Three New Goals Emerge at U.N. World Summit

As the limousines of kings and presidents pulled away from the United Nations on Friday at the end of this week’s World Summit, they left behind the question of what had really been accomplished.

Much of the summit’s centerpiece agreement is merely an affirmation of old pledges on development goals. But there are three new elements: an agreement on the responsibility to intervene in countries facing genocide or war crimes; establishment of a Peacebuilding Commission to help post-conflict countries; and a fresh start for a body to bolster human rights.

For the first time, world leaders accepted that they have a duty to prevent or stop massive atrocities such as those that occurred in Rwanda, the Balkans and Sudan. Experts say the agreement represents a significant shift in international law and tradition, whittling away at the claim that what happens within a country’s borders is its own business.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan introduced in 1999 the idea that borders should not shield governments that are harming their people. Nations such as China and Russia strongly objected then to what they viewed as a violation of national sovereignty. But this week, representatives from 191 nations formally signed on to the new responsibilities.

In an address to the General Assembly, Annan emphasized the gravity of what the leaders had vowed to do: “Excellencies,” he said, “you will be pledged to act if another Rwanda looms.”

Crucial questions must still be answered, such as what is the threshold for intervention, and who decides. Even Washington’s declaration last year that massacres in the Darfur region of Sudan amounted to genocide did not spur intervention, despite an implicit obligation to do so under the Geneva Convention.

“Once this is adopted, it would be difficult for the Security Council to turn the other way and to once again close its eyes to flagrant atrocities,” said Mark Schneider, a senior vice president of the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank that was one of the most vocal proponents of the change. “We expect this to bring with it early-warning systems, so we can prevent a conflict from reaching the point where there would have to be armed intervention.”

The Peacebuilding Commission is to help countries recover and rebuild after conflicts. It will help assess the needs of such countries, create long-term strategies for reconstruction and coordinate international aid and financing.

The U.N. already plays such a role, most visibly in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, but the Peacebuilding Commission would formalize the work and fund it. It also offers U.N. peacekeepers new tools, such as police who would be on standby in various countries, said Jean-Marie Guehenno, the peacekeeping chief. The commission should begin its work by the end of the year.

One of the hardest-fought outcomes of the summit was the agreement to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission within a year. But the victory was limited by the failure to establish criteria for membership, and many leaders expressed disappointment in their speeches this week.

In his address Wednesday, President Bush harshly criticized the commission, which has included among its members alleged human rights abusers such as Libya and Sudan, saying their presence undermined the credibility of the U.N.

The agreement doubles the budget for the U.N.’s human rights chief, strengthening the U.N.’s ability to monitor and help build respect for human rights.

Other small steps lauded in leaders’ speeches included a denunciation of terrorism in all its forms, even though terrorism was not defined; a reaffirmation of development goals; and some of the institutional reforms Annan has sought to strengthen the U.N.

Annan said Wednesday that the agreement had some outright failures, including the omission of any reference to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. He also had hoped for more authority to carry out reforms of the U.N. bureaucracy denied by some nations that did not want to cede to him power held by the General Assembly.

Cuba and Venezuela denounced the document and the negotiating process as undemocratic and rigged against the developing world, and threatened to withhold their approval, which would have scuttled it. But they set aside their objections and allowed the document to be adopted by consensus.

“This has been a summit of selfishness and arrogance and lies,” said the Cuban delegate, Ricardo Alarcon.

But U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, named by some diplomats in their speeches as one who had blocked a better outcome, lauded the result as “an important step in a long process of U.N. reform.”

“We cannot allow the reform effort to be derailed or run out of steam,” he said. “We can assure you that the American people, and all the peoples of the world, will be watching closely.”