Convention on the Worst Forms of Child LABOUR No. 182. The ILO is
an important partner in the U.S. commitment to eliminate exploitative child LABOUR. In 2002, 19
additional countries ratified ILO Convention No. 182, bringing the total to 132 countries. In 2002, the
ILO devoted much effort to implement projects to abolish child LABOUR and to delivering services
to child workers and their families. The ILO International Program for the Elimination of Child
LABOUR (IPEC), funded by significant voluntary contributions from the United States and other
donors, achieved impressive results. In June 2001, IPEC launched a new initiative, the Time–Bound
Program, to help El Salvador, Nepal, and Tanzania eliminate the worst forms of child LABOUR, as
defined in Convention 182, within a determined period of time, generally 5–10 years. The Program

22
was further refined and expanded to an additional 10 countries during 2002. By joining with worker
and employer organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and other international organizations,
including the UN Children’s Fund, the ILO was able to lend its expertise to effective programs that
remove children from the workplace, place them in schools, and provide their families with
alternative, income–generating opportunities. The U.S. voluntary contribution to IPEC totaled
approximately $45 million in 2002. Government, LABOUR union, and employer delegations from the
United States actively participated in Governing Body sessions in March and November 2002 and one
day in June following the conclusion of the International LABOUR Conference, and in the 90th
session of the ILC in June 2002. Secretary of LABOUR Elaine Chao spoke to the 2002 ILC and
described the Department of LABOUR’s compliance assistance initiative to strengthen enforcement
of U.S. LABOUR laws. She recommended that the ILO consider promoting this initiative
internationally as an example of best practices. She also focused on the ILO’s efforts to eliminate the
worst forms of child LABOUR and endorsed the work of the ILO’s World Commission on the Social
Dimension of Globalization. In 2002, the United States also negotiated with other delegations to
achieve its goals and objectives in tripartite sectorial meetings focusing on Maritime LABOUR
Standards, Public Emergency Services, Health Services, the Mining Industry, and the Declaration of
Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, among others. At the March, June,
and November Governing Body sessions and the June ILC, the United States focused on three
important issues: 1) widespread violence against trade unionists in Colombia; 2) forced LABOUR in
Burma; and 3) the ILO’s role in mitigating the social effects arising out of globalization of the
economy. In the on-going effort to combat the widespread violence against trade unionists in
Colombia, and in response to a June 2001 Governing Body directive, the November 2002 Governing
Body reviewed the status of the special technical cooperation program for Colombia organized by the
Director–General in 2001. The program, centred on projects financed primarily by the U.S. and
Colombian Governments, seeks to protect threatened trade unionists; to encourage LABOUR law
reform; and to promote social dialogue among unions, employer’s organizations, and the government.
Violence against trade unionists continued unabated in 2002. The new, democratically–elected
Government of Colombia was inaugurated in August 2002. In line with U.S. objectives, the
Governing Body at the November session agreed that the new Government of Colombia needed time
to gain control of the situation, and it authorized the Director–General to provide additional assistance
to the Government’s efforts by providing emergency funding to the special technical cooperation
program. The Governing Body agreed to postpone further discussion on possible courses of action to
mitigate the violence until the March 2003 session. Forced LABOUR in Burma continued to dominate
discussions at major meetings in 2002. The June ILC concluded that, despite some progress at the
procedural level, forced LABOUR remains a reality in Burma and those responsible for it continue to
exact it with impunity. A 1998 Commission of Inquiry into forced LABOUR recommended that
Burma eliminate forced LABOUR in law and practice, and punish the perpetrators. The United States

23
supported these recommendations. By midyear, none of these recommendations had been met, nor
had the Burmese authorities responded to the concrete suggestions of an ILO high–level mission in
2001 that they establish an ILO presence in Rangoon (although an interim liaison officer was
appointed in May 2002), appoint an ombudsperson to receive complaints of forced LABOUR, and
resolve a case of seven villagers allegedly killed for complaining about forced LABOUR. In October
2002, a permanent ILO presence was established in Rangoon.

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

The United States strongly supports the work of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The
IMO’s principal objectives are to foster international cooperation on technical matters affecting
international shipping, to achieve the highest practicable standards for maritime safety, and to prevent
marine pollution. The IMO develops conventions and treaties on international shipping, facilitates
international maritime trade, and provides technical assistance in maritime matters to developing
countries. It also develops standards and practices to protect against oil spills and pollution from
hazardous and noxious cargo and ship waste, ballast, and emissions. The Republic of Moldova and
the Republic of San Marino joined IMO in 2002, bringing its total membership to 162 full members
and two associate members (Hong Kong and Macao). The IMO Council governs the IMO. The United
States has always been elected to the Council, which was expanded from 32 to 40 members in 2002.
At U.S. urging, maritime security moved to the top of IMO’s agenda following the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Intensive efforts, including two meetings funded by the
United States, culminated in a Diplomatic Conference held at IMO headquarters December 9–13,
2002, which approved amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) to enhance maritime security. The United States proposed most of the adopted amendments,
including accelerating the timetable for the installation of shipboard automatic identification systems;
requiring ships and port facilities to develop and maintain security plans, and to designate security
officers to ensure that the plans are implemented; requiring ships to carry documents on their recent
activities and on who owns and controls them; requiring ships to have a shipto-shore system to alert
authorities to security incidents; and allowing an inspection and compliance regime to allow port
states to verify that ships comply with IMO security regulations, and to take appropriate measures in
response to any deficiencies found. At the Diplomatic Conference, an international Code for the

24
Security of Ships and of Port Facilities (ISPS) was also adopted. This Code spells out the
responsibilities of governments, ports, companies, and ships to designate security officers and develop
security assessments and plans. The SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code are expected to enter
into force on July 1, 2004, in the absence of explicit objections from at least one–third of contracting
states representing at least one–half of registered world tonnage.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Established in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) serves as a forum for governments and the private sector to address the operation of
international telecommunication networks and services. There are presently 189 member states and
over 600 private–sector members in the ITU. The ITU conducts its high– level work primarily in
plenipotentiary conferences, held every four years, to which all ITU members are invited. The
technical and analytical work is done in smaller groups that meet more frequently. At the
September/October 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference in Marrakesh, Morocco, ITU member states
elected five senior officers (Secretary–General, Deputy Secretary–General, and the heads of the Radio
communication, Telecommunication Standardization, and Telecommunication Development Sectors)
to four–year terms. Yoshio Utsumi (Japan) was re–elected to a second term as Secretary–General.
Unlike most other UN agencies, the ITU is funded by a system of contributory units (CU) rather than
assessed contributions. France, Germany, Japan, and the United States, as members in the highest
category of contribution, contributed 30 CU each in 2002. At the 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference,
the delegates adopted a proposal to cap the value of each CU at 330,000 Swiss francs— or
US$211,987, $25,387 higher than the value in the previous four years of zero nominal CU growth.
Under this proposal, during the first biennial budget period of the quadrennium (2004–2005), the CU
will be computed at 315,000 Swiss francs. The CU may be computed at 330,000 Swiss francs for the
second biennial budget of the quadrennium, unless the ITU Council decides to adjust the CU value for
the second biennial budget. If the CU were to be raised for the second biennial budget, the U.S.

