By Hilal Elver
- The author has been a research professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara since 2002 and is the co-director of the Global Climate Change, Human Security, and Democracy Project, as well as a distinguished global fellow at the UCLA Law School, Resnick Food Law and Policy program. Between 2014 and 2020, she was the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. She is member of the Steering Committee of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE- FSN) since 2021.
ISTANBUL (AA) — Every year in the second half of September, when the annual UN General Assembly approaches, the multiple global crises and the ineffectiveness of the United Nations in solving them push us to rethink the structure of the organization. In the first half of the 20th century, when the painful memories of World War II were still fresh, the UN was established with the principles of the supremacy of international law, the protection of human rights, and lasting world peace, as it was stated in the UN Charter, and immediately adopted after it was established in the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Are these founding principles gradually losing their meaning today?
- The international community searches for alternative diplomacy on a multilateral scale
In the 1990s, in the aftermath of the Cold War, the positive expectations in world politics were quickly replaced by multipolarity, the prospects of which remain uncertain. Besides the G7 and G20, established by the leadership of developed countries, new organizations such as the BRICS+ and regional economic cooperation groups among African and Asian countries, modeled after the European Community, are emerging as alternatives to multilateral diplomacy.
Apart from the UN's slowness, ineffectiveness, and lack of authority in solving problems, perhaps many countries turning to new initiatives are in search of alternatives because they had no role in the UN's formation and currently have little say in its reform. Furthermore, the permanent members of the Security Council, who have significant influence in the UN, are increasingly disinterested in the annual meetings of the organization. Last year, only one head of state from a permanent member of the Security Council traveled to New York. This year, there has again been a lack of interest for the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' new project, "The Summit of the Future."
We are living in a time when strong world leadership is most needed to hold humanity together. The world has not fully recovered from the health and economic crisis brought on by the pandemic. We have witnessed first the Russia-Ukraine war and then the genocide in Gaza. Moreover, severe natural disasters such as floods, fires, and droughts caused by climate change are jeopardizing our common future. While inequalities between countries and peoples are at their highest level, hunger and poverty remain unresolved, even though the world economy has reached trillions of dollars. For all these reasons, millions of displaced people are fleeing to seek a better life in distant lands. Consequently, states with robust economies are strengthening their borders, and nationalism is reaching a level that almost invites fascism. What is happening in Ukraine and Gaza makes the division of the world between North and South even more apparent.
Recognizing these problems, at the 79th General Assembly, UN Secretary-General Guterres invited all leaders to The Summit of the Future to discuss the changing global landscape and a governance model that can address the economic, financial, social, and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In addition to member states, civil society, the private sector, academia, and youth groups were also invited to the summit to ensure broad participation from all sectors.
The summit took two years to prepare and attracted considerable interest among middle powers of the Global South, provoking lively debate. The main text of the summit, the 30-page "Pact for the Future," covers five themes: international peace and security; science, technology, innovation, and digital partnership; youth and the next generation; and the transformation of global governance.
However, the ongoing debates on these texts since 2023 have made it difficult to find common ground. The three core documents of the summit, particularly the one announced in January, have been revised four times. Due to the impossibility of reaching a full consensus, it became necessary to settle on the lowest common denominator that everyone could agree upon. In the process, economic and social rights emerged as some of the most prominent casualties.
- Criticisms of the pact
During the negotiation process, some of the important principles enshrined in the first document were eventually reduced to mere rhetoric. For example, the right to food, one of the most fundamental rights for preventing hunger and malnutrition—among the world's most pressing unresolved problems—was not included in the document. Instead, science, technology, and innovative approaches were presented as fundamental methods to solve food security, reflecting the recent "one solution for every problem" mentality of digitization and technology. The absence of a human rights-based approach to hunger has not gone unnoticed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working on food security, and they have expressed their doubts about the document. Likewise, while food security is scarcely mentioned in the text, support for the highly polluting industrial agriculture sector as a solution to eradicate hunger — without presenting agroecology as an alternative — was also deemed dangerous from the perspective of environmental and climate policies.
Another criticism is that the Pact for the Future contains many positive concepts but does not propose any significant actionable change. For example, there is no mention of international tax reform, while structural problems are also hardly recognized. If the climate crisis is to be addressed, proposals such as a carbon tax or taxing international financial transactions should have been included, as these could provide an important source of finance in an area where previous promises from developed countries have not been kept.
Likewise, the Summit of the Future should serve as a reminder of the unfulfilled commitments of developed countries at previous climate summits. As a result of this, such summits are increasingly criticized as a means of “greenwashing” to mislead states, international organizations, and citizens. Consequently, these summits are often considered a waste of time, money, and human resources.
These points highlight that the UN and multilateral diplomacy are increasingly in the grasp of global companies and philanthropic organizations founded by millionaires. This is why NGOs are not keen on such platforms. If participation in decision-making continues to be dominated by powerful states and corporations, what difference does it make whether NGOs are invited or not?
Although such summits are organized under the umbrella of the UN, there is concern that their priorities are shifting from "multilateralism" towards "multi-stakeholderism," and that decision-making mechanisms are shifting from the hands of developing states and NGOs towards powerful states and companies.
- Positive aspects of the text
These criticisms aside, if we look at the Summit of the Future from a positive standpoint, inclusiveness and the effort to reach a wide audience are prominent throughout the text, especially in the areas of education, trade and economic growth. Inequality is also highlighted as one of the world's most pressing issues.
The most significant and challenging issue in the summit package is the "Transformation of Global Governance." The UN Security Council has faced widespread criticism for making ineffective and biased decisions due to the veto power of its five permanent members. Furthermore, the current structure of the council does not represent the geographical, political, and cultural realities of today. This shortcoming, along with the difficulties in achieving Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, is mentioned in the document, even if indirectly. The text also emphasizes the need for reforms in the international financial architecture and its anti-democratic structure to amplify the voices of developing countries, prioritize sustainability in lending, and consider the urgency of climate change challenges in long-term development programs.
Overall, it is crucial that the UN and its affiliated institutions' inability to adapt to new global realities has been acknowledged by the UN's top administration. It remains a hopeful initiative that, even if the leaders of the five major nations did not bother to come to the General Assembly to discuss the Summit of the Future, Western NGOs will play a vigorous role at the negotiating table.
The most debated issue regarding UN reform has been the passive role of the Security Council as it failed to stop the genocide in Gaza. However, on Sept. 17, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution with a significant majority (124 votes in favor, 14 abstentions from Western countries, and only the US and Israel opposed) supporting the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the illegality of Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian land. The ICJ decision gave Israel 12 months to withdraw from the Palestinian territories occupied in violation of international law and advised imposing an arms and economic embargo in the event of non-compliance. Given that such initiatives arise during critical times and on critical issues, we hope that the human tragedy in Gaza, which is shaking the structure of the UN, will soon lead to peace for Gazans, Palestinians, the region, and the world.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu.