Can The United Nations Make The World Better?

In today's episode, I speak with Dr. Noeleen Heyzer, a distinguished diplomat and international civil servant who served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.

She was the highest ranking Singaporean in the UN during her term.

Dr. Heyzer also led the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), transforming it into a powerful advocate for women's rights and empowerment globally.

This episode was produced in conjunction with the upcoming International Women's Day, with the hope of getting more of us to reflect on the progress we have made and what is needed for the road ahead.

Dr. Heyzer speaks candidly about her efforts to empower women through economic security, break the silence on gender-based violence, and ensure women's inclusion in peace negotiations—drawing from her direct experience with peace processes in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

She offers a thoughtful assessment of the UN's challenges in modern conflicts and her vision for reforming this critical institution for a new era

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 Teaser/Introduction
01:02 The Origins of The UN
07:00 The Importance Of The UN For Countries
10:06 Singapore's Journey and the UN's Influence
10:56 Dr Heyzer's Journey
19:20 Women's Rights In The 20th Century
27:14 The Progress Made For Women's Rights
34:55 Understanding The Tangible Impact of The UN
44:03 The Role of Women in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts
46:56 Role Of The UN In Conflicts
47:40 Challenges Facing the UN in Modern Conflicts
52:46 Reimagining the UN for a New Era
56:15 Advice for Future Leaders: Lifelong Learning and Ethical Leadership

Keith 00:00:00

Dr. Heyzer, thank you for coming on. You're an expert in the UN, and as a young Singaporean, many people might be unfamiliar or intimidated by the UN. One of the first questions that came to my mind when I was preparing for this interview was asking about the counterfactual. We know what kind of the history or the legacy of the UN was at the beginning, was kind of designed or developed to hopefully prevent more future wars or mitigate any future conflicts. No one really bothered to kind of ask, "What's the counterfactual? What's a war without the UN like?" So I'd like to start off this discussion with that question. What does a war without the UN look like?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 01:02:00

Thank you for having me, and that is a very good question to start with. Because if you think of why the UN got started, it was actually after the Second World War. The Second World War was the deadliest war in the whole recorded human history. We had about 85 million people dead, even though at the time when the UN was being formed, it was just towards the end of the Second World War, but the war didn't end in Asia until several months later. And it did not end because there was a negotiation on peace and so on. It ended because of an atom bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and also on Nagasaki.

People couldn't believe the devastation and the destruction and the horror of what happened. Never before was an atom bomb dropped on civilian population. And we had to recover from that devastation that we saw, but also from the dehumanization that was in fact facing us of the capacity of us to destroy ourself.

So in a way, we have to say a big thank you to President Roosevelt at that time, because he was able to mobilize 15 nation states to come together in San Francisco. It was a new imagination of what the future of humanity can be, and it was one where it actually set in motion a new era that was based on entirely new framework that became the rule of law, if you like, for how the world should be if we want to reclaim our humanity.

And this was based, it started... I mean, as you know, the charter starts with "We the peoples," and it promised every single individual in every country freedom from want and freedom from fear. There were like four areas where it brought new changes in terms of this new era, and the rule of law, how the rule of law should operate.

So one is in the area of peace and security, is to not use military might as a way of resolving our conflict, but to use negotiation and diplomacy to resolve differences, and to use military might only in self-defense or when the Security Council authorize it. Secondly, and this was really a big thing, because at that time most of the countries were still colonies, and this was to promise independence and sovereign power.

And that was a big deal, because that was a time of decolonization, and at that time, many people felt that it would take years, maybe even a decade, before the world could move out from the state of imperialism to the state of nation states with sovereign power. It was really a change, a total change, of what our world could actually look like. And that independence was so important. We could say that the UN accelerated the decolonization process.

It also promised that it would look at post-colonial stability. So it invested in development. You don't just say that you are a sovereign power without taking care of your population. So the issue of governance and development was so important. And that was the third pillar. And of course, the fourth pillar was one of human rights, that every human being once you are born human, you have dignity and you have rights, and this has got to be protected.

