Words and reality
https://arab.news/jp8ac
The world is passing through an unsettled time with mounting geopolitical tensions and economic volatility creating a fraught and unstable global situation. Multilateralism has been in retreat for well over a decade while the international system has become increasingly fragmented. The resurgence of East-West tensions, wars in Gaza and Ukraine and intensifying US-China confrontation have further shrunk the space for multilateral cooperation and contributed to a more fractured world. Strong headwinds unleashed by competing crises are making the future outlook a troubled one. All this at a time when the challenges the world faces cannot be tackled by countries on their own. Yet global governance institutions remain in disrepair.
It was against this backdrop that the ‘Summit of the Future’ was convened in the UN General Assembly on 22-23 September in New York. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres described the summit as a “once in a generation opportunity” to strengthen multilateralism, renew the commitment to core principles and adopt an action-oriented ‘Pact for the Future’ setting out concrete responses to global challenges. In his opening remarks he said the summit was aimed at bringing “multilateralism back from the brink.” Its purpose was to “consider deep reforms to make global institutions more legitimate, fair and effective” at a time when the “world is heading off the rails”, which needed tough decisions to get back on track. This called for updating and reforming international cooperation to make it “more networked, fair and inclusive.”
The ‘Pact for the Future’, the outcome document of inter-government negotiations that went on for over a year at the UN, was adopted by consensus despite acrimonious discussions and last-minute disagreements. Designed to provide a global framework to address common challenges, the Pact ranges over a number of key areas including peace and security, sustainable development, transformation of global governance, climate change, human rights, digital cooperation, gender and youth. It starts by a pledge for “a new beginning in multilateralism”, referring to the need for a recommitment to international cooperation based on respect for international law. It acknowledges that if “we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown.” It identifies lofty goals in the many areas it covers but falls short of setting out agreed actions to achieve them. In fact, much of the Pact involves statements of principles and reaffirmation of previously made commitments. Perhaps consensus could only be reached at this general level but it left the Pact well short of what was promised.
This makes the sanctimonious words of the Pact full of sound and fury but meaning little, in practice.
Maleeha Lodhi
Nowhere is the gap between what is stated and realities on the ground more glaring than in the section on international peace and security. This refers to the increasing and diverse threats to international peace and security, particularly violations of the UN Charter and the need to “comprehensively address the drivers and root causes of armed conflict, violence and instability.” But it does not go beyond general principles to commit countries to anything specific. Indeed, the gap between these principles and what is happening around the world cannot be more telling.
Take for example the catastrophic situation in Gaza where Israel has been waging war for almost a year with the UN reduced to little more than a bystander. It is true that UNWRA (UN Relief and Works Agency) has worked heroically to help the Palestinian people in their hour of desperate need. But the Security Council that has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security has been paralyzed and divided all this time, failing in its duty to stop the war. The veto was used several times by the US to thwart the adoption of a cease fire resolution, which left the Council unable to fulfil its UN Charter obligation. When a ceasefire during Ramadan was called by the Council, Israel defied that with impunity. Almost twelve months of Israel’s brutal war on Gaza have claimed over 41,000 Palestinian lives, displaced two million people and created a humanitarian disaster that has brought untold suffering to Gazans. The SC took no action to prevent or halt any of this.
The Pact says that “genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, including deliberate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, are prohibited under international law.” It also states the commitment to protect civilians in armed conflict. But did Israel abide by international law or adhere to any of these principles? Did the UNSC act to prevent and stop Israel from carrying out atrocities and mass killing of civilians in cold blood? Did it even convene a meeting to consider Israel’s terrorist actions in conducting pager explosions or assassinating Hamas and Hezbollah commanders? Obviously not.
This makes the sanctimonious words of the Pact full of sound and fury but meaning little, in practice. Although affirmations of core principles by UN member states may be important, it is when countries’ commitments to them are tested in real world situations that is consequential and really matter. The war in Gaza is of course not the only example of the disconnect between words and reality but it is the most egregious.
- Maleeha Lodhi is a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, UK & UN. Twitter @LodhiMaleeha
