& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

UN World Summit ends with a whimper
ACK in June this year. UN Secretary. General Kofi Annan addressed the international Councillors of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and observed that the United Nations 60 Anniversary Summit offered a 'once-in-a generation' opportunity to transform the world body. Like him. many of us. who have been associated with multilateral diplomacy for nearly forty years, thought that the September Summit, particularly after the Volcker Report, would generate sufficient political will and necessary agreement. We hoped that necessary reforms would be introduced facilitating efficiency and effectiveness within the world body. Unfortunately i t was no t to be so. In this increasingly interdependent world, leaders from more than 150 countries met in New York and blinked when confronted with major substantive issues. They failed to rise to the occasion with regard to measures required for defeating poverty, assisting in the reaching of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) - eradicating listed socio-economic ills by 2015, building a collective security system able to meet the century's common threats, increasing respect for human rights through institutional reform and making the Security Council more democratic and representative.
The UN. Secretary General's wide-ranging report entitled Tn Larger Freedom' offered concrete proposals on the above issues, it also proposed sweeping overhaul of the UN's architecture - probably the most comprehensive in the last 60 years. These were reviewed by governments in a series of Informal
consultations conducted by UN General Assembly President lean Ping. Subscquendy, a watered down and whittled draft compromise was circulated for revconsideration just ahead of the Summit. Even this weak document failed to pass the international litmus test.
One of the greatest drawbacks of this compromise draft was its generic appioach and the eagerness to arrive at consensus on significant issues by deleting points of argument Consequently, what we have
been left with is a shadow of the substance.
This is particularly disappointing given some of the important aspects sought originally through the draft Summit document.
On Freedom from want' it not only included proposals in the tuea of development but also called for breakthroughs in debt relief and trade liberalisation. It also suggested increases in aid to revitalise infrastructure in health and education sectors in order to achieve the MDGs.
We need to recall here that this Summit was originally called to endorse and measure progress on the MDGs. Such intentions however appear to have been hijacked. The Summit ended up addressing more of its attention on plans to fight terrorism.
The Summit retained the ambitious goals set by G-8 leaders in Gleneagles Summit in July this year -- to double aid, to increase debt relief and to open trade barriers to poor countries. However, final decisions were not taken. It was left dependent on decisions to be arrived at in future meetings -notably the World Bank and the annual meeting of the IMF in Washington. Resolving trade issues have
also been postponed and will be dealt with again during the forthcoming Hong Kong lYade Sununit being convened later on in December this year.
Civil society campaigners originally had high hopes that the UN Summit might see further commitments by rich countries to increase aid flows, but in fact the possibility of reaching the 0.7 per cent of GDP target was never there. Political will was absent
Similarly, the process of debt
relief was not accelerated and added to at the United Nations. It might be recalled that G-8 Finance Ministers had agreed on a relief debt deal at Gleneagles, particularly granting full debt relief to 18 highly indebted poor countries (HIPC). This initiative has now got embroiled in several difficulties.
Switzerland and Netherlands among others are objecting to such across the board debt relief. They fear that thecost of debt relief--after the initial three years - will not be fully funded by the big nations and that the plan will also hurt other developing countries that are not receiving such debt relief. Some otiters have also raised the question of IMF imperatives that insist 'good economic .management' as being sine qua non for implementation of such an initiative.
At the end of the day it appears that there was much of rhetorical endorsement of the importance of a global trade deal at the United Nations. There was also recognition that trade has the potential to boost developing country incomes far more than aid inflows. However, such perception seems to have been deficient in resolve. This was reflected in the fact that while the UN Sumniit was going on. the key
agricultural talks on agricultural subsidy at the WTO in Geneva were adjourned, a day early without agreement This failure was caused by the inability to adopt a more comprehensive approach.
Such action reiterated once again that the important players are focussed only on short term individual country interests. Time, I believe, is running out for a global trade deal. The bright promises of summer appear to be fading.
Kofi Annan's document, with
regard to 'freedom from fear' had sought improvement in collective security arrangements to prevent terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was also implied that serious efforts were required to have agreement on the definition and the denotations and connotations of the term 'terrorism.' It also pointed out the need for the establishment of a Peace Building Commission that would support countries during their transitions from armed conflict to lastingpeace.
On this front, the Summit did much better. It agreed to establish a Peace Building Commission to help resolve conflicts, many of which take place in developing countries. They also accepted that there was a common obligation to intervene when civilians face genocide and war crimes.
The United Nations Security Council passed a Resolution to prevent the incitement of terrorism and another to prevent conflict, especially in Africa. However, very little attention was paid to stopping the sale of arms In conflict-ridden areas. We already know that the civil strife lingering on in Congo and in other areas of Africa are being fuelled by parties seeking to estab-
lish ownership over natural resources with the help of foreign stake-holders. Nothing was done to stop this.
The biggest failing was in the area of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Here 'posturing' got In the way of results.
Security Council reform was also left on the wayside. Democracy and suitable representation were swept underneath the blue carpet of the United Nations. The carrot of an eventual expanded Security Council
without veto powers for the newly included permanent members will eventually be agreed to, but it is unlikely to be so during this UNGA Session.
Under 'freedom to live in dignity,' the UN document had stressed that there could be no development without security, no security without development, and neither without the universal appb'cation and protection of human rights. Within this chapter, nations were also asked to seriously consider creation of an independent and selffinancing Democracy Fund to help governments strengthen their democratic practices and institutions. It was also proposed that the largely discredited Human Rights Commission needed to be transformed into a smaller standing body called Human Rights Council with membership subject to approval by two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.
There was acrimonious debate for quite a few days among members on this question and the blueprint for future international action. Least common denominators having failed, it was decided to refer It to the General Assembly. This means further delay.
At the conclusion of the Sum-
mit, Mr. Annan has correctly noted that members had failed to achieve the profound tefornt the world body needed. Every side has been a loser -• not just the developing countries for whom an effective UN is a vital source of aid. advice and influence; also the US. which has demonstrated repeatedly in recent months and years that it is both ill-equipped and often unwilling to do precisely the tasks that an effective United Nations would undertake - such as peace-making, nation-building in failed states and dealing with disasters.
The planned reforms were intended to persuade Washington that it should use the multilateral system in future, rather than going It alone as It did in Iraq. They were also intended to make the United Nations more effective — not just in US eyes but also to all its members, rich and poor.
I believe there were pluses for the Bush Administration if the reforms could have been agreed to. Yet, as Quentin Peel has commented. 'instead of getting enthusiastically involved in the negotiations to get the best possible and most widely acceptable package, Washington remained in the sidelines'. They tabled 750 amendments to the reduce 39 page draft reform document. That hardly reflected a positive approach.
A clear message has nevertheless rung out - - the United Nations and its bloated bureaucracy have to be fully accountable, transparent and efficient. It has also'been reiterated that its workforce has to have high standards of integrity and competency.
The United Nations is at the crossroads. It has reached the age of sixty, not too far away from the universally accepted age of superannuation. One only hopes that it Is not retired, as happened with the League of Nations. Member States also need to remember that the strength and effectiveness of the United Nations will be directly proportional to the level of unity within themselves.
Muhanvnad Zamir Is a farmer Secretary and Ambassador ■■ any response to mzamirgdhakanet