What a change from the world of empire where during the colonial period, it was the use of power over, it was not power with, and yet in the setting up of the UN, the whole focus was actually mutual collaboration and mutual trust to create a better world. And that was power with. So it was a change from power over to power with, and that the rule of law would apply to both the big as well as the small country.

Keith 05:07:00

One of the interesting counterpoints to many maybe critiques or many detractors of the UN is that it's not effective, but I think they often miss the point, which is that the introduction of the UN has posited a new ideal in which we should approach international relations.

And in the past, it's very much realpolitik or the strong do what they will and the weak must follow what they must, right? But the UN kind of subverts that that kind of realpolitik notion.

In Singapore, it was one of S. Rajaratnam's first order of business was to get UN to recognize Singapore as an independent country.

Then that follows on the question of, why is the UN important for a small country like Singapore?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 07:00:00

The UN is important for small countries, but also for the big countries. Because one very good example, to be very honest, is India. Before I come to Singapore, I was actually a bit horrified when I listened to a lecture that was given by my friend Tashi Tarol, who was also an under-secretary-general at the UN when I was there.

And he, in one of the lectures that he gave to Oxford University, he mentioned that during the time of colonialism, there was a policy to destroy the textile industry of India. In fact, in the 18th and 19th century, India was a global lead in terms of its textile industry. And the way they did it, of course, was through tariffs and so on, but also, according to certain historians, which Tashi referred to, they went village by village. And who would be driving the textile industry, you think? Of course it was women. It was highly skilled women textile workers, and they went there, and they cut off their thumbs and their fingers.

So this was something that the brutality of that time, is something that the UN actually was able to stop, and saw that as something that we could not take over to the new era. So big or small, I think it provided us with new aspirations. It provided us with a moral compass, which is so important, and it had the legitimacy and the authority to actually do that.

So, for a small nation like Singapore, obviously, as you mentioned, that the UN, by recognizing Singapore, gave it its sovereignty and recognized it as a nation state, as a city-state. But at the same time, the UN provided Singapore, at that time, when Singapore was just coming out of colonialism, with advice. There's always development advice, UNDP sent an advisor to help us, worked with Dr. Goh Keng Swee, and so on. And that helped a lot.

But beyond that, it was also a platform for Singapore to play a much larger role. So, Singapore actually was able to develop networks with other small nation-states, and that provided us with basically a community to broaden our voice, our concerns. By being active on the global stage, you actually build up a community of support.

But I think today, if we look at it, what the UN has done is also to talk about the kind of issues that we are facing in the 21st century. And this is, of course, from the pandemic, from the COVID-19 pandemic, to the climate agenda, to the whole issue of AI and cybersecurity, and also to conflicts that we do not know how to end.

And in the process, Singapore has also developed expertise that the UN values, and therefore, today, the UN sees Singapore as a thought leader, and also involved very much in the issue of cybersecurity, and also in the issue of climate diplomacy. I think there's a fantastic synergy that we need to appreciate that we get by being a global player.

Keith 10:06:00

And in some cases, that's where Singapore can punch above its weight as many would call it.

Most people, or maybe most diplomats during your time, they would prefer to serve in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as opposed to maybe going to work in the UN directly. Why did you take that path?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 10:56:00

I grew up after the Second World War, at the time of the new nation-states being built. But it was a time where my family fell into very deep poverty. And I had a very difficult childhood. Didn't go to school until I was eight. But I was such an observant child, but I didn't have books. So, the world was my classroom, so I learned and I observed things. And I realized that there was a lot of human suffering.

There was a lot of human suffering, but at the same time, the people who undergone that kind of suffering, they actually defied fate, their own fate. And they were able to actually develop resilience, strength, and courage, to think that they could change their own lives.

And some of the things, especially when I remembered, because we didn't have anything at home, so there was a long road, along our road, there was a little lane, and on one side of the lane was the ice ball man, Abdullah with his ice balls, and we would be going there, and he would be giving us free ice balls. But just in front of us would be a group of women, the kaisumri women who would be sitting there having their lunch, and I was so fascinated by them, because, not only because of their costume, but also because of the way they actually came together.

And also, I later on, I realized that actually they had a history. Most of the people who migrated to Singapore actually were people who had skills and were running away from different oppressions or from famine, and they were trying to create a new life here. And I saw the way people created mutual aid, help each other, and I saw the development of sisterhoods, of basically vegetarian clans and temples and so on.

