By Javier Surasky-
A previous post on this blog was titled "The Impossible 2024 High-Level Political
Forum Ministerial Declaration." Still, we never imagined this title could
become reality through a path marked by absurdity. However, that is precisely
what has happened.
Let's begin
by tracing the process that led to the adoption of this year's Ministerial
Declaration (MD) by the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF).
After
several months of negotiations, the MD was adopted by all UN member states
within the framework of the HLPF meeting on July 17 (note: this "all
member states" will be crucial later). Despite the efforts of the
co-facilitators (Dominican Republic and Norway) and the ECOSOC president
herself, the UN members adopted the text, but only after voting on two amendment proposals.
The
document approved this year extends to 96 paragraphs, making it the second
longest ministerial declaration approved at an HLPF (only surpassed by the 142
paragraphs of 2022), exceeding the 91 paragraphs of the 2030 Agenda.
The first
text of the MD was put under silence procedure by the co-facilitators on
July 8, but this was broken when there were 10 minutes left before the end of
the time when states could present dissent. The co-facilitators then sent the
text to the ECOSOC presidency, indicating that it was the best they had managed
to achieve, leaving to its consideration the introduction of changes, which did
indeed occur, but only with minimal wording modifications that did not alter
the meaning of the text at all.
The session for the formal adoption of the MD took place on July 17 in a plenary session of
the HLPF. As co-facilitators of the process for its construction, the
representatives of Norway and the Dominican Republic opened the debate. Both
made clear their disappointment at the impossibility of reaching a consensus.
Before
proceeding to put the adoption of the document to the consideration of the
States, the ECOSOC president called for a vote on the acceptance of an
amendment to the proposed text (E/HLPF/2024/L.3) that had been presented on
July 15 by a group of 10 countries (Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran,
Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe) proposing the inclusion of a
new paragraph on unilateral coercive measures, which was introduced to the
debate by the representative of Nicaragua, who described these measures as
"terrorist," "illegal," representing an "aggression
against peoples" and "contrary to the United Nations Charter."
The result
was a first vote at the request of the United States and the United Kingdom,
which ended in the inclusion of the proposed paragraph in the text of the
Ministerial Declaration, resulting in 105 votes in favor, 46 abstentions, and
11 against.
Caribbean countries voted unanimously in favor, those from Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean did so with few exceptions (only the Dominican Republic voted against, possibly due to its role as co-facilitator of the process, and Argentina, while Madagascar, Panama, Peru, and Uganda abstained) and those from Europe were divided between a majority of abstentions and a small group of votes against that joined those of Canada, the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom, among others.
Immediately
after, the ECOSOC president informed that a vote had also been requested on
paragraph 17 of the proposed MD text, which stated that sustainable development
cannot be realized without peace and security, presented by Uganda on behalf of
the G77+China. The vote showed 121 in favor, 39 abstentions, and two against.
Interestingly, both paragraphs had been part of the MD in previous versions and then removed, and both share reflecting commitments present in the 2030 Agenda (paragraph 30 on unilateral coercive measures and paragraph 35 on sustainable development, peace, and security).
Then came
the adoption of the MD, which now included the previously accepted amendments. The text was adopted by consensus. Some countries made explanatory declarations after the MD adoption:
- Australia, Colombia, Switzerland, and the European Union, among others, explained that they had not voted against to not breaking the consensus, taking their flexibility to the extreme and presenting multiple criticisms of the finally approved MD, especially for its weakness and even regression, in matters of gender equality (there is no mention of sexual and reproductive health), environmental protection and climate change (after the efforts made at COP 28, the MD failed to incorporate references to the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels despite SDG 13 on climate action being under thematic review of the HLPF in 2024).
- The United States, United Kingdom, and Israel requested that their non-recognition of one or both paragraphs previously submitted to a vote be noted, among others.
- Hungary focused on its opposition to the treatment given to migrants, stating that it encouraged a "pull effect."
However,
the problems for the MD continued. According to UN procedures, since the HLPF
operates under the umbrella of ECOSOC (except when it meets at the summit level
in the so-called "SDG Summits," which are convened by the General
Assembly), ECOSOC must also approve its documents.
On July 18,
the ECOSOC High-Level Segment meeting took place, where the HLPF MD had to be
adopted again. What happened there was surprising: the presidency submitted for consideration to the
ECOSOC members the adoption of the MD without the two paragraphs adopted by
vote before its adoption by the HLPF.
Countries
began to take the floor one after another to express their confusion, which
forced the ECOSOC Secretariat to explain that the MD adopted by the HLPF and
the MD adopted by ECOSOC are, formally speaking, two different documents,
although they have the same content. Since the 2024 HLPF included changes due
to successful amendments for the first time (in the past, there were proposals
for amendments to the proposed MD texts during their adoption by the HLPF, all
of which were rejected), and the text of the proposed MD document was sent to
the ECOSC before these additions were approved, the proposal that ECOSOC had to
work with did not include them.
To be
clear, the process as it functions would allow for two different versions of
the MD, with the same title but different nomenclature and wording. It is a
technical nonsense that countries were unaware of, although it has operated
this way since 2016!
It is not a
minor issue, as ECOSOC is a restricted body; therefore, not all countries that
voted in the HLPF participate in its debates. After an extensive discussion, at
times exasperating, the ECOSOC presidency held consultations with the
secretariat, which also included the participation of the United Nations Office
of Legal Affairs.
Finally,
the States represented in ECOSOC decided to request a written legal opinion on
this scheme where the changes introduced in the text of the MD during the HLPF
are not automatically reflected in the text submitted for adoption by ECOSOC
(by consensus) and to leave stand-by the MD adoption by the ECOSOC, which
necessarily required a vote that ended with 12 votes in favor, 33 abstentions,
and no votes against.
And thus
closes, for now, a rather absurd chapter that reminds me of a phrase by Groucho
Marx: "Quote me as saying I was misquoted."
[Update: On 24 July, after voting again to adopt the same amendments adopted at the HLPF, the MD was finally adopted by the ECOSOC in its 39th plenary meeting ]
