Summit of the Future: The UN at a crossroads
The summit offers a rare platform to address these challenges collectively, but more importantly, it may serve as a catalyst for real reform within the UN
The United Nations (UN) Summit of the Future on September 22-23 comes at a time when faith in multilateralism is at a low point. In the wake of crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic and conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, the question remains: Will this summit be the transformative moment that reshapes global governance, or just another missed opportunity, reinforcing the narrative of multilateralism’s decline?
This summit represents a crossroads for the UN. It has the potential to renew the organisation’s relevance in an increasingly complex world — or to deepen its marginalisation. The UN’s effectiveness has come under fire, with detractors arguing that the institution is mired in inefficiency, out of touch with modern realities, and increasingly unable to resolve global crises. Counterintuitively, while many express scepticism about the UN’s ability to reform, the fact that this summit is happening shows that all is not lost.
The centrepiece of the summit is the proposed Pact for the Future, a streamlined 20-page document outlining a bold vision for UN reform and global cooperation. The Pact consolidates a broad range of issues into five main chapters: Sustainable development; international peace and security; youth and future generations; science, technology, innovation, and digital cooperation; and transforming global governance. It proposes 60 specific actions in these areas, which represents a significant step forward. However, one can’t help but ask: Is this merely the lowest common denominator? After all, multilateral diplomacy often settles for the most agreeable solutions rather than the most transformative ones.
The UN’s critics point to its longstanding structural issues, particularly the Security Council’s (UNSC) power structure. The veto power held by the five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States — has frequently led to deadlock, hampering meaningful action on critical issues such as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. The UNSC’s outdated framework has become emblematic of the broader perception that the UN is more focused on rhetoric than action. Not surprisingly, many believe that a summit, however well-intentioned, will not be enough to solve these deep-rooted problems.
Consequently, the upcoming summit is seen by many as a case of too little, too late. They argue that the UN’s problems are so deep-rooted that a single event cannot reverse its declining influence. Instead, they predict a continuation of the status quo, with regional and bilateral alliances increasingly overshadowing multilateral efforts, further eroding the UN’s relevance.
Yet, all is not lost. There are strong reasons to believe that the summit could indeed mark a turning point. First, the mere fact that this summit is being held reflects a recognition among member States that the current state of global governance is unsustainable. No single nation, no matter how powerful, can tackle the interconnected crises of climate, terrorism, pandemics, and cyber threats alone. Paradoxically, therefore, the 21st-century challenges may reinforce the need for global cooperation.
The summit offers a rare platform to address these challenges collectively, but more importantly, it may serve as a catalyst for real reform within the UN. Conversations around expanding the UNSC and on limiting or abolishing veto power suggest that the summit could lay the groundwork for future changes. However, realistically, we may not see immediate transformative reform. The potential for bold action depends largely on whether member States can move beyond superficial consensus-building.
The summit could also catalyse reforms across other areas of the UN system, such as conflict prevention, digital governance, and humanitarian efforts. Importantly, the inclusion of civil society, the private sector, and other non-State actors in these discussions represents a potential bridging of gaps between the UN and the broader international community, offering new partnerships that could breathe life into multilateralism.
Still, the summit’s success will depend on more than just broad commitments. It will require concrete steps and significant investments to ensure that the Pact for the Future is implemented. Without this, there’s a risk that the Pact will remain just another well-meaning but ultimately symbolic document, lacking in substance. Optimistically, the very existence of the Pact — even in its draft form — signals a recognition that the status quo is insufficient. This acknowledgment sets the stage for future negotiations and, at the very least, provides a framework for long-term change.
It is crucial, however, not to overlook the criticisms. The absence of specific commitments around contentious issues, such as UNSC reform, raises doubts about whether the summit can produce real, transformative results. Some argue that the Pact may amount to little more than a symbolic gesture, rather than a practical roadmap for substantive change. And yet, ironically, even a modest pact — adopted by consensus — could demonstrate that multilateralism is far from dead. It would show that despite the polarisation and lack of solidarity within the UN, member States can still engage in meaningful diplomacy. Thus, the summit may not bring the “root-and-branch” reform many hoped for, but it does offer a starting point for rejuvenating global governance.
In conclusion, the summit represents both a moment of truth and an opportunity for the UN. The Pact outlines critical areas for reform and sets the stage for future discussions. Whether this becomes a true turning point or a missed opportunity will depend on the political will of member States.
If they can rise above the lowest common denominator, embrace transformative change, and make substantial investments in implementing the Pact, the summit could mark the beginning of a “UN 2.0”. Although multilateralism has weakened, it is far from dead. What remains clear, however, is that the world can’t afford a defunct UN, and the summit could be a catalyst for its much-needed reset.
Ruchira Kamboj is former permanent representative of India to the UN.The views expressed are personal