Once again, at the last summit of the United Nations (UN), “traditional diplomacy” has prevailed, one that considers haste as something “commoner”, which usually wanders and subsists in five-star hotels; in those non-generalizable worlds, where there are no devaluations or inflationary processes; where the uncomfortable presence of the poor is not faced.
What we observe as a product of this last session of the organization that is now 60 years old, is the product of political leaders reluctant to assume their responsibilities, to those populist attitudes that prefer to do what is easy and "acceptable" in the immediate, in instead of what is necessary, urgent and important. It is the product of lethargic bureaucracies, accustomed to working with suffocating slowness, juicy income and notable profits.
The results are not really encouraging. At the last UN summit, to quickly synthesize a complex issue, and how El Tiempo de Bogotá detailed it, there were basically five issues to address. Let's see its characteristics and a summary of its conclusions.
A topic of great importance was the proposal for internal reform of the organization. It is known to be a very thorny issue, where it is virtually impossible to get away well in political terms. The pressure exists to restructure the real power of the organization: the Security Council.
It is about expanding the "lock" represented by the permanent votes with the right to veto of the powers that won World War II - to which China was added. The need to permanently incorporate two African nations, and two Latin American nations, was raised as the core, while Japan and Germany tried to gain individual seats in that coveted center of world power.
No action was taken in this regard. What was agreed would be the creation of an "ethical office" that would be given independence. The doubtful efficiency of such an organizational section is evident, except to create bureaucratic positions for which there would be no delay in filling.
A second aspect was development aid. Since 1992 with the Earth Summit in Brazil, it has been insisted that the most developed nations should allocate an amount of 0.7% of their total annual production in development aid. The only nations to do so are the Nordics. The United States was furiously opposed to this initiative. The representatives ended by exhorting them to meet the organization's Millennium Goals, and to fight poverty. Rhetoric of the oldest.
A third and fourth aspects are intertwined: combating terrorism and maintaining peace. Here, an additional effort was “requested” from the countries to reach an agreement regarding a convention against international terrorism. The right of countries to resist occupations was omitted. In addition, it was decided to establish the Commission for the Construction of Peace. Another bureaucratic instance. No number of members or representations is specified. It was said that the nations that contributed the most with troops and money would be present.
The evidence would show that institutional weakness continues in the fight against terrorism. As if the intention was to let things go.
Exactly the criterion of unforeseen circumstances that later turn out to be very costly, and that in the end end up discrediting the organization, as the powers take positions, outside the UN, as happened in the case of Iraq in March 2003.
Deep down, it seems that they want to leave the world organization without two elements: (i) the capacity for rapid response; and (ii) management autonomy that could guarantee both urgent and timely results in many conditions. There is a factor that contributes to the UN being perceived as ineffective, apart, of course, from the internal bureaucracy. But it should be noted how there are powers that predispose for it and then end up blaming the victim.
The cases that can identify the above are several: Somalia (1992); Burundi and Rwanda (1994), Bosnia (1995). In all of them, the agile responses were not manifested as a result of the same parsimony in decision-making and the lock represented by the veto powers. In any case, it is not possible that all this is being pointed out now, precisely to cut contributions to the organization, as in fact the United States has stated.
Finally, a fifth issue, regarding human rights, the discredited Geneva Human Rights Commission would be replaced by a new Human Rights Council. It is not established whether this new creation would be permanent, nor its functions, mandate, size, or how it would be formed.
All these details will be left to be discussed in "technical" meetings, for negotiations that are expected to be completed before September 2006. If this is not achieved, as expected, as many extensions as necessary can be authorized. See the slowness, the lack of results. And without results, as in other levels of life - personal, institutional, government - there can be no consistent credibility. Those postulates do not make up the current code.
The conclusions have been general texts, the ambiguity of good intentions. This allows everyone to leave satisfied by not having committed to anything, ready to toast the closing of activities.
The UN, which emerged with so much hope, and who was expected to be the central actor on the use of the “peace dividends” after the end of the Cold War, continues in conditions of lethargy, of transition. A transition without getting anywhere.
However, the responsibility does not lie entirely with the UN. The entity responds to the real political will of the countries. It is a consequence of it. Hence, the more developed powers have an indispensable responsibility, which until now they have not assumed.
We continue to witness rhetoric instead of compromises, set phrases instead of work schedules, mutual blaming instead of substantive contributions. The underlying changes, which would promote genuinely effective results, are still waiting for tomorrow. A tomorrow that seems never.
