By Javier Surasky-
The Summit of the
Future ignited today. Attention was focused on its opening session, where
the agenda indicated the Future Pact should be adopted, along with the
Declaration on Future Generations and the Global Digital Compact. As we know,
none of the three documents had successfully passed the silence procedure,
which would have led to their adoption by consensus.
A small group of states, among whose priorities the strengthening of
multilateralism is not included, presented an insurmountable obstacle. The
primary representative of this position has been Russia, with countries such as
Belarus, Iran, Nicaragua, Syria, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and
Venezuela as its main supporters. It is unnecessary to clarify that this is not
exactly a "club for the defense of democracy" nor a group of
countries committed to human rights or international legality.
It was these countries, except for Venezuela, which, due to its debt in
UN quota payments, is unable to vote in the General Assembly, who presented a
proposal on September 21 to amend the text of the Future Pact that the
President of the General Assembly had presented to the States for adoption (A/79/L.3).
The proposed amendment involved adding a paragraph to the text at the end
of its introductory section (after paragraph 17) with the following content:
"We reaffirm that the United Nations shall be driven by intergovernmental
decision-making process and that the United Nations and its system shall not
intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of
any State as provided in Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations and
request the Secretary-General to evaluate the United Nations, its funds and
programmes on compliance with this duty, as well as duplication of efforts, in
particular as a result of the adoption of this Pact, and submit to the General
Assembly at its eightieth session proposals on avoiding such duplication while
achieving maximum resource efficiency."
Had it been accepted, this paragraph would have gone precisely in the
opposite direction to that pursued by the Summit of the Future, opening new
windows to weaken multilateralism and the UN under the pretext, at this point
too overused, of defending the internal jurisdiction of States, used as a
shield for them to carry out any action.
Following the customary speeches that inaugurated the Summit's work,
which were increasingly similar to each other and as full of goodwill as they
were empty of actionable proposals, the President of the Assembly gave the
floor to the Russian delegation to introduce their amendment proposal. In a
speech that surpasses the qualification of hypocritical to reach the limits of
the shameful, the Russian delegate presented his criticisms of the Pact's
negotiation process and introduced the reform proposal.
After its presentation, Congo requested the floor and, representing the
group of African countries at the UN, which currently presides, introduced a
motion for "no action" (postponement of the debate). The "no
action" motion is a diplomatic resource provided for in Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure
of the General Assembly: "During the discussion of any matter, a
representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under
discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may
speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall
be immediately put to the vote." The proposal received support from Mexico
and Cameroon, and opposition from Venezuela (on behalf of itself, Iran, and
Syria), in an intervention that resembled more of a childish tantrum than a
speech at the UN, and Belarus, in an unsupported intervention of only 12
seconds.
As expected, when put to a vote, the "no action" motion was
approved with 143 votes in favor, 7 against, and 15 abstentions.
Source: Screenshot: www.unwebtv.un.org
The next step was to put the adoption of the Future Pact, including the Declaration on Future Generations and the Global Digital Compact as its annexes, to the countries' consideration, as it had been submitted by the President of the General Assembly (A/79/L.2). According to the established procedure, the secretariat disclosed elements related to the potential impacts of adopting the resolution under consideration, informing, for example, about the economic impacts it would have (the reference was to an initial cost of between USD 1.5 and 1.8 million in 2025, excluding personnel costs, to be detailed in the coming weeks through a report from the Secretary-General to member countries).
After reminding that States are invited to make their considerations on
the Future Pact and its annexed documents within the framework of addressing the
agenda of the 79th session of the
General Assembly theme 123 on "strengthening the United Nations
system," scheduled for October 7, the President asked, "May I
consider that the Assembly decides to approve the draft resolution
A/79/L.2?" In the face of silence and following protocol, he struck his
desk with his gavel: "It is so decided."
Thus, the Summit of the Future documents were formally adopted without
voting through a false consensus that, nevertheless, is representative of the
will of 143 of the 193 UN member States (74%).
Having achieved the adoption of the documents puts the meeting above the
level of failure but by no means represents a success. Now begins the hardest
part, in a framework of deep divisions, biased dialogues, and limited
willingness to politically commit to taking indispensable steps: building a
different future, strengthening multilateralism as a tool for transformation
and justice, and revaluing the idea that the UN represents, beyond its
institutional deficiencies.
The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration
on Future Generations are three new promises that States have pronounced aloud
and in front of the peoples. Now the leaders must decide between keeping their
word or continuing to extend the infamous and extensive list of unfulfilled
promises, and we, the peoples, must decide what to do with the leaders we have
based on their actions.
We are all responsible for the future, but not all to the same extent.
The principle of leaving no one behind must join hands with that of common but
differentiated responsibility, not only among States but also among groups and
even individuals.
What is at stake is too important to leave in the hands of a handful of
leaders, especially when some tirelessly demonstrate their limited capacities
to think about how we can all free ourselves from the fear of what will happen
tomorrow.
