Women in Parliaments

Developing countries top the list of the countries with the highest percentages of women in their parliaments. 

Rwanda (63%), Bolivia (53.1%), Cuba (48.9%) and the Seychelles (43.8%) have the highest percentages of women in the Lower Houses of parliaments. Sweden (43.6%) is the fifth on the list. There is only one other affluent country in the top ten, Finland, which comes in at number 10.

Other surprises on the list are that China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia place higher than the world’s oldest and largest democracies, the United States and India respectively.

The list below is an edited version of the table on the web site of the Inter-Parliamentary Union which contains information also on the representation of women in Upper Houses of parliaments.

Rank	Country	Lower or single House
1	Rwanda	9 2013	80	51	63.8%
2	Bolivia	10 2014	130	69	53.1%
3	Cuba	2 2013	612	299	48.9%
4	Seychelles	9 2011	32	14	43.8%
5	Sweden	9 2014	349	152	43.6%
6	Senegal	7 2012	150	64	42.7%
7	Mexico	6 2015	498	211	42.4%
8	South Africa	5 2014	396	166	41.9%
9	Ecuador	2 2013	137	57	41.6%
10	Finland	4 2015	200	83	41.5%
11	Iceland	4 2013	63	26	41.3%
"	Namibia	11 2014	104	43	41.3%
"	Nicaragua	11 2011	92	38	41.3%
12	Spain	11 2011	350	144	41.1%
13	Mozambique	10 2014	250	99	39.6%
"	Norway	9 2013	169	67	39.6%
14	Andorra	3 2015	28	11	39.3%
"	Belgium	5 2014	150	59	39.3%
15	Ethiopia	5 2015	546	212	38.8%
16	Timor-Leste	7 2012	65	25	38.5%
17	Denmark	6 2015	179	67	37.4%
18	Netherlands	9 2012	150	56	37.3%
19	Angola	8 2012	220	81	36.8%
20	Slovenia	7 2014	90	33	36.7%
21	Germany	9 2013	631	230	36.5%
22	Burundi	6 2015	121	44	36.4%
23	Argentina	10 2013	257	93	36.2%
24	Tanzania	10 2010	350	126	36.0%
25	Uganda	2 2011	386	135	35.0%
26	Serbia	3 2014	250	85	34.0%
27	Costa Rica	2 2014	57	19	33.3%
"	Grenada	2 2013	15	5	33.3%
"	Macedonia	4 2014	123	41	33.3%
28	El Salvador	3 2015	84	27	32.1%
29	Algeria	5 2012	462	146	31.6%
30	Zimbabwe	7 2013	270	85	31.5%
31	New Zealand	9 2014	121	38	31.4%
32	Portugal	6 2011	230	72	31.3%
"	Tunisia	10 2014	217	68	31.3%
33	Cameroon	9 2013	180	56	31.1%
34	Italy	2 2013	630	195	31.0%
35	Austria	9 2013	183	56	30.6%
36	Sudan	4 2015	426	130	30.5%
"	Switzerland	10 2011	200	61	30.5%
37	Guyana	5 2015	69	21	30.4%
38	Nepal	11 2013	599	177	29.5%
39	United Kingdom	5 2015	650	191	29.4%
40	Trinidad and Tobago	5 2010	42	12	28.6%
41	Luxembourg	10 2013	60	17	28.3%
42	Afghanistan	9 2010	249	69	27.7%
43	Belarus	9 2012	110	30	27.3%
44	Philippines	5 2013	290	79	27.2%
45	Australia	9 2013	150	40	26.7%
46	Iraq	4 2014	328	87	26.5%
"	South Sudan	8 2011	332	88	26.5%
47	France	6 2012	577	151	26.2%
"	Kazakhstan	1 2012	107	28	26.2%
48	Croatia	12 2011	151	39	25.8%
"	Honduras	11 2013	128	33	25.8%
"	Turkmenistan	12 2013	124	32	25.8%
49	Suriname	5 2015	51	13	25.5%
50	Canada	5 2011	304	77	25.3%
"	Singapore	5 2011	99	25	25.3%
51	Mauritania	11 2013	147	37	25.2%
52	Laos	4 2011	132	33	25.0%
"	Lesotho	2 2015	120	30	25.0%
53	Viet Nam	5 2011	498	121	24.3%
54	Israel	3 2015	120	29	24.2%
55	Poland	10 2011	460	111	24.1%
56	Equatorial Guinea	5 2013	100	24	24.0%
57	Estonia	3 2015	101	24	23.8%
58	China	3 2013	2959	699	23.6%
59	Lithuania	10 2012	141	33	23.4%
60	Kyrgyzstan	10 2010	120	28	23.3%
61	Greece	1 2015	300	69	23.0%
62	Peru	4 2011	130	29	22.3%
63	Eritrea	2 1994	150	33	22.0%
64	Dominica	12 2014	32	7	21.9%
"	Guinea	9 2013	114	25	21.9%
65	Moldova	11 2014	101	22	21.8%
66	Bosnia-Herzegovina	10 2014	42	9	21.4%
