Realist approach, thus extremely limited and completely unrealistic. The UN currently represents the best thing there is next to anarchy in international relations. An institution to deal with problems which are not solely on the national, but the international level is obviously needed, since even phenomenons like terrorism who used to be “internal” problems are now percieved and counteracted on the international level.

The UN will continue to be an outright failure until the Security Council system is abolished.

The UNSC is not as much a problem as the veto power is. The need for “leading nations” is clearly there, but as you write yourself, if individual powers can block the whole system, it can’t work. The UN doesn’t have power over its members, it can only act through its members. Another problem is, that many people see the UN as worthless since it can’t do anything and seems to create more disturbance than alleviating them – truth is, the UN works hard to solve lots of problems (take a look at their website and read what’s going on), but as long as member nations choose not to support the UN, financially, human ressources etc. the UN itself can’t act. If you want to direct your criticism and anger to the right address, there are plenty of member nations who repeatedly slow down or block progress. Be it PKO/PMO, ODA, reform of the UNSC etc. etc.

So what, if anything, does the UN do well?

Enough, but the focus in on its problems, most of the news is usually about the failures, success is much faster forgotten or not even mentioned since everything’s peachy and the media tends to report rather catastrophes than give screen time for pacified regions. Take PKO in Nambia, El Salvador, Kashmir, Cyprus and Mozambique and compare it to failures like Rwanda or Kosovo. See the difference? Everybody remembers the last two examples, but the former … well. Does UNICEF ring a bell? The WHO played a big role in the containment of SARS, I could give you other examples, but I hope I made my point clear. You couldn’t even make simple international calls if there wasn’t an international telecommunications agency. Calls for abolishment of such international structures reveal ignorance about purpose, use and effect. There are certainly structural issues that have to be dealt with, but its the member nations job to support this developement.

I agree with YH that the UN should change its P.R. strategy as the current one is not successful. It’s one of the smaller problems the UN is troubled with, though.

I highly recommend to read “Issues for the United Nations in the Twenty-first Century” by Hisako Shimura and “Challanges for the United Nations: A Japanese View” by Yukio Takasu. (Japan Review of International Affairs)

The image in George Kennan’s paper in 1948 perhaps:

“Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.”

Rather than changing market stategy, the UN should copy The Gates Foundation’s techniques

Isn’t that “changing market strategy”? And I agree with you that this may be a better model.

Suffice it to say the UN’s problems far exceed image re-building.

And the Prophet article mentions this in the last paragraph.

How many hundreds of millions of dollars are budgeted annually already for UN PR? And to what point?

The article criticises the UN’s PR team as not being down-to-earth enough.

I think we are all thinking the same thing, but looking at it from different distances. Branding isn’t the be all and end all, and it isn’t just about image or names, it is about trust. And the way to build trust is to keep your promises, which is something that the UN cannot do. Let me illustrate a simple example of branding, step by step:

1) find out what the general public, as well as your employees think of the organization = “brand image”
2) figure out what you want them to think of you, = “brand identity”
3) make sure your message to the public is different from others in your market = “brand positioning”
4) devise a plan to close the gap between the brand image and the brand identity = “brand strategy”
5) restructure internal business culture around the brand strategy and the ultimate promise you have towards your clients/employees = “branding”

To have an effective brand you must:

a) make sure your brand promise is attainable
b) be able to deliver on your promise consistently (ie, have a good product, service or otherwise)
c) make sure everyone in your org is behind the brand message (this has to do with consistency)

By winning the trust of your customers and engendering brand loyalty, you will have a safety net in case you ever do screw up and don’t deliver on your promise, you may be forgiven by your customers. Just don’t screw up too often, or you will be dropped for some alternative. Also, to attain the level of cohesion you need from your employees, organization-wide reform is necessary to make sure everyone is on the same page (Kofi are you reading this?).

How do we know the efficacy of these techniques? Jeff says that Coca-Cola, Kleenex, TiVo, Google developed organically, without concious branding. I would say look at the size of their marketing departments. These are very effective brands (except TiVo, which is still specialized knowledge) that got an extra push because they were newcomers to their respective markets, and took advantage of that fact to gain large marketshare and dominate the “ideal” of a product. Louis Vitton, BMW and Apple all have a small marketshare but are very successful due to their effective branding. They didn’t rely on commoditizing their product (ie. build their brand position based on lower prices. WalMart, I am looking at you!) and yet are extremely successful. This is the power of branding.

In respects to the UN, a good branding team would ask them what they can realistically do, that no one else can, and then reform their organization around this principle. Saying you can do everything is a surefire way to failure. Re-branding the UN is a way to develop a strategy of reform and survival, like any company who has been in the red for a while (eg. Nissan, Apple).

John Bolton’s nomination by President Bush is a step in the right direction. Economic and political empowerment by the West for the UN’s jack-booted goon squads should not be a given.

Rather than changing market stategy, the UN should copy The Gates Foundation’s techniques for effective re-distribution networks. In the Slate article Curzon linked to in “Fishing Rods not Fish” …

http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/07/01/fishing-rods-not-fish/

http://slate.com/id/2121685/

… therein is this significant quote: “At the moment, the most promising model appears not to be government-to-government grant-making, but a new style of targeted, goal-driven, private philanthropy. To take the most significant example, the Gates Foundation has spent more than $4 billion, with tremendously encouraging results, to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other infectious diseases, primarily in Africa. It ruthlessly scrutinizes and evaluates its own programs in a way governments seldom do, with the aim of directing additional money where it has the best chance of success.”

