|
|
|
| Sunday, 25 September 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
From hope to despair : A critique of the World Summit 2005 by Jayatilleke de Silva
In contrast to the hype and hope generated in preparation of the Summit, the event itself lost all glamour and hope given the deep divisions within the international community on all matters pertaining to the Agenda. This is in spite of the tremendous work undertaken by the Secretary-General and his staff as well as by various preparatory fora. Much was expected of the Summit in respect of poverty alleviation. The Millennium Summit of world leaders, in fact had set 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and 18 targets to achieve them. This year's Summit was scheduled to take stock of the progress towards the Goals and take speedy measures to ensure their attainment by the deadline agreed - Year 2015. As far as the MDGs were concerned the Summit was a dismal failure. The developed countries, especially the United States objected to setting any targets or aid commitments for developed countries to assist the developing nations to achieve their MDGs. The undiplomatic diplomat of the United States - John Bolton raised question after question to block any progress on these goals. The New York Times called it the 'Lost UN Summit'. It said: "The responsibility for the failure is widely shared. But the United States, as the host nation and the UN's most indispensable and powerful member, bears a disproportionate share." The frustration of the developing nations was great. President Chavez of Venezuela best expressed it. He said: "We pretended reducing by half the 842 million hungry people by the year 2015. At the current rate that goal will be achieved by the year 2215. Who in this audience will be here to celebrate it?" While the developing nations called for a time frame especially with respect to debt cancellation and the GDP 0.7 percent aid pledged by the developed countries, the latter avoided any definite commitments on the issue. Compared to the Millennium Summit this year's Summit was a definite set back. As Economics Editor of the Guardian, London Larry Elliott put it the Summit was 'a ghastly anti-climax'. Though many leaders including US President George Bush spoke about terrorism they could not agree on defining what terrorism is. On the other hand the language used in the resolution on terrorism is so vague that governments could abuse it to curtail freedom of expression. Though it was resolved to establish United Nations Human Rights Council its mandate, modalities, functions, size, composition and working methods are yet to be determined. Nor was there any tangible progress recorded in reforming the United Nations itself. Plans for Security Council enlargement or changing its voting pattern have been shelved or postponed for future deliberations. The Security Council reflects the geo-political realities of yesteryear. No account has been taken of the immense changes that have taken place in the world since then. Thus the UN faces a threat of becoming impotent and anachronistic. According to some observers it has become so already. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
The World Summit 2005 which concluded in New York last week was great
only in one respect - numbers. More than 170 Heads of State or Government
took part in it. Actually it was the most representative Summit so far,
being attended by 191 member states of the United Nations. 
