Summit of the Future seeks to guide the future of global governance

Today's UN institutions – as well as other international bodies – no longer reflect the balance of power in a changing, multipolar world. Therefore, they are in need of thorough reform. Moreover, it is high time to accelerate the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Could the UN's Summit of the Future in September 2024 act as a catalyst for this change?

The origins: the creation of the UN

After WWII ended, there was an urgent need for an international organisation that could prevent such a horrific conflict from breaking out again in the future. To negotiate this idea, 51 countries met in San Francisco (US) in 1945. Together, they wrote the charter for what would evolve into the United Nations (UN) as we know it today. With 193 member states, they represent almost the entire world.

So the UN was primarily a peacekeeping instrument. But drafters of the charter understood that peace would be impossible without at the same time promoting social and economic development and standing up for human rights. To this day, these remain the three main pillars of the UN:

• International peace and security
• Sustainable development for all
• Protection of human rights

The potentially most powerful body within the UN is the UN Security Council, responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Its resolutions are binding.

The UN Security Council has 15 members including five permanent ones, each with a right of veto (= the power to block a decision): the US, Russia, China, France and the UK. Those five most powerful members are, broadly speaking, the victors of WWII. However, because of the current internal divisions, the Security Council has lost much of its influence (see below).

The origins: the creation of World Bank and IMF

In the same period – 1944 – the Bretton Woods system was concluded: a financial and economic agreement between 44 countries. This established both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, known as International Financial Institutions. The IMF was given the role of intervening quickly and effectively in an acute financial crisis. The World Bank primarily funds sustainable solutions for reducing poverty and promoting prosperity in developing countries.

In both financial institutions, all member countries have a say proportional to the amount of their contribution: one dollar, one vote. As a result, rich countries have more influence there than poor ones. A Belgian vote there counts for 1.30%.

From bipolar and unipolar to multipolar

A distinctly bipolar world emerged after WWII. On the one side, there was the West with the US as its greatest power; on the other, the Eastern Bloc under the Soviet Union. In the 1960s, 77 developing countries grouped together to form the G77, which China also joined. Goal: to advocate within the UN for the common economic interests of the poorer 'South'.

After the Wall fell in 1989, a unipolar world temporarily emerged with the US as the main superpower. But since then, countries in the South have quietly grown into economic powers. For example, China's economy has all but caught up with that of the US. Countries such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico and South-East Asian countries are also gaining in weight, due to growing economies as well as populations.

International institutions are no longer representative

With the shifting balance of power, the countries of the Global South (see box) no longer feel adequately represented in various crucial international institutions and bodies. These include the UN – especially the Security Council – the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the G7, the G20 and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The UN does not always function properly either, especially with regard to its first pillar: maintaining peace in the world. In the Security Council, the veto power of permanent members hampers the capacity to make incisive decisions. For example, Russia today blocks all resolutions on the war in Ukraine and the US does the same for almost any resolutions on Gaza.

Also peacekeeping missions – with UN blue helmets – do not always succeed in meeting expectations. MINUSMA – the peacekeeping mission in Mali – recently had to leave at the government's request, and MONUSCO will also leave East Congo. The question arises as to whether it is still of our time to send out major peacekeeping operations with blue helmets all over the world.

Minilateralism: new power formations in the world

To promote mutual collaboration, several regional organisations such as the African Union (AU), the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) emerged.

In addition, a number of 'minilateral' formations are also positioning themselves. People also speak of 'minilateralism': smaller groups of countries working together to address problems or pursue common goals.

The most famous is the BRICS, which initially grouped together Brazil, Russia, India and China and South Africa. Recently, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates also became members. Or there is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (CSO), which originally focused more on Central Asia.

The emergence of countries such as China, India, Indonesia and South Africa, in addition to minilateral country groups, is creating a more multipolar world that is still seeking its balance.

There is nothing wrong with that by itself. But there is a risk of further fragmentation. For example, the G77 – which still exists – is finding it increasingly difficult to find unity. China, for example, differs from the other G77 countries on debt elimination and Security Council reform.

