Summit of the Future?
Or Rehash from the Past-You Decide
As diplomats converge in New York for the UN’s Summit of the Future, touted as a transformative moment for global governance, one can’t help but wonder: Is this summit truly the groundbreaking event it claims to be, or just another exercise in bureaucratic self-preservation? With the world facing numerous conflicts—from the ongoing strife in Gaza and Sudan to the turmoil in Ukraine and Myanmar—the summit’s agenda certainly appears urgent. Yet, despite the lofty goals of the summit and its promise to rethink how we address global challenges, there’s a lingering question: Will this event genuinely pave the way for new solutions, or will it merely recycle old ideas under the guise of innovation?
The summit’s focal point, the New Agenda for Peace (NAFP), supposedly aims to revamp the UN’s approach to peace and security. But upon closer inspection, it’s hard not to see this as another instance of bureaucratic repetition. While the NAFP touts bold proposals like eliminating nuclear weapons and reforming UN peacekeeping efforts, these ambitions have echoed through UN corridors for decades without substantial progress. How can we expect different results this time around?
Critics argue that the NAFP, far from being a revolutionary document, is little more than a collection of recycled concepts lacking any real roadmap for implementation. The emphasis on state-led solutions seems particularly misguided given the diverse and complex nature of today’s conflicts. One must ask: Why continue to lean on a system that has repeatedly shown limitations, especially when dealing with conflicts rooted in local grievances and power struggles?
Marina Kumskova, a senior adviser at the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, sums up the skepticism well: “It was more an attempt from the UN to try to make themselves relevant.” Her words reflect a broader disillusionment among peacebuilders and experts who see the NAFP as an effort by the UN to maintain its waning influence, rather than a genuine attempt to address the root causes of global instability. This skepticism is shared by many who feel that the agenda, like so many before it, fails to incorporate the needs and voices of local communities and civil society.
This lack of innovation and inclusive thinking isn’t just an abstract critique. It has real-world consequences, as noted by Eugene Chen of New York University’s Center on International Cooperation. Chen points out that the NAFP lacks coherence because it was cobbled together by various UN agencies rather than being crafted with a unified vision. When even those involved in the process describe it as a “patchwork,” one has to question the efficacy of such an approach in tackling complex global conflicts.
The disillusionment extends beyond policy experts to those directly involved in conflict zones. Kaltumi Abdulazeez, a peacebuilding activist in Nigeria, dismisses the NAFP as “just another report” that fails to impact the lives of those it purports to help. Her frustration is palpable and shared by many in the Global South who view such initiatives as disconnected from their realities. How can a document formulated in air-conditioned offices in New York truly grasp the nuanced, on-the-ground realities of conflict in places like Nigeria or Myanmar?
Even those who see some merit in the NAFP, like Fred Carver of Strategy for Humanity, admit its limitations. While Carver acknowledges the agenda as a “clever framing” of the UN’s role, he concedes that its direct impact on alleviating conflicts is likely to be minimal. So, what are we left with? A document that might fine-tune existing frameworks but lacks the bold vision needed to tackle the growing crises around the world.
The insistence on national sovereignty as a cornerstone of the NAFP further complicates its potential effectiveness. In contexts where the state itself is a primary actor in conflict, such as Myanmar or Sudan, prioritizing state-led solutions can seem not only ineffective but actively harmful. As Kim Jolliffe, an expert on Myanmar, points out, emphasizing national ownership in such situations is “ridiculous” and disconnected from the realities on the ground, where state actors are often part of the problem rather than the solution.
Jolliffe’s critique cuts to the heart of the matter: How can an agenda that reinforces state control be expected to foster peace in regions where the state is engaged in oppressive or violent actions against its people? This question is not just theoretical but reflects a fundamental flaw in the NAFP’s approach, one that could render it ineffective or even counterproductive in many of the world’s most volatile regions.
For those on the front lines of conflict, the NAFP’s bureaucratic language and top-down approach feel far removed from the urgent needs of local communities. Voices from conflict zones like Syria and Nigeria express a common sentiment: these grandiose plans often translate into little tangible support or change on the ground. “Who cares about local organizations?” asks Abdulazeez, highlighting the disconnect between international policy and local realities.
Even in contexts where the UN could play a positive role, such as early intervention in conflicts, the NAFP falls short. Sarah-Derval Ephosi Lifanda of Hope of Africa suggests that if the agenda’s recommendations had been applied earlier in Cameroon, where tensions between English-speaking separatists and the francophone state escalated into conflict, much suffering could have been avoided. Yet, even Lifanda’s cautious optimism is tempered by the recognition that effective implementation remains an elusive goal.
The core issue, as echoed by many critics, is that the NAFP and similar initiatives seem more focused on maintaining the status quo than on embracing the transformative change they profess to seek. The language of the agenda, filled with vague references to “state sovereignty” and “national ownership,” often seems more about placating member states than addressing the real drivers of conflict. And as long as the UN remains tethered to such diplomatic niceties, it’s difficult to see how it can genuinely address the complex, deeply entrenched issues facing today’s world.
So, as diplomats gather to discuss these lofty ideals, one can’t help but ask: Is this summit truly a step forward, or just another exercise in political theater? Will it result in tangible changes that improve lives and reduce suffering, or will it become yet another chapter in the long history of well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective UN efforts? As the world watches and waits, the onus is on the UN to prove that this is more than just rhetoric—that the Summit of the Future will indeed be a turning point, not just a footnote.
