The future must wait: little outcome on global participation at UN Summit

The long-anticipated UN Summit of the Future, originally proposed for the previous year, was held in New York on 22-23 September 2024. It was promoted by the UN as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine the multilateral system.”

The Summit’s outcome document, the “Pact for the Future”, includes five chapters and 56 actions. While some observers see the Pact as a “milestone that can set a path for change,” the relevance of the document and each of these actions depends on the issue under scrutiny. Experts will dissect every sentence of the Pact related to their field and may be able to find useful elements.

The Pact pledges no less than a new beginning in multilateralism

Nonetheless, compared to the proposals, vision and aspirations expressed in the alternative “People’s Pact” drafted by the Coalition for the UN We Need (C4UN) in a long process of consultation with experts and civil society representatives, the intergovernmental Pact falls short of matching the high bar set in the UN’s PR and by the Pact itself which pledges no less than “a new beginning in multilateralism” and a “transformation of global governance”. 

The first paragraphs of the Pact get it right: “If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown”, the document says. It says that the multilateral system with the UN at its center “must be fit for the present and the future – effective and capable, prepared for the future, just, democratic, equitable and representative of today’s world, inclusive, interconnected and financially stable.”

The Pact for the Future’s commitments overall do not deliver on these goals. If the Pact is any proper measure, the “global transformation” has been postponed and an opportunity missed. At least in the field of enhancing participation and representation of citizens, elected representatives and civil society in global governance, it is clear that the Summit delivered only minimal progress.

The relevant action, number 55 on page 36, reads like this: “We will strengthen our partnerships to deliver on existing commitments and address new and emerging challenges.” The introduction of the related paragraph, number 83, includes welcome observations:

We recognize the importance of the United Nations engagement with national parliaments and relevant stakeholders, while preserving the intergovernmental character of the Organization. The challenges we face require cooperation not only across borders but also across the whole of society. Our efforts must involve Governments as well as parliaments, the United Nations system and other international institutions, local authorities, Indigenous Peoples, civil society, business and the private sector, faith-based organizations, the scientific and academic communities, and all people to ensure an effective response to our common challenges.

The following six sub-items include a number of “decisions” such as ensuring that “relevant stakeholders can meaningfully participate, in their respective roles and responsibilities”, leveraging “existing channels and strengthen communication between United Nations intergovernmental bodies and civil society”, deepening the UN’s “engagement with national parliaments” in “accordance with national legislation” or calling on the Secretary-General to examine “how engagement with local and regional authorities could advance the 2030 Agenda”.

Furthermore, in paragraph 71, the Pact pledges “more structured, meaningful and inclusive engagement” of NGOs in consultative status in the activities of the UN’s Economic and Social Council (which in turn does not mean the entire UN). This is all good but at the same time none of it is new and it is not actionable as there is a lack of specifics. The only exception is the item that requests recommendations from the Secretary-General related to engagement with local and regional authorities.

This is far from being “potentially game-changing” as the Pact was characterized by the UN.

Far-reaching proposals of civil society

The People’s Pact by contrast recommends the creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly, a UN World Citizens’ Initiative, global citizens’ assemblies as well as a high-level UN envoy to enhance legitimacy and participation in global governance. Democracy Without Borders, C4UN, CIVICUS, Democracy International, Iswe Foundation, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and numerous other organizations submitted one or more of these proposals in the UN’s consultations with civil society. They were also put forward at the UN Civil Society Conference in Nairobi in May as well as in an open letter, signed by nearly 170 groups, circulated to UN Member States ahead of the Summit, among other things.

It is not a surprise that none of them made it into the Pact for the Future.

While there is a growing recognition that even a review of the entire UN Charter would be necessary, in principle, as was emphasized on the occasion of the Summit, there is no consensus among UN Member States even on basic matters. The world’s most authoritarian and oppressive regimes, including China, North Korea, Russia, Iran or Venezuela, for instance, strongly oppose enhancing participation at the UN or strengthening its ability to enforce human rights. They also successfully thwarted efforts to include references to democracy in the Pact, although support of democracy is a recurring theme brought up by countries of the Global Majority in the General Assembly.

Under these circumstances, a real “transformation of global governance” cannot be achieved by consensus but it still was a requirement included in the modalities passed by the General Assembly for the negotiations on the Pact for the Future. In Nairobi, the German UN Ambassador, a co-facilitator of the negotiations, frankly admitted that the consensus requirement stood in the way of considering any of civil society’s far-reaching proposals. The requirement gives any single state the ability to stop language it dislikes, pushing down the lowest common denominator.

The problem of consensus

It is not entirely clear why it was decided the Pact had to be negotiated by consensus. After all, the General Assembly takes votes on substantive resolutions on a daily basis. In the end, the need for consensus also gives progressive states an easy way to avoid action, if they want to, as they can claim certain proposals will hit a wall anyway so it’s no use introducing them to begin with.

When Russia introduced a last-minute amendment to derail the adoption of the Pact, the General Assembly actually did take a vote by 143 to seven and 15 abstentions to not take the amendment into consideration. 

While the Secretary-General’s “High-Level Board on Effective Multilateralism” missed to address measures for global participation as well, its final report was spot on when it identified the “overreliance on decisions by consensus” as a “frequent obstacle to more effective multilateralism”. The global response to “issues of global concern cannot be decided by a small number who benefit from the status quo”, the report said.

The proposals put forward by civil society to enhance representation and participation at the UN in principle could all be implemented by the General Assembly through majority votes. If consensus were the goal, there would be no chance, as the Summit for the Future illustrated once again.