INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION The United Nations and Technology for Sustainable Development Dr Pekka Tarjanne, Secretary-General, International Telecommunication Union Symposium at the University of San Francisco to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco 29 September 1995 Mr. Chairman, Distinguished guests, Ladies and gentlemen, It is both an honour and a privilege to have been invited to take part in this symposium. It is an honour because the organization I represent, the International Telecommunication Union, is one of the smallest of the United Nations family of organizations -- although perhaps one of the most important for its future. So I am very flattered that you have chosen us to help you celebrate the creation of the United Nations, here in San Francisco, fifty years ago, and that you have invited me to come all the way from Geneva to be with you today. Your invitation is also a privilege, but for slightly more personal reasons. Some thirty years ago, before I became involved in telecommunications, I used to be a theoretical physicist. As a young man, I had the good fortune to spend some time not too far from here, in Berkeley, doing some research and some teaching, but mainly learning from some of the greatest minds in modern physics. For some reason I could never really understand, they preferred to live and work here in California, rather than in places like Finland! As the old saying goes, there is no accounting for taste. Even so, I have very fond memories of my time here, and welcome this opportunity to renew old acquaintances, and make new friends. Today is a time of celebration. Whatever its present faults, however troubled its current image, there is no doubt that the creation of the United Nations was one of the great events of the twentieth century. It was an affirmation of mankind’s potential, in one of the darkest hours the world has ever known. Today should also be a time of reflection. The ideals and aspirations on which the United Nations was founded burn even more brightly today than they did, fifty years ago. Their appeal is more universal than ever before. They are still a beacon to mankind, our best hope for a better tomorrow. However, it is also true that these ideals have been somewhat tarnished - by fifty years of historical reality, by fifty years of promise not totally fulfilled, by fifty years of compromise between the desirable and the possible. Like the young men and women who fought to preserve what we all hold most dear some fifty years ago, the international institutions founded on these ideals have become a little old, a little weary -- perhaps a little cynical -- and a little out of touch with what is really happening in the world today. My main message to you today is that the United Nations does not have a future, unless it gets in touch with the people of the world -- especially the young people in the sunrise countries that are reshaping the world. It is time to re-think what the United Nations does, and how it does it. This year is not only the 50th birthday of the United Nations. It is the 130th anniversary of the founding of the International Telecommunication Union. Like the other members of the UN family, we too are trying to adjust to the new realities of what some have called the "post-modern" world. What does the phrase "post-modern" mean? To many people, not only in the United States but in other parts of the world, it means whatever is going on in California! There is a lot of truth in this view. In the 1980s, California -- more particularly, the Bay area -- was the birthplace of what I will call the First Information Revolution. This revolution started in Silicon Valley and swept around the world, overturning the economic, social and political order which had been established at the end of the Second World War, at the same time as the United Nations, and which was intimately related to it. In the 1990s, California is once again in the vanguard of what I will call the Second Information Revolution, which is seeing the convergence of telecommunications, information, and entertainment. In a sense, this second revolution will be more profound than the first. The first information revolution transformed the structures that make human life possible. The second will transform the structures that make it worth living. As members of society, it will change our most distinctively human processes -- culture, education, and the pursuit of knowledge. As individuals, it will change the way we perceive, experience and think about the world around us, and our fellow man. It will raise questions about what is real, what is imaginary, and where the borderline between them is - - or should be. Because telecommunications has been at the heart of these two revolutions, and because it has played such an important part in ending the post-war, "modern" era, the ITU is perhaps a little further ahead than some of its sister UN organizations in trying to adjust to the realities of the post- modern world. Six years ago, we began a reform process at a Plenipotentiary Conference in Nice. This process is scheduled to be completed three years from now, at another Plenipotentiary Conference which will take place in the fall of 1998 in the United States. If the mathematics of institutional reform were purely linear, you might therefore conclude that we are two-thirds of the way to our objective, and almost certain to succeed. Reforming the ITU -- and reforming the UN -- is much more like a logarithmic process, with 75% or 80% of the work requiring 20% to 25% of the intellectual, moral, and political effort, and the remainder requiring the rest! Today, you have asked me