25
contribution for the 2004–2005 biennial budget will be US$12.141 million, and $12.719 million for
the 2006– 2007 biennium, for a total quadrennial contribution of $24.860 million (using the 2002
average exchange rate of Swiss francs 1.5567 = $1.00). This represents 8.39 PER CENT of the total
contributions to the ITU. For this reason, the United States and several other like–minded
governments opposed raising the CU beyond the zero nominal growth level, arguing that governments
and private–sector firms alike were in a tight financial situation. They called for better financial
reporting so that more informed decisions could be made on such things as cost recovery for specific
services to member states and others. The United States called for a vote on the proposal to increase
the CU to prevent its adoption and to register the U.S. objection to the increase.

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

The UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was established in 1945 with
the primary objective of contributing to international peace and security by promoting collaboration
among nations in education, science, culture, and communications. As penned by American poet
Archibald MacLeish in UNESCO’s constitution, “since wars begin in the minds of men it is in the
mind of men that peace must be constructed.” UNESCO’S key programs seek to promote the free
flow of ideas; expansion of education; understanding of democratic principles; exchange of scientific
knowledge; and promotion of cross cultural understanding. UNESCO also implements programs
designed to protect the cultural and natural heritage of humankind. In 2002, UNESCO launched the
first free newspaper in Afghanistan, The Kabul Weekly. In Afghanistan, UNESCO also trained
journalists, provided aid to the ministries of Education, Higher Education, and Information and
Culture, and formed the High Commission for Education. In the Middle East, UNESCO launched an
International Centre for Synchrotron Light for Experimental Science and Applications. The project
was designed to promote basic sciences in the region, facilitate training, and forge a new relationship
between science and society, while creating cooperation across borders and between peoples.
UNESCO is headquartered in Paris, France, and it pursues activities in most of its 188 member states
(as of December 2002) and through 57 field offices in collaboration with National Commissions. The
United States withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 citing problems with trends in UNESCO’s policies,
ideological bias, opposition to media freedom from state influence, and management. Since then the
United States has maintained an Observer presence, which in 2002 was staffed with one American

26
Foreign Service Officer and two locally engaged staff. On September 12, 2002, President Bush
announced to the UN General Assembly that the United States would re-join UNESCO as “a symbol
of our commitment to human dignity… This organization has been reformed and America will
participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.” For the U.S.
Observer Mission to UNESCO, the final quarter of 2002 was therefore dedicated to planning the U.S.
return and assessing the administrative and policy concerns for a successful return on October 1,
2003. Until President Bush’s announcement, the overall goal of U.S. participation in UNESCO’s
activities during 2002 was to work, in a manner consistent with Observer status, to protect and
promote U.S. interests. As a non–member state, the United States paid no assessed contribution in
fiscal year 2002, but provided approximately $1.25 million in extra budgetary contributions to select
UNESCO programs. These funds served to finance activities of the World Heritage Centre, the
International Oceanographic Commission, the International Hydrological Program, and selected
activities to promote conservation, science, cultural preservation, good management, and education
for HIV/AIDS prevention. U.S. representatives attended as observers the 164th and 165th sessions of
UNESCO’s Executive Board, the 35th Session of the Executive Council of the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission, the 26th session of the World Heritage Committee, and a number of
other UNESCO meetings on education, science, and culture. In addition, U.S. representatives attended
the final consultation on the elaboration of the Recommendation on Multilingualism in Cyberspace,
where acceptable language was negotiated. Discussions regarding an international instrument
designed to preserve “intangible cultural heritage” made little progress, given a lack of agreement
regarding the definition of intangible cultural heritage and the type of instrument desired for its
protection.[3]

27
 CHAPTER- 3

ROLE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

1.) INDIA:-

India was among the original members of the United Nations that signed the Declaration by United
Nations at Washington, D.C. on 1944 October and also participated in the United Nations Conference
on International Organization at San Francisco from 25 April to 26 June 1945. As a founding member
of the United Nations, India strongly supports the purposes and principles of the UN and has made
significant contributions in implementing the goals of the Charter, and the evolution of the UN's
specialised programmes and agencies.

India has been a member of the UN Security Council for seven terms (a total of 14 years), with the
most recent being the 2011–12 term. India is a member of G4, group of nations who back each other
in seeking a permanent seat on the Security Council and advocate in favour of the reformation of the
UNSC. India is also part of the G-77.

India is a charter member of the United Nations and participates in all of its specialised agencies and
organizations. India has contributed troops to United Nations peacekeeping efforts in Korea, Egypt
and the Congo in its earlier years and in Somalia, Angola, Haiti, Liberia, Lebanon and Rwanda in
recent years, and more recently in the South Sudan conflict.

India was one of the original members of the League of Nations. In principle, only sovereign states
can become UN members. However, although today all UN members are fully sovereign states, four
of the original members (Belarus, India, the Philippines, and Ukraine) were not independent at the
time of their admission. India signed the Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942 and was
represented by Girija Shankar Bajpai who was the Indian Agent-General at the time. Afterwards the
Indian delegation led by Sir Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar signed the United Nations Charter on behalf
of India during the historic United Nations Conference on International Organization held in San
Francisco, United States on 26 June 1945. Sir A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar later went on to serve as the
first president of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Technically, India was a founding
member in October 1945, despite it being a British colony. India, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand
and Australia were all British colonies but were given independent seats in the United Nations
General Assembly. India gained full independence in 1947.

28
Independent India viewed its membership at the United Nations as an important guarantee for
maintaining international peace and security. India stood at the forefront during the UN's tumultuous
years of struggle against colonialism and apartheid. India's status as a founding member of the Non-
Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 cemented its position within the UN system as a leading
advocate of the concerns and aspirations of developing countries and the creation of a more equitable
international economic and political order. India was among the most outspoken critics
of apartheid and racial discrimination in South Africa, being the first country to have raised the issue
in the UN (in 1946).[4]

2.) BANGLADESH:-

Bangladesh is represented in the United Nations Headquarters, New York City, by the Permanent
Mission of Bangladesh to the United Nations which is headed by the Permanent Representative of
Bangladesh to the United Nations. Masud Bin Momen is the present Permanent representative of
Bangladesh to the United Nation. Geneva represents the interest of Bangladesh to United Nation
organs based in Geneva. Bangladesh is represented in Vienna by the Permanent Mission of
Bangladesh to the United Nations in Vienna.

The United Nation and its agencies bought relief to Bangladesh in 1971 during the Bangladesh
Liberation war. The UN provided aid to Bangladeshi refugees of the war. During the 26th session of
the General Assembly of the United Nation, the Provincial government of Bangladesh sent an envoy
to United Nation on 21 September 1971. In October 1971, a Bangladeshi representative spoke at the
UN Plaza and declared the "point of no return" had been reached in the Bangladesh Liberation war.
The Bangladesh had the first official delegate to the UN on 4 December 1971. The World Health
Organization, UNICEF, and World Food Program provided aid to the refugees.

The United Nations established the United Nations East Pakistan Relief Operation (UNEPRO) on 17
July 1971. The operation was headed by John R Kelly at the beginning and later he was replaced by
Paul Mckee Henry. On 16 November 1971, the operation was completely taken over by the United
Nations from the civil administration of East Pakistan due to mismanagement. This harmed the moral
of civil servants in the East Pakistan administration. After the Independence of Bangladesh on 16
December 1971, the United Nations created United Nations Relief Operations in Dhaka (UNROD) on
21 December 1971 and was managed by Robert Jackson, which was upgraded to United Nations
Relief Operations in Bangladesh (UNROB). The operation was ended on 31 December 1973.

