Differing Appeals at UN 60^th Anniversary Summit Highlight Gulf Between Imperialists and the Rest of the World

There were over 100 speeches to the General Assembly of the UN during the 60^th anniversary World Summit from September 14-16. The summit was originally convened to deal with two main issues: Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s proposed reforms to the organization and the pledges made by world leaders during the 2000 Millennium Summit.

However, in the days before the Summit opened intense lobbying by the U.S. and many of its allies, along with a handful of other nations, resulted in the summit discussion document being substantially expanded, considerably watering down the importance of the few concepts originally slated for discussion. Additions included the war on terrorism, nuclear proliferation (which the U.S. had added as a way of pressuring Iran) and, at the urging of Canada and some other European powers, the interventionist “responsibility to protect” doctrine.

In his opening address, Annan urged those gathered, including 150 world leaders, heads of state or foreign ministers, to “take bold steps to remedy the challenges facing the international community, from ensuring collective action to prevent conflict and genocide to protecting human rights, promoting development and battling terrorism.”

U.S. President George W. Bush, who addressed the summit on the first day, began by presenting the catastrophe unleashed upon the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama by Hurricane Katrina as proof of the interdependence of all peoples, rather than as a searing indictment of the U.S. state. He added that as nations respond to great humanitarian needs they must also actively respond to other current challenges, including “work to ease suffering, spread freedom and lay the foundations of peace for children and grandchildren.” Using the summit as yet another pulpit to defend the illegal American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, he said “no nation can remain isolated and indifferent to the struggles of others, as threats pass easily across oceans and borders and can threaten the security of any country.” He then focused on the need for all nations to unite behind the U.S. in the war on terror, and called for reforms to the UN through the elimination of corruption.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin used his speech to urge adoption of the responsibility to protect doctrine, as did British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Other world leaders, however, stuck to the original agenda of the summit and used the occasion to call for sweeping reforms and even transformations of the UN to deal with the dire poverty, hunger and disease that condemns tens of millions to death every year.

Speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 developing nations, Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson also highlighted how empty the promises made at the Millennium Summit were. “Since the Millennium Summit, the developing countries have made total net transfers of over one thousand, one hundred and seventy-four point five billion U.S. dollars,” to wealthy nations, he said. “These negative transfers have persisted, despite the commitments by the developed countries to increase Official Development Assistance, to reduce debt and debt-service payments, to open their markets to the products of developing countries and to encourage private investment in developing countries. While resources from developing countries flow to developed countries without impediments, the initiatives and programmes of developed countries which would transfer resources or provide access to developing countries have either been negligible, stymied in negotiations, or ringed with strict policy conditionalities.”

Cuban Foreign Minister Ricardo Alarcon, speaking on September 15, condemned the attempts to weaken the summit, reviewing the goals set at the Millennium Summit and noting “very little has been done to reach these goals.” Indeed, instead of progress on issues such as the spread of HIV/AIDS and the eradication of hunger, “there has been an outright setback.”

“That was what we needed to discuss here, today, to undertake resolute and urgent actions which would allow us to move forward. That was our obligation in this summit. But we are bearing witness to an unforgivable sham. The objective of this meeting was held hostage through tortuous manipulation. Those who fancy themselves the world's owners do not even want to remember those promises and the hypocritical fanfare that came with them. What is worse, they seek to impose alleged reforms in the UN which only intend to subjugate the organization completely and transform it into an instrument of their global dictatorship.”

According to Reuters, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez received the loudest applause for his September 15 speech to the Summit, in which he called for a wholesale transformation of the UN. “The 21st century demands changes that are only possible with a refounding of this organization,” said Chavez. “Mere reforms are not enough…”

For the short-term, Chavez proposed four key reforms: increasing both the permanent and rotating members of the Security Council; increasing transparency in the operation of the Security Council; abolitioning of the veto power currently held by Security Council permanent members; and strengthening the role of the Secretary General. He also said the UN should move away from New York.

“The original purpose of this meeting has been completely distorted,” he told the gathering. “The imposed center of debate has been a so-called reform process that overshadows the most urgent issues, what the peoples of the world claim with urgency: the adoption of measures that deal with the real problems that block and sabotage the efforts made by our countries for real development and life. Five years after the Millennium Summit, the harsh reality is that the great majority of estimated goals - which were very modest indeed - will not be met. “

He also addressed the “responsibility to protect” doctrine being advocated by Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. “Let us not permit that a few countries try to reinterpret the principles of international law in order to impose new doctrines such as ‘pre-emptive warfare.’ …And what about the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine? We need to ask ourselves. Who is going to protect us? How are they going to protect us? “

Back to Modern Communism