to talk about the role of technology -- and the role of the United Nations -- in sustainable development with special reference to the Asia-Pacific region. While I will try to do my best to speak about the UN as a whole, and sustainable development as a whole, I hope you will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks on the development of telecommunications in the region, and on the role of the ITU. This is not as arbitrary as it may seem, since statistics show a very high correlation between the development of telecommunications and overall economic development. Today, one is simply impossible without the other. In my remarks, I will try to weave together certain themes -- celebration and reappraisal -- maturity and rejuvenation -- moral illusion and reality -- by: first, looking into the bright sunrise of the "Asia-Pacific economic miracle" -- with particular reference to telecommunications, to see what lessons it holds for the rest of the world; second, peering into the shadows, to examine the role played by the UN and the ITU in this miracle; third, looking toward the future, at the conditions which will allow this development to be sustainable, in the fullest, most human sense; and fourth, setting out my personal views of how the UN system must change to achieve this goal. I The Asia-Pacific Development Miracle In looking to the future, it is particularly appropriate to focus on the Asia Pacific, since this is the area of the world that has changed the most in the last 50 years, and which will certainly have the greatest effect on the course of world history in the next 50 years. It is an immense region, home to two-thirds of the world’s people, a region of contrasts between giant continent-size countries and micro-size island nations. Fifty years ago, it was poor, ruined by wars. The abrupt end of colonialism meant that the people of the Asia-Pacific region had to take their destiny into their own hands. Today, it is home to some of the richest, fastest-growing, most technologically advanced, best educated, hardest working countries in the world. Yet in many part of the region economic progress has been characterized by a paradoxical combination of backwardness, gradualism and success that it is difficult to render a balanced assessment. By some counts, for example, China’s economy is the second largest in the world, and India’s is greater than that of the United Kingdom, the former Raj. By other measures, these two giants still lag far behind. The truth is more complicated than our statistics can easily reveal. But there can be no doubt about the present and future economic potential of the region. Telecommunications is a perfect illustration of the Asia-Pacific economic development miracle. Twenty or thirty years ago, by the standard statistical measures we use at the ITU -- for example, the number of telephone lines per 100 people -- the Asia-Pacific region was technologically one of the most backward in the world, on a par with Africa. Today, telecommunications is developing more rapidly in the Asia-Pacific region than anywhere else in the world -- including North America and Europe. At this point, let me introduce a very important caveat. In spite of progress made in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere, we should remember that the famous "telecommunications development gap" discovered a decade ago by Sir Donald Maitland and the other members of his Independent Commission on World-Wide Telecommunications Development is still very much in evidence. Overall, the 24 advanced industrialized democracies of the OECD still account for 70 per cent of global telephone mainlines, 80 per cent of service revenues, and 90 per cent of mobile phone subscribers, even though they are home to just 16 per cent of the world's population. More than two-thirds of households around the world still have no telephone. Nevertheless, the telecommunications development gap is narrowing. The Asia-Pacific region has gone further than any other in narrowing this gap. Consequently, this region has much to teach not only the other developing regions of the world, but some of the so-called developed regions as well. The Asia-Pacific "telecommunications miracle" is best illustrated by the four economies commonly referred to as the "dragons", namely Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Taiwan-China. Their rapid economic and telecommunications growth has made them statistically indistinguishable from the three OECD Member countries of the region, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. There are already more lines per capita in Hong Kong than in Japan while the other three dragons are not far behind. Indeed by the year 2000, based on current growth rates, the average teledensity among the dragons will surpass that of the OECD Asia-Pacific countries. In the process of catching up, these four dragons have installed the latest technology and they now have telecommunication networks which are among the most advanced in the world. Though the other Asia-Pacific emerging economies still have far to go, they too are making giant strides in developing their telecommunication networks. They are growing faster than the more developed Asia-Pacific economies and, more strikingly, their growth rate is accelerating. China stands out. Its network grew an astounding 51 per cent from 1992 to 1993 when it added over 5 million telephone lines. While other developing Asian-Pacific networks are not expanding at China’s spectacular rate, they are nevertheless among the world’s fastest growing. One of the highest growth areas is Southeast Asia. Indonesia and Thailand have sustained 15 per cent per year compound growth rates