So, it was really the vibrancy of people at the community level that caught me, and I saw the strength in that. And I think that has always inspired me to know that actually, at the end of the day, people are never victims of fate, and that they have agency that can bring about change and social transformation.

So, I think that was something that then overlapped with the time of nation building as well, because at that time, again, we were coming out of colonialism, and the fact that we can build a new nation out of colonialism, that was the same story over and over again.

And so, maybe I was over idealistic, so I thought that we can actually push very fast to create a new society, the type of society that we have now. But now I just feel that Singapore has gone beyond expectation from what I had dreamt of was possible at that time.

And also, we were still caught in the Cold War, and therefore, it was an ideological war. So, sometimes when you talk about workers or you talk about communities who can take over their own fate, it became a political problem or something like that. And when I got my scholarship to Cambridge, it opened a whole new world for me.

I suddenly realized that there was a world outside, and that was thinking of social change. But also, to be honest, even when I was at the University of Singapore, I mean, already that the understanding that the world was much larger than just our communities or our nation, because I was part of the Democratic Socialist Club at that time, and I was the international secretary, and I was sent to three months on a road trip to look at the Scandinavian countries or to Europe and so on. And the whole thing was to study the third way.

And because at that time, during the Cold War, we were having to navigate the ideological framework of either capitalists or communists or socialists or whatever. But then having a, being a democratic socialist meant something else, and I realized that the world itself was in fermentation. It was actually coming to terms with itself, and it was actually looking for social transformation. And that got me really excited.

And so, of course, when I went to Cambridge, that deepened a lot more. And after that, the first job I had, was at the Institute of Development Studies. And there, it was, at that time, it was a center of thinking, of supporting the post-colonial nations.

What happened there was so interesting, because it actually picked up on the work that I did in Singapore, which was on the migration issue, was on the migrant workers, it was on the women and they in the free trade zones, and so on. They actually picked that up. And then, they also focused a lot on linking me to the International Labor Organization of the UN. That had an amazing program, and this was the World Employment Program.

And it looked at the whole issue of unemployment, youth depression because they couldn't get jobs, and so on, and the re-skilling of our population, so it was a very exciting time. And but also I think at that time, whilst I had learned all the theoretical frameworks and so on, but the focus was also looking very much at women's subordination. And women's subordination because of the devaluation of their work. And I focused a lot on that.

And actually, Keith, now, during this interview, we're actually going to celebrate International Women's Day. So, and then also the Beijing plus 30 years after the First World Conference on women, and 25 years after Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. So, all that became actually, were some of the work that I contributed to.

But coming back to the International Women's Day, actually, it started just a few years before World War I, in 1914. During that time, it was the period of industrialization in many of the Western countries and so on. And women were brought into the workforce, but they were devalued, and one of the most striking reason was that women rebelled. They, again, they did not take what they were given as fate.

What happened was that in many of the textile industries, there were fires, because there were never enough safety measures, and women were burnt alive. And that was what started many of the protests. But it was a silent protest, it was a quiet protest. And then when the war started, again, because of the consequences of war, women were on the streets talking about bread and peace.

So again, from the very start, they were very involved in the social transformation agenda. But they didn't have the vote, so they couldn't influence the decision-making processes and the policies of their countries.

So, in a sense, all that kind of reminded me that in the whole process of social transformation, we need not just to stuff out women's agency, but to listen to their real needs, and also to provide them with the capacity to participate politically to make the right decisions, and to contribute to the shape of the kind of societies that they would like to have.

Keith 19:20:00

One of the big transformations I've seen is that today when we look at the celebration of International Women's Day, you can kind of have a sense of the progress we've made. But often I think people forget the purpose of you commemorating that in the first place. You were the first woman from our part of the world, in Asia, to head the United Nations Development Fund for Women, and you were there for a total of 13 years.

That's a really long time. And feminism in the '90s and even in the '70s and the '80s looks very different from today. A lot of us might not appreciate the progress we've made because we kind of take it for granted.

