By Javier Surasky
Approved by
consensus in a half-empty room and discussed with little enthusiasm, the session's
President opened the floor for Member States to explain their positions. Japan,
Switzerland (on its own behalf and behalf of Iceland, Liechtenstein, and
Norway), Australia (representing the CANZ group: Australia, Canada, and New
Zealand), and Denmark (on behalf of the European Union, its Member States, and
EU candidate countries) took the opportunity to speak.
Like the
resolution itself, the debate was bland and lacked real substance. Little can
be said about its outcome, except to reaffirm that the differences among Member
States regarding what to expect from the UN80 process, its scope, and its
outcomes, remain firmly in place.
After the
statements by the countries mentioned above, Russia requested to exercise its
right of reply in response to claims that its leadership of the process had not
been sufficiently open and that the draft resolution had been submitted in an
untimely manner. In a speech with Cold War overtones, noting that one of the
UN’s problems lies in the Secretary-General exceeding his mandate and in the
loss of impartiality among UN officials, the Russian representative merely
stated that sufficient consultations had ...
It would be
an exaggeration—an extreme one—to suggest that what took place in the General
Assembly Hall today was a “debate.” It felt more like a contest among States to
determine who will steer a process that none of them can drive alone, while
each seeks to explain the UN’s shortcomings in fulfilling its mission
effectively and efficiently—two words that were repeated often, along with
“transparency,” amid a deafening silence about democracy, 21st-century
diplomacy, inclusion of diverse actors, clear co...
The adopted
text is so weak that it merely “welcomes” the Secretary-General’s efforts to
strengthen the United Nations; states that it “looks forward” to receiving the
Secretary-General’s proposals under the UN80 initiative “taking into account
the need for clearly defined objectives and an evidence-based approach, to
enhance the United Nations’ impact and improve its agility, responsiveness, and
resilience, while addressing duplication and ensuring effective and efficient
implementation.
To make
some sense of what transpired today at the General Assembly, I’m sharing a
table summarizing what could be gleaned from the so-called debate:
|
Topic |
Group with a positive view |
Group expressing objections or criticism |
|
Timing
and format of the resolution |
Japan,
Russia: consider the timing appropriate |
EU, CANZ,
Switzerland: see it as premature and rushed |
|
Transparency
of the resolution negotiation process |
Russia
claims there were consultations, and “red lines” were respected |
EU, CANZ:
claim there was insufficient dialogue, and suggestions for changes were
ignored |
|
Nature of the reform |
Japan,
EU, Switzerland: support a systemic, ambitious, and sustainable reform |
Russia:
emphasizes respect for the Charter and the SG’s “administrative” role, which
has been exceeded over time |
|
Approach
to the SG’s role |
EU,
Switzerland, Japan: proactive leadership by the SG |
Russia: cautious |
|
Risks of the process |
EU and
CANZ: risk of rushing the process and creating exclusion |
Russia:
risk of “appropriation” of the reform by a group of States and loss of UN
impartiality |
Source: Own
Very little.
Almost a disregard to the UN staff who don’t know what will happen to them, and,
still worse, to the most vulnerable people who wonder whether the UN will still
be there for them.