Published in Participation
The bulletin of the International Political Science Association
Vol. 29, No. 3, Fall 2005, pp. 16 - 18

United Nations World Summit Sept.05
ACHIEVEMENTS, POSTPONEMENTS, FAILURES

A comparison of the preliminary and the final draft outcome documents
John Trent
Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa

"Let us be frank with each other and with the peoples of the United Nations. We have not yet achieved the sweeping and fundamental reform that I and many others believe is required."

-- Secretary-General Kofi Annan, address to World Summit, September14, 2005.

Introduction

The 2005 UN Summit of World Leaders was a three-day conference preceding the regular United Nations General Assembly meetings in New York. More than 180 leaders, a record number, were expected. Originally billed as a five-year review of the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to reduce world poverty, the agenda was broadened significantly to include UN institutional and policy reforms.

This assessment of the UN Summit is primarily a comparison of the Draft Outcome Document of August 5, 2005 of the General Assembly (A/59HLPM/CRP.1/Rev.2, upon which the negotiations were made) and the final outcome document of September 13, which was approved by the world leaders at the UN Summit on 16 Sept. 2005. Included in the Aug.5 draft were most of the ideas put forward by the Secretary-General in his April 2005 report (www.un.org/inlargerfreedom) to the General Assembly (with the notable exception of a proposal for reforming the UN Security Council). Kofi Annan's report, in turn, had drawn on the recommendations of the Report of his High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (www.un.org/secureworld) and the Sachs report on the Millennium Project (www.unmillenniumproject.org).

During his stewardship of the United Nations since 1997, Kofi Annan has laboured mightily to bring structural reform to the Organization. At the September Summit, the leaders of the member states brought forth not a mountain but a molehill. While in general we may say that the politicians and diplomats have tried to put a positive spin on the results of the Summit by saying it was a "glass half full", the non-governmental community was largely negative and the media somewhat split. What has been underestimated so far is the number of significant proposals that have been postponed.

ACHIEVEMENTS:

  • The Millennium Development Goals are reaffirmed in the Outcome Document with the precise steps needed to attain them. Some developed countries will commit themselves to the goal of 0.7 of GDP for development aid by 2015. An additional $50 billion a year is supposed to be made available by 2010. Developing countries will adopt national plans for MDGs by 2006.
  • The Summit recognizes new innovative sources of financing to fund development objectives, such as an International Finance Facility or taxing international commerce, e.g. a tax on air travel to be implemented by some countries.
  • The General Assembly accepted the new responsibility for the UN to protect people from genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
  • The UN capacity for peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding will be strengthened and there is a detailed blueprint for a new Peacebuilding Commission to help war-torn countries.
  • The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will be strengthened and the budget doubled.
  • The proposal to create a new Human Rights Council is accepted.
  • The Outcome Document includes decisions: to create a worldwide warning system for natural disasters; to mobilize new resources for the fight against HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria; and to improve the UN's Central Emergency Revolving Fund for disaster relief.
  • For the first time at the UN there is an unqualified condemnation of terrorism, by all member states. The Nuclear Terrorism Convention will be signed immediately.
  • There was approval of new, independent auditing and oversight mechanisms for the UN administration. Some new authority over staffing and priorities was accorded to the Secretary-General by the General Assembly, including a cull of obsolete tasks and a one-time buy-out of staff.
  • A new Democracy Fund, already created, will strengthen the UN's role in promoting democratic governance worldwide and democracy as a universal value.
  • There is a commitment to eliminate pervasive gender discrimination.
  • The serious challenge of climate change is recognized, but action will be based on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, not the Kyoto Protocol.

FAILURES:

  • There is an affirmation of old development pledges but without firm, new commitments from the rich. The document, once again, fails to break significant new ground on most major issues relating to debt, trade and aid.
  • There is no definition of Terrorism because a small number of countries insisted on excluding 'freedom fighters' from the concept.
  • The Secretary-General has not been given the strong executive authority required to manage the UN on a day-to-day basis.
  • Criteria for the use of force by the Security Council have not been included, which may make the "responsibility to protect" rather toothless.
  • Aside from the Peacebuilding Commission and the promise (perhaps) of a new Human Rights Council, there are virtually no structural or institutional reforms of the UN system - including the Security Council (once again).
  • There is a failure to affirm a wide range of previously agreed commitments on nuclear proliferation and disarmament.
  • The few, modest efforts included in preparatory documents to strengthen environmental governance were excluded from the final document.
  • All references to the International Criminal Court were removed.
  • Notwithstanding the breakthrough on "responsibility to protect," the document strengthens the sovereignty of nation states at the expense of the human security.
  • The "Sachs programme" of immediate, practical aid has been eviscerated.