The General Secretary of the United Nations, Kurt Waldheim, visited Bangladesh on 9 January 1973.
The United Nation provided supporting for rebuilding facilities like the Chalna Port (renamed to
Mongla Port) after it was damaged in the Bangladesh Liberation war. The UN helped repatriate

29
Bengalis who were detained in Pakistan to Bangladesh in 1973. Bangladesh failed to become a
member of the United Nations in 1972 and 1973 because China used its veto on behalf of Pakistan to
prevent full membership being granted to Bangladesh. On 17 September 1974, Bangladesh became a
full member of the United Nation. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the president of Bangladesh, gave a
speech in Bengali language at the General Assembly on 24 September 1974.[5]

3. SOUTH AFRICA:-

United Nations Information Centre (UNIC)

The UNIC office in Pretoria was established in 1995, a year after South Africa’s first democratic
elections. UNIC is currently one of 17 United Nations agencies, funds and programmes present in
South Africa – the majority of them based in the capital, Pretoria – and it functions as a national
office. It is one of only two UN entities in the country that reports directly to the Secretariat at United
Nations Headquarters in New York and, while among the smaller UN offices in size, has a visible and
active presence in the country. It role is to promote greater awareness and understanding of UN in
South Africa, the region and globally through outreach, capacity building and campaigns. It works
with the media, civil society, educational institutions and the government.[6]

International Organization for Migration (IOM)

Established in 1951, IOM is the leading inter-governmental organization in the field of

migration and works closely with governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental
partners. With 125 member states, a further 20 states holding observer status and offices in
over 100 countries, IOM is dedicated to promoting humane and orderly migration for the
benefit of all. It does so by providing services and advice to governments and migrants.

IOM works to help ensure the orderly and humane management of migration, to promote
international cooperation on migration issues, to assist in the search for practical solutions to
migration problems and to provide humanitarian assistance to migrants in need, including
refugees and internally displaced people.

IOM’s regional office for Southern Africa is based in Pretoria, South Africa and caters to
IOM activities in the entire SADC region. IOM also has offices in Angola, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, and runs activities in Mauritius,
Madagascar, Namibia and Swaziland.

30
In Southern Africa, IOM works in the following main areas:

 Movements and Assisted Returns

 Counter-Trafficking
 Migration Health
 Emergency and Post-Crisis Migration Management
 Migration and Development
 Migration Management and Policy

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) brings together the efforts
and resources of ten United Nations system organizations. The UNAIDS secretariat in South
Africa supports the national AIDS response through working closely with government, civil
society and the business sector. The secretariat is led by a Country Coordinator, supported by
a Monitoring and Evaluation Adviser, a Partnership Adviser and a team of support staff.

The secretariat coordinates and facilitates the work of the United Nations Theme Group on
AIDS which through the joint UN Team on AIDS supports local partners across the country
by providing technical assistance in programme planning, implementation, scale-up and
evaluation. The Team comprises technical experts from 11 UN agencies in South Africa: the
UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN International Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the
UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the UN
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the World Health Organisation
(WHO), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) and the World Bank.

The Support to the national AIDS response:

 Leadership and advocacy for effective action on the epidemic

 Strategic information to guide efforts against AIDS
 Tracking, monitoring and evaluation of the epidemic and responses to it
 Civil Society engagement and partnership development
 Mobilisation of resources to support an effective response [7]

31
 4.MEXICO:-

Mexico is one of the 51 founding members of the United Nations and was admitted into the
organization in 1945. Since then, Mexico is a full member of all the UN agencies and participates
actively within the organization and has diplomatic relations with most member states.

On 26 June 1945, Mexico was represented in San Francisco by Ezequiel Padilla Peñaloza, Francisco
Castillo Nájera and Manuel Tello Baurraud in the signing of the United Nations Charter. The country
was formally admitted into the organization on 7 November 1945. Since the beginning, Mexico has
participated actively in the social and economic activities of the UN's various specialized agencies and
other international organizations concerned with social, cultural, and economic improvement.
However, due to restraints in the Mexican constitution, Mexico is prohibited from contributing troops
for peacekeeping missions abroad unless Mexico has formally declared war on a country. Calls have
been made from Mexican politicians to amend the constitution (mainly article 76) in order to partake
in UN peacekeeping missions. This situation started to change after President Enrique Peña Nieto's
address to the General Assembly on 24 September 2014, when he stated that "Mexico has taken the
decision to participate in U.N. peacekeeping missions, taking part in humanitarian tasks that benefit
civil society".

Mexico has been elected four times to the United Nations Security Council. The Mexican
Government is vehemently opposed to adding new members to the Security Council. Mexico and
eight other countries created a group called the "Uniting for Consensus" (also known as the Coffee
Club), where they are opposed to new permanent members, however they would like to raise the
number of more non-permanent members to 20.

List of terms as an elected member to the Security Council:

 1946
 1980–1981
 2002–2003
 2009–2010[8]

32
5. QATER:-

In the spirit of its belief in the importance of the strategic partnership with the United Nations, the
State of Qatar is keen to contribute actively to the efforts by the international community to maintain
international peace and security, support the development process, without which the desired goals of
the United Nations would not be achieved, in addition to the promotion of human rights, humanitarian
assistance, and participation in collective action to address existing and emerging challenges facing
the world. The State of Qatar is omnipresent in most of the United Nations activities and in regional
and international groups working on finding solutions to regional and international crises, conflict
prevention, peacekeeping and post-conflict peace-building. It is one of the troop-contributing
countries participating in the United Nations peacekeeping missions. As a contribution by the State of
Qatar to regional and international efforts, Doha has hosted conferences, meetings and workshops on
the promotion of international peace and security, development, democracy, human rights and the
culture of peace.

The State of Qatar has been actively involved in the following main areas at the international level:

Mediation

In view of the importance given by its foreign policy to the peaceful settlement of conflicts in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the State of Qatar has focused on mediation as a
means for conflict resolution. The Qatari diplomacy achieved many successes in countries that
witnessed internal or international conflicts. The State of Qatar believes that mediation is the optimal
solution to avoid conflicts and avert the growing number of victims and increasing human, economic
and development costs resulting from them. The State of Qatar has therefore played an active role to
promote mediation, in coordination and cooperation with the Security Council and the General
Assembly and by engaging with the Group of Friends of Mediation. The State of Qatar has also been
a fair and honest broker, which helped in the success of its efforts in many crises including, but not
limited to, the question of Darfur, and the mediation between Djibouti and Eritrea.

Interfaith Dialogue and the Alliance of Civilizations

The State of Qatar considers dialogue among religions and civilizations an indispensable mechanism
to build bridges of communication between societies and peoples, and as a means to get to know
others, express mutual respect and achieve stabilization. In view of the numerous challenges in
today’s world that threaten global peace and coexistence, the growing manifestations of intolerance
and hatred, and the spread of violent conflicts and extremism, the State of Qatar has strongly
supported the initiative of creating the Alliance of Civilizations, that is today playing an active role in

33
promoting a culture of peace. The Government has spared no effort to bolster the capability of the
Alliance to carry out its message, and has continued to provide it with all kinds of support. It has also
hosted the Fourth Global Forum of the Alliance of Civilizations in Doha in December 2011.

