UN: how to reform a global organisation?
The UN Summit of the Future has taken place in New York, moderated by Germany and Namibia. With their Pact for the Future, political leaders and experts sought ways to reform the international organisation and make it fit to tackle current and future challenges. Commentators see this as an opportunity to rethink the role of the United Nations.
Not much in the way of major changes
The pact leaves much to be desired, Avvenire criticises:
“With regard to the reform of the UN institutions, no real innovations are detectable. Two examples: a more representative Security Council and changes to the architecture of the International Monetary Fund are long-standing requirements regarding which no concrete indications are to be found in the pact. ... Nor should the fact be overlooked that despite the good intentions, the prospect of the UN playing a role in reforming the Fund was ruled out. Also regarding the environment there are plenty of of gaps: look at the lack of direct references to the link between climate change and poverty and on thorny issue of how the burdens of the green environmental change should be shared.”
Denmark can do its bit now
Politiken sees reason for optimism, not least because Denmark has been elected to the UN Security Council:
“The obvious inadequacies of the UN are in fact a reason to show more commitment to cooperation. The world is only as good as we make it. That's why it's such good news that Denmark will soon be a member of the UN Security Council for a certain period of time. Despite all its shortcomings, the UN is now, just as when it was first founded in 1945, the world's best hope for a better, equal and fair world order. The glass is half full, and Denmark can do its part in the coming years to raise the water level by a notch or three.”
Good reputation means it deserves support
Kristeligt Dagblad emphasises the high level of acceptance of the world organisation:
“Given the doubts about the UN's ability to live up to its own goal of preventing wars and promoting international cooperation, it's worth noting that the international organisation still enjoys broad popular support. According to a new survey by the US-based Pew Research Center, the majority of citizens in 35 countries around the world have a generally favourable view of the United Nations. This is perhaps the best argument for continuing to support an institution that is the only actor that has even a remote chance of functioning as a world parliament at a time when the crises of war, climate change, migration and anti-democratic movements are escalating.”
Multilateral responses needed
Le Monde comments:
“The deadly escalation between Israel and Hezbollah once again highlights the helplessness of the United Nations. ... Two major ongoing conflicts - the Russian aggression in Ukraine and the destruction of the Gaza Strip in retaliation for the unprecedented massacre of Israeli civilians by the Hamas militia - have exposed the tragic paralysis of the Security Council, blocked by Russian and American vetoes. ... The paradox is that this negative development coincides with a growing number of crises: the implosion of states (from Sudan to Myanmar to Haiti), pandemics, waves of migration and the climate crisis. And all these crises require multilateral responses.”
Unsurmountable obstacles with Trump
El Pais sees the outcome of the US election as crucial:
“Both the present and the future - of the world and of the organisation - seem to depend less on a new multilateral consensus than on the election of the next US president. ... How can we fight the climate crisis without the cooperation of the world's second largest polluter? ... How can we eliminate hunger without the commitment of the largest donor to the World Food Programme? ... A Harris victory will not bring magic solutions. ... But with the return of Trump's 'fire and fury', many obstacles would become insurmountable.”