So help me understand, maybe at the start where you were about to take over this position in the '90s, what were some of the key problems that you saw with regards to women rights that you thought needed to be tackled urgently?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 19:55:00

When I went to head the Women's Fund, it was actually a very exciting time. I just felt that it was the golden period of the UN. It was just after the Berlin Wall had fallen, and it was the end of the Cold War, and the world was looking at how the UN could actually contribute to shape globalization.

And of course, in the context of globalization, you have the changing nature of work, you have new opportunities to put new issues onto the agenda, and so on. So there was a lot of excitement at that time, and we felt that we could actually transform the world.

So let's go back before even my heading to UNIFEM, because I was picked up. I never applied for any of my UN job, by the way. It was the UN that kept pulling me in.

So I just wanted to say why, and I think that this period, before going to UNIFEM is just so absolutely important. Because at that time, the first World Conference on Women took place in 1975, and it took place because a woman from Finland was appointed as the assistant secretary general, not even the under secretary general in 1972.

So Helvi Sipilä made sure that she actually initiated the first World Conference on Women in 1975. And this was in Mexico, and what she did opened up a whole new space to talk about many of the issues about the undervaluation of women's work, talking about violence against women, and the theme of the world conferences was always equality, development and peace, making sure that when nations are coming out of colonialism, and they become the developmental state, they do not actually undervalue women's work and women's lives.

And, because for a long time, women were always seen as secondary workers or they were never seen as heads of their household. Even many of them were heading households because of various reasons, you needed a two-income family, or something happened to the husband or whatever.

At that time, when I went to Nairobi, and with many of the people from the Third World, we felt that we didn't have a voice, and the agendas were being shaped by all kinds of other forces. And that our perspectives and our lives were not represented. So, I came back, and I decided that I was gonna spend 10 years to prepare for at least for the next world conference for the fourth World Conference on Women, but the third one took place in 1985.

Keith 22:33:00

They missing out, sorry, what were they missing out in terms of, you said that they, your voice was not included from the Third World. What was the gap between the First World and the Third World in your opinion, do you think?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 22:44:00

I think, at that time, many of them were looking at marriage, and the family, and how restricted, something like the doll's house. That the home did not give you agency, and you were so dependent. Whereas, in our case, not being able to get quality work, and not being able to support the family, we, many of us had dysfunctional families, but at least the family was a foundation of many things. So it was, like, different kind of perspectives, that is one.

I think the other thing was that the level of violence in women's lives was not captured. In fact, the person who did the forward for me, Professor Mathiasen, he talked about 100 million missing women in Asia who were either killed through infanticide, who were undernourished, who were... who died because they didn't have healthcare. Maternal mortality was so high in our region. He talked about India, he talked about China, he talked about Pakistan, and so on.

And then growing up, I knew that many of the girl child was thrown in Victoria Street Convent. And I saw so many women with broken feet, who the ones where the feet had to be bounded and so on. They had broken feet, broken arms. You had all kinds of violence were kind of inflicted on you, and the shame of talking about that.

I think we all realized that we dare not talk because we were so ashamed, and we felt that we were stigmatized, and I had to break that. To break the... and put shame where shame belong. But of course, we did it in our own circles. We didn't go out and say, "This happened to me," and so on. But we knew what needed to actually change to allow the dignity of human life to actually flourish.

And we were going to put that globally. So I was really happy when they invited me to head The Women's Fund in New York.

So I played a major role preparing for the fourth World Conference on Women, and there were four areas that I as head of UNIFEM focused on, and one was definitely economic security and rights. The second one was ending violence against women. And respecting women's full human rights and dignity. The third one was women's political participation and voice, to create greater governance systems. And the fourth one was, of course, women peace and security.

Keith 25:24:00

When the first world conference came out and when in a sense, it was a Western-led agenda. You were missing a lot of, kind of, the realities in our part of the world, and you helped bridge the gap.

And now, when you started, you had these four agendas that were pointed out in your 13 years there, what were the kind of key works of progress that you made, that you felt that would not have been made if maybe UNIFEM wasn't there as an institution?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 27:14:00

I think we were the first one that talked about the care economy. Really taking care of care work and identifying care, care work. You know, up to then, people thought that care, though the care that women give was instinctive. And it was not the skill, caring for other lives.