Since the State of Qatar is keen to establish world peace on strong foundations, promote dialogue
among religions, and fight discrimination based on religion or belief, the State established the Doha
International Center for Interfaith Dialogue, which seeks to promote the culture of dialogue, foster a
culture of acceptance of others and peaceful coexistence among followers of different religions and
members of different civilizations. The State of Qatar hosts each year the Doha International
Conference on Interfaith Dialogue, with the participation of intellectuals, scholars and representatives
of different religions, coming from various parts of the world. It is also proud to be the host of more
than one million people from different countries and regions that have different religions and cultures,
who coexist in harmony while keeping their individual cultural identity or privacy, and contributing to
the process of development to which the State of Qatar attaches a high priority.

Human rights

The promotion and protection of human rights constitute a main pillar of the State of Qatar’s policy
and a strategic choice underpinning the process of comprehensive reform implemented by the State.
This approach has been highlighted in the comprehensive vision of development known as “Qatar
National Vision 2030” that includes important sections dealing with key human rights issues in the
areas of education, health, the environment, labour rights, empowerment of women and the rights of
the child, as well as in the national development strategy and in strengthening relevant national
institutions including the National Human Rights Committee.

In this perspective, believing in the important role of the Human Rights Council as the principal body
of the United Nations entrusted with the promotion and protection of human rights, the State of Qatar
has sought to be a member in the Council since its inception.

In this context, the State of Qatar was keen during its membership in the Human Rights Council in the
period 2007-2011 and 2011-2013 to actively participate and cooperate in a constructive manner with
the Member States to best fulfill the Council's mandate in achieving the lofty purposes for which it
was established. The State of Qatar was elected for the third time, 2015-2017, to continue its active
role in the international efforts to promote and protect human rights, based on the principles enshrined
in the Constitution of the country. Being a party to most of the core international human rights
instruments, and having amended national legislation and laws in accordance with those instruments
and their implementation, the State of Qatar is also keen to cooperate with other international and
regional mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as within its process

34
of reviewing the State of Qatar National reports before the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review. It is also collaborating with the human rights treaty bodies and fulfilling its obligations
towards them. Furthermore, Qatari experts are contributing with their valuable inputs through their
membership in the treaty committees and various activities of the Council. The State of Qatar has also
actively participated in other groups addressing specific human rights threats, including, but not
limited to, the Group of Friends United against Human Trafficking.

In line with the policy of the State of Qatar, Doha hosts the United Nations Human Rights Training
and Documentation Centre for South-West Asia and the Arab Region, which plays a significant role
in the region to raise awareness of human rights, organize meetings, workshops and provide training
for public servants in Government institutions and activists in this area.[9]

6. PAKISTAN:-

Pakistan officially joined the United Nations (UN) on 30 September 1947 just over a month after
its independence from the British Empire. Today, it is a charter member and participates in all of the
UN's specialised agencies and organisations. Pakistan has been elected seven times (tied with
Colombia and India) into the UN Security Council, with the most recent term in 2013. It is also one of
the countries which has had a diplomat, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, serve a term as the President of
the United Nations General Assembly. Pakistan maintains a permanent mission to the UN, which is
currently headed by Ambassador Maliha Lodhi in New York. There is a second mission based at the
UNO office in Geneva, Switzerland. Pakistan participates in all of the UN’s specialized agencies.
These include: United Nations Development program (UNDP), the World Food Programme (WFP),
the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
(UNICEF), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UN
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United Nations High Commission for
refugees (UNHCR) , and UN Habitat.[10]

7. JAMAIKA:-

On September 21, 1962, Sir Alexander Bustamante, then Prime Minister of the newly independent
Jamaica, applauded as the island's black, green and gold flag was unfurled at the United Nations
Headquarters in New York, marking Jamaica's entry, on September 18th, into that body as a member.
Since then, despite limitations of size and resources, Jamaica has played an outstanding role in the
United Nations' system, helping to focus international attention on such significant matters as human
rights, decolonization, economic cooperation and indebtedness, and women's issues.

35
Jamaica has served on the United Nations Security Council (1979-1980) and on the Economic and
Social Council on a number of occasion. Its representatives have frequently been elected to the
Governing Council of several specialized agencies and other bodies in the United Nations
Organization. Jamaican nationals have also served with distinction in various capacities within the
Secretariat of the United Nations. It is of some significance that, as the international community
celebrates the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Jamaica's Permanent Representative to the
United Nations in New York served as Rapporteur of the Preparatory Committee for that Anniversary.

Barely a year after becoming a member of the United Nations, Jamaica became highly visible when at
the 1963 General Assembly, Senator Hugh Shearer, speaking in place of Sir Alexander Bustamante
proposed that 1968 be designated the International Year for Human Rights to mark the Twentieth
Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In proposing that a year should be set
aside for the world to focus on human rights, Jamaica had two objectives in mind. The first was that
the year should be an event which would highlight and bring new attention to the promise made in the
UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the second, that the year should be a
target towards which the UN and its Member States would work with renewed public commitment in
their efforts to give effect to the principles of that Universal Declaration.

In June 1967, the UN General Assembly also accepted Jamaica's proposal for an international
conference to review progress in the field of human rights. The conference was to be held in Teheran,
Iran. The committee established to organize the programme of activities for the International Year for
Human Rights was chaired by Jamaica's then Permanent Representative to the UN, the late Sir
Egerton Richardson. The proclamation of Teheran adopted on May 13, 1968 by the International
Conference on Human Rights expressed the belief that the enjoyment of economic and social rights is
inherently linked with any meaningful enjoyment of civil and political rights and that there is a
profound interconnection between the realization of human rights and economic development. Since
1968, much work has been undertaken in the United Nations, resulting in the adoption or entry into
force of several very important conventions and mechanisms for the promotion and protection of
human rights.

The Struggle Against Apartheid

Jamaica's commitment to the principle of human rights and to a philosophy of 'international morality'
is exemplified by our stance on apartheid and racism. Jamaica was at the forefront of the international
campaign against apartheid in South Africa, until recently under active discussion and debate in the
United Nations. The first country to declare a trade embargo against South Africa, was Jamaica, as
early as 1957 even while the island was still a colony of Britain and thus without responsibility for its

36
external relations. Jamaica consistently and unequivocally opposed apartheid and supported all United
Nations' decisions aimed at its elimination.

The struggle against apartheid had to be carried out on two fronts. Not only was it necessary to
weaken the intransigence of the regime which enforced apartheid in South Africa; the major
industrialized countries had also to be persuaded not to oppose the imposition and maintenance of
economic and trade sanctions against that country. Jamaica played a crucial role in pressing the
international community to limit foreign trade and investment in South Africa, with a view to creating
economic dislocation which, coupled with the internal struggles of the black South Africans, would
lead to the dismantling of apartheid. Ultimately, this came about in April 1994 when national
elections were held on the principle of one man one vote and Nelson Mandela became President of
South Africa. A Jamaican with a long record of service in the United Nations, Angela King, was head
of the United Nations observer team which monitored the elections.

The effort to isolate the South African regime also extended to the field of sport. In 1968, the
International Conference of Human Rights strongly recommended the exclusion of South Africa from
the membership of international sports federations and associations because of its discriminatory
policy in sports. Jamaica was among those countries which worked to bring the issue of apartheid in
sports before the United Nations and was appointed to the ad hoc Committee set up to draft an
International Convention against Apartheid in Sports. In December 1977, the General Assembly
adopted the International Declaration against Apartheid in Sports, and finally, a decade later in 1987,
the Convention.