Let’s focus on that last line – note that Slate, a liberal rag, offers no details – “It ruthlessly scrutinizes and evaluates its own programs in a way governments seldom do.” Slate could have said that governments cannot do. Or will not do. There are many ugly underlying truths here. Slate will offer no help here.

Let me point out that the Gates foundation is only given passing credit, buried deep, in the article titled: “The War on African Poverty: Tony Blair’s LBJ problem”. Slate’s take: “Instead of abolishing poverty, Johnson ended up undermining liberalism.”

Curzon’s description of Slate’s article adds key differences: ” … a beautiful comparison to America’s own … 1964 … War on Poverty … The billions of dollars that flowed into that commitment accomplished much, but ultimately empowered bureaucracy, encouraged widespread skepticism about government’s ability to help the poor, and marked the begining of the end for Big Government in America … ” Slate sez LBJ undermined Liberalism. Curzon sez Johnson’s New Deal programs ushered in the end of Big Government (Reaganism?) … Major difference. It’d be nice if Curzon was right, have to wait and see.

UN solutions. Can’t just throw the rascals out. But the West holds the purse strings and can help best by withholding its support. No reason to abolish the UN. Just shift funds over to other regional and international groups that are operated by responsible adults. The UN would change overnight. Carrot – no carrot.

As for Prophet.com – and Rachel Simmons’ and Lisa Marchese’s suggestion that the UN “needs to become a savvy marketer and cultivate a brand that is powerful and worthy of international and individual support … “

“Developing a well-positioned brand … the right balance between realistic qualities … that credibly represent the organization … and aspirational qualities … require the UN to play to its strength – its record of alleviating suffering throughout the world …one-third of the world’s food aid … $30 billion to developing … brand positioning that would create and connect to the UN perceptions of effectiveness, efficiency, and competence.”

“The UN could learn from the way NATO and the European Union (EU) have become relevant brands in managing European security.”

“In central Europe, the NATO logo has become a symbol of respectability and security – the ultimate mark of “Westerness.”

“The EU has built an entirely different image … prosperity and self-confidence … sophistication and affluence.”

This all brings to mind Daniel J. Boorstin’s 1962 opus: “The Image : A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America” … or even Marshall McLuhan. Suffice it to say the UN’s problems far exceed image re-building. How many hundreds of millions of dollars are budgeted annually already for UN PR? And to what point?

That NATO has successfully branded itself with Westerness, respectability and security … probably infuriates the UN as well as most of its member states. Contrary to their interests.

Now – prosperity – which Prophet.org claims branding has now associated with EU’s flag … would be an admirable image for the UN. God knows there’s plenty of prosperity at all those UN embassies. The finest caviar and 4 oz. Martinis. Even the UN troops – those peace keeping forces – are doubtless seen as prosperous by the starving hordes they encounter. But the idea of a UN spreading prosperity, sharing prosperity … no way. Not this century.

On the other hand, The Business and The Sunday Herald (see the mention of Kaplan) report today how the market is reacting.

Maskull, the article was saying exactly what you are: the UN should keep its head down and stop with the lofty self-imagery. In other words, they must decided on exatly what they can do (provide aid etc) and what they can’t (provide security) and dump what they can’t do. A company promising all kinds of stuff its product can’t do is a) not branded well at all, b) will not be able to develop any product confidence, and c) will fail. The UN is failing. They need to turn around their whole internal culture to succeed. Branding is just another, unifying, path to reform.

Here’s the thing: Coca-Cola, Kleenex, TiVo, Google and so forth did not set out to create “a brand” that would become the generic name for all products similar to theirs, or became a common verb. Instead, they created excellent products, which were so far beyond the competition that people just used their product or company name as the sine qua non of what that class of product should be – Coke is the Platonic ideal of a soda, Kleenex the Platonic ideal of a facial tissue.

When you intentionally try to do this, you get “Verizon” or “Accenture”, and it’s a bunch of crap. Changing something’s name, or setting it up in the first place in a certain way, is not the way to make a product successful. The way to make a product successful is to make a good product. The UN’s problem is not its name, but its image. That image comes from its culture, not its name, and cannot be fixed by advertising. And what are they going to advertise? “15% fewer child rapes than last year’s UN?” “Still the only organization who wants to be world dictator?”

Branding is not the problem here.

The UN should keep a low profile at times like this. Make that all the time.

How many times must you hear “I feel your pain” or another designed sell-phrase before you vomit?

This is not an anti-China statement, but just a reflection of the reality of what China’s interests are.

None of the reforms (save one that would authorize action with the approval of a majority of nations on the UNSC, regardless of a veto) will have any long-term effect on the health or viability of the organization, with this current state of affairs.

No branding, no reaffirming, no manner of US support… the UN is and will continue to be much closer to worthless than useful as long as this veto system continues.

“Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way.”Â?- Henry David Thoreau

One step towards reform, I contend as the Prophet article above suggests, is a re-branding that will help all my homies at the UN keep it real.