Mercy Global Concern - 2005

Announcement Number 2:
September 15th, 2005

UN World Summit - How did Kofi Annan read it so wrong??
Health & Development Networks

If you were expecting the UN World Summit that started yesterday in New York to provide a detailed five-year update about how well the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals is going, then you (and the one billion people living below the extreme poverty line of 1$ per day) are going to be disappointed.

According to Kofi Annan, UN secretary general (UNSG) that would be "missing the larger point". He thinks the world has changed so much in recent years that a major rethink about how the UN brings countries together towards consensus for collective good is equally pressing.

The boldness of Annan's move, in this his eighth year in office, to transform the opportunity of this year's Millennium Declaration +5 Summit (and the months of preparation that have gone into it) into the pivotal moment in the history of UN reform, should not be understated. The proposals he has asked heads of states to adopt this week are a fearless 'take-it-or-leave it' agenda.

The only problem is, they have opted to largely 'leave it' for now.

Did the UN head seriously mis-calculate global opinion?

He appears to have been driven on by what he saw as "new geopolitical realities" that have recently emerged. So what has changed so much in the past five years?

According to Annan, "After a period of difficulty in international affairs, in the face of both new threats and old ones in new guises, there is a yearning in many quarters for a new consensus on which to base collective action."

He may, of course, be referring to any of the 'periods of difficulty' during the past 60 years since the UN was founded, or in the eight years since he became SG. But it seems he has much more recent events in mind:

"Much has happened since the adoption of the Millennium Declaration to compel such an approach. Small networks of non-State actors — terrorists — have, since the horrendous attacks of 11 September 2001, made even the most powerful States feel vulnerable. At the same time, many States have begun to feel that the sheer imbalance of power in the world is a source of instability. Divisions between major powers on key issues have revealed a lack of consensus about goals and methods."

Most would probably agree with the last point in particular, depending on what specific divisions he has in mind?

Possibly:

(i) Since September 2001 the United States and their partner countries have wanted the 'war on terror' to be more clearly integrated into and supported by the UN;

(ii) The invasion of Iraq, in particular, caused a major rift of opinion between the US and European governments, and highlighted the weaknesses of the UN Security Council to cope with lack of consensus during such global upheaval; or

(iii) The overwhelmingly unilateralist foreign policies of the US are widening the gap between their ideology and the rest of world opinion – creating a polarization that will be difficult to reverse, and that could heighten global instability.

Any and all of these are indeed signs that a 'new consensus on which to base collective action' is urgently needed. The simple mistake Annan and others may have made was to assume that rich governments would want it any other way.

It is also possible that Annan did not misjudge governments' views at all, but that the UN negotiation process simply fell to pieces during the past six weeks or so. It was the weakness in UN processes – and in negotiation and decision-making in particular – that allowed US Ambassador John Bolton to introduce 750 eleventh-hour amendments to the twenty-six-page outcome document in the first place. Ironically, poor management and decision-making are why UN reforms are necessary, and also why the reform process could be so easily undermined by one country.

The disappointment is not limited to the UN reform process either. Since the Sachs report and his own 'In Larger Freedom' document were released earlier this year, Annan's dream was that specific steps would be taken this week in New York to move the world closer to implementing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the recommendations of the Millennium Project Report, and the commitments embodied in the 'Monterrey Consensus' from 2002, when rich countries committed (yet again!) to scaling-up official development aid (ODA).

Earlier in the year, Annan stressed: "In 2005, the development of a global partnership between rich and poor countries ...needs to become a reality."

What has unfolded in recent weeks has been more like back-peddling from prior commitments – or a conspicuous silence from governments that might have spoken out to prevent the back-peddling - and a thinly-veiled prioritisation of agenda items linked to the US-driven 'war on terror'.

Despite early optimistic rumblings about the proposed International Finance Facility to channel new aid commitments, for example, Sachs' 'new deal' between rich and poor countries may simply be before its time.

As the scale of the shift from the original Millennium Declaration intent has become clearer, the big unasked question is whether the actual object of ‘fear’ is the potential threat of a withdrawal of US funding to the UN – or their bully-boy tactics in the international trade arena?

Annan could not have been clearer in his request for support, and what should have amounted to a vote of confidence this week:

"I believe my report provides a clear programme of actions that are fully within the power of your governments to take. I am giving you my report six months ahead of that meeting, so that your governments have ample time to consider it," he noted when he submitted 'In Larger Freedom' to the UN General Assembly. "My hope is that world leaders, when they arrive here in September, will be ready to take the decisions that are needed."

He already knows their response, and now has to wait a few more days to hear formally that his ideas do resonate with rich and poor nations alike. He has recently stated that in the event that they do not broadly agree with his view of the world in 2005, he will not accept responsibility for the consequences. It is not clear if that means he will remain as UNSG.

Sources:

1. In Larger Freedom: Towards Development,
Security and Human Rights for All, Report of the Secretary-General
www.un.org/largerfreedom/contents.htm

break-the-silence@eforums.healthdev.org