And it's only now, I think after the pandemic, we are talking about respecting care work and really appreciating how much it takes emotionally and so on.

I think as we were the ones who put on the agenda, and was picked up by the IMF, was that involving providing women with economic security and rights is smart economics. And that was a term that Christine Legarde actually used.

I actually relied a lot not just on the mobilization at the grassroots or across the globe in terms of women's networks, but I also involved a lot of academics, some of the top women academics, in their top universities. And they helped me with the economic agenda.

And then at that time, you had people like Amartya Sen, Kamal B. Haq, Richard Jolly talking about the human development index and so on. That was one, but equally important, I think for the first time... It's hard to believe that we actually had the convention on all forms of discrimination against women, that was developed in 1979, and they did not include violence against women as a form of discrimination.

And that was because, at that time, because of the sovereignty issue and all that, the issue of violence against women was seen to be within the family, or within the nation, and therefore, it was something that the nations could handle, but it was not something that the UN should be involved with.

But that, we broke that. Basically, I think the whole thing was that we... And they all said, "Oh, this is culture. We can't change culture, and this and that is our tradition," and so on. But then we said, "It is not cultural, it's criminal." We changed the whole... I think the changing of the narrative, in a way that people could resonate with, and also it made sense, and people saw how urgent things were to change that agenda.

Incest, child marriage, the type of sexual violence, not just on women, but also on boys, done by religious entities. All kinds of stuff. It was all, like, silenced. And everything looks perfect on the surface, but people were suffering. People were suffering inside, and I think the whole thing of really breaking that up, and we did.

And it was unbelievable because I was able to hold a conference in the General Assembly. And at that time, Kofi Annan was... I worked under four secretary-general. So Bertha Scully, Kofi Annan, Ban, and of course, our SG now, António Guterres.

But Kofi Annan was really extremely helpful because at one stage, his advisors were saying to him, "She and her team will be embarrassing our nation-states." And when I had this exhibition, which was... I decided that it should be black and white. There's nothing to say that it was anything in between, and this violence against women had to end.

And Nan Annan, his wife, was supposed to open it, and people advised him, "Don't go and open it," or, "Don't you go and attend this conference that she's organizing." But he came, and he was so touched. And I was so touched because when he got an award by a financial donation of $100,000, he gave it to the Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women that I started.

But it became a big thing. And today, it changed. I mean, I am just surprised that what we did, today it is on everybody's political agenda. And it has gone so global that nation-states have picked it up. So, a lot of it depends on the member states.

So, it is actually bringing the voices of people at the ground, and the concerns of peoples at the ground level, to the global agenda, to the attention of member states. Being able to work with member states, for them to pick it up, and for them to move this agenda, and to make it an agenda where there is accountability.

But most of the work of UNIFEM at that time was actually in the General Assembly. And the UN is a very territorial place as well. So you have pillars, and you're not supposed to cross pillars. And one highly protected pillar was, of course, the peace and security, and it was a very male-dominated sector.

Because of the genocide that happened, many women leaders, including many of the grassroots and the people whom we supported and I worked with, they came to me and said, "Could you, Noeleen, take the lead to put this agenda onto the UN Security Council?" And that was a big deal because never before was this issue put into the UN Security Council.

And then because I was on the development side, there was just no way that I could just easily slip into the peace and security agenda. But then we decided that we were going to look at the world in a more holistic way, that there is no peace and security without development, without human security, and without human rights.

And that we needed to show that as long as peace and security is just a male bastion based on military might and military security, we are not going to deal with the root causes of conflict which is very much due to the fragmentation in societies, socially, economically, and politically, the fragmentation and exclusion, and the corruption in many of these countries. And that these have got to be addressed if we want to have sustainable peace.

Keith 34:55:00

The hard part that maybe critics would say or someone from the outside would say that something like UNIFEM is very influential or active in changing the narrative, but how does one qualify the policy impact? Or how does one understand the causal chain by which the way you maybe shape narratives or reshape narratives actually affect policy on the ground? That's something that I think most people might find it hard to understand.

