As the UN-Secretary-General spelled
out in the 2021 Report »Our Common
Agenda«, the UN has enormous
potential to tackle the persistent
threat of terrorism and its causes, as
an integral part of its response to the
pressing challenges of economic turmoil,
environmental disaster, inequality,
repression and conflict. To date, however,
the UN’s rudderless approach to
counter-terrorism risks dragging it off
course. Corroded by the undue influence
of undemocratic states with deep
pockets, UN-counter-terrorism efforts
are marred by their deep neglect for
prevention and human rights, and their
indifference to the results achieved.
Despite this, the UN’s Office of
Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) is quietly
moving to consolidate its position and
approach, and proposes a seven-fold
increase to its regular budget over
2023–2024.
The rise of UNOCT is emblematic of the
wider struggle to maintain multilateral
institutions that work for peace, democracy
and rights in the face of aggressive,
authoritarian agendas. This study documents
high reputational risks, conflicts
of interest and the failure to monitor
and manage performance effectively
from programme to strategic levels
across the UN’s counter-terrorism work.
The study moreover lays out a set of
recommendations, beginning with a
strategic review and reset, followed by
a significant process of change management,
across the UN’s counterterror
architecture. The author suggests that
UN Member States reject the proposed
budget increase for UNOCT, as it would
likely be paid for by cuts to other - potentially
better-performing UN entities and
programmes. As an essential pre-condition
before any additional resource
investment, Member States should
require a step change in results-orientation,
oversight and risk-management
across the UN’s counter-terror work. For
this, an independent reviewer or panel
of experts needs to be appointed by the
Secretary-General to head up a new
oversight mechanism.
Language: English
Tags: United Nations, reform, security politics
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
1 INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 Background and purpose........................................................................ 6
1.2 Methodology.......................................................................................... 6
1.3 Concerns over the direction and performance of the
UN’s counter-terrorism architecture......................................................... 7
1.4 A change management agenda.............................................................. 8
2 OVERSIGHT AND EFFECTIVENESS 9
2.1 Current practice ..................................................................................... 9
2.2 Needs and requirements......................................................................... 9
2.3 Visioning a step change in UN counter-terrorism oversight
and effectiveness.................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Strategic review and reset....................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Navigating risks ..................................................................................... 11
2.3.3 Dual function: preventing harm and improving effectiveness................... 11
2.3.4 Addressing problems of orientation and unbalanced implementation:
prioritising and monitoring conflict prevention and human rights............ 11
2.3.5 Protecting civil society and reversing deficits in meaningful
engagement with civil society ................................................................ 12
2.3.6 Integrating gender.................................................................................. 13
2.3.7 Tackling conflict of interest and undue influence: the need to
standardise independent oversight and performance management......... 13
2.3.8 Strengthening line management by the Secretary-General ..................... 14
2.3.9 Reorienting strategic oversight: towards a focus on results ..................... 14
2.3.10 Making GCTS reviews strategic............................................................... 15
2.3.11 Establishing a robust, independent and influential oversight focal point –
while reinforcing other well-functioning programming and oversight
capacities .............................................................................................. 17
2.3.12 Tackling capacity constraints in the right(s) places.................................... 18
2.3.13 Generating evidence on well-defined outcomes: M&E methods,
capacities and resources......................................................................... 18
2.3.14 A greater role for Resident Coordinators and country teams ................... 19
2.3.15 Addressing questions around scope ....................................................... 20
FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – FUNCTION BEFORE FORM
2
3 APPROPRIATE FUNDING FOR
GCTS IMPLEMENTATION AND
UNOCT MANDATE FULFILMENT 21
3.1 Current budget level .............................................................................. 21
3.2 Budget trajectory ................................................................................... 21
3.3 Budget composition ............................................................................... 21
3.4 What is being proposed? ....................................................................... 22
3.5 The case in favour .................................................................................. 22
3.6 Concerns and considerations.................................................................. 24
3.6.1 Impacts of budget composition on theories of change, impact and
sustainability........................................................................................... 24
3.6.2 Navigating »pay-to-play« dilemmas........................................................ 24
3.6.3 Investing in counter-terrorism requires cutting worse-funded priorities.... 24
3.6.4 Investing in the right(s) places................................................................. 24
3.6.5 How to address neglect for human rights under GCTS Pillar IV?.............. 25
3.6.6 Resourcing better contextualised, more impactful responses................... 27
4 GRANT-MAKING POWERS 28
4.1 What has been proposed? ..................................................................... 28
4.2 Rationale ............................................................................................... 28
4.3 Considerations ...................................................................................... 28
5 OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31
5.1 Tackling significant concerns: change management ................................ 31
5.2 Oversight and effectiveness.................................................................... 31
5.3 Appropriate resourcing........................................................................... 34
5.4 Grant-making authority ......................................................................... 36
Annex 1: Concerns with current UN counter-terrorism architecture........................ 37
Annex 2: Summary of current UN CT oversight, performance and risk
management capacities, standards, procedures and initiatives ................ 42
Annex 3: Sources consulted................................................................................... 44
Abbreviations......................................................................................... 46
Acknowledgments.................................................................................. 46