in main lines over the past 10 years while Malaysia has seen its teledensity triple from 5 to 15. The Philippines is making up for a decade of stagnation with recent annual growth in excess of 20 per cent. What is encouraging for the other Asian economies is that the transition from a low to a high teledensity (main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants) is becoming quicker over time. The OECD countries of the regions took between 10-35 years to move from a teledensity of 10 to 30, the four dragons did so in six to ten years, while countries like Indonesia and Malaysia seem set to complete the transition even faster. In sum, the experience of the Asia-Pacific region shows that: * The telecommunications gap between the developed and the developing economies can be closed given the right pre-conditions for growth. * The transition phase between low and high teledensity economies is becoming quicker and easier over time. Why is the growth process speeding up? There would seem to be a number of possible reasons: * Technological change, and in particular the introduction of digital switching, has made rapid development of capacity much easier. The dynamic Asian economies have been able to jump straight from manually-operated to digital exchanges, thus by-passing the semi- automatic stage of network development. In Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, for instance, exchange line digitization is above 75 per cent; * The dynamic Asian economies already had an industrial structure that depended heavily upon telecommunications-intensive activities such as consumer electronic manufacturing or services whereas the OECD Member countries were still largely agricultural, resource- based economies when they started the transition; * There is a learning curve whereby the "lessons" of a successful investment strategy in one country can be applied in others, given the right economic preconditions and policy framework. There is also strong consumer demand for some new technologies such as mobile phones or fax terminals and this demand has been spurred by advertising and by tourism. Against this background of success, I would like to introduce three sets of questions, which take us to the heart of this seminar. The first is about the past. What lies behind the Asia-Pacific miracle, in telecommunications and overall economic development? And what did the UN and the ITU have to do with it? The second is about the future of the Asia-Pacific region. Is the Asia-Pacific miracle sustainable? Can the UN and the ITU help ensure that it is? The third is also about the future -- this time of the UN and the ITU. What lessons can be drawn from the Asia-Pacific experience about the future sustainability of these organizations? II The Role of the UN and the ITU in Sustaining the Asia-Pacific Development Miracle In trying to answer the first set questions, which relate to the past, we should be humble. On the surface the answer is "not much". The Asia- Pacific miracle is first and foremost a product of the people themselves, overall and in the field of telecommunications. The modest role played by the UN and the ITU should not be a source of embarrassment. If we look around the world, we quickly see that development is only possible if internally generated, within a country or in a region. It cannot be imposed from outside. If it could, empires would be the rule for successful development, rather than the exception. If we look a little deeper, however, we see that the UN has played an important background role in Asia-Pacific development, in at least two very important respects. First, the UN has helped create an environment in which indigenously-driven development could take place. Second, with a favourable environment in place, the UN has been able to stimulate development with carefully selected, well- targeted, strategic initiatives. Let us look at how the United Nations has helped create three of the necessary conditions for a successful development environment in the Asia- Pacific region. Few would argue that peace is the first essential in creating a climate that makes development possible. And peace is the first priority of the United Nations. The members of the UN have from the outset adhered to the fundamental principle of conflict resolution by negotiation. When a nation firmly commits itself to this principle the UN can successfully assist countries in establishing a peaceful government. In this respect, the United Nations has enjoyed greater success in the Asia-Pacific region than in some other parts of the world -- as the case of Cambodia illustrates, particularly when contrasted with other examples, such as Somalia. One must be careful not to give the UN more than is its due. Given the number of people who live in the Asia-Pacific region and the density of much of the population, one might be tempted to say that there has been relatively little conflict in the region -- certainly less than might be expected -- and attribute this to complex cultural factors, perhaps to the "Confucian values" which have been talked about so much lately. But although direct UN intervention has been limited, it has at the very least provided a framework within which regional powers could manage their differences. If peace is the first essential for development, capital is surely the second. Here, the Asia-Pacific region has again been fortunate, when compared to other developing regions of the world. Most countries of the Asia-Pacific region, and particularly the Pacific Rim countries, have evolved monetary policies based on the "best practice" model consensus evolved by UN member countries and practiced by the International Monetary Fund. Adherence