Jamaica's role in the political and diplomatic process to end apartheid in South Africa has been
internationally recognized. In 1978, Michael Manley, the then Prime Minister, was among a group of
eminent persons awarded gold medals for distinguished service in the struggle against apartheid.

Zimbabwe, Namibia and Haiti

Jamaica also made a contribution to the fall of the illegal white minority regime in Southern Rhodesia,
now Zimbabwe. In November 1965, Southern Rhodesia's minority regime headed by Ian Smith made
a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom. The illegal regime was the
subject of many General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. Mandatory sanctions were
imposed by the Security Council until genuine majority rule and independence were achieved in 1980.
Jamaica played a part in the negotiating process which was ultimately to lead to Zimbabwe's
independence.

37
Namibia, that vast territory to the north-west of South Africa, is another African country with which
Jamaica has had some degree of association. Once known as South-West Africa, a man- date for its
administration was given to South Africa after the First World War by the League of Nations. In
1966, the UN General Assembly terminated that mandate on the grounds that South Africa had failed
to fulfil its obligations to the territory and in 1968 the UN recognized its new name, Namibia. South
Africa, however, remained entrenched in the territory until 1989 when, under the supervision of the
United Nations Transitional Assistance Group (UNTAG), free elections for a Constituent Assembly
were held in November. UNTAG was comprised of international civilian, military and police units
and included twenty-three policemen and women from Jamaica. The exercise was notable for its
complexity and its success as one of the most outstanding of the United Nations' peace-keeping
operations.

Nearer home, the volatile political situation in Haiti has engaged the attention of the inter- national
community for more than a decade. Jamaica has played an active role in bringing the situation in Haiti
before the United Nations and in 1990, along with its CARICOM partners, succeeded, though not
without some difficulty, in ensuring that the United Nations would provide support to Haiti for the
peaceful and efficient development of its electoral process. The result was the establishment of the
United Nations Observer Group for the Verification of the Elections in Haiti (ONUVEH). Jamaica
was also involved in persuading the United Nations to condemn the illegal replacement of the
constitutional President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and the use of violence, military coercion
and the violation of human rights in that country. The Multinational Force which oversaw the return
of President Aristide in October 1994 included a CARICOM contingent within which there was a
significant number of Jamaica Defence Force personnel.

North-South Dialogue

Jamaica has been a vigorous participant in the efforts to correct the stark economic imbalance
between the rich countries of the North and the developing countries of the South. The Group of 77,
with members drawn from developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin American and the Caribbean,
emerged in 1964 and, with the support of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD), was able, as a group, to attempt to gain greater influence over international policies and
institutions in order to establish more equitable global economic and financial relationships. In the
United Nations system, the Group of 77 provides the main voice of developing countries on economic
and social issues.

By the early 1970s, countries of the Third World were agitating for fundamental changes in the world
economic structure. It was through the collective efforts of these countries of the South that their
pursuit of development became a part of the international eocnomic agenda. The United Nations was

38
required to respond to the development needs of the South, even though the outcome was often much
less than the conditions needed. Jamaica worked closely with other members of the Non-Aligned
Movement and the G77 to seek extensive reform of the international economy. At their Summit in
Algiers in 1973, Heads of State of the Non-Aligned Movement called for a Special Session of the
General Assembly to discuss the problems of raw materials and development.

In April 1974, the United Nations Sixth Special Session on Raw Materials and Development adopted
by consensus a Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order. In addition,
an agenda for the reform of the international economic order was broadly agreed on at the United
Nations Seventh Special Session in the following September.

These developmental issues were followed up at the fourth UNCTAD Conference held in Nairobi in
May 1976. There the major achievement was the adoption by the Conference of an Integrated
Programme for Commodities and the decision to hold a negotiating conference on a Common Fund to
finance the programme no later than March 1977. Ambassador Herbert Walker, Jamaica's then
Permanent Representative to the Office and Specialized Agencies of the United Nations in Geneva,
was the spokesman and chief negotiator for the developing countries at the Fourth UNCTAD. The
year before, he had undertaken a similar leadership role at the Second General Conference of the
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) which adopted the Lima Declaration
calling for a substantial strengthening of UNIDO 'in order to increase its ability in more efficient
ways'. The Conference also proposed the transformation of UNIDO from an autonomous organization
within the UN Secretariat to a specialized agency.

Concurrently with their efforts in the United Nations, developing and developed countries together
embarked upon an initiative to continue economic negotiations between the two groups. Jamaica was
among the twenty-seven countries - nineteen developing and eight developed - which participated in
the Conference on International Economic Cooperation, a series of meetings convened by France and
held intermittently from December 1975 to June 1977. Jamaica, as the smallest country at the Paris
Conference, popularly known as the North-South Dialogue, no doubt owed its invitation to the
passionate advocacy of the New International Economic Order by the then Prime Minister, Michael
Manley. Under his leadership, Jamaica emerged as a dominant voice promoting the causes of
developing countries and the need for a restructuring of the world economy so that Third World
countries could reduce their dependence on the major industrialzied countries and ultimately establish
their economies on a more self-sustaining basis. Jamaica's delegation to the Paris Conference was
headed by our ablest and most distinguished Ambassador, the late Sir Egerton Richardson.
Unfortunately, the overall achievements of the Paris Conference were modest, one being the

39
endorsement in principle of a Common Fund to finance buffer stocks for stabilizing commodity
prices.

After five years of intensive debate and negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, an agreement was reached in Geneva in 1980 for the
establishment of a Common Fund for Commodities to stabilize commodity prices and to improve
production and marketing techniques in developing coutries. Nine years later, in July 1989, the
Secretary-General of UNCTAD opened the first meeting of the Governing Council of the Common
Fund for Commodities. Since then, the Fund has been operating from its headquarters in Amsterdam
but it remains to be seen whether it will in time have any significant impact on the commodity
problems of developing countries.

The provision of technical assistance through the operational activities of the United Nations plays a
crucial role in the growth and development of developing countries. The principal channel for
assistance to developing countries within the UN is the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and Jamaica has not only received aid from that body but has also served on its Governing
Council. The former Governor of the Bank of Jamaica, the late G. Arthur Brown, served with
distinction for many years as Associate Administrator of the UNDP.

Combating Illegal Drugs

Jamaica has made significant contributions in the multilateral arena to the improvement and
strengthening of the capacity of the international community to combat drug abuse and the illicit
trafficking of narcotic substances. During the forty-fourth Session of the General Assembly, Jamaica
promoted a number of proposals, in particular an enhanced international capability to combat this
global threat. Most of the proposals were incorporated into a resolution, Global Programme of Action
against Illicit Narcotic Drugs, which was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly.

Jamaica actively participated in the Seventeenth Special Session of the General Assembly in February
1990, at which the Global Programme and the Political Declaration to further expand international
cooperation to deal with the use of drugs were adopted. Jamaica's Dr. Winston Davidson, Chairman of
the National Council on Drug Abuse, was among the fifteen experts from developed and developing
countries who were appointed to advise and assist the Secretary-General of the United Nations in
enhancing the efficiency of the United Nation's structure for the control of drug abuse.

In accordance with the Global Programme of action adopted by the General Assembly, Jamaica has
established a comprehensive programme to combat drug abuse and illicit trafficking, dealing with

40
transhipment, supply and demand reduction. That programme has received bilateral as well as
multilateral support through the United Nations system.

Jamaica's Contributions

Jamaica has been able to make a substantial contribution to the United Nations for a variety of
reasons. One of these has been the quality of its representatives. Among these, the first was the late
Sir Egerton Richardson, at the time our most eminent public servant. Dr. Lucille Mair has, more
recently, been an outstanding representative.

