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.
At 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 Secretaries 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 Antonio 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.
Jamal Benomar is a former UN diplomat. He worked at the UN for 25 years, including as a special envoy for Yemen and a special adviser to former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