67	Cabo Verde	2 2011	72	15	20.8%
"	Dominican Republic	5 2010	183	38	20.8%
"	Monaco	2 2013	24	5	20.8%
68	Albania	6 2013	140	29	20.7%
69	Pakistan	5 2013	340	70	20.6%
70	Madagascar	12 2013	151	31	20.5%
71	Bulgaria	10 2014	240	49	20.4%
72	Cambodia	7 2013	123	25	20.3%
73	Bangladesh	1 2014	350	70	20.0%
"	Czech Republic	10 2013	200	40	20.0%
"	Liechtenstein	2 2013	25	5	20.0%
74	Colombia	3 2014	166	33	19.9%
"	Saudi Arabia	1 2013	151	30	19.9%
75	Kenya	3 2013	350	69	19.7%
76	United States	11 2014	434	84	19.4%
77	Tajikistan	3 2015	63	12	19.0%
78	Slovakia	3 2012	150	28	18.7%
79	Panama	5 2014	71	13	18.3%
80	Sao Tome-Principe	10 2014	55	10	18.2%
81	Latvia	10 2014	100	18	18.0%
82	Turkey	6 2015	550	98	17.8%
83	Togo	7 2013	91	16	17.6%
84	United Arab Emirates	9 2011	40	7	17.5%
85	Montenegro	10 2012	81	14	17.3%
86	Indonesia	4 2014	555	95	17.1%
87	Morocco	11 2011	395	67	17.0%
"	Venezuela	9 2010	165	28	17.0%
88	Barbados	2 2013	30	5	16.7%
"	Malawi	5 2014	192	32	16.7%
"	Saint Lucia	11 2011	18	3	16.7%
"	San Marino	11 2012	60	10	16.7%
89	DPR of Korea	3 2014	687	112	16.3%
"	Ireland	2 2011	166	27	16.3%
"	Republic of Korea	4 2012	300	49	16.3%
90	Uruguay	10 2014	99	16	16.2%
91	Fiji	9 2014	50	8	16.0%
"	Libya	6 2014	188	30	16.0%
"	Uzbekistan	12 2014	150	24	16.0%
92	Chile	11 2013	120	19	15.8%
93	Azerbaijan	11 2010	122	19	15.6%
94	Paraguay	4 2013	80	12	15.0%
95	Chad	2 2011	188	28	14.9%
96	Mongolia	6 2012	76	11	14.5%
97	Gabon	12 2011	120	17	14.2%
98	Somalia	8 2012	275	38	13.8%
99	Guinea-Bissau	4 2014	102	14	13.7%
"	Romania	12 2012	401	55	13.7%
100	Russian Federation	12 2011	450	61	13.6%
101	Burkina Faso	11 2014	90	12	13.3%
"	Guatemala	9 2011	158	21	13.3%
"	Niger	1 2011	113	15	13.3%
"	Saint Kitts and Nevis	2 2015	15	2	13.3%
102	Bahamas	5 2012	38	5	13.2%
103	St Vincent-Grenadines	12 2010	23	3	13.0%
104	Malta	3 2013	70	9	12.9%
105	Djibouti	2 2013	55	7	12.7%
"	Jamaica	12 2011	63	8	12.7%
"	Zambia	9 2011	158	20	12.7%
106	Cyprus	5 2011	56	7	12.5%
107	Sierra Leone	11 2012	121	15	12.4%
"	Syria	5 2012	250	31	12.4%
108	Ukraine	10 2014	422	51	12.1%
109	India	4 2014	543	65	12.0%
"	Jordan	1 2013	150	18	12.0%
110	Mauritius	12 2014	69	8	11.6%
111	Georgia	10 2012	150	17	11.3%
112	Antigua and Barbuda	6 2014	18	2	11.1%
113	Liberia	10 2011	73	8	11.0%
114	Ghana	12 2012	275	30	10.9%
115	Armenia	5 2012	131	14	10.7%
116	Malaysia	5 2013	222	23	10.4%
117	Hungary	4 2014	198	20	10.1%
118	Brazil	10 2014	513	51	9.9%
119	Botswana	10 2014	63	6	9.5%
"	Japan	12 2014	475	45	9.5%
120	Gambia	3 2012	53	5	9.4%
121	Cote d'Ivoire	12 2011	251	23	9.2%
122	D. R. Congo	11 2011	492	44	8.9%
123	Mali	11 2013	147	13	8.8%
124	Kiribati	10 2011	46	4	8.7%
125	Bhutan	7 2013	47	4	8.5%
126	Bahrain	11 2014	40	3	7.5%
127	Congo	7 2012	136	10	7.4%
128	Benin	4 2015	83	6	7.2%
129	Tuvalu	3 2015	15	1	6.7%
130	Myanmar	11 2010	420	26	6.2%
"	Swaziland	9 2013	65	4	6.2%
131	Samoa	3 2011	49	3	6.1%
"	Thailand	8 2014	197	12	6.1%
132	Maldives	3 2014	85	5	5.9%
133	Nigeria	3 2015	360	20	5.6%
134	Nauru	6 2013	19	1	5.3%
135	Sri Lanka	8 2015	225	11	4.9%
136	Haiti	11 2010	95	4	4.2%
137	Belize	3 2012	32	1	3.1%
"	Iran	5 2012	290	9	3.1%
"	Lebanon	6 2009	128	4	3.1%
138	Comoros	1 2015	33	1	3.0%
"	Marshall Islands	11 2011	33	1	3.0%
139	Papua New Guinea	6 2012	111	3	2.7%
140	Solomon Islands	11 2014	50	1	2.0%
141	Kuwait	7 2013	65	1	1.5%
142	Oman	10 2011	84	1	1.2%
143	Micronesia	3 2015	14	0	0.0%
"	Palau	11 2012	16	0	0.0%
"	Qatar	7 2013	35	0	0.0%
"	Tonga	11 2014	26	0	0.0%
"	Vanuatu	10 2012	52	0	0.0%
"	Yemen	4 2003	300	0	0.0%

