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 the so-called 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.
Abolish the veto
For the Irish Examiner, it's clear what the main change must be:
“For every time the world seeks to act in unison, one of the Permanent Five will act only in their own interests. The veto should be abolished. No government should hold the power to block progress towards peace. At the very least, the Permanent Five must refrain from exercising vetoes on issues involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and other serious human rights violations. ... Until the UN can enact the will of over 190 countries and not simply the big five, we will be stuck in a never-ending cycle of conflict and hunger.”
A Security Council reform won't be enough
eldiario.es is also disappointed with the results of the UN General Assembly:
“In years like this one, the inefficiency of a forum that serves as little more than a platform for the tyrants of this world becomes tragically apparent. ... The appeals for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, in Lebanon and in Sudan are going unheeded. ... The political responsibility lies above all with the powerful states in the West and in the affected regions. ... It is questionable whether a reform of the Security Council would change anything, because the world in which the global powers tried to reach a consensus there seems to be disappearing. ... The UN is a mirror that shows us the evils of our world. ... We don't need more speeches or resolutions. We need the hope that next year fewer dangerous leaders will enjoy the right to speak.”
Less talk and more action needed
Delo complains:
“Heads of state and government see that the UN Security Council is not fulfilling its fundamental task of saving humanity from the scourge of war. Permanent member Russia is attacking its neighbour Ukraine, the Middle East is mired in war and hatred, parts of Africa are suffering from poor governance and foreign interference. However the UN's problem is not words but deeds, and even the new pact for the future is encountering obstacles. Russia objected, arguing that the pact represents Western interests and does not prevent interference in the internal affairs of member states. ... The world needs a forum for discussion on these issues, and Slovenia's rotating presidency of the UN Security Council [in September] has made crucial discussions possible.”
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.”