POSTPONEMENTS:

  • There will be a "strong push" to complete a comprehensive convention on terrorism within 12 months.
  • The endorsement by the UN of its responsibility to protect civilians (dubbed R2P) is a good first step. The next step is to get R2P endorsed by the Security Council, to strengthen early warning mechanisms and articulate criteria for the use of force. The General Assembly needs to, "continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations."(paragraph #139, final outcome document)
  • Before the Secretary-General can establish a "rule of law assistance unit" he must submit a report to the General Assembly (#134e).
  • There is a commitment to discuss and define the notion of human security in the General Assembly" (#143).
  • Legitimation of the Security Council through the expansion of participation has been put off. The Group of Four (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) met during the Summit and announced they would submit a new resolution to the General Assembly. The General Assembly is requested to review progress on reform of the Security Council by the end of the year. Japan threatens to reduce payments.
  • The new president of the General Assembly, Jan Eliasson of Sweden, has been charged with conducting negotiations to establish "the mandate, modalities, functions, size, composition, membership, working methods and procedures" for the Human Rights Council during the 60th session. As the Secretary-General has stated, "Nations that believe strongly in human rights must work hard to ensure that the new Council marks a real change." (Wall Street Journal, 19-09-05)
  • The Secretary-General is to report to the 60th Session on an ethics office, the implementation of management reforms, and budgetary needs.
  • The new Peacebuilding Commission is asked to begin its work no later than December 31, 2005. The Commission's "Organizational Committee," responsible for crucial decisions on composition of the Commission, needs to further refine its procedures and working modalities. Further clarity is required as to the scope of the Commission's work, and to which of the UN's organs the Commission will be accountable. The Secretary-General is to set up a peacebuilding support office within the secretariat and establish a multi-year, standing Peacebuilding Fund.
  • Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, accepted Annan's request to lead a working group of leaders to keep up momentum on UN reform efforts.

Observations

A great deal of the impact of the 2005 UN World Summit will depend on negotiations over the key postponed items (e.g. definition of terrorism, the Human Rights Council, the Peacebuilding Commission, responsibility to protect and criteria for the use of force, Security Council reform, and UN peace and police forces etc.). The determining factor is likely to be the capacity of Civil Society to influence governments to take real action. Nevertheless, the Final Outcome Document is indeed a half empty glass in comparison with the earlier version. World leaders did not seize the opportunity to reconsider their priorities in dealing with global challenges and global governance. Still, it is worth remembering that until days before the Summit, after the arrival of U.S. ambassador Bolton with his 450 amendments, it appeared there might not be any final document. The "core group" diplomats had to work without stop for a consensus that keeps the UN at the centre of diplomacy. However, to reach consensus, statements of principle have replaced commitments to action in many passages.

Despite Bolton's efforts to eliminate all references to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) they are still front and centre and half of the document is still dedicated to development issues. However, many experts believe that the poverty-reduction measures are increasingly falling behind schedule.

It is still too early to interpret President Bush's endorsement of the MDGs and Secretary of State Rice's proclaimed warm relationship with Kofi Annan. Perhaps it is because the big winner under the development heading in the Document is the "Global Partnership" programme from the Monterrey Conference in which "development" is always dependent on "good governance" - the new slogan for protection of private property, law and the market economy. The Summit's original thrust, to reinforce efforts to eradicate extreme poverty, seems to have ceded pride of place to making development comfortable for the liberal economy.

Trade, investment, debt, commodities and "quick impact aid" are essentially stand-pat sections based on present power relations and little innovation. There is no attempt to reign in the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), the main actors in these fields but controlled by the wealthy countries. . The developed countries show little real generosity. A paragraph on opening up European and American markets to commodity trade has been emasculated (para 29 of the August 5 draft). It would have had more effect on least developed nations than any other measure.

Women are one of the few groups from Civil Society who believe they have made gains at the Summit. After considerable lobbying, gender equality and women's rights are included not just once but under numerous headings. One month after the meeting, the Secretary-General put forth a comprehensive plan for including women in the UN's peace and security efforts.

But, we have to ask ourselves broader, even more essential questions. Not even the High Level Panel Report considered fundamental modernization of multilateralism. The "responsibility to protect" provisions open the door to reconsideration of sovereignty, but who will walk through? What is to be the role of international institutions in the 21st century? Are they able to deal with the challenges of globalization? Is there a need for improved global governance? If so, how can it be brought about? Thinking of the IPSA 2006 World Congress, can democratic values be introduced to international politics? The Summit opens up a challenging agenda for political science.

For more details, see the Media Backgrounder on the UN World Summit and the paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of the outcome documents at
(www.worldfederalistscanada.org).

20 October 2005