I have a question that is potentially a big one, but I'd just like to get your general thoughts on the topic.
Let me say, first of all, that I think UNICEF is a shining exception to the the UN agencies that have not managed to contemporize and evolve to face very different, changing challenges.
You mentioned earlier the new secretary-general's commitment to reform systems and approaches. Whenever we get into this topic, I think of Anthony Banbury's essay last year in which he talked about the UN generally as “a Remington typewriter in a smartphone world.”
The word “sovereignty” seems to be a problem in addressing contemporary humanitarian challenges. Sovereign states are supposed to be responsible for dealing with agencies like you, the UNHCR, or UNRRA in the West Bank, Gaza, and South Sudan, but very often the sovereign state has no interest in providing or enabling humanitarian support. Iraq, for example, is not taking responsibility for internally displaced people in the Kurdish autonomous region. The Kurdish autonomous region doesn't have the capacity to do it. UNHCR has a very narrow focus on what a certified refugee is. We see the same IDP problem in South Sudan and other places.
What are your thoughts? I don't want to draw you into an indiscreet discussion, but what are your thoughts about reforming the UN from the top down? You mentioned that peacekeeping is simply not working appropriately in Africa these days. How should we do that? There are so many countries at the UN who are entrenched with thoughts about process that have nothing to do with reforming, contemporizing, and instructively updating.