•User Rating•: / 0
•Poor••Best• 

GENEVA -- The recently-established Global Humanitarian Forum will hold its second annual meeting at the luxury Hotel Intercontinental 23-24 June, 2009, in Geneva. Climbing on the climate change bandwagon, the organization claims that this will be the world’s foremost humanitarian gathering point with over 400 “high-level” invitation-only participants, including political leaders as well as various heads of companies, development and humanitarian organizations. Chaired by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, the forum will officially seek to encourage “multi-lateral dialogue” on the humanitarian impact of climate change. The broader view, however, is that this will emerge much as last year’s forum, notably yet another costly grey suit circus of much show but little substance. (See Mark Hartford's piece last year in The Essential Edge). One improvement, however, is that while media are not included as players they will have access to the meeting. Inshallah. Nathaniel Daudrick, who, until recently reporting out of Egypt, but now in Geneva offers his assessment of what’s going on.

 

Geneva's Humanitarian Kibosh

At one point or another, we’ve all engaged in disjointed discussions over what is the most “feasible” global conduit in the age of the climate change and global warming. I could give some great spiel about geophysics, CO2 levels, orbital mechanics and solar variability to try to explain the plethora of complex associations that has led us to Mother Earth’s present condition. I could go into long ramblings about the UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol. I should perhaps criticise the high-level forums that use up Swiss tax money and are sponsored by Europe’s most powerful governments, to discuss climate change. But I won’t, I’ll spare you the boredom; climatic chatter simply isn’t realistic, innovative or “sustainable.”

In 2007, out of the great chasm of international organizations dedicated to humanitarian affairs, climate change and human rights in Geneva, appeared the Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF). As one Swiss diplomat put it, this was a “high level” organization created at the behest of Swiss foreign minister Micheline Calmy-Rey to help re-affirm Geneva’s ailing role as an international humanitarian centre.

More specifically, its creators maintain, it was designed to “build a stronger global community for overcoming humanitarian challenges and address the humanitarian impact of climate change.”

Another, perhaps more vociferous purpose was to provide Kofi Annan, who had stepped down as UN Secretary Geneval in December, 2006 with an additional inducement to choose Geneva as his new base. The fact that the Ghanian ex-diplomat was already heavily solicited by organizations around the world – he is currently on dozens of institutional boards – did not seem to matter. Nor, perhaps, that Annan represented for some an old rather than a new guard and that his presence might simply replicate what the UN was trying to do anyway.

Initially, however, there was no clear indication what the new organization would do or whether it was even needed. This did not prevent the Swiss government from providing taxpayer funds, seconded personnel, and a renovated building – the Villa Rigot, just off the Place des Nations - to the new institution. “It was actually a text-book case of how not to set up an organization, notably to put in the money and then wonder what it was going to do,” noted the director of a leading Geneva-based non-governmental organization, who, as with many in Geneva, was wondering what the organization was trying to achieve.

The GHF's managing director is Walter Fust, the former chief of the Swiss and Kofi Annan the President. Its 25-member Board boasts the likes of Ivan Pictet, Ricardo Lagos, Mary Robinson, Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein…The list goes on.

On the surface, the GHF represents another stroke by Geneva – and Switzerland - to strengthen the city’s seal on humanitarian stardom. The idea is that Geneva will become the international centre for Climate Change. But who and what benefits from this? Is Geneva really saving the world from tsunamis and earthquakes?

Amongst all the other organizations dedicated to the same cause, the GHF has been making ostensible strides to deal with the humanitarian element involved in climate change. As Fust puts it, ‘while everybody’s dealing with polar bears, biodiversity and elks, no one is dealing with the social dimension.’ So what is the real agenda here?

There are two apparent functions of the GHF: the first is its Annual Forum, and the second, its initiatives. At a glance, the GHF comes across as a disordered and vague initiative without an attainable goal. In a recent interview, Fust he assured me that the GHF was more of a “convenor platform” rather than an active organization. In reality, however, the GHF is too ‘high-level’ to really deal with the nitty-gritty of humanitarian issues and field work. Its first annual meeting in June, 2008, was widely regarded as an expensive show with no real substance.

