The United Nations, over the last year, had been relentlessly promoting the Summit of the Future – scheduled for September 22-23—as a landmark event. And rightly so. However, surprisingly, the list of speakers, reflected notable absentees for a high-level summit. The representatives from the five Permanent Members (P5) of the Security Council — did not include any Head of State (HS) or Head of Government (HG). The US, UK, France and Russia were represented by Ministers while China was represented by a Deputy Prime Minister (DPM).
Such absence of high-level political leaders from the P5 has been interpreted as downgrading in principle the significance of this important much-publicized summit meeting focusing on a “better future for humanity”.
The only HS and HGs were largely from the global South- including India, Brazil, Chile, Iran, Peru, Pakistan, South Africa, Qatar and Costa Rica, among others– plus the Scandinavian countries.
This scenario has been interpreted as negation of what Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at a press briefing on September 18 which among different issues was also supposed to deal with a longstanding proposal for the reform of the Security Council. He pointed out that “One of the very important aspects in the Summit of The Future is the recognition that our institutions need to be reformed. And one of the institutions that needs that reform is the Security Council”.
Analysts observed that the priority given by Guterres to such an important question was due to his belief that the future relates exactly to the role of the P5 and the need to have a certain redistribution of power to make things fairer and more effective.
The Summit of the Future was convened based on the belief that there was the need to have effective governance of artificial intelligence; about accelerating the fight against climate chaos; about the reform of the Security Council under the international financial architecture; about questions related to debt, and the lack of financial resources that are undermining the development of developing countries around the world.
The Summit of the Future was also arranged to discuss the various denotations and connotations pertaining to questions of disarmament and especially, the problems of weaponization of new kinds of technological devices, including the use of autonomous weapons. These parameters persuaded Guterres to declare that there was a need to address the real challenges that we face throughout the world.
So, the question that has been raised is why the P5 leaders skipped the Summit? Was it then for personal or political reasons?
Such a scenario persuaded Mandeep Tiwana, Chief Officer, Evidence and Engagement, at CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations and activists to observe that these are critically important subject matters -and so, whether P-5 leaders attend the Summit or not is immaterial. Attention was also drawn to the fact that these P-5 leaders, because of their continuous squabbling and unwillingness to act had failed to stop the atrocities taking place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sudan and Ukraine. In this regard, they had shown that they were not credible actors in securing a better future for humanity. Tiwana also underlined that- “with P-5 States presently preoccupied with pursuing their narrowly defined national interests, meaningful progress on peace, sustainable development and human rights for future generations is likely to come from smaller less powerful states that still believe in the power of international solidarity and cooperation. The world’s problems are too complex to be managed by the P-5 or by governments alone.” He also added that so far, he said, the Pact for the Future – had offered little in terms of innovation to enhance people’s and civil society participation at the UN. “If the current situation persists it would be a missed opportunity for the international community to advance the aspiration of a people’s United Nations that is fit for purpose to address present and future challenges.
Already, intersecting global crises, political rivalries between countries, and limitations of heavily state-centric approaches are causing diplomatic impasses and hampering the UN’s effectiveness,” he declared. This was indeed interesting.
Brenda Mofya, Oxfam International’s UN Representative, also appropriately noted that “We need all nations to take this Summit — and the opportunity for sweeping reform it brings — seriously. The P5 hold outsize power in the Security Council and throughout the multilateral system and their level of representation at such an event does send a message. This Summit is not the end – it is the beginning. As we see inequality, conflict and the climate crisis only deepen, leaders must redouble their efforts and restore people’s faith in the UN as the home for peace, security and cooperation.”
Andreas Bummel, co-Founder and Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders, also observed that developed States seem to have forgotten that the Summit of the Future was promoted as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to revamp the UN and multilateralism. He also argued that in some areas the outcome document represented a step forward but the Summit overall was not a breakthrough moment. It also had not come as a surprise. Bummel also underlined that “the political landscape at the UN is contentious and consensus on far-reaching ideas is impossible to achieve. Authoritarian governments, in particular, are not interested in strengthening the UN or transforming global governance. The absence of many Heads of State from the Summit was unfortunate. It has limited the significance of the event even further.”
Similarly, Purnima Mane, former President and CEO of Pathfinder International and former Deputy Executive Director (Programme) and UN Assistant-Secretary-General (ASG) at the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), has observed that the Summit of the Future was theoretically an important landmark UN event as promoted by the UN. However, it has also been underlined that “it could have been so, if all governments including the P-5 were represented at its highest or very senior levels i.e. Head of State or Head of Government.”
Observers in this context have pointed out that while analysts were correct in their views. It has also been added that while high level participation had not emerged from P-5 countries there was significant representation at the senior most levels, largely from the South, from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Strategic analysts have been persuaded to note that with the themes of the Summit nevertheless, focused on areas vital to the world’s future like sustainable development, international peace and security, science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation, youth and future generations, and transforming global governance. Consequently, the Summit has created the potential of invigorating global commitment to these key issues vital for global development today and more so, tomorrow.
Purnima Mane also has stated that while the absence of the senior-most leadership from the P5 countries at the Summit has been disheartening, this has been seen as a key opportunity for other countries to share their vision and express their willingness and capacity to engage with the issues being discussed, and thereby, step up and take on a much larger leadership role on these issues. This might result in a transformation of the leadership of the future in its truest sense – a potential result -that could be seen as much needed.
An article in Le Monde has recently correctly pointed out- “such notable absences reflect the crisis affecting UN bodies, against a backdrop of an international stage that is crumbling.” A former diplomat Gérard Araud, a one-time French ambassador to the United Nations, has also said- “Multilateralism is seriously compromised in an increasingly multipolar world. The absence of Security Council leaders is yet another symptom, but not the only one, of a powerless UN, caused by the war in Ukraine and the rivalry between the United States and China.
One needs to conclude by pointing out that we all need to remember that the desire for peace transcends time, geography and religion. It is based on justice, human rights and universal values outlined in the UN Charter. We must not forget that the culture of peace is a common denominator that helps to bring us all together in our quest for a healthy and safe humanity. We can only co-exist by aligning ourselves with such a world order.
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst
specialized in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance, can be reached at <muhammadzamir0@gmail.com>