to this model has helped provide a stable platform for economic growth. It has enabled Asia-Pacific countries to maintain sound debt-equity practices. It has created a climate which encourages high rates of savings, and is attractive to domestic and foreign investors alike. It has also enabled the IMF to assist countries by providing the necessary support and guarantees for their financial stability in time of need, and enabled Asia-Pacific countries to borrow prudently from the IBRD, the ADB and private capital sources with mutual confidence on the part of lenders and borrowers. A third precondition of successful development is efficient agriculture. Historical experience has shown that countries that cannot feed themselves rarely, if ever, are able to develop in other areas. An appropriate land tenure system is a fundamental requirement for efficient agriculture. In this respect, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has been much more successful in countries which have sought to reform their land tenure systems by implementing global consensus "best practices" (e.g. India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea) than it has been in countries which have retained alternative systems, whether they are "collective" or "feudal" in nature. If we turn from overall economic development to look at telecommunications development, we find the same pattern underlying the success of the Asia- Pacific region. Today, few would deny that telecommunications is as important for economic development as peace, capital and food. And credit for the Asia-Pacific telecommunications miracle must also go, first and foremost, to the people of the region themselves. A number of years ago, it was fashionable to debate about "appropriate technology", the idea being that the solutions developed in the "first world" were not necessarily appropriate -- in terms of design or price -- for "third world" countries. The idea was certainly correct. Experience has shown that the development of indigenous manufacturing and competition are probably the best ways to develop and implement appropriate technologies -- not necessarily simple or obsolete technologies -- but technologies which are suited to the requirements of the country and which may embody very advanced technologies and design concepts. The experience of India in the development of a family of digital switches is instructive here. Sam Pitroda, Advisor on Technology Missions to the Prime Minister of India, argues that the rationale for self-reliance in telecommunications technology does not stem from the necessity to internalize production linkages within the economy since these are not really very significant as it is not material intensive. Rather if a nation wants to establish and maintain a reliable telecommunication network, it has to internalize all the requisite know-how and expertise by designing and building one itself. This is partly because system maintenance is know-how intensive and, more importantly, because network design has to be tailored to local requirements. The project to design and build an Indian family of digital switches, which Sam Pitroda headed, is a remarkable success story which was crucially aided by the availability of Indian software expertise and a design philosophy that took account of the specific features of the Indian operating environment -- including fluctuations in power supply, the tropical weather -- as well as the need to be capable of functioning with very little maintenance. Most importantly the system had to be able to cope with high traffic rates on each line without blocking. This story summarizes the Asia-Pacific telecommunications development experience in a nutshell. It is overwhelmingly the result of the efforts and imagination of the people of the region. Does this mean that the ITU has not played any worthwhile role? In reply to this question, I would argue that the role played by the ITU is very similar to that played by the UN family as a whole in overall economic development. I believe that our main contribution -- to the development of telecommunications and through it, to overall economic development -- has been to help create some of the conditions in which it was possible for some Asian countries to develop their telecommunications infrastructures, particularly through the use of satellites and radiocommunications. In part, the ITU’s climate-creating role involves simply raising awareness among government leaders and private investors of the critical role telecommunications plays in the development process. In part, it involves developing technical standards and radiocommunication regulations which facilitate the introduction of innovative technologies, of the kind I have described previously. In part, however, as in the case of the UN as a whole, it involves catalyzing development through strategic project initiatives. In this latter respect, many of the ITU’s most successful projects in the Asia-Pacific area have focused on the development and management of human resources, which surely deserve to be called the fifth essential for overall economic development. In the Asia-Pacific region, the Advanced Level Telecommunication Training Centres which were established in India and Indonesia with the assistance of the ITU have played a major role in training of personnel at various levels, and in particular played an important role in the development of satellite communications in both these countries. Having tried to answer my first set of questions about the UN, the ITU and the past development successes of the Asia-Pacific, I would now like to turn our focus toward the future. Is the Asia-Pacific Development Miracle