As the Chancellor measures the world again

New York. Before the swearing-in takes place here, Olaf Scholz will have breakfast with Namibian President Nangolo Mbumba at the United Nations headquarters. For two years, their two countries led negotiations with the other 191 member states of the United Nations on the future agreement. Perhaps Scholz and Mbumba will briefly consider the speeches they are going to give to the global community. The common message should be: The United Nations wants to overcome its painful inability to act and give more dignity to its name. However, there are doubts that this can be achieved even if the agreement is accepted.

In New York it will be early in the morning and in Germany late in the afternoon when it will be clear whether the detailed work of the German UN Ambassador Antje Leendertse and her Namibian colleague Neville Gertze will be canceled in a minute or whether the world again. measured to some extent. The latter is necessary because the international order is broken.

The answer must be silence

At the upcoming United Nations General Assembly, the President of the General Assembly, Philémon Yang, will ask the representatives of the international community if they agree with the agreement that Leendertse and Gertze have prepared from the comments and requests that originally contained nearly 3,000 pages, divided into 30 pages, five chapters and 50 summary steps. If the answer is yes, then the answer must be silence. For the one who is silent agrees. Yang will then look at the 193 states and if no one really moves, the hammer will fall and the agreement will be accepted by applause. If so.

Until recently, there was uncertainty as to whether Russia would ban the document. As Moscow has done again and again in recent years, diplomats report. At every opportunity, Moscow dismissed efforts to uphold human rights or condemn torture or war as unacceptable interference by Western countries in other states. Russia is considered a source of uncertainty.

Secretary General Antonio Guterres had given impetus to the future agreement years ago. It is primarily about reforms to the World Security Council and the international financial architecture. In the Security Council, there are five nuclear powers and the victors of the Second World War – the US, China, Russia, Great Britain and France – who have permanent seats and the right to veto all joint close Neither Latin America nor Africa are represented. The federal government says this is not allowed.

The Security Council presents a world that no longer exists. The powers have clearly shifted. The 77 states of the global south must finally be treated as equals. Two seats are now being discussed for Africa – but without curling rights.

Unfulfilled hopes

If 193 states are to come to an agreement, a major compromise and “forms of consensus”, as they say, must be found that disappoint one or the other. But the agreement is only a basis for a reform process that is now being started, with confidence on the German side. However, this hope has existed for decades. It has not yet been achieved. At first glance, it is also not clear why it is celebrated and not accepted as proof of commitment to the UN Charter or Declaration of Human Rights.

The world and its UN thing – where is the United Nations when you need it?

It seems that what the international community is doing against the strong background of Ukraine and Gaza is completely failing. Reforming the UN would help – in theory. In practice, however, the plans that have been discussed for decades stand no chance. Experts are even warning that things are getting worse.

Perhaps because Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the Gaza war, the upcoming conflict in the Middle East or the wars in Africa are proof of the opposite. The United Nations is powerless here. There are always obstacles in the Security Council.

The Future Agreement aims to increase development efforts and give more consideration to developing countries in international financial institutions – the International Monetary Fund under the control of the West and the World Bank. This financial architecture is considered unfair to poor countries, for which it is more expensive to issue loans. In addition, inequality, hunger and poverty can be better addressed. Likewise climate change. But here too, the commitment to the Paris climate protection agreement is only confirmed, Compliance with the level 1.5 target is no longer considered possible.

Kamala Harris is missing

The remaining chapters deal with the protection of civilians, protection against terrorism and organized crime, the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and commitment to disarmament, global governance of artificial intelligence and the younger generations. In general, there are several soft forms. Guterres may have hoped for more.

What would help Scholz, Mbumba and Guterres is more support from Western friends at the summit for a future agreement. Instead of heads of state and government, foreign ministers came. And in the US country, US presidential candidate Kamala Harris was especially missing. But she is currently taking care of her own future.