The U.N.'s 2005 World Summit produces a lackluster resolution

September 29, 2005
South Florida Sun-Sentinel 
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorial/sfl-editafunsep29,0,7361284,print.story?coll=sfla-news-editorial

What else do you expect from the United Nations but a lot of high-minded debating followed by a watered-down measure that few expect will make a difference in the lives of so many who need change desperately?

Much negativity followed the U.N.'s World Summit earlier this month, which many observers hoped would lead to substantial reforms in the global body's structure and missions. For that matter, negativity has trailed the U.N. for much of its 60-year history. The disappointment from the meeting focused on the failure of the 151 world leaders who attended it to back a mechanism to pay for poverty alleviation programs, to address disarmament, create a human rights watchdog body free from politicization, and to define terrorism. 

But the varied agenda -- and the disappointment over its failure to address each point -- partly lies at the heart of the U.N.'s stumblings in recent times.

The U.N. has too often tried to be too many things to too many people. Overstretching its capabilities has led to shame and embarrassment, from the Oil-for-Food scandal to the sexual abuse allegations in its Congo peacekeeping mission.

Going forward, the global body might benefit from a more limited agenda. By doing so, the U.N. might be better able to drive consensus and maximize its resources. It might find it easier to install accountability in its programs and peacekeepers.

If the U.N. manages to muster consensus and produce results on some big issues, such as cutting poverty in half by 2015, as one goal states, the summit's dissatisfying conclusion might well be one of its most important conclusions.

BOTTOM LINE: A more limited, focused menu could be the U.N.'s most useful road map.