Report on the Work of the UN

The annual Report on the Work of the Organization (A/70/1) is one of the rare UN documents that gets media attention.

That is because it is submitted to the opening session of the General Assembly every year and its Introduction reflects the Secretary-General’s primary political concerns. 

The Report itself is a distillation of many departmental submissions and traditionally it has been a committee-designed horse, its ill fitted parts of varying worth and integrity.

The Introduction to the 2015 Report is remarkable for several reasons. 

At the top of my list is that it makes no mention of a major change in UN policy announced sotto voce in the penultimate section of the Report itself: “The United Nations advocates a rebalancing of the international policy on drugs, to increase the focus on public health, human rights, prevention, treatment and care, and economic, social and cultural measures.” 

That is the closest the UN has ever come to calling for an end to the prohibitionist approach to psychoactive drugs which has for over a century failed in its main purpose while rewarding organized crime with sky-high profits. It is certain to raise expectations that the 2016 General Assembly special session on drugs will rewrite international drug policy.

The Introduction is notable also for completely ignoring drug trafficking, money laundering and organized crime, the triune that funds terrorism and most contemporary conflicts. 

Some of its statements are also outrageously false. Looking back over the UN’s seven decades it says “we have much to be proud of” because the “world has avoided global conflict on the scale seen twice in the first half of the twentieth century” and numerous “smaller wars were averted or brought to an earlier end.”