Another reason has been the interest of our Governments in the United Nations and the support and
leadership it has displayed in international matters of concern to Jamaica and other developing
countries. A vital reason was the early recognition that a small nation could influence international
affairs not merely by putting forward new ideas and proposals but, of crucial importance, by
cooperating with other countries with similar concerns and seeking to obtain changes through a
collective approach. The most obvious and immediate example is the close and intimate working
relationship that exists between Jamaica and our fellow members of the Caribbean Community. It is
of some significance that together we possess today twelve votes within the wider Latin America and
Caribbean Group of thirty- four states. The CARICOM states try to coordinate their views within the
Latin American and Caribbean Group with those of the countries of the Group of 77 developing
states.

Jamaica has also been an active participant in the Non-Aligned Movement. The fundamental
principles of the Non-Aligned Movement are a commitment to peace and disarmament, independence,
economic equality, cultural equality and universalism and multiculturalism through strong support for
the United Nations system. Originally political in perspective with a sharp anti-imperialist focus, the
Movement is becoming more and more concerned with economic and social issues.

In recognition of its contribution to international affairs, Jamaica was selected at the conclusion of the
Non-Aligned meeting in Belgrade in September 1989 as one of the Group of Fifteen developing
countries to meet at Summit level - at the level of Heads of State or Government. The primary
purpose of the Group of Fifteen is to perform a catalytic role in the promotion of South-South
Cooperation among themselves and other developing countries. Such cooperation would lend greater
cohesion and credibility to developing countries and their efforts to pursue a more positive and
productive North-South Dialogue.

41
Jamaica is the smallest member of the Group of Fifteen, which is a clear reflection of our role and
influence in international affairs, demonstrating that size is not a limitation where there are clear
policies, outstanding representation and dedication to the organization.

We must, however, make the fullest use of this and other opportunities to sustain and increase our
influence in the post-Cold War era. Despite the end of the Cold War many problems remain and new
ones have emerged, which require an enhanced role for the United Nations, if it is to fulfil the
functions for which it was established, and realize the ideals and aspirations enunciated in the Charter.
With the lessening of tensions resulting from the end of superpower rivalry, and the consequent
reluctance among some major powers to provide adequate resources to the United Nations, the
enlargement of membership - the fifteen constituent republics of the former Soviet Union are now
members of the United Nations - and other factors, it will be no easy task for, a small nation such as
Jamaica to exert influence in the United Nations, notwithstanding its remarkable record and the wide
recognition of its positive and constructive role in international affairs. This will demand even closer
cooperation with the Caribbean Community, the Association of Caribbean States, the Latin American
and Caribbean region and the developing countries generally.

Jamaica began its contribution to the United Nations by putting emphasis on the promotion and
encouragement of human rights. Much has been achieved in putting into effect the fundamental
principles of the United Nations in the area of civil and political rights. However, so long as many,
many millions of people in the world exist in abject poverty, and vast numbers of children are
undernourished and without even basic health and educational facilities, it is a major challenge to
promote economic, social and cultural rights to facilitate a better, more equitable distribution of the
fruits of the productive process. Moreover, the empirical evidence is that the wealth of nations is
enhanced by better education and health care and improving living conditions. The twin objectives of
human rights and economic well-being would therefore be achieved by closer international economic
cooperation.

Jamaica has participated in the efforts made to deal with issues of global concern, such as debt, the
transfer of technology and the environment. These and other problems, such as the alleviation of
poverty, require the strengthening of multilateral cooperation and new ways of dealing with global
problems in a cooperative and constructive fashion. Accordingly, at the United Nations, greater
emphasis should be placed on economic and development matters, and the issue of development
should be at the very centre of the international agenda. Jamaica could make a further contribution to
the United Nations by working with other nations on this issue which could enhance human rights and
foster economic and social progress throughout the international community.[11]

42
 CHAPTER- 4

CHALLANGES

The maintenance of international peace and security is the greatest challenge of the United Nations
(UN). It will be judged by how well it fulfils this goal. It is, however, important to remember that the
organization was created to maintain peace not only by preventing and resolving military conflict, but
also by promoting economic and social progress and development. at its creation, the UN was based
on a set of assumptions that were expected to shape the post-war era. Legally, the UN was constructed
on the thesis of sovereign nation-states, and of the sanctity of the frontiers of each under the founding
Charter. The collective security system was based on the assumption that the grand alliance of the
World War II would continue in a joint guardianship of world peace. However, collective security
became a hostage of the Cold War. Throughout the Cold War years, the UN was of marginal
importance for dealing with the core international issues of war and peace as the rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union paralyzed the Security Council. In the same way, questions about
the organization's effıciency, capabilities, and cost-effectiveness were either ignored or considered of
little signifıcance. While the UN has indeed saved lives, resolved conflicts, eradicated diseases, and
promoted democracy, its failures have been widely reported and contributed to the perception of an
inefficient organization. UN did have some achievements during this period, but it dıd not play the
role that its founders anticipated. At the beginning of the 1990s, a new stage of world politics
emerged. Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has enjoyed a burst of unaccustomed influence. It
suddenly found itself overburdened by the many new tasks which governments have given to it. Many
people expressed optimistic opinions about the role of UN multilateralism in the new world order.2
UN is no longer ignored and or neglected. Evaluations of the organization now relate mainly to what
it does, tries to do, or should do, as an operating agency in the fıeld. The efforts of adaptmg UN
system to the changing realities of the international politics and making the UN a more effıcient
organization dates back to the earliest years of the organization. UN has been trying to respond many
changes it had gone through since its foundation without making any amendment in the Charter.
These developments range from the Cold War to decolonization process and social and economic
rights resulting from it, from a more widespread recognition of the human rights to the international
action with the purpose of protecting common values. Some of these prevented the UN from
functioning as planned by the Charter, and others required it to assume new responsibilities.
Generally, all efforts aimed at adapting the UN to the changing conditions are called reform. Re-
organization of the Secretariat, redefıning priorities, re-organization of the mter-governmental
mechanism is only some of them. Some think that only change must be achieved is that making the
UN more effıcient and this effort does not require an amendment in the Charter. On the other hand,
developing countries believe that other issues, like membership of the principle organs and

43
committees and reorganization of the relationship between the UN and specialized agencies, must be
included in the reform process.

For the first time in its history, on 31 January 1992, the Security Council met at the level of heads of
government to decide the responsibility of the Security Council in future in the maintenance of
international peace and security. The Council invited the Secretary-general Boutros-Ghali to prepare a
report that would recommend ways to enhance the 'capacity of the United Nations for preventive
diplomacy, for peace making and for peace-keeping.' The UN Secretariat added post-conflict peace-
building to this trio of high priority topics. Secretary-General Ghali defıned five interconnected roles
that he hope the UN would play in the post-Cold War international politics in his An Agenda for
Peace (1992): a) Preventive diplomacy; b) Peace enforcement; c) Peace-making; d) Peacekeeping; e)
Post-conflict peace building. Although intra-state conflicts are not new, they were held ın check by
the dynamics of the Cold War. Besides, these new internal wars are somehow different from the wars
we have traditionally thought of as civil conflicts: They seem less principled in political terms, less
focused on the attainment of some political ideal. They seem more vicious and uncontrolled in their
conduct. They have one significant effect: massive trans-boundary refugee flows. Secondly, the scope
and number of humanitarian crises are increasing due to intra state conflict, population growth, natural
disasters, famine, and disease. Third issue that must be cited is arms control and disarmament.
Permanent Five is responsible for some 85 per cent of the arms trade.