Sustainable? In recent years, questions have begun to be raised about the sustainability of the kind of rapid development we have seen in the Asia-Pacific region, because of its environmental and human impacts. Concerns have been raised about such matters as energy and resource requirements, environmental degradation, and urban crowding. Certainly, it is not hard to find examples of these developmental side affects there, just as it is elsewhere in the world. The vision of the "information society", which has been taken to heart in many Asia-Pacific countries, responds to these concerns about the sustainability of development by holding out a vision of an alternative to the traditional, industrial development paradigm that opened such a huge development gap between Europe, North America and the rest of the world. In this vision, telecommunications and information technology provide for relatively "clean" manufacturing processes, in telecommunications and other industries as well. Perhaps as importantly, they open up prospects for the creation of new jobs in the services sector, where industries are non- polluting, at least in the traditional industrial sense. They provide opportunities for monitoring and controlling the consumption of energy and resources in everything from agriculture, to highways, to home appliances. And they may make it possible for people to stay on the land, in their villages, instead of having to migrate to already overcrowded urban centres to find opportunities, for economic, social and cultural development. In fact, in one very powerful and appealing version of this vision, a "Global Information Infrastructure" will make education, health care and advance information services available to every human settlement of any size, anywhere in the world. I am sure you recognize this vision. It is the vision of US Vice-President Al Gore, who proposed the concept of the GII at the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference in Buenos Aires in March, 1994. It is probably no exaggeration to say that for most people -- and I am one of them -- this was one of the highlights of the conference, perhaps the highlight. Vice President Gore’s vision was endorsed by the conference participants. The vision of a new paradigm for sustainable development, based on the power of telecommunications and information technology, is embedded in the Buenos Aires Resolution for "Global Telecommunications Development for the Twenty-First Century". This vision is a central element of the 12-point action plan adopted by the conference. It is an integral element of the first ever ITU strategic plan which was adopted one year ago at the Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference. It was endorsed by the G-7 group of leading industrial countries at a special meeting in Brussels in February of this year. And it will be a focus of attention next week at the TELECOM 95 Strategies Summit in Geneva, which has taken as its theme "Breaking Down the Barriers to the Global Information Society". There is an old saying that "nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come". Clearly, the vision of technology-based sustainable global development is an idea whose time has come. Whether it is called "the GII" as in America, "the global information society" as in Europe, or "the intellectually creative society for the twenty-first century" as in Japan, it is very much the same vision -- for global society, it is "the hero with a thousand faces". It very much seems that the world knows where it wants to go. The only real issue is how to get there. This takes me back to my third set of questions, to the role of the ITU and the UN in achieving this vision of sustainable global development. Sustaining the ITU in a Sustainable UN As part of the ITU reform process which I mentioned previously, our members reorganized the Union at an Additional Plenipotentiary Conference in Geneva in 1992. This was an extraordinary event, the first of its kind in our 130-year history. The main purpose of this conference was to streamline the ITU’s structure and to improve its working methods. However, in addition, the ITU member countries -- there were 166 at the time -- added a new purpose to the ITU Constitution -- " to promote, at the international level, the adoption of a broader approach to the issues of telecommunications in the global information economy and society, by cooperating with other world and regional intergovernmental organizations and those non-governmental organizations concerned with telecommunications" At the Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference, the ITU member countries -- by now, 184 -- gave effect to this purpose. They adopted a strategic plan which recognized that, in addition to its traditional technical strengths, the ITU should have a "policy mission". To help carry out this mission, they decided to create a new ITU event, to be called the World Telecommunications Policy Forum, where ITU members can exchange information and discuss issues of global telecommunications policy and strategy. They also decided that the ITU should develop "strategic alliances" with key organizations, like the World Trade Organization and UNESCO. In making these decisions, ITU member countries have effectively recognized that the ITU is a natural forum for discussion of issues relating to technology-based, global sustainable development. Pursuing this objective will require the cooperation and collaboration of a number of different international organizations, including many within the UN family. Perhaps more importantly, it will require partnership between government and the private sector. Today, private investment is driving