The truth is that well over 100 million people have died in the conflicts of the last 70 years, far more than in the two declared “World Wars.” Many societies have been torn apart by war and many hundreds of millions of lives ruined. Those grim realities have been generally invisible because international mass media pay little attention to the poor countries that have borne the terrible toll.

The claim that the UN has prevented and ended wars is ludicrous when even a cursory review can reveal the consistent impotence of the Security Council in the face of prolonged and widespread carnage. The cause of that failure is no mystery: the Council’s permanent members have been the primary beneficiaries of war; they provide almost all the world’s weaponry and reap enormous economic and political advantages from instigating proxy conflicts.

Another dishonest claim in the Introduction is that the past year has seen “significant progress” towards the interconnected goals of ending poverty, bringing climate change under control, and agreeing on “shared approaches to funding and implementing a new development agenda.” In fact, the UN’s endless talk on those issues has resulted in nothing but arid, hollow texts.

The authors of the Introduction are also inexplicably confused when it comes to telling about the “enormous strides” the UN has made in “building the long-term foundations of peace.” 

On the one hand they ascribe undeserved credit to the Organization for raising “millions out of extreme poverty” and empowering women, both national processes, with a marginal UN role.

On the other hand, they make only one passing reference to the UN’s undisputed and major success in advancing human rights and international law. 

The 70th anniversary is surely an occasion to celebrate that despite the many tyrannical regimes in its membership the Organization has created and codified more international law than in all previous history. It has been the primary designer, architect and advocate of a body of law that now extends from the abyssal depths of the sea to outer space and covers every individual on earth with the mantle of universal human rights and protections.

Strangely too, the report makes no mention at all of another major UN achievement, the creation of an integrated statistical framework that makes global problems visible. Without it the world would be incapable of policy and strategy in every vital area.

On contemporary problems, the Introduction is frank: “age-old problems persist,” and new ones are proliferating. “Inequalities are growing in all societies,” the “poorest of the poor” are being left farther behind, and there are shockingly violent crimes of violence against women and girls, especially as “a tool of war.” Climate change has “only begun to show the potential severity of its impacts.” Overall, problems have become more complex in an “increasingly fast-paced and interconnected world where opportunities “abound” but “risks are greater and more contagious.”

The description of the world situation in 2015 is vivid:

“During the past year, more people were displaced than at any time since the Second World War. Desperate migrants risked everything to flee from hunger, persecution and violence, only to meet with death, discrimination and greater desperation along the way. Conflict and crisis engulfed millions of people in Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gaza, Libya, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine and Yemen. Millions faced the brutal tactics of violent extremists such as Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab and Da‘esh/Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), while many foreign fighters found the message of such groups alluring enough to join their cause. Environmental degradation, pollution and resource depletion continued almost unabated around the globe. There was little progress on the long-stalled disarmament agenda. Countless people died of curable diseases, went to bed hungry, buried children who might have been saved with basic health care, and in many other ways suffered avoidable, unacceptable levels of deprivation, fear and hopelessness.”

The section on Disarmament notes both the quick UN action to neutralize Syria’s chemical weapons and the 19-year lassitude of the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD), the world’s only multilateral negotiating forum on arms issues.

Finally, the Report takes no note of the tireless and powerful role of civil society in international affairs. Without the largely volunteer-driven agendas of civil society organizations the UN's State-centred processes would lose an essential humanizing element; it would be impossible for the Organization to hold out the hope that the idealism in the Preamble to its Charter will eventually come to life in global governance. 

The authors of the Report could have made all those points easily by quoting from a statement made last March in the CD by the 100-year old Women’s International League for Peace and Freedomx. Some excerpts:

“For the last few years, my organization, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, has been permitted to deliver a statement to the Conference on Disarmament to mark International Women’s Day. For years before that, our statement was read out to the CD by the sitting president. This is the only time of year that any voice from civil society is allowed inside the CD chamber. And this may be the last time our voice is heard here.

