The United States should oppose the proposed United Nations‘(UN) “Deal for the Future” aims to re-establish the global forum as a driving force on issues it has so far failed to bring about change, one expert says.
“The Future Summit, at which UN member states are expected to endorse agreements for the future, is an attempt by the secretary-general to ‘reinvigorate global action’ and ‘further develop the frameworks of multilateralism so that they are fit for the future,'” said Brett Schaeffer, research fellow for international regulatory affairs at the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.
“They should instead call for reevaluation, retrenchment and refocusing,” argued Schaeffer, who has served at the United Nations. Contribution Committee Between 2019 and 2021. “For example, the international response to COVID-19 was deeply flawed; peacekeeping is in retreat; negotiations are faltering over differing priorities; and the Human Rights Council and General Assembly are dominated by human rights violators.”
The Summit for the Future will be held before the High-Level Week at the UN General Assembly. Schaefer argued that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has worked towards this summit through his annual reports over the past three years, which have focused on climate and pollution issues.
The agreement would expand that scope and focus on “global shocks,” such as “Disrupting activity in cyberspace” or “disruption of the global flow of goods, people, or finance.”
The agreement aims to change the way nations discuss wealth and productivity, proposing the development of new measures beyond GDP to help developing countries advance and the decentralization of financial governance and voting power from organizations such as the IMF and World Bank.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres speaks during a press conference at the UN Visitor Plaza in New York City on April 19, 2022. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Guterres showed deep concern and interest in how the world will govern “global common resources” such as the high seas, the atmosphere, Antarctica and others. outer spaceas well as global public goods, i.e. initiatives of shared interests between nations.
Schaefer warned that these initiatives, while seemingly altruistic, would prove too difficult for the organization to handle – he cited the lack of success of such initiatives in the past – and would instead hand the UN another tool to intimidate dissenting countries such as the United States.
UN ambassador criticizes Israeli military, calls for ‘fundamental change’
“This agreement would give additional responsibilities to an organization that cannot handle its current remit, and instead focus on areas such as humanitarian assistance where the UN can make a unique and valuable contribution,” Schäfer said.
“The Pact for the Future will join a long list of UN declarations that have been used to attack the US diplomatically and rhetorically,” he said. “The sensible course for the US would be to not support the Pact for the Future at the upcoming summit.”
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani addresses the 78th United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City on September 22, 2023. (BRIAN R. SMITH/AFP via Getty Images)
US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield He raised concerns over the agreement during a press conference on Wednesday, when he warned that member countries still had concerns about the deal.
“We’ve seen all of the UN member states work together over the last few months to find a deal for the future that everyone can agree on, and I know we’re not at that point yet,” Thomas-Greenfield said.
It is time for the international community to take action against Iran: Danny Danon
“As I said, the negotiations are still ongoing,” he said. “I think we’ve accomplished a lot and brought together a lot of common priorities. There are still some big differences.”
Thomas-Greenfield warned that any agreement that required unanimity would never lead to “100% happy” members, and that the agreement would contain elements “that we all disagree with”, according to which members would raise this issue when voting on the agreement.
United States Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield speaks after a UN Security Council meeting at UN Headquarters on August 24, 2023. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)
“I’m still hopeful we’ll get there,” he said, adding that the US was “disappointed that some countries broke their silence yesterday on a number of issues, even though we were so close.”
“The G77 agreed not to break the silence,” he revealed. “The EU agreed not to break the silence. We agreed not to break the silence. But unfortunately, some other countries are still trying to include things in the agreement that they know will be difficult to achieve.”
Click here to get the Fox News app
“I think you probably know that Russia has broken its silence on probably 15 different issues,” he said. “Of course, they don’t like any reference to sanctions. I think Saudi Arabia has broken its silence on these issues. Climate-Related Issues“Others have broken their silence on issues relating to IFI reform,” he added.
“We had some issues with that language, but we came to the conclusion that we could accept that language even though we didn’t think it was perfect, so all negotiations are still ongoing,” he said.