The fallout that occurred in the wake of the Iraq War and Geneva’s own diminishing role in favour of New York as the new humanitarian centre, where UNOCHA has its headquarters and where the political decisions are being made, left Switzerland grappling with what to do. The stepping down from the UN of Kofi Annan, a highly sought after asset with top level connections, represented an opportunity not to be missed. It was not that the Ghanian ex-diplomat was looking for something to do. His entourage are actually keen that he remove himself from the bulk of his board commitments so that he can re-focus his efforts on a smaller, more manageable number of activities, such as his successful (at least initially) mediation in Kenya last year. “This is what Annan should be doing, not playing games with political agendas that achieve little,” said one UN insider.

The fact is that what was once the forgotten ghost of David Suzuki’s “The Nature of Things”, has now become the global threat that affects us all. It’s possibly worst than terrorism. So was the GHF more an attempt by the Swiss not only to establish themselves as a global player in the climate change game but also to provide both Water Fust and Kofi Annan with replacements for their forced retirement?

The Swiss, who had pushed Fust to become the new head of the World Food Programme, were outmaneuvered by the Americans leaving their man suddenly hanging with nothing. And as far as Annan was concerned, he did not become president of Ghana as many of his backers had hoped. So the GHF seemed like an appropriate and highly prestigious fix for both of them, and the top brass fell in line.

The GHF is now seeking to take advantage of “climate change resolution,” one of the UN’s fastest developing growth industries. Highly criticized within humanitarian circles for being a waste of time and money, however, the GHF’s purpose is questionable. Is this really how the Swiss should be spending taxpayers money? Numerous organizations are already dealing with climate change and doing it well. The third World Climate Conference, for example, will take place in Geneva at the end of August. It will bring together all the key players, including those representing the field, who matter.

This has left Annan somewhat out on an embarrassing limb with friendly critics suggesting that it might be wise for him to pull back from the Swiss initiative rather than continue embarrassing himself with its existence. Fust, undeterred, firmly believes that the GHF has a significant role to play. He estimates that the current unaddressed business of the humanitarian social consequences of climate change is in the region of between $50 and $80 billion USD.

Since the 2008 Forum, the GHF’s has apparently initiated a new weather monitoring systems venture in the Victoria Lakes region; a project spearheaded by Sony Ericsson and Scion Corp. These projects are not funded by the GHF and represent the possibility for autonomous and sustainable business development. Clearly, if climate change is the new global agenda, there is plenty of room for investment.

Nevertheless, the GHF’s future may prove bleak. Swiss parliamentarians are sceptical and a government audit looms before the Berne federal government will release its next tranche of 500,000 CHF of donorship funds for the GHF. If this not come through, then it will certainly have an impact on the organization’s 2,3 million (CHF) running costs, plus various secondments and subsidzed rental space worth thousands more, provided for by Switzerland, Lichtenstein, France and Germany.

The GHF sees itself as being in the business of saving lives. It is also in the business of providing a round-table for unnamed “private foundations” to discuss their business plans. More to the point, however, Geneva may also be in the business of saving itself from terminal boredom. Geneva is confused. It wants to rebuild itself and finally become a truely innovative and international city.

No one is quite sure what to do, but for now, perhaps the GHF will make it a humanitarian super-centre. Or at least that is what some policymakers hope. While Swiss are trying to level a strangle hold on their prized metropolis and alleviate it from the stigma of a dull bankers’ town, a weird group of ex-UN heads are clinging to their pensions and temporally fixed in the late 1940s’, are trying to get their piece of the pie. As they all try to mend Geneva’s international sores, they are caught in the headlights of a city far too xenophobic to ever resolve the world’s problems or its own problems. Will Fust turn around the great beast and finally get results? Is the GHF going to save Geneva? I’ll see you on June 23 at the Hotel Intercontinental.

Essential Edge contributor Nathaniel Gaudrich is a journalist currently based in the Lake Geneva Region.