The UN’s ‘Pact for the Future’ is full of bad ideas

Every September, world leaders travel to New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly. While the floor speeches get most of the attention, the real action usually happens in leadership meetings and high-level meetings, where governments finalize and approve various declarations and agreements.

This year, the Summit of the Future is on the agenda and during the meetings on 22 and 23 September, governments are expected to approve the Pact for the Future.

The scale of this effort is extraordinary. It calls for massive increases in foreign aid and funding for developing countries to address climate change, government censorship of what it sees as misinformation and disinformation, affirms human rights that the U.S. does not recognize, and punishes countries that fail to ratify treaties on small arms, munitions, and other issues.

As envisioned by the UN Secretary-General, this is a new global deal to “reinvigorate the structures and trust needed for effective global governance,” with the United Nations at its center.

History and recent events raise questions about the UN’s ability to meet its current responsibilities, let alone the additional ones that will come.

The UN Charter sets out several goals for the organization, including the promotion of international peace and security, self-determination, cooperation between governments to achieve common goals, and human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The UN is failing on all fronts.

The UN Security Council is increasingly blocked by the conflicting interests of its veto-wielding members, preventing action in many crucial areas, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

But it has also hampered efforts to address other issues, including imposing tougher sanctions and international pressure on North Korea and Iran, which violate Security Council resolutions on nonproliferation. Ironically, the Secretary-General’s solution is to expand the size of the Security Council, which would exacerbate this stalemate.

Recent trends indicate that UN member states are seeing the value of UN peacekeeping operations decline and that governments are increasingly requesting to withdraw from UN peacekeeping operations.

Human rights abusers hold power in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, resulting in a bias against Israel. In 2023, 14 of the 21 resolutions condemning countries for human rights violations adopted by the General Assembly targeted Israel.

The Human Rights Council has similarly targeted Israel with more than a third of its 301 condemnatory resolutions. Of course, it is not just which countries are targeted, but which are not. China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, for example, have not been condemned by those bodies in almost two decades.

Although self-determination is one of the primary purposes and principles of the UN Charter, the majority of UN member states are not politically free, according to Freedom House. Is it shocking that the UN reflects their preferences?

Meanwhile, countries appear to be less cooperative, rather than more, and treaty negotiations on all kinds of issues are foundering on divergent interests and disagreements.

The clumsy and politicized international response to COVID-19, led by the World Health Organization, has raised fundamental questions about the competence of the UN system to address critical issues.

The UN also seems unable to police itself. Sexual exploitation and abuse occur with disturbing regularity and it is shocking that UN staff at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees are involved in terrorism.

In short, the Pact for the Future is an overt attempt by the Secretary-General to demand more resources and powers for the United Nations.

It is clear why the Secretary-General would have an interest in strengthening the power and influence of the United Nations. It is much less clear why governments would be inclined to do so, given the organization’s failure to address the responsibilities that fall within its current remit.

A fair assessment would not call for an expansion of the resources and powers of the United Nations, but for a reassessment, downsizing and refocusing on activities, such as humanitarian assistance, where it can make a unique and valuable contribution.

The wisest course for the US would be to refuse to join the consensus supporting the Pact for the Future at the upcoming summit.