Especially with an organization like the UN. Can we understand how does it really work when it comes to converting it maybe to tangible policy outcomes as seen?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 35:30:00

Actually, I will even go beyond a policy outcome and say practice in real life. Because it's very easy to change it into policy. Countries can make policy but not implement it. And most countries will because they want to look good in the UN, and then they also have reports to make, and that they can say, "We have a policy on this, policy on that."

But that's not good enough for me. And that what I really need to see is actually real change in society and in real people's lives. So, the test case was Afghanistan. It was the fall of the Taliban. And the UN was in charge of developing, or took charge of the peace negotiation there and so on. And I knew about the exclusion and the violence that affected Afghan women.

And the first thing I did was I tried to put the issue or to bring women to the peace table, because the Security Council co-resolution had four pillars. One was on protection, how do you protect women from violence. One was prevention. The other one was participation, how can they help to shape the new future. And one was really in terms of peace building, how do you sustain peace and how do you help societies to recover.

So I wanted to put this agenda onto the UN to the S-RSG, this is the Secretary-General's Special Representative. He was leading the agenda to get all the clans together and to shape a future for Afghanistan. And when I raised it, he was so angry with me because at that time, but he said, "I have so much to handle with all the clans and the divisions, and now you are asking me to push this agenda as well."

"It is very difficult for me to do that." And then after, he looked at me and said, "So, Noeleen, whose voices are you listening to? Are these the diaspora women from the Western countries, the Afghan women, or have you ever been to Afghanistan?" So, of course, at that stage, I have never been to Afghanistan. So he says, "You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea about anything. So don't come and talk to me until you know anything."

So, of course, I had to go to Afghanistan, so, which I did. And then I set up my office there and then I worked with the women in Afghanistan, and we were able to actually celebrate the first International Women's Day after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the burned down theater where the Taliban burned down one of the theaters in Kabul.

So we organized, and you wouldn't believe, because we worked, of course, with the local leaders as well and also with the ministers of Women's Affairs, Sima Sama, and the thing was this, that 1,000 women appeared from seven districts, and they all had the same message to the UN and to their leaders. And the whole cabinet of Afghanistan was there. And it was very touching. It was not our voice.

I mean, of course, I introduced the whole thing and I knew what people wanted, and if there was one thing that they all wanted was equal citizenship in their constitution, because this was a time when they were rebuilding the new constitution.

So the work of UNIFEM was to support, using 1325 to support the women judges and the women lawyers to actually include this clause for equal citizenship. And after that, because of what he saw, the SRSG was extremely supportive. So I had the support of the UN, and I have to say that Kofi Annan, again, was extremely helpful.

In fact, during the time of the donors' conference in Tokyo where Mrs. Kaoguta was heading the Kanjaika at that time, I was part of his delegation. And you have to understand that as head of UNIFEM, I was at the D2 level. I was not undersecretary-general or not even an assistant secretary-general, which means that I was at the highest in terms of the bureaucracy or something like maybe a Perssec.

But I was not like a minister or something, equivalent to our national arrangement. But he included me in his delegation for Afghanistan. And that was a huge support. So I got supported from the UN even though I took a lot of risks. And eventually, we managed to get the equal citizenship incorporated in the constitution. And the women cried when it was time for the SRSG to go. He made the women cry because he put them in the front row.

So, you know, the change in the UN, the culture and so on, many people think, "Oh, it's so difficult." But, of course you have to pay the price. I give you one example. When I was trying to do the same something in Liberia, I talked about... many of the peacekeepers. Because I happened to land during curfew hours, and of course I saw all the peacekeepers' trucks and all the women, young girls. And so, I knew that there was sexual harassment and there was a sexual economy going on.

So, I made a complaint. And then I was going to raise it at a very high level and so on. And then I was told by a very senior person, "Please don't raise the issue of peacekeepers because you are going to undermine the UN." And I said, "If I don't, the UN will undermine themself." So, I'm trying to just give you a sense.

Keith 41:24:00

You saw that corruption first-hand essentially, because you were there, as the peacekeepers, you're supposed to help maintain the peace. But instead, you're perpetuating violence.