development in telecommunications, and in virtually every other domain of economic, social and cultural activity. One of the most urgent tasks in building the global information society is to re-think the relationship between the public and private domains. Business will never be willing to assume its public responsibilities in the "post-modern" world unless it is given an expanded role in the decision- making process in international organizations. One of the great advantages of the ITU as a forum for the discussion of sustainable development is the strong presence of the private sector. Private companies have taken part in the work of the ITU from the beginning. Today, some 375 "non-government entities and organizations" are members of the ITU. Following another key decision of the Kyoto conference, we are actively looking for ways to expand their role, and to strengthen our long-standing partnership between government and industry. On the basis of the long and successful experience of the ITU in bridging public and private interests, I would like to offer some concluding thoughts about the UN reform process. While there is clear merit in concepts like "sustainable development" and "appropriate technology" that have been part of our development vocabulary for some time, as well as in new concepts like "the global information society" and "the GII", their practical application can be impeded if they become the subject of political contention. Unfortunately, this is often what happens in the UN, which has a tendency to tackle developmental issues politically, either by appointing commissions as was done in the 1970s and 1980s, or by convening massive conferences of the kind we have seen repeatedly over the past decade. These commissions and conferences certainly have their uses, in focusing the attention of the world community on issues and in bringing people together to talk about them. But what results have they actually achieved? Too often noble goals have been neutralized through political compromise, and either words have been hollow and without follow-up action or overlapping programs have been created in different agencies. In contrast, the approach taken by the ITU and the other UN specialized agencies has much to commend it. Instead of approaching issues politically, we approach them practically, with the cooperation of all concerned, particularly the private sector. As the UN contemplates its future, it should recognize that the roles and relationships of government, the private sector and its citizens have changed fundamentally. Decisions that used to be the prerogative of government are now being given to the marketplace. This is perhaps most advanced in telecommunications, but will certainly happen in other areas of public service -- such as health care and education -- as we move toward the global information society of the 21st century, particularly as more and more of these services move onto the networks that will make up the global information infrastructure. The ITU is fortunate that it has been a partnership between government and the private sector since its beginning. Today we are again trying to enlarge the role played by non-governmental entities and organizations. In addition to telecoms operators and manufacturers, we are looking for stronger representation from user groups, development organizations and NGOs, who represent a proxy for the people of the world, and are directly concerned with issues of concern to ordinary people. As it seeks to reform itself, the UN must do the same. It must cease to be a club of governments. It must reflect the new relationships that are emerging between governments and the main elements of what the UN reformers refer to as "civil society". While the UN has much to learn from the ITU and its other specialized agencies, may I suggest that we have at least one thing to learn from them. For me, the real power of the UN resides in the ideals expressed in the Charter which was adopted here in San Francisco fifty years ago, and in key instruments elaborating this charter, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is these instruments that put the UN in touch with the fundamental realities of human existence, the principles that ought to govern relations between individuals in all domains of human activities. Ultimately, it is the justice of these principles that gives the UN its power. Like the UN, the ITU has a statement of purposes in its Constitution. But if I have to compare the two documents, I would have to say that ours is more like a bureaucratic or an engineering vision of human ideals, not a political vision of the essential grounds of human justice. As I have said, the strength of the ITU has been its practical, feet-on- the-ground approach to issues. Yet as we move into the information society of the twenty-first century, I believe we need something more. One of my goals as Secretary-General of the ITU is to secure a political statement at the highest level that the right to communicate should be recognized as a fundamental human right. I hope it will be possible to secure this recognition as part of the UN reform process, and perhaps ultimately through an amendment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With this goal clearly before us, it will be possible for the members of the international community to focus their efforts on achieving global, technology-based, sustainable development. If we are able to reach this goal over the next five years, I am confident that the United Nations -- and the ITU -- will enter the twenty-first century, renewed, revitalized and ready to continue their noble record of service to mankind. *** 10 DRAFT I 10.10.95