With two days to go before the largest-ever gathering of international leaders at the UN Headquarters in New York, the likely outcomes are still unclear and the world’s media has hardly covered the event.
And the looming question is whether the US and Ambassador John Bolton in particular will stymy hopes for reform of the UN.
After months of discussions, a 38-page draft outcomes document was presented to the General Assembly in August. Three weeks ago, Ambassador Bolton asked for some 750 changes, objecting to references to the International Criminal Court, action on global warming and increases in development aid. At the same time, he insisted on greater commitment to tackling terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
The changes proposed by the US, and Bolton’s personally combative approach to negotiations, have put even major US allies like the UK and Australia offside. As Fran highlighted at European Tribune on Saturday, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made calls to foreign ministers around the world over the weekend. This followed a personal plea to Condoleezza Rice for the US to withdraw opposition to plans for reform of the UN, during which he asked Ms Rice to rein in Bolton. I understand that Australian diplomatic reporting from New York, normally not critical of the US given the sensibilities of our Government, has been openly disparaging of Bolton’s approach.
According to The Guardian, “Ambassadors from more than dozen key countries also met yesterday to try to break the deadlock on plans for UN reform but appeared to make little progress”.
More below fold
Officially the High Level Plenary Meeting of the 60th Session of the UN General Assembly , the 2005 World Summit has been convened for 14-16 September to discuss UN reform and the status of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which seek to tackle a range of socio-economic issues. The meeting is expected to be attended by some 180 heads of state or heads of government.
According to the independent website Global Issues:
The main purpose for this World Summit is to review progress since the Millennium Declaration, adopted by all Member States in 2000. This Declaration contained what became known as the Millennium Development Goals. These goals, which all 191 member states have pledged to meet, all for 2015, include:
- A halving of hunger and poverty;
- Attaining universal primary education;
- Drastic reductions in child and maternal mortality;
- Promoting gender equality;
- Improved environmental sustainability;
- A fairer global trading system; and
- Reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases.
The above would form a major part of the Summit dubbed “Freedom from want.” Other issues that the Summit would be addressing include:
* Security (Freedom from fear)
* Human rights (Freedom to live in dignity)
* UN reform (Strengthening the United Nations)
Most readers will understand that trying to get agreement from 191 members and several major negotiating blocs about detailed proposals on these subjects is extremely hard. Negotiations over many months have therefore needed to strike a balance between many developing nations’ concern about strengthened human rights mechanisms and some rich countries’ objections to prescriptive aid and development targets. The security section of the earlier draft communiqué sought to discourage nuclear weapons proliferation while encouraging nuclear disarmament by existing nuclear powers.
Two areas of proposed UN reform are particularly interesting. One is to reform the Security Council by either expanding the number of permanent members from the present (and original) five (US, UK, China, France & Russia), or creating new ‘renewable’ seats. A series of draft General Assembly resolutions have been presented, mostly aiming to provide better representation of geography, economic and political power and population.
The second proposal is to abolish the Human Rights Commission, which according to the UN Secretariat is “now regarded by many as largely discredited”. In its place a new standing Geneva-based Human Rights Council would be created, elected directly by at least a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, rather than solely by nomination of regional groups.
Into all this stepped John Bolton with his 750 changes. The Guardian noted at the time that there were differing theories about why such substantial disagreement had only emerged late in the process, but
The document reflects Mr Bolton’s belief that the assertion of US interests should almost always take precedence over the search for compromise with an international community that includes despotic and corrupt regimes.
Of particular interest is the repeated deletion of the word “disarmament” in the section on nuclear arms. The Bush administration wants global counter-proliferation strategy to focus exclusively on preventing more countries acquiring nuclear weapons. It is seeking to play down the importance of reducing the stockpiles of the established nuclear powers, as it has plans to overhaul its own arsenal and develop new weapons, such as nuclear “bunker busters”.
The removal of any mention of the Millennium development goal for rich countries to donate 0.7% of their gross national product to the developing world, marks a final break with the pledge agreed by the Clinton administration [this had been a UN target for over 30 years – cb]. US overseas development assistance is below 0.2% and near the bottom of the league.
The Washington Post said that Bolton’s major changes would:
- eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations;
- scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms;
- strengthen language on action against terrorism, promoting human rights and democracy, and halting the spread of the world’s deadliest weapons;
- strike any mention of the Millennium Development Goals and focus instead on the Monterrey Consensus, a 2002 summit in Mexico that focused on free-market reforms, and required governments to improve accountability in exchange for aid and debt relief; and
- impose greater oversight of U.N. spending and eliminate any reference to the International Criminal Court.
One should never underestimate the ability of negotiators to reach agreement on the text of major communiqués such as this one. However, faced with a hardline approach from Washington, there is every chance that the agreed text will be anodyne.
Blair, Bush and Howard will likely proclaim the outcome a major step in the `War on Terror(ism)’, but the Millenium Development Goals may well be neglected.
Cross-posted at European Tribune.