“Dear colleagues, … let me explain to you what it is like being the only civil society organization that still pays attention to the CD. Last week, for the high-level segment, I had to make a detour on my way to the gallery, because security wouldn’t let me through – I would have been too close to the chamber in which about 20 minutes later a high level dignitary would be speaking.

“Even after any regular plenary session, I have to wait outside the Council Chamber for someone from the Secretariat to hand me the statements that you delivered, because I am not allowed into the room. This practice, by the way, was never an official decision. In 2004, it was decided that civil society was allowed on the floor, before and after the meeting. That changed without an official decision ever being put on the record.

“These are but a few of the indignities that civil society experiences at the CD. We do not experience them at other disarmament forums—not at First Committee, not at meetings of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, not at meetings of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“So, you can imagine our delight when Ambassador Lomónaco tabled the draft decision to increase our access to and engagement with the CD. And I assume you can imagine our disappointment, to put it mildly, when you started discussing that draft decision. Aside from the sexist, degrading remark about “topless ladies throwing bottles of mayonnaise,” the level of disrespect to civil society and disconnection from the outside world demonstrated by the debate over this proposal was astounding.

“Many of you have expressed your appreciation for our work over and over again. And we do enjoy working with you towards our collective goals. But at the moment that it mattered, some of you put process over progress. Member states that pride themselves to be open, democratic societies said they needed more time, had some more questions, wanted some changes, and in the end could not agree ...

“We in WILPF have thus decided that it’s finally time to cease our engagement with this body. While the debate over the proposal to amend the CD’s engagement with civil society was important in terms of timing, it is not the key reason that we have come to this decision. 

"This is a body that has firmly established that it operates in a vacuum. That it is disconnected from the outside world. That it has lost perspective of the bigger picture of human suffering and global injustice. … We can no longer invest effort into such a body.”

An Alternative Post-2015 Agenda

As noted in my last post, the draft of the post 2015 agenda that governments have agreed upon is the disastrous product of a dysfunctional UN. To show what a meaningful agenda could be, I’ve drafted the text below. If governments go ahead with their agreed text I invite civil society organizations to consider adapting and adopting the following.

PREAMBLE

We live at a time when the growth of global connectivity has ushered in a range of new political, economic and social realities and opened up unprecedented potentials for sustainable human development.

Within the next 15 years we can realistically look forward to ending poverty and war, the most formidable obstacles to sustainable development.

In the process we can eliminate also the interrelated scourges of drug trafficking, terrorism and organized crime which at present exact a huge cost in lives and treasure from the poorest countries of the world.

To realize these objectives there are two fundamental requirements.

One is the full partnership of men and women and nations large and small in repairing a world devastated by the poisonous processes of the industrial age.

The other is the fundamental reform of the United Nations system of agencies.

Progress towards these ends will be framed by the values set forth in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Within that framework we recognize that nations have a sovereign right to determine their own course of development.

GOALS

We endorse the Goals set out below and will take action to achieve them within our nations and in sub-regional, regional and global frameworks. We urge international agencies to prioritize South-South and Triangular modalities of cooperation wherever possible. In listing the Goals below, we set out the rationale that will guide policies and programmes and note (in italics) the action that we will take.

1. Eliminate Poverty: The extreme poverty afflicting nearly a billion people who live on less than $1:25 a day is caused by systemic factors rooted in the colonial era and sustained by current socioeconomic arrangements, especially those noted below under other Goals. We expect that as those are addressed, the problem of extreme poverty will be greatly ameliorated. To accelerate the process, we will frame specific policies and field well-funded programs to end hunger, extend good quality education to all children and ensure that the poor have access to health care.

2. Promote Social Inclusion: Poverty is not just economic; everywhere, it is associated with forms of social exclusion and discrimination. Many who are not poor also suffer exclusion and discrimination on the basis of their gender, age and sexual preference. To counter this, we will formulate appropriate laws and policies, initiate media campaigns targeting discrimination and make social inclusion a high priority in housing, education and access to the Internet and the worldwide web.

