Prominent Costa Rican economist and politician who served as vice president of her country from 1998 to 2002, Rebeca Grynspan (San José, 70 years old) has held the position of secretary general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) since 2021. But, in addition, this year she has also added another challenge: presenting herself as a candidate for the position of Secretary General of the UN. Passing through Rome, in the middle of her energetic electoral campaign to compete for the position, EL PERIÓDICO has spoken with her about what she considers should change within the institution.
No female general secretary in 80 years. Is the UN a men’s club?
Yes, definitely today, that women make up more than 50% in universities, that we have had access to education and the ability to demonstrate our contribution to society, because there has never been a woman in the United Nations as Secretary General is striking. It’s probably not exactly because of the law of probabilities that this happened (ser laughs). But I would also like to say that I know the resume and background of most of the women who are in the running or who have been mentioned to be Secretary General of the United Nations and I can assure you that none of us, including myself, need any preferential treatment. What we need is equity. What we need is that we not be discriminated against, that because we are women we do not have fewer possibilities than a man, therefore, that the experience, merits and capacity that we have for the position count.
What would it mean to finally have a female secretary?
I believe that, to the extent that institutions better reflect what society really is, societies will also be better represented. 50% of the world’s population are women and, therefore, this situation has left half of the world’s population unrepresented. Also, in general, when institutions and governance reflect society, they can govern better and can find better solutions to the problems they have and not just that one group represents.
The UN is in a very delicate moment. What reforms do you think the UN really needs to make?
Yes, I think we have to be aware that people are expecting more from the United Nations, that there is a certain fragility at this moment for multilateral institutions and that we have to change because the world has changed. Therefore, I believe that the UN has to embrace reform, not defend itself from reform. To be multilateralist today is to be reformist today. I give you a fact: in 1945, 51 countries formed the United Nations and decided the rules of the institution. Today we are 193 in the General Assembly, which means that there are 142 countries that were not there in 1945, some that were not even independent countries. Therefore, something has to change in our governance, and also in the Security Council, where neither Africa nor Latin America are represented as permanent members.
What else?
I also believe that the United Nations has to do many more partnerships, it has to associate with the capacities that exist today and that previously were only in the United Nations. We have to change our institutional culture. In 1945 we were the only ones doing the things the world needed; Not today, there are many regional institutions. We have to value what the world offers today in the private sector and civil society. We have to join networks so that the United Nations dedicates itself to what it has a unique capacity for convening and legitimacy.
We are also in a difficult moment for international humanitarian law. The UN itself has suffered and continues to suffer direct attacks, also on its structures, on its missions. What can be done so that countries respect it again?
Well, what they have to do is respect international law.
When I talk about countries, I include, of course, Israel, which is a power.
Of course. I believe that it is not respecting the United Nations, it is respecting the international law that we have all adopted. And I think that is a fundamental point. A world without law is a world on the way to barbarism. And therefore we have to be defenders of international law and, of course, humanitarian law. They are basic centers of our humanity, of our ability to coexist even in the most difficult moments. That will, without a doubt, be one of the tasks that I will set for myself: that respect for international law is not in question.
Can the UN exist without the US?
I don’t think it would be convenient. Maybe it can, but obviously the United Nations precisely has the legitimacy to include everyone. The United Nations is not a club of friends. It is a club where the diverse of us meet, precisely to avoid a world war like those we suffered in the past, to be able to find the consensus that leads us to a better world. A better world will not work only with a small group of countries that believe the same or are in the same thing. The UN is a space for dialogue between opponents, adversaries, those who do not think alike and also those who think alike, but the universality of the United Nations has to be a principle.
You are secretary general of UNCTAD, an organization dedicated to trade. How serious is the crisis of multilateralism for this sector?
Yes, we are in a very delicate moment in the main multilateral organization for trade, which is the World Trade Organization. However, 72% of trade still happens within WTO rules. Because? Because regional, bilateral or group trade agreements where there is multilaterality or polylaterality are part of the international trade structure; It is an element of resilience […] They are a group of agreed rules that give predictability to trade, and there the issue of reforms returns again. On the one hand, developing countries hope that there will be reforms that make trade more accessible to the most vulnerable and less developed countries; On the other hand, countries expect us to agree on reforms that allow the organization to continue being the legislative sphere of international trade and to avoid trade wars or unilateralism in trade, which cause much more volatility and uncertainty in the trading system.
Isn’t it utopian in a context like the current one?
Well, one of the reasons why we see resilience in the global economy and international trade is because the worst scenario has not occurred. In reality we are not yet in an open tariff war, and why? Because there are negotiations and the main negotiation is effectively between the United States and China; That negotiation continues. As long as there is negotiation, the world will be more protected than if there were an open war without negotiation. The problem for developing countries is that, by not being major players in the economy, they have been left behind. This worries us enormously, because they have been left at a disadvantage compared to the richest countries.
You negotiated the so-called grain deal that brought Ukraine and Russia to the table when the full-scale invasion had already begun.
I learned a lot and have reflected a lot on that agreement. Firstly, the agreement demonstrated that even in war we can reach agreements that benefit the world and people. It was a global peace agreement, but it also managed to provide a solution to a problem that could have put the world in a moment of food insecurity never seen before. It managed to lower international food prices by 23% during the year in which it operated. So the agreement, in reality, was a preventive agreement to avoid a humanitarian crisis. Through what? The restoration of trade in the Black Sea. That was the objective and I think it taught us that prevention really becomes a fundamental instrument of the peace and security agenda, and that the UN has to be at the table in the world’s main negotiations, when the problems are there, but prevention and mediation are fundamental. […] In fact, even when Russia withdrew a year later, trade remained stable and both Russia and Ukraine continued to trade across the Black Sea.
How many times did you meet with Russian negotiators? On a diplomatic level, what challenge did it represent?
Yes, first I want to say that silent diplomacy, which is not in the news and headlines every day, is very important. In this case I have to say that all parties were respectful and professional in our exchange throughout that process. The other thing I must say, and I am glad for your question, is that here there was a very small group that worked for me and I responded to the general secretary. [de la ONU, Antonio Guterres] directly. And I believe that this is also an important learning. On these occasions you need flexibility, you need to be able to put together a team and [tener] specific conditions for the objective being pursued. The United Nations has to learn that it has to be more agile, it has to be more flexible, it has to be more…
¿Quick?
Exactly. Thank you. Yes, faster.
Even so, women seem to be losing certain spaces.
Yes, it’s contradictory, isn’t it? Because, on the one hand, I would say that women are no longer an exception in diplomacy. There are many more women in diplomacy today than before. At the same time, we are not yet at parity. Therefore, both things are true at the same time. At the United Nations I would tell you that in the USG (Under Secretary General) positions we have parity at this time. But it is true that in peace and security negotiations, women continue to be absent, despite Security Council Resolution 1325, which speaks of the need for women to be represented at the negotiating tables, because they are also clear victims of processes of violence and international war.
Wars are decided by them.
I would expect there to be fewer wars if we were more represented, right?
Could it be like this?
Could. But I have to say this too: women have managed to change many things in the world in an organized way, so we have to believe that reality can be changed. We have to mobilize, not get carried away by defeatism.
Subscribe to continue reading