According to the critics, especially the UN have not adapted sufficiently to these changes. Common
security system was established against inter-state conflicts. One of the most dramatic differences
between the post-Cold War world and the Cold War international system is in the pattern of violence
that has been developing. There has not been a major cross-border war between states since Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait ın 1990. International community was ill-prepared to deal with intra-state conflict
and is more inclined to manage conflicts than to prevent them. There were no permanent mechanisms
of preventive diplomacy those identifıes places, where crises may occur. The UN Security Council,
NATO and OSCE are the organizations currently responding to intrastate conflicts. Despite the
widespread belief that the end of the Cold War would enable the UN to function effectively, its record
so far has not supported this belief. The UN nation-building project in Somalia produced a fiasco. its
attempt to manage a civil war in Bosnia was scarcely better.7 Security Council is crippled by its own
problems. its composition is not representative of the real world of today. Peacekeeping operations
proved to be wrong means to prevent conflicts since it was designed to separate combatants by mutual
agreements, not to make peace in conflicts where a ceasefıre has yet to be negotiated. In order to meet
the challenges already faced by many peacekeeping forces lıke UNTAC, UNAVEM II, UNPROFOR,
UNOSOM I and II, UNAMIR, and UNMIH, the UN has to develop new practices that go beyond the
traditional peace-keeping mold. The consent of the parties cannot be assumed in the mentioned
operations; the military.

44
Effectiveness required and the dangers faced go far beyond the parameters of traditionally lıghtly
armed peace-keepers. Moreover, these operations suggest the magnitude of the new demands on the
UN for services that threatened to overwhelm troop contributors. That kind of operations means new
responsibilities for the UN peacekeeping. The Cambodian operation amounted to the UN's taking over
all the important civilian administration of the country. The UN registered most of the nation for the
first democratic election in the country's history. Nevertheless, while the UN operation in Cambodia
was able to monitor and enforce a cease-fire, repatriate signifıcant numbers of refugees, and hold
national elections, it was less successful in creating new governing institutions in that country9 . Same
can be said for Bosnia-Herzegovina and East Timor. Generally speaking, the UN has had rather
limited success in dealing with ethnic, religious and nationalist conflicts. The UN intervention in
Somalia provides another example of the challenges that the UN confronts. The efforts of the UN to
separate warring clans and to build new civil institutions have illuminated the organization's
weaknesses in this area. Examples of the former Yugoslavia and Somalia illustrate a signifıcant
challenge facing the organization. Thus, the UN and the Permanent Five must redefine the role of the
major powers in UN peacekeeping operations. But, the leaders of the major powers are reluctant to
allow the emergence of an independent UN military capability. They argue that the organization
should become more effective in dealing with international security problems, thus relieving states of
that task. On the other hand, making the UN more effective requires yielding power to the
organization, or providing substantial resources to it. The leaders of the less-powerful states are
similarly reluctant to support UN intervention in the fear that this would lead to a propensity for the
UN to intervene in domestic affairs. From an American point of view, a broad expansion of
responsibilities is a big mistake for two reasons: 1) poor management, bad organization, and
corruption that plague the U.N. system; and 2) the U.N. has trouble with the far easier tasks it already
handles, such as economic development assistance to the Third World.10 This ambivalence is the
most fundamental constraint on the effectiveness of the international security system. The most
crucial consequence of this ambivalence is a lack of consensus concerning the types of situations in
which it is legitimate for the organization to intervene. The two long-standing parameters defining the
limits on UN intervention have been pierced in recent years. The fırst one is the very nature of UN
peacekeeping operations. UN peacekeeping is no longer confıned to cooperative situations in which
previously warring parties have agreed to a peace. The second one is the distinction between
international and civil conflicts. The UN attempt to oust military government of Haiti is perhaps the
clearest example of this change, but the peace-keeping operations in Cambodia, Mozambique, and
Somalia also have far less to do with international than with civil conflict. On the heels of the Kosovo
and East Timor experiences, there was a serious debate going on regarding the limits of a sovereign
government flagrantly and systematically violating human rights. The Secretary-General himself
offered a framework for this debate in an address to the General Assembly on 20 September 1999. He
argued;11 a) The State is now widely understood to be the servant of its people, and not vice versa-,

45
b) individual sovereignty (the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Charter) has been enhanced vis-
â-vis the sovereignty of States; and c) The international community cannot sit idly by while gross and
systematic violations of human rights with grave humanitarian consequences are taking place. Thus,
the Secretary-General appealed for humanitarian interventions in situations like Sierra Leone, Angola,
Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor. But, it is not the Secretary-General who has the authority to decide
whether to intervene or not; it is the Security Council.

Problems concerning the decision-making bodies over the fıfty-year history of U.N., the Charter has
been amended on three occasions. Ali of them involved expanding a principal body. Articles 23, 27
and 61 were amended on 17 December 1963. A further amendment to Article 61 was adopted on 20
December 1971. With these amendments, membership of the Security Council was expanded from
eleven to fifteen; and that of ECOSOC from eighteen to twenty-seven, and then to fıfty-four. Member
states have always been far readier to add mandates or tasks for the U.N. than to terminate existing
ones. An attempt to achieve a system-wide reform has been few and modest. The current wave is
broader and more ambitious than its predecessors. The work within the secretariat has produced more
visible and immediate results, while the member state dialogue is still continuing. It is clear that there
needs to be substantial reform within the UN to enable it to address contemporary global security. The
nature of UN decision-making must be reformed to make it compatible with present realities. This
includes rejuvenating the Security Council, strengthening the Office of Preventive Diplomacy, as well
as the position of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Discussions on UN reform are centred
around four major areas: The Secretariat, the structures of the major bodies, enhancement of
collective security capabilities, and fınances. One of the issues being debated permanently is the
nature of the reform. On one side, there are those who view the cali for reform as a pretext to
downsize the Organization and diminish its role; on the other side, there are those who accept the
notion of improving efficiency as an essential ingredient of effectiveness and relevance. A series of
measures is required to prepare the international community to be more effective in conflict
prevention. Central to this is the reform of the UN's decision-making processes and the development
of mechanisms that would enable the Organization specifically to address conflicts in a preventive
manner.12 General Assembly insists on treating the reform process as its own business. Every
member state has been asked to submit its views on the future composition of the Security Council, its
roles in relation to the General Assembly, and the question of veto. These discussıons have not led to
any major reforms up to this point, and they may never do so unless determined efforts are made to
bring about real reforms of the organization. There is a deep-rooted resistance to change within the
UN itself, and there is little consensus among member states beyond a feeling that change and
modernization is needed to enable the UN to meet new challenges. While drawing the basic principles
of the UN in 1945, the most basic goal that the founding fathers had in their mind was maintenance of
international peace and security. It is the first goal of the UN declared in the paragraph 1 of the Article

