Debate

Katrina will be felt internationally through oil prices

Afghanistan: pinning hopes on parliament

United Nations: summit of ambiguit


10/2005		  

Comment

Summit of ambiguity

The summit to mark the 60th anniversary of the United Nations may have disappointed many people. But UN members did make far-reaching decisions in some areas, restricting, for instance, the principle of national sovereignty. The summit and its preparatory process have sharpened the awareness of global challenges. But there is still plenty of resistance to a system of global politics.


[ By Thomas Fues ]

There is no doubt that the high expectations placed on the Millennium+5 Summit have not been met. But the 191 UN member states did join forces and adopted a final document with important sections on restricting national sovereignty and protecting peace. Nor should the development substance be dismissed. The Millennium Development Goals have been confirmed as the framework for national strategies to combat poverty as well as for development cooperation. The communiqué contains crucial elements of Jeffrey Sachs’ controversial plan of implementation – for instance, the widespread distribution of mosquito nets and drugs along with demands for free basic education and health care.

However, consensus could not be reached on other suggestions. These included the global step-by-step plan to achieve the target of rich countries spending 0.7% of GDP on aid or general support for innovative financing mechanisms. Questions remain regarding debt relief, human rights and the environment. There was no progress at all on the topics of trade, disarmament and weapons of mass destruction.

Hopes are now pinned on the current UN General Assembly and upcoming conferences on world trade and climate protection. These will show whether visions of a new social contract for an interdependent world will define national attitudes in future, or whether governments will watch cross-border risks escalate without taking any action. To sum up, the authority of the United Nations was strengthened by the summit. As a mere reflection of the world’s various states, the organisation cannot work miracles. But for all its imperfections, it is still indispensable as a world forum to express national interests and negotiate joint programmes of action.

The gains made in the preparatory process should not be overlooked, either. Secretary-General Kofi Annan succeeded in putting pressure both on industrialised and developing countries to take action. Civil society campaigns promoting the Millennium Development Goals – partly inspired by the UN – also contributed to this effect. It is unlikely that the G8 would have passed resolutions on multilateral debt relief and increased development funding without the world summit’s legitimative pressure. Nor would the European Union have committed itself to a binding plan to achieve the 0.7% target. The summit was also instrumental for increasing interest in innovative financing mechanisms.

That the “Responsibility to Protect” was recognised for the first time in an official declaration amounts to noteworthy progress in international law. Under this declaration, the international community is morally obliged to intervene if a sovereign state fails to protect its citizens from genocide and crimes against humanity. A further success story is the pledge to create a Peacebuilding Commission (plus funding), which is designed to coordinate long-term reconstruction efforts after violent conflict.

Dr. Thomas Fues
is a research fellow at the German Development Institute (GDI). He is in charge of development policy and global governance within the framework of the United Nations.
thomas.fues@die-gdi.de

The ambivalent outcome of the world summit is an expression of the multilateral system’s deep crisis. Many governments in North and South insist on old-style sovereignty, even though that is no longer consistent with the changing conditions of a globalising world. Another factor blocking far-reaching decisions in the global arena is Southern opposition to military power politics, unequal distribution of resources and Northern dominance of global institutions. The growing weight of anchor countries is beginning to tip the scales of existing power structures.

A consensus on solving the existential questions facing humanity is therefore only conceivable if fundamental reforms in the global system are pushed through. A huge burden of responsibility lies ahead for the European Union in this respect. The European Union should assume the role of a constructive mediator for the creation of an inclusive Architecture of Global Governance and for strengthening the United Nations.