Join the Diplomacy Now Mailing list.
Receive our monthly edition focused on conflict resolution with articles from experts directly to your inbox.
The Summit of the Future has now ended, but the real and present world is still on fire.
As the General Assembly, an annual ritual where dozens of heads of state descend on New York, kicks off, key questions about the role and future of the United Nations, a body that was created to maintain international peace and security almost 80 years ago, remain unanswered. Israel’s devastating war in Gaza has spilled into Lebanon, twenty-five million are facing the possibility of starvation in conflict-torn Sudan, and the deadly war in Ukraine marches on, with the UN failing to both prevent or play a significant mediating role in any of these conflicts.
The Pact for the Future – the outcome document of the summit, that states have agreed to after lengthy and often acrimonious negotiations – covers everything from culture and sports to climate change, Sustainable Development Goals, human rights, gender equality, ending poverty, social cohesion, peace and security, Security Council reform, disarmament, science and technology, youth, reform of financial institutions, data governance, artificial intelligence, and, believe it or not, even outer space.
What is striking is that the majority of the text is made up of rehashed and recycled wording from previously agreed upon UN documents and the language is largely vague and aspirational. There are hardly any concrete, actionable conclusions that could advance the lofty objectives of the Summit. Instead, there are more calls for reports by the Secretary General and more global meetings. For example in peace and security, the outcome document doesn’t address the reasons for the accelerated decline of UN mediation and the crisis in UN peacekeeping in recent years, as in one country after another, parties in conflict bypass or reject the good offices of the SG and call for the departure of peacekeeping operations. Instead, it calls for “a review” on peace operations and for more global meetings “to discuss matters pertaining to peace operations, peacebuilding and conflicts.” In classic UN tradition, when it has no answers or a path forward, the UN calls for more reports and more meetings.
In a time where mass atrocities and the international collapse of the rule of law are becoming the new norm, as we are witnessing in Gaza, the only ‘new’ language the document puts forth is a request to the SG to “assess the need” for more resources for its human rights office.
Grandiose initiatives, like Summit of the Future, are not new. Previous UN Secretary Generals have called for global summits that didn’t achieve much. The late Boutros Boutros-Ghali should be credited for advancing UN reform with less fanfare. His Agenda for Peace, paved the way for expanded UN peacekeeping operations, increased UN-led mediation and discreet conflict prevention efforts around the world, while trimming the bloated bureaucracy in the UN secretariat by abolishing more than one thousand posts. Under the late Kofi Annan’s leadership, In Larger Freedom is credited with developing the concept of the Sustainable Development Goals, the creation of a new peacebuilding architecture and a new Human Rights Council, as an alternative to the discredited Human Rights Commission. While these initiatives set forth both novel and concrete ideas, their impact has been limited. Former SG Ban Ki-moon, in his humble way, didn’t call for special summits, but instead effectively used existing global forums to champion the call for action on climate change.
In contrast to previous initiatives, the input to the Summit of the Future, from SG Guterres, lacked focus, concrete and viable proposals, and courage. This led many UN observers to see the event as a public relations exercise designed to keep the floundering image of the UN afloat and detract from the real failings of the organization. The Summit was a missed opportunity to discuss some of the fundamental issues that have plagued the UN. Among these issues are: the deadlock in the Security Council and the lip service paid to SC reform by the permanent five; compliance with international law, impunity and the prevention of mass atrocities; the disappointing performance and flaws in the structure of the Human Rights Council; the questionable performance of the Peacebuilding Commission; the need to reinvent the role of the UN in peace and security; the reform of a bloated UN bureaucracy built on patronage with key secretariat departments controlled by three P5 states; the need to review the role, the appointment of and ways to ensure the independence of the Secretary General; and how the General Assembly might be “reinvigorated” and be opened up to non-state actors – among other issues.
Despite all of its flaws, the UN is now needed more than ever before, particularly with the emergence of new threats and challenges to international peace and security and the looming threats associated with climate change. Thousands of UN staff deployed in many hotspots around the world deserve our respect and recognition, but they also deserve greater leadership and vision.
In this month’s edition of Diplomacy Now, five authors, who are well versed in the UN system, either as analysts or insiders, offer thoughts on the role and election of the Secretary General, the need for and progress on Security Council reform, and the objectives of the Summit on the Future.
As with every edition the views expressed by these authors are not all necessarily our own. However, ICDI remains committed to the ethos and philosophy that open debate, dialogue, diplomacy, and mediation, rather than armed conflict and war, offer the way forward to resolving any conflict.
Thank you for reading Diplomacy Now and we welcome your feedback at diplomacynow@dialogueinitiatives.org.
Jamal Benomar
Chair of ICDI
New York based journalist Dawn Clancy takes us through the objectives of the Summit and political power plays that have taken place in drafting the Pact for the Future.
“Fraught from the start, member states sparred for months over language related to human rights, artificial intelligence, and fossil fuels, a contentious sticking point for Saudi Arabia who, during negotiations, pushed back on passages that recognized the threat of fossil fuels to the environment,” Clancy writes.
“Although world leaders were able to drag the pact over the finish line, the apparent friction has left some within and beyond the carpeted halls of the UN doubtful the document – which relies, in part, on consensus language from existing agreements – can deliver on its promise for a global transformation,” she adds.
Veteran UN human rights and political affairs expert Dr Bertrand Ramcharan, who has served in many UN roles, including as acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, suggests that the Summit and Pact offers little more than platitudes, when tangible plans and action is needed.
“Does the Pact for the Future contain actionable ideas in these six areas, or simply put forth platitudes? Will the Pact help the UN regain the ground and credibility it has lost in the face of its failure to act to prevent the eruption of conflict in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan?” Ramcharan asks.
“On human rights its only actionable idea involves providing more resources for the UN Human Rights Office. There is no mention of the need to prevent gross violations of human rights and to enhance national human rights protection systems,” he adds.
“On international peace and security there are mainly platitudes and no actionable ideas. It has no new ideas on how to strengthen preventive diplomacy and prevent conflicts from emerging to begin with,” he concludes.
Hasmik Egian, a former Director of the UN’s Security Council Affairs Department, suggests the Summit presents little hope for reforming the Security Council, which SG Guterres himself has admitted is stuck in a ‘time warp.’
“Actions 42-44 of the Pact relate to UN Security Council Reform. Regrettably, a careful reading of these proposed “Actions” reveals very little, if any, innovations or new ideas on how to reform the Security Council so as to render it more fit for purpose for today’s challenges to international peace and security. It is, by and large, a summary of what has already been on offer for the past 30 years,” Egian writes.
“Attempts at structural reform of the Security Council, whether regarding its size, membership or the powers allotted to its members, have been a work in progress for over three decades. Yet there is scant prospect that this effort will be successfully concluded in this or indeed the next decade,” she adds.
Richard Gowan explores the implications of the Summit for key issues the UN is confronting: from Security Council reform to the role of the General Assembly and the functions of the Peacebuilding Commission. While there will be no meaningful progress on SC reform, he argues, there will now be broad principles to guide future discussions.
“The draft Pact for the Future does not resolve the trickiest issues associated with Council reform: Whether to include new permanent members, and whether to set formal limits on the use of the veto,” Gowan writes.
“But it sets out broad principles to guide reform discussions – such as an acknowledgment of the need to give African states a greater voice in Council affairs – and it does acknowledge the need to discuss the use of the veto. It also sets out a pathway for more specific reform discussions going forward, including a call for states to develop a “consolidated model” for a future Council,” he continues.
Stephen Browne, a visiting lecturer at the University of Geneva, co-director of the Future United Nations Development System (FUNDS) project, explores questions and contentions about the role and election of the Secretary General. He argues that SG António Guterres could have played a more active role in preventing the major conflicts that have erupted during the most recent years of his tenure and that independence of the SG remains a high priority.
“In a global survey of UN watchers prior to the 2016 election of António Guterres, one of the highest priorities for the new SG was political independence. While the election process was a more open one than previously, putting an end to automatic regional rotation of candidates, the veto power of the P5 countries was still paramount in the selection and there have been clear signs that Guterres was influenced by the Kremlin in exchange for their approval,” Browne writes.
“On taking office, he agreed to give Russia a new senior counter-terrorism post in New York as well as the top UN position in Geneva. He also agreed to allow the remaining P5 members to keep their Under-Secretary General posts in New York, in contravention of the terms of the Charter which calls for merit-based recruitment and the independence of staff from outside influence (Articles 100 and 101),” he continues.
“There are actions the SG could have taken to prevent these two deadly conflicts from emerging. In fact, in the area of peacemaking, a strong, politically astute and independent-minded SG is the only hope for an effective UN,” he writes.
Nelson Mandela
Receive our monthly edition focused on conflict resolution with articles from experts directly to your inbox.