Global Policy Forum

By Thalif Deen

The United Nations remains deadlocked -- over politically-sensitive issues relating to terrorism, human rights, military intervention, and nuclear non-proliferation -- on a global plan of action for the 21st century due to be adopted at a meeting of world leaders in mid September.

"The peoples of our respective countries have their eyes turned towards us and expect, for various reasons, all legitimate, that we reach an agreement on all the major decisions which will help us reform the indispensable tool that is the United Nations and better meet the challenges and threats that our world faces," said Jean Ping, president of the 191-nation General Assembly, in a letter to member states.

Ping, who is presiding over the protracted negotiations, is chairing a make-or-break session beginning Monday to finalise the landmark declaration -- officially labeled an "outcome document". The declaration, which is to be adopted by world leaders at the U.N. summit Sep. 14-16, is in danger of being "watered down" because of a sharp division of opinion among member states.

The discussions, which will be resumed after a two-week break, are also expected to be bogged down because of far-reaching changes sought by the United States. "With the U.S. drive to rewrite if not the entire draft then large sections of it, we fear that other member states -- for different reasons though -- will seize the opportunity to do the same," said Lene Schumacher, director of programmes at the New York-based World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy. "This late-in-the-game-push by the United States for line-by-line editing can be very damaging. It not only undermines the entire process to date, it also creates a risk of opening up a Pandora's Box again," Schumacher told IPS.

The 132 members of the Group of 77 developing nations have also expressed reservations over the outcome document because it fails to seek strong commitments from rich nations on issues relating to official development assistance (ODA), debt, trade and quota-free market access to third world exports.

At the same time, the 117 members of the Non-Aligned Movement, most of which are also members of the Group of 77, are seeking to weaken the text on issues such as the proposed new Human Rights Council and the right of the U.N. Security Council to intervene militarily in global conflicts.

The United States, on the other hand, is pushing for management reform and trying to change the focus within development, and on disarmament rather than nuclear non-proliferation, Schumacher said. "At worst, it could wreck the summit and cause serious damage to the United Nations as a future guardian of international peace and security."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who continues to put a positive spin on the ongoing negotiations, said last week that the draft outcome document "is an important step towards decisive action for halving poverty by 2015, reducing the threat of war, terrorism, and proliferation, and promoting human dignity in every corner of the world". He said the document, "which captures important points raised by member states during months of deliberations, is a valuable guidepost for advancing development, security, and human rights". "The world's leaders will need to move forward on all fronts to ensure an outcome that reflects the needs of all member states," he said.

If everything goes as scheduled, Annan said, they will agree on "the most far-ranging and ambitious reforms of the United Nations in its 60-year history. I pledge to assist the membership and the president (of the General Assembly) in reaching that goal," he added.

Although member states have agreed on a political definition of terrorism, they have failed to reach consensus on its legal definition. On the proposed Human Rights Council, there is disagreement over the size of the new body, as well as on the modalities of its working methods and of the selection of its members. At the same time, members are still divided over the right to use military force under the U.N. charter -- even though most states justify such action to prevent and fight genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

"The next few days will determine whether a new agreement committing governments to timely and decisive action to stop atrocities like genocide in Rwanda will be endorsed by the summit," said Nicola Reindorp, head of Oxfam in New York. If approved, the draft outcome document would establish a new standard that states share "responsibility to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner" to protect civilians from large-scale killings, she said. "However some key countries including India, Russia and Brazil seem set to try and block the move while the United States appears ready to water it down," Reindorp noted.

This is the moment for bold leadership, not backroom deals, she said. "Governments supporting this historic agreement to protect civilians threatened by genocide and other crimes against humanity must stick to their principles and push all others to also support it. This issue is too important to compromise on," Reindorp added.

Despite these welcome improvements in the outcome document, Oxfam said that it "remains deeply concerned that in the crucial areas of financing for development, debt, trade, and education, the document does not adequately respond to the severity of the world's poverty crisis, and does not make the concrete, measurable commitments necessary to meet the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and eradicate poverty". The MDGs include a 50 percent reduction in poverty and hunger; universal primary education; reduction of child mortality by two-thirds; cutbacks in maternal mortality by three-quarters; the promotion of gender equality; and the reversal of the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, all by 2015. In a statement released last month, Amnesty International said the draft outcome document "must be substantively strengthened if human rights are to take their rightful place as one of the three pillars of the United Nations: development, security and human rights". "It is essential that the outcome document recognises the states' efforts to promote these three issues as not mere political aspirations, but the fulfillment of human rights obligations under the U.N. charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and human rights treaties," Amnesty said.

Schumacher of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy admits that the draft outcome document, as it currently stands, is still a much stronger document in so far as it addresses main concerns and provides necessary specifications on issues such as the Human Rights Council and the creation of a new U.N. Peacebuilding Commission. "And yes, the document could be much better and stronger if you ask many non-governmental organisations (NGOs), but given the political climate and the scrutiny many of these issues have gone through, we should be pleased with the current document. It is important to point out that it has noticeable potential for significant progress on the establishment of a Peacebuilding Commission and a Human Rights Council."

"It is however questionable whether or not the draft document will 'stand strong' during the next few weeks of intense negotiations. To date, the process has had a peculiar logic; as the document has gained strength; the political turmoil around the summit has intensified," Schumacher added.