Moreover, there is a risk that emerging countries and smaller formations will turn their backs on the UN and the international rules associated with it. And that would be a calamity for finding solutions to today's major global problems, such as climate and security.

Difficult reforms

Yet some of that Global South's complaints are legitimate. Belgium (see box) and the EU also want the UN institutions reformed to better reflect the current balance of power.

It is just that those reforms are proceeding with extreme difficulty. Because if more countries get in on the action, it goes without saying that the pie must be divided among a lot more candidates. So the current countries will need to give up part of their piece of the pie, which they would rather not do.

Certainly in the Security Council, it is a bumpy ride. Competition also plays a role there. For example, a country like China has a hard time tolerating being alongside India or Japan.

Small steps forward

This does not mean that nothing happens at all. In 2022, the General Assembly (GA) – where each country has one vote – adopted a resolution initiated by Liechtenstein. From now on, any decision that was blocked by veto in the Security Council will be debated in the GA. These included ones on Ukraine and Gaza. An overwhelming majority of the GA voted for a ceasefire and Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine. The resolution does not allow the GA to decide on peacekeeping missions – only the Security Council can do so based on the UN charter – but it does provide a wider playing field for all countries.

Some progress has also been made on peacekeeping missions, most notably with the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2719 in late 2023. From now on, the UN can fund peacekeeping operations carried out exclusively by the African Union. Provided, however, that the Security Council has approved those missions. Belgium and the EU favour it and co-sponsored the resolution.

The EU renewed its contacts with various regional organisations such as the AU (Africa), CELAC (Latin America) and ASEAN (Asia) on an equal footing. Such equivalence is evident, for example, in the recent Samoa agreement with ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) countries, as a successor to the Cotonou Agreement. The US is also seeking closer relations with Africa.

Our Common Agenda

UN Secretary-General António Guterres also understood the message well. Ever since 2018, he has been working to improve the functioning of the UN by making UN development institutions work better together.

In 2020 – at the height of the corona pandemic, on the 75^th anniversary of the UN – member states felt there was a need to reform global governance so that it could better provide for current and future generations. Guterres' response to that was Our Common Agenda. This includes a call to accelerate implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals – a roadmap to a better world by 2030.

Summit of the Future

Building upon that common agenda, an SDG Summit was held last year during the GA. A social summit will follow next year. This September in New York, a Summit of the Future will be organised with two main goals:

• An update on the global governance reform process, which will include the Security Council. With a broad coalition of like-minded countries, Belgium wants the power of veto to be used less;
• A confirmation – and acceleration – of the implementation of existing commitments, such as the SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement and so on.

The summit will adopt a Pact of the Future that focuses on five themes for which the UN needs to do a better job:

• Sustainable development and financing for development (calls for increased efforts on the SDGs from all countries);
• International peace and security (a broad and important section);
• Science, innovation and technology, and digital collaboration;
• Young people and future generations;
• Transforming global governance.

There will also be a Declaration on Future Generations and a Global Digital Compact (to bridge the digital divide).

Firm high-level commitment

We should not expect any bold reforms from the Summit of the Future. What we can hope for, however, is a firm high-level commitment – from heads of government and heads of state – to reform multilateralism with the UN at the centre. The UN must adapt to current realities and become more representative. In so doing, it should become better suited to addressing the five themes of the Future Pact.

And we naturally also expect a stronger commitment to achieving the SDGs by 2030. This is extremely important given the current great backlog and their great importance for a more harmonious world.

International rules are crucial

Either way, it will be an important summit. As mentioned, there is nothing wrong in itself with collaboration within smaller formations, but that should not undermine global governance through the UN. It is vital that all countries continue to adhere to international rules accepted by all – as defined in the UN Charter, which is and will remain a key document.

When countries and country groups question the common rules, this provides a recipe for chaos. And this is just at a time when we face numerous challenges that we can only solve together, at a global level. All in all, it is in everyone's self-interest to work well together within a global framework.

Hopefully, the future summit can provide a clear direction. We will report on the summit in October.