46
1. The mechanism and authority that is necessary to fulfil this goal were drawn in the Chapter VII of
the Charter. Charter distinguished among three supplementary security systems:13 a) A common
security system, contained in Chapter VI on the pacifıc settlement of disputes and Chapter VII on
'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches to the peace and acts of aggression'; b) Regional
arrangements or agencies in Chapter VIII; c) Right of individual or collective self-defence, expressed
in Article 51. Security Council assumes the primary responsibility in maintaining international peace
and security (Article 27). It determines whether a situation constitutes a threat to peace, breach of
peace or aggression (Article 39) and decides whether to apply coercive measures against the
delinquent state. Whenever the Security Council decides to apply coercive measures against a state,
all other states have to comply with its decision. Nevertheless, the Security Council in the past has
determined the occurrence of one of the situations mentioned in Article 39 on very few occasions. It
never determined the occurrence of an act of aggression. It did not make this determination even when
Iraq invaded Kuwait. The main reason for this has been the negative subjective meaning this word
has. While the determination of the breach of peace and act of aggression must involve at least two
states, a civil war or human rights abuses would provide enough basis for the determination of a threat
to the peace. UN had to face many criticisms even when it was founded in 1945; but it was clear from
the very beginning that two most important problem about the Security Council was to be Permanent
Fıve's right to veto and failure to set up the mechanism antıcipated by the Chapter VII of the Charter.
Consequently, the Security Council made relatively little use of its authority under Chapter VII. Only
in one case, Korea did the Council take action in 1950 until the end of the Cold War. UN has tried to
address these problems in several ways. Strengthening the role of the regional organizations and
General Assembly, establishing peace-keeping forces and Security Council's authorization to use
force against the breaching state by another state or coalition of states are the results of the UN's effort
to fınd a way out of the Cold War and bloc politics. Nevertheless, only the peace-keeping forces
proved to be a successful means on some occasions; others were insuffıcient. On the political level,
member states are addressing a deeper series of reform questions. The fıve Working Groups of the
General Assembly are considering the composition and working methods of the Security Council;
financing and assessment; the functioning of the General Assembly and the Secretariat, the budgeting
process, and the UN's relationship to civil society; the content and structure of the organization's work
on development questions; and issues raised in the Secretary-General's An Agenda for Peace.[12]

47
 CONCLUSION

In 1945, the world had to reinvent itself. After the devastations of the Second World War, the
international order had to be reconstructed almost from scratch. This was the purpose of the
international gathering in San Francisco, where representatives of approximately fifty States came
together, united in their fight against a common enemy, to draft a blueprint for a new world order.
This blueprint was published in a small blue booklet, the United Nations Charter. All the States in the
world have now subscribed to the values, purposes and principles contained in the Charter.

Since 1945, the UN Charter has continued to inspire the international community to continuously
improve itself in a never-ending attempt to realize certain fundamental values. The role of the United
Nations in the evolution of global values was the central theme of this study. The following questions
were posed: How and to what extent have moral points of view, defined in the language of values,
determined the founding of the United Nations and the evolution of its purposes, principles and
policies? How has the United Nations influenced these moral views through its own contributions to
the debate on values, as well as its contributions to the “translation” of these values into the language
of international law, particularly by adopting general resolutions, declarations, treaties and other
legally relevant texts? The United Nations started to play its part in the evolution of global values
immediately after the Second World War. This war had shown the importance of respect for and the
realization of certain core values in international life.

These values found their way into the UN Charter in one way or another. A world dominated by war,
in which human beings were treated as objects, in which peoples were subjected to dictatorial and
foreign rule, in which individuals and peoples could not achieve a basic standard of living, was not a
world worth living in. A set of purposes for a new world order was identified, based on these
collective experiences of fundamental lacks. Above all, the world needed to Avoid the catastrophic
wars of the past by maintaining international peace and security; Avoid extreme poverty by promoting
social progress and development; Avoid the inhuman treatment of individuals anywhere in the world
by universally promoting respect for human rights; Avoid the exploitation and oppression of entire
peoples by promoting the self-determination of all peoples. These became the general purposes of the
United Nations Organization. They are listed in Article 1 of its Charter, as follows: To maintain
international peace and security. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, To achieve international co-operation in
solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, And [to
achieve international co-operation] in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Normally, the
text and travaux préparatoires of the UN Charter, as well as the General Assembly’s resolutions
interpreting the Charter, are not examined as contributions to a global debate about values. Instead,

48
the focus is on the immediate impact of the UN’s work on particular disputes and emergencies, or on
the binding character of the norms proclaimed by the UN and the effectiveness of the UN’s measures
to ensure compliance with these norms.

This is unfortunate, because the importance of a continuous and global discourse about values and
ideas cannot be overestimated. The power of values may be more difficult to measure than the power
of particular compliance and enforcement mechanisms, but it is clear that universal agreement on
where the world should be heading is crucial, also when specific challenges need to be addressed. The
role of the United Nations in the evolution of global values has been essential. As Pronk pointed out,
the United Nations is not merely an organization established to urge all States to respect and comply
with their international obligations.

The United Nations is, above all, a “value community.”1 Since 1945, the organization has organized
an on-going international dialogue which has resulted in a more or less global consensus on shared
values, purposes, principles, and norms. This process has not received the attention it deserves. That is
why Pronk called for the history of the United Nations to be written from the perspective of values.
Writing this history requires an approach to the documents of the United Nations that is different from
a strictly political or legal approach. It means looking in detail at the minutes of the discussions that
preceded the adoption, both of the United Nations Charter itself, but also of all subsequent
declarations based on the Charter. It also means that the Assembly’s declarations have to be read as
part of a larger story, as stepping stones in the continuous evolution and crystallization of a discourse
on values. The research into the discussions, and especially the declarations that were the products of
these discussions, must examine not so much whether States can be “bound” by statements made by
their representatives during a specific meeting, or whether States have to abide by certain provisions
in a particular declaration.

Instead, the research must examine the substance of the provision itself, its context and relationship
with other provisions, the arguments made in support of that provision, and the objections made
against these arguments. Instead of analysing the power politics – which have certainly had an
influence on the debates – it is necessary to see what happened to a particular line of argument. Why
did one argument “defeat” another? What was the relationship between one argument and another,
possibly made in a different context? These are the questions which arise when writing a history of
ideas. To write this history of UN values it was necessary to start at the very beginning. The first step
was to come up with a suitable definition of the term “global value”.

In international law scholarship, there are many references to global values and the fundamental
norms derived from them. At the same time, very few scholars of international law have attempted to
define the term “value,” as though its meaning were self-evident. It seems Walzer’s suggestion to

49
“never define your terms” was followed; in his view, defining one’s terms was unnecessary, and
would only lead to trouble.

Although the importance of definitions should not be overemphasized, this study attempted to define
global values. Scholars of various other disciplines – sociology, psychology, philosophy – have made
earnest attempts to define the concept of “value.” Although they were operating in a different context,
largely defined by the basic principles of their own particular discipline[13]

50
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK: Turkish year book volume XXXIII Edition ,2002 (New Challenges Facing The
United Nations, Funda Keskin)

WEBSITES:

1. https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/the-
united-nations/agencies-of-the-united-nations/
2. https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/1987/1987-6-7.htm
3. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/26868.pdf
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_the_United_Nations
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_and_the_United_Nations
6. http://www.un.org.za/agencies/
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_and_the_United_Nations
8. http://ny.mission.qa/en/united-nations/qatar-and-international-affairs
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_the_United_Nations
10. https://www.un.int/jamaica/content/permanent-mission-jamaica-united-nations-0#
11. http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/44/673/8577.pdf
12. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/17926/Chapter%20VIII.pdf?s
equence=9
13. Image Source :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_Nations#I
nternational_Maritime_Organization_(IMO)

51