3. Combat Organized Crime: Most of the violence visited on societies around the world is the work of criminals organized around a nexus of economic interests, especially drug trafficking. They are empowered by existing financial and legal arrangements at the global level that must be changed if we are to root out all forms of organized crime ranging from sexual exploitation of children and women to trade in counterfeit goods and environmental crimes. To that end, we pledge to:

• Revoke the existing prohibitionist conventions on the manufacture, trade and use of so called “illicit drugs,” and replace them with one that will promote a medical and social approach to addiction and abuse. This will be done at the Special Session of the General Assembly that will convene in 2016 to deal comprehensively with the issue of “illicit drugs.” 

• Declare illegal all “shell companies” that allow criminals to hide behind corporate identities, and subsequently, seize the assets of all entities whose beneficial ownership is not verified. To this end, the Sixth Committee of the current session of the General Assembly will inscribe a new item on its agenda and come to an agreement within a year.

• Decree that banks caught laundering money will automatically lose their license to do business and that the individuals involved will be subject to mandatory prison sentences. 

4. Build Peace and Security: The action under 3 a, b and c above will eliminate organized crime as a major threat to international peace and security but state-sponsored terrorism and proxy wars for control of resources or strategic space will continue. To address those sources of violence a twin-pronged approach will be necessary. On the one hand, we must make a concerted effort to end the proliferation of small arms and light weapons and stop the illicit trafficking in arms. On the other hand, the defensive responses of victimized societies must change. Instead of relying on heavily militarized police and secretive agencies that conduct massively intrusive surveillance of their own citizens, the first line of defense should be community-level organizations working with lightly armed local police organizations. To these ends, we resolve to:

• Work with corporations manufacturing weapons to create a clear, transparent and global registry of small arms and light weapons

• End the illicit trade in weapons by putting brokers out of business and into prison. 

• Explore and promote community-level networks supporting local police to ensure security.

5. Change Production/Consumption Patterns: Existing patterns of production and consumption are rooted in the realities of the industrial era that are now fading under the influence of the technologies of the Information Age. The Internet and the Worldwide Web now allow small and medium corporations to identify and sell to niche markets, in effect destroying the mass markets essential for the survival of giant corporations. The rapid evolution of 3-D printing is making it possible for the highest quality of industrial production on a very small scale, in effect, setting at naught the single greatest advantage of mega corporations. As networks of small producers emerge to maximize their efficiencies, the mega corporations with their top-down decision-making structures and concentrated production/service centers will become increasingly inefficient dinosaurs. This will inevitably affect patterns of trade and urbanization, especially as cheap off-grid renewable sources of energy become plentiful. In sum, these trends will change all the wasteful production and consumption patterns of the last few centuries. To accelerate the process, we will:

• Review all policies based on industrial era assumptions of production and consumption, especially of fossil fuels.

• Promote the evolution of 3-D printing to meet the requirements of small and remote communities.

• Set in place educational systems capable of providing the highest quality of instruction in the remotest rural locations.

• Encourage entrepreneurs to meet the cultural needs of remote or widely dispersed rural populations

• Consider how best to adapt our nations to the reversal of long standing trends towards urbanization.

6. Reduce Social Inequalities: Growing inequalities within societies has been one of the most unsustainable of trends over the last decade, accentuating injustices that have been a characteristic of all civilizations. The most obvious difference between the haves and the have-nots, and historically the most irreducible, has been access to high quality housing. However, as the connectivity of the Information Age has made crowd-funding a new economic reality, that great divide can now be closed. A crowd-funded housing sector can not only eliminate the issue of homeless populations, it can, in the process, rapidly expand employment, build infrastructure and drive economic growth. To make this possible a range of monetary and environmental issues will have to be ironed out. We will initiate a global research effort to illuminate and address those issues with an eye to providing housing for all by 2030.

7. Reform the United Nations System: The system of international agencies set in place at the end of World War II 70 years ago continues to function with little change in its modalities. It adopts hundreds of resolutions every year phrased in arcane diplomatic jargon addressed mainly to governments. No one knows what actually happens to the resolutions, for there is no systematic feedback on their implementation To rectify this state of affairs, we will move to hook the operations of the UN System into the networked world of the 21st century. That will entail crisply action-oriented resolutions circulated on all public, expert and organizational networks worldwide, eliciting feedback and responses in a fluid interactive process.

