The United Nations Summit of the Future has concluded, but the real and present world remains on fire. With the UN general assembly now meeting – an annual ritual where dozens of heads of state descend on New York – key questions about the role and future of the United Nations remain unanswered. Israel’s devastating war in Gaza has spilled into Lebanon, 25 million are facing the possibility of starvation in conflict-torn Sudan, and the deadly war in Ukraine marches on. Created nearly 80 years ago to maintain international peace and security, the UN is failing to prevent or mediate any of these conflicts.
The outcome document of the summit, the Pact for the Future, was agreed after lengthy and often acrimonious negotiations. It covers everything from culture and sports, the climate crisis and sustainable development goals to human rights, gender equality, ending poverty, social cohesion and peace and security. It extends to science and technology, youth, financial institutions reform, data governance, artificial intelligence and, believe it or not, even outer space.
Yet most of the text is made up of rehashed and recycled wording from previously agreed UN documents. The language is vague and aspirational. There are hardly any concrete, actionable conclusions that could advance the lofty objectives of the summit.
For example, in the section on peace and security, the outcome document fails to address the reasons for the accelerated decline of UN mediation and the crisis in UN peacekeeping in recent years. In one country after another, parties in conflict bypass or reject the good offices of the secretary general and call for the departure of peacekeeping operations. Instead of tackling these issues, the document calls for a “review” of peace operations and for more global meetings “to discuss matters pertaining to peace operations, peacebuilding and conflicts.” In classic UN tradition, when lacking answers or a path forward, the UN calls for more reports and meetings.
At a time when mass atrocities and a breakdown of the rule of law are increasingly the norm – as seen in Gaza – the only “new” language in the document is a request to the secretary general to “assess the need” for more resources for its human rights office.
Grandiose initiatives like the Summit of the Future are not new. Past secretary generals have called for global summits that did not achieve much. The late Boutros Boutros-Ghali should be credited for advancing UN reform with less fanfare. His 1992 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, 2005’s 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 secretary general Ban Ki-moon, in his humble way, didn’t call for special summits. Instead, he effectively used existing global forums to champion the call for action on climate change.
In contrast, the input of the current secretary general, António Guterres, into the Summit of the Future lacked focus, concrete and viable proposals, and courage. This led many observers to view it as a public relations exercise designed to keep the floundering image of the UN afloat and detract from its real failings.
The summit was a missed opportunity to discuss some of the fundamental issues that have plagued the organisation. Among these are the deadlock in the security council and the lip service paid to reform by the permanent five members (China, France, the Russian Federation, the UK and the US); compliance with international law, impunity and the prevention of mass atrocities; the disappointing performance and flaws in the structure of the human rights council and the questionable performance of the peacebuilding commission. Neglected, too, has been the need to reinvent the role of the UN in peace and security and to reform a bloated UN bureaucracy built on patronage, with key secretariat departments controlled by three permanent member states. There is a need to review the role, the appointment of and the independence of the secretary general; and how the general assembly might be “reinvigorated” and opened up to non-state actors.
Despite these flaws, the necessity for the UN is greater than ever in the face of new global threats to peace and the escalating challenges of the climate crisis. The thousands of UN staff deployed in hotspots around the world deserve our respect and recognition. They deserve greater leadership and vision as well.
Jamal Benomar is a former UN under secretary general and former special envoy for Yemen
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