Coming back to Afghanistan. What difference did the equal citizenship for women make?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 41:38:00

They had 350,000 girls in primary and secondary school. We had 100,000 women in universities. Before all these changes taking place. There were 400 women who ran for parliamentary elections, so that was a kind of change in women's life. And the daringness from them being excluded from public spaces to engage with that.

And I don't think that that could have happened without the UN and the work that we did. So, it's about changing the world actually, changing the world for the better, changing the world to increase our humanity, and having the resilience, the courage, and the hope, but also knowing how to mobilize partnership. I just have to say none of this is possible, it is about a social transformation.

We're talking about a social transformation, but a social transformation that can only happen if there is collaborative leadership.

Keith 42:42:00

Afghanistan's a very interesting example, because I think most people wouldn't think about it in Singapore. Like, what does Afghanistan have to do? So therefore, most people kind of maybe underplay the importance of such organizations.

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 44:03:00

So let me tell you what happened in 2003. The two-state solution was still on the table. And I received a letter that was signed, the same letter, signed by an Israeli leader and a Palestinian leader.

The Israeli leader was the chair of the Knesset, in other words, of their parliament. And the Palestinian leader was the woman minister of the PLO.

So they wrote me the same letter, and said, "Could you help use 1325 to help us move on the two-state solution by creating the Women's Commission for a Just and Sustainable Palestinian-Israeli Peace? Because the security of one is dependent on the security of the other, and we would like to prepare our population, and we also would like to be involved with the negotiation so that we can help to move that agenda forward."

We actually established the Women Commission, and we in fact held a meeting in East Jerusalem with 300 people participating, including diplomats, and people from the quartet, and so on, that were negotiating for the two-state solution at that time.

And many of the Palestinians women who were there cried because it was the first time that they had been to East Jerusalem. And we were met by Tzipi Livni, who was the foreign minister at that time. And when I invited Hanan Ashrawi to come New York, she met up with for some of the side events and so on. She met up with member states, and then we were able to organize meetings with EU, with Washington, and so on. So it was very active.

But the problem is whatever we do, there's another larger force. There's a larger force that can destroy whatever we are doing. And this is the force of division of hatred. And there was, of course, a Hamas attack, but also there was a terrible Israeli response. And the same story, and that destroyed it. And after that, the whole thing literally collapsed, and now it's in this horrible state.

Keith 46:56:00

To that end, peoples look at these conflicts and people say, the UN is pretty much hamstrung by the Security Council clearly works in favor of essentially whoever's backing who. People will say that the UN in this case hasn't... for all the work they have done, it's pretty much unraveled. And then the point now I would like to ask is then, what does the UN need to do to kind of prevent this conflict? Or do you just recognize that these are just fundamental limitations and accept it?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 47:40:00

The world has changed. The point is that the rule of law had been broken. And it's not just the rule of law. It's the rule of war itself.

Because the rule of war is international humanitarian law which actually basically says that you don't target civilians, and you don't destroy civilian infrastructure. And you don't destroy schools, hospitals, religious sites, heritage sites, and so on. And you don't use starvation as a weapon of war. And so on and so forth. Now, all that has been broken, by the way.

And you don't attack humanitarian workers. That also has been broken. The secretary-general has said whatever he has to say. But the decision comes from the Security Council.

And even though we have the highest court, where one of the weakness of the UN is the lack of a robust enforcement mechanism. So, we have the International Court of Justice, but at the same time, they require Security Council to take their recommendation. The ICJ, for example, said that they met, and they made certain recommendations. But things were always vetoed, and the use of that veto basically has made the UN paralyzed in so many ways. And, but the General Assembly has been able to pass resolutions.

But the problem with that is that it's not legally binding.

But, I also would like to put this, because it's not just the peace and security agenda. It is also the fact that we have to deal with our global commons. We have to deal with our global public goods. We have to deal with the kind of risks that we'll be facing in the 21st century that requires international cooperation. And therefore, where is the UN in all this?

And I think what we need to understand is that the UN that was created in 1945 involve 50 nation states, or 51 nation states, that actually focus on mutual trust and cooperation to keep the world order moving. Trust has been broken.

A trust has been broken, and also the decision-making powers are not necessarily just with the member states. One needs to look at the how the global fabric has itself changed.