In sum, the achievement of these goals will lead towards the long-standing UN goal of general and complete disarmament, anchoring sustainable development to deepening peace and security. It will result in a world transformed by 2030.

A Verbose, Hollow Post-2015 Agenda

I have just finished reading the agreed draft of the "development agenda" the United Nations will put before world leaders next month.

It has every characteristic of what UN insiders call a “Second Committee text;” that is to say, without vision, guided entirely by precedent, and wholly unrealistic.

Usually negotiated by Second and Third Secretaries too low on the diplomatic totem pole to dare go beyond their written briefs, such texts are classic MEGOs (Mine Eyes Glazeth Over).

Words lose all meaning in Second Committee negotiations and exist only as pointers to previously agreed texts.

For instance, the Preamble to the document claims it is “a plan of action” that “also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom.”

The only “action” proposed in the text comes at the back end of its 29 dense pages and involves something dear to every Second Secretary’s heart, further committee meetings.

In this case, a great number of them, for the document will launch “a Technology Facilitation Mechanism” that will service “a multi-stakeholder collaboration between Member States, civil society, private sector, scientific community, United Nations entities and other stakeholders.”

How will that work?

A “United Nations Interagency Task Team on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI)” will “promote coordination, coherence, and cooperation … enhancing synergy and efficiency, in particular to enhance capacity-building initiatives.”

It will work with 10 UN appointed representatives from civil society, the private sector and the scientific community to operationalize an on-line clearing-house platform on STI initiatives, mechanisms and programmes “within and beyond the UN” and prepare for an annual two-day meeting of a “Multistakeholder Forum.”

And how does the document “also” seek “to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom”?

The matter is a complete mystery, for none of the 17 references to “peace” in the 91-paragraph Declaration says anything about issues normally related to “universal peace in larger freedom.”

In fact, every reference is narrowly phrased to avoid giving offence to those profiting from gargantuan military expenditures, the proliferation of ever more devilish arms, terrorism and proxy wars.

There is a promise to “foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence,” but the text studiously avoids mentioning drug trafficking (the single largest money-maker for global organized crime), terrorists and proxy wars.

Nor is there any mention of money laundering, which siphons off trillions of dollars from poor countries.

The text does say governments will “combat” all forms of organized crime by 2030 but is silent on what is to be done.

There are three references to terrorism. The first says it is endangering development. The second notes the need to “strengthen support and meet the special needs of people living … in areas affected by terrorism.” The third calls for strengthening “relevant national institutions … to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime.”

The “relevant” institutions are those currently engaged in massively intrusive surveillance, indiscriminate violations of human rights and torture. They are the antithesis of sustainable development.

Another grand goal is to facilitate “orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.”

How is that to be done?

There is not the vaguest indication.

The rotund pomposity of the text descends into the ridiculous when it claims to be guided not only by the UN Charter, full respect for international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also international human rights treaties, the Millennium Declaration, the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, the Declaration on the Right to Development, “the outcomes of all major UN conferences and summits which have laid a solid foundation for sustainable development,” the “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; the World Summit on Sustainable Development; the World Summit for Social Development, the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the Beijing Platform for Action; and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+ 20).”

The text further reaffirms “the follow-up to these conferences, including the outcomes of the Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, the Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States; the Second United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries; and the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction.” 

It pauses for breath before reaffirming also “all the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, including, inter alia, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, as set out in principle 7 thereof.”

To make all this more entertaining, the text asserts that the “challenges and commitments contained in these major conferences and summits are interrelated and call for integrated solutions. To address them effectively, a new approach is needed.”

What “new approach” it does not say, but this follows immediately thereafter: “Sustainable development recognizes that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, combating inequality within and among countries, preserving the planet, creating sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and fostering social inclusion are linked to each other and are interdependent."

Perhaps the Second Secretaries see that as a “new approach.”

If the General Assembly adopts this document at the summit level it will signal the organization’s terminal incapacity. 

I suggest that a committee of ambassadors and special envoys from capitals be convened immediately to shape an intellectually respectable new text.

If that does not happen, Civil Society organizations should put out their own document commenting on the official one and indicating what needs to be done.