This article was written by Ricardo Lamour from Bout du Monde, member of UNARC. Find the article HERE
I was at the UN Summit of the Future: here’s what I took from it.
“You know, there are many cynics outside this room who are probably wondering, ‘What is this Pact for the Future?’ I don’t agree with them.”
These words by Alexander Stubb, President of Finland, were spoken at the Summit of the Future, during the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly, on September 23, 2024, in New York. This event, gathering thousands of individuals from civil society organizations, institutions, and member states, aimed to adopt the Pact for the Future, which includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations.
“I think this is an extremely good pact. Why? Because, in many ways, it highlights the difference between multilateralism, compromise, and cooperation on one hand, and multipolarity and disorder on the other.”
Like others, Alexander Stubb called for a radical reform of the Security Council, the powerful executive body of the UN. Let’s remember that the Council currently includes only five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France), who can unilaterally impose their veto to block Council resolutions, which they do when their interests are at stake.
Canada aspires to a seat on the Security Council, but are its actions enough to justify its legitimacy?
Stubb suggested expanding the Security Council with five additional members: one from Latin America, two from Africa, and two from Asia. He also proposed abolishing the veto right and suspending the voting rights of any member that openly violates the UN Charter.
It was a candid and heartfelt speech that contrasted with Trudeau’s words, which focused too much on the symptoms and not enough on the root causes of people’s suffering, showing a lack of structural reform proposals and reminding me of the criticism Canada faced when it was labeled a “climate hypocrite.”
How to Use the UN
Coalitions between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are essential to amplify their findings and raise public concerns. The UN offers a platform to make their voices heard, but while it can unlock political stalemates, reprisals can sometimes follow, despite being prohibited.
For example, Solange Baptiste, head of a coalition of 300 global NGOs advocating for the right to health with a focus on access to HIV treatment, emphasized that health must be a priority because, without it, other global goals cannot be achieved. She also called for investment in local solutions to address global crises.
“If not us, then who? If not now, then when?” she insisted.
The UN remains an essential forum for multilateral dialogue, as well as for contesting and denouncing injustices.
The words of David R. Boyd, former UN Special Rapporteur, come to mind. During the OHCHR Fellowship, he had summed up that Indigenous communities in Canada have combined legal recourse, strategic alliances, and advocacy to advance their rights.
In this sense, the Summit of the Future, the Universal Periodic Review, communications to special procedures, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and several other procedures such as applying for consultative status with ECOSOC (the Economic and Social Council) offer civil society organizations opportunities to make their voices heard by representatives of member states, NGOs, and experts on human rights issues.
This enables them to reinforce their actions on the international stage, complementing domestic and international efforts that can — and should — include legal action.
Despite Failures: The Example of the Fight for Racial Justice
Despite the UN’s failures, should we still dare to make international representations?
In their text “Anti-Racism at the United Nations,” E. Tendayi Achiume and Gay McDougall respond:
“Abandonment of the UN system as a site of contestation of global racial injustice and inequality remains an untenable luxury”
Since its creation, the UN has not always made fighting racism a priority. For example, the Western European and Others Group, of which Canada is a part, has often opposed the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, a foundational text in the fight against racism.
Later, it would give rise to the International Decade for People of African Descent, following a UN resolution that Canada paradoxically recognized.
A Moment of Truth for Haiti
During the last General Assembly, the representative of Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council, Edgard Leblanc Fils, stated: “In 1825, just 21 years after gaining freedom, Haiti was forced to pay a ransom to France, siphoning resources from our nation and plunging us into a cycle of impoverishment.”
This echoes the viral video of Canadian author Yves Engler confronting Emmanuel Macron about the repayment of the billions owed to Haiti. Both denounce the inconsistency of great powers, who preach international justice while avoiding it.
Leblanc Fils added: “We are asking for the recognition of a historic debt and fair reparations to free our people.” Interestingly, the Pact for the Future proposes “recognizing the tragedies of the past and providing for effective reparations.”
“Abandonment of the UN system as a site of contestation of global racial injustice and inequality remains an untenable luxury”
E. Tendayi Achiume and Gay McDougall
Leblanc Fils praised the Haitian migrants of Springfield, who face attacks and shameful lies from American political extremists, reminding us that the Haitian revolution of 1804 extended human rights to all humanity, not just white men.
In its review of its participation in the UN General Assembly, Canada mentions Haiti multiple times, yet it seems unwilling to join Haiti’s call for the restitution of its historic debt from France.
Canada’s Ambitions and Faults
Canada, which aspires to a seat on the UN Security Council, must ask itself: Are the actions it has taken, both within and beyond its borders, enough to justify its legitimacy on the Council?
The cases of Vanessa Renteria, an Afro-Colombian refugee shot dead by the RCMP just before the Summit, or the six Indigenous people killed by the police in eleven days, highlight troubling trends.
Added to this is the case of the Chinese Family Services of Greater Montreal, wrongly accused by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) of being a “clandestine police station” complicit with Chinese authorities. Its members had to mortgage their homes to save the center, and the organization is now suing the RCMP for $4.9 million in damages.
Moreover, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) continues to allow “charitable” organizations to fund the Israeli army and settlements in the West Bank, despite pro-Palestinian complaints.
Canada can no longer treat these cases as isolated or too complex to solve.
In each of these cases, the legitimate actors could turn to some of the UN’s mechanisms, many of which do not require exhausting domestic remedies before denouncing the inequalities and tragedies they face.
This is what the family of Joyce Echaquan did. Joyce died four years ago under a barrage of insults in a Quebec hospital, and her family still hasn’t obtained the recognition of systemic racism or the adoption of the Joyce Principle by the provincial government. The family filed complaints with the UN as early as 2021.
A coalition of organizations also filed a complaint about anti-Black discrimination with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is now under review by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, affiliated with the UN.
These incidents show that Canada can no longer treat these cases as isolated or too complex to solve.
The Contradictions of the UN Charter
The UN Charter, in its Article 1, proclaims that maintaining international peace and security is its primary objective. Yet, the UN has sometimes contributed to creating the very conditions it seeks to resolve.
For example, did the leaders who voted for Resolution 181 (the partition plan for Palestine) in 1947 fully grasp the lasting repercussions of their decisions?
Even today, strategic alliances between great powers still influence UN decisions, leaving countries like Haiti struggling to seek justice.
In a speech, Edgar Leblanc Fils recalled: “Haiti has hosted several UN missions over the past three decades […]. While some of these missions temporarily stabilized the country, they also left behind a heavy legacy. Allegations of serious human rights violations, including sexual abuse, have shaken the confidence of the Haitian people. The absence of prosecution and reparations for the victims has reinforced a sense of impunity, undermining reconstruction efforts.”
Leblanc Fils concluded by “ironically inviting UN support for a mission that learns from the past.” This request was met by the Security Council, which extended the mandate of the Kenya-led multinational force in Haiti — but refused the request to transform this force into a UN peacekeeping mission.
Final Thoughts
The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations will not be enough to push the United Nations and its member states — especially those who have been and are the main perpetrators and beneficiaries of colonialism and slavery — to act accordingly to address past and present wrongs.
But it is crucial to consider the existence of these agreements strategically, both within and outside the UN, an essential and unavoidable forum for multilateral dialogue, contestation, and the denunciation of injustices.
