UN states call Russia's bluff, adopt Pact for the Future

World governments on Sunday adopted a sweeping package of reforms at the United Nations Summit of the Future, concluding an ambitious U.N. effort to confront a range of 21st-century challenges, from climate change to growing global poverty, inequality, and the application of artificial intelligence in wartime, which once existed in the realm of science fiction when the U.N. was founded at the end of World War II. The achievement was welcomed with a rousing round of applause from delegates and celebratory speeches throughout that day by their leaders. “Our world is going through a time of turbulence and a period of transition,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said after the reforms were passed. “But we cannot wait for perfect conditions,” he added. “We must take the first decisive steps towards updating and reforming international cooperation to make it more networked, fair, and inclusive — now. And today, thanks to your efforts, we have.” But the self-congratulations masked the palpable sense of relief that the entire session had not ended in utter catastrophe. On Saturday night, less than 24 hours before world leaders were scheduled to gather at the U.N. to endorse the sweeping package of U.N. reforms, Philémon Yunji Yang, the Cameroonian president of the U.N. General Assembly, invited U.N. ambassadors to an urgent meeting: More than a year of negotiations, he informed them, needed to come to an end. Within days of the summit, Russia registered opposition to a slew of provisions in the declaration. It was not alone. A significant number of countries, including Belarus, China, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela had been raising objections to various provisions in the three major declarations under discussion: the Pact for the Future; a Global Digital Compact that sets new guardrails on the digital world; and the Declaration for Future Generations, which aims to boost the role of the young in national and international decision-making. Their objections ran the gamut: They were seeking to gut protections for human rights, references to gender equality, free expression and calls for greater cooperation by civil society in U.N. activities. But Russia was the driving force. At one stage last week, Moscow had opposed — or in U.N. parlance “broken silence” — nearly 40 provisions, including calls for constraints on the use of force in outer space, the detonation of explosive devices on heavily populated areas, and encouraging nuclear disarmament. By Saturday night, Russia, backed by a small group of six countries, was continuing to block the agreement and urged Yang to continue the talks until their concerns had been addressed. China’s U.N. ambassador chimed in, pressing the former Cameroonian prime minister to honor Russia’s request. But Yang said he had had enough. A final draft he had presented to the U.N. members a day earlier, which had been opposed by Russia, offered the “broadest possible consensus,” he said, according to a written account of the meeting. He had already instructed U.N. civil servants to translate the Pact for the Future — along with the Global Digital Compact and Declaration for Future Generations — into the U.N.’s six official languages and have them ready for adoption at 9 a.m. the following day. “We are at a time of profound global transformation,” the pact states. “We are confronted by rising catastrophic and existential risks, many caused by the choices we make. Fellow human beings are enduring terrible suffering. If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown.” But the matter was far from settled. Frustrated with the halt in negotiations, Russia made one last appeal to add an amendment to the final future pact. The draft amendment underscored the primary role of governments in U.N. decision-making, stating “that the United Nations shall be driven by intergovernmental decision making process and that the United Nations and its system shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” Some delegates saw the Russian amendment as a “poison pill” aimed at undermining the spirit of the entire pact. “It’s clever because it seems fine on its face, but it’s basically intended to undercut the pact,” said one senior U.S. official. It was unclear until the final moment whether the declaration would pass. Guterres entered the chamber with three alternative speeches: One addressed a breakdown in negotiations; another a decision to delay action; and a third, the one he ultimately delivered, reflected the reforms' successful adoption. On Saturday morning, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin, speaking on behalf of Belarus, Eritrea, Iran, Syria, Nicaragua, and Venezuela delivered a scathing denunciation of the reform package. “Nobody is happy with this text,” the Russian said. “Can we build a future on such a foundation? Is this what we are going to show to future generations? “If our amendment is not included into the text of the pact, then we distance ourselves from the consensus on [the future pact] and on the global digital pact as well,” he added, noting Russian reservations about provisions on disarmament and human rights, and the participation of civil society in U.N. deliberations. “In any case, we believe it's crucial to emphasize that the pact is not a document that automatically creates new mandates and obligations for member states. It’s simply a declaration and quite a vague one.” Following the Russian statement, a representative of the Republic of Congo, speaking on behalf of the U.N.’s 54-member African Group, introduced a motion to not vote on the Russian amendment, saying “it was not going to help us meet our expectations and legitimate aspirations.” Under U.N. rules, you can block an amendment from being considered by tabling a no vote motion. It was adopted by a vote of 143 to 7, with 15 abstentions, effectively killing the Russian amendment. In the end, Vershinin stopped short of forcing the U.N. General Assembly to put the three declarations to a vote, a move which would have severely weakened the political will of the most important U.N. reform effort in a generation. “Russia clearly did not join consensus,” said one New York-based diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “But they obviously knew they would pay a heavy political price if they somehow managed to take down the entire pact.”