And the global fabric has changed in a very paradoxical way, because whilst we are coming together through technology, and for a long while through our supply chains, through the financial systems and so on, we're getting closer and closer together. But increasingly, we are moving apart, in terms of power.

The power has shifted from west to east, from north to south, and then there is a whole array of civil society networks, high worth individuals, multinational companies, CEOs that are some of the richest people in the world and so on. And they have influence, in other words, power has, is now diffused.

Power is diffused, influence is diffused and decision-making is also diffused. And therefore there's a more complex global fabric, if you like. But at the same time, people see today, there is a very different UN. I talked about the work that I was able to do in the golden age of the UN.

The UN has been very severely weakened, because the rule of law has been weakened, and the global south actually has made a very strong accusation there is double standards. And that basically different standards applies to different situations and this and that. So there is a sense that it's no longer the rule of law, but the rule by law where the strong and the powerful do what they like.

Keith 51:44:00

It's like, the General Assembly has a lot of desire to push agenda for peace, but it's always when it's time to enforce it, when you go back to the Security Council, it's always the major powers that decide.

And in that sense, it's almost paradoxical, where you're supposed to be an institution that builds trust, that's supposed to represent the interests of humanity, from both big nations and small nations. But, when it comes to executive decision-making, it's always the main five. Or the big powers that decide.

Is this a reality that people should just accept? Or is there a way to reform or a new way to reimagine itself? How would you reimagine the UN in this case?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 52:46:00

Let's move back to 1945. Actually, if we didn't have the veto I don't think the UN would have been established, because at that time, already the League of Nations fell, because everybody had, there wasn't a veto. So at that time, the use of the veto helped with the creation of the whole UN system. But I would make one recommendation, and this is to get an agreement where in certain situation, the veto can never be used.

And that I think would be a big change. But beyond that, I think let's move away just from the peace and security, but we can talk about all the failures in the UN system. But I think that let's talk also about the some of the successes against all odds.

I think the fact that the UN was able to establish the IPCC and to put the climate agenda, that is such an existential threat onto the global agenda, and this was a UN driven agenda. And then to get the countries to actually realize, and not just countries, but also the private sector, our cities, our citizens, that is a big deal.

You know. And we should actually celebrate that. I mean, there's still a long way to go but it's changed our economy. I mean, what a transformation.

So getting out of the very painful, you can see it when I'm talking about the peace and security is extremely painful. But when you talk about these other issues, we have to think about a new multilateralism that is fit for the 21st century. But how do we get there? I think that we have to rethink many things. But one of the things that we have to rethink is, let's invest and build on what works, and change what does not work.

Now, if we look at some of the current disruptions in your generation, the AI and the cyber war is the big one. There is talk of establishing something like the IPCC for the cybersecurity agenda and for the AI, and to have the ethics.

What are the ethics to control the use of AI in our world today? How do we ensure that the level of violence, the fake news, the divisions that are being created in the cyber world are being addressed?

And so they will be using, and then in this kind of agenda, the think tanks, the thought leadership of think tanks would be more mobilized. And I think that this is one area where Singapore can actually help to contribute towards. And this is really something that is very important.

It's not easy. It's not going to be easy, because a lot of the decisions are in the hands of the CEOs of these tech companies. And you see the oligarchy that is being developed now before our eyes. But at the same time, I think there has to be rules in the cyber world, as much as in the world order.

Keith 56:02:00

If you were to give a piece of advice to a fresh graduate who's out there looking for job, what would it be?

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 56:15:00

Learn how to learn. And the main reason is because you are living in a world that I know nothing about. I mean, something, but not as much as you. It's the cyber world, the AI. And there's going to be big transformation, and very likely, many younger people may have more than one job throughout their whole lifetime.

But whatever it is, whatever you decide to actually do, know that in today's world, interdisciplinary learning is extremely important. But whatever sector you are in, develop a special kind of leadership. What we lacked today in our world. And this is to be a wise and ethical leader, and how do we actually help to repair broken trust? How do we restore dignity in whatever we do? And how do we revalue what is important to people and to our planet?

Keith 57:26:00

On that note, thank you, Doctor Heyzer, for coming on.

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer 57:31:00

Thank you.