U.N. World Summit

175 world leaders were set to meet in New York City Sept. 14-16 to discuss proposed reforms at the 2005 U.N. World Summit. The meeting intended to address progress on goals outlined at the 2000 Millenium Summit, including drastically reducing poverty by 2015 (although progress thus far on many of the initial goals has been less than hoped). How were the main goals of this historically comprehensive gathering of world leaders advanced? How did Bolton and the current U.S.-U.N. relationship affect the summit?

Ramu Damodaran , chief of the Civil Society Service, Outreach Division at the U.N.'s Department of Public Information, was online Tuesday, Sept. 20, at 4 p.m. ET to discuss the 2005 U.N. World Summit and what came out of this gathering of over 150 world leaders.

See last week's Live Online on the U.N. World Summit here: U.N. World Summit Set to Begin: U.S. Has Requested Changes to Proposed Reform Agreement.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: I would like to ask how you feel about the countries that won't be able to meet millenium development goals set by the U.N. years ago. Will the U.N. and the world review the situations of these countries and offer other plans to eradicate poverty?

Ramu Damodaran: One of the major outcomes of last week's World Summit has been the commitment by developing countries to set in place national plans of action for realising these goals by 2015. That should give a clear idea of what is, or may not be, possible and, on the premised that these are internationally negotiated, concluded and accepted goals, the UN will certainly be open to the ideas and experience of its membership, and global civil society, in supporting those nations who do require assistance in that regard.

_______________________

Beltsville, Md.: I get the impression that everyone looks to America as the leader of the free world. I believe the U.S. appears as arrogant assuming it can do anything, anywhere and at anytime. I want to know if America took a different approach and try to step to the U.N. as a partner and not the 1000 lb. gorilla. Could the U.S. go in without outright demanding and setting it's direction according to it's own agenda? Could America be humbled to the fact that China holds the purse strings and if China stopped producing for the U.S. it would be bought to its knees. If the oil producing members stopped negotiating and played hardball. What would you conclude would happen if the U.N. members turned on the U.S. and is it at all possible?

Ramu Damodaran: I'm not convinced of your premise. The United States is a---many would say "the"---founding member of the United Nations, and wherever it has held a point of view at variance from other members it has, like the 190 others, sought to win support for its position through diplomacy, dialogue and negotiation. President Bush spoke last week of "the promise of the United Nations" and, in its 60th year, we are acutely aware that it remains a promise still not fully realised and the United States, to use your phrase, is an active and energetic partner in making that realisation possible.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Why can't the U.N. renounce or even define "terrorism?" Is it because most member states support it?

Ramu Damodaran: No. Diplomacy is a great deal about words, and when you have 191 countries working to agree on a sequence and limit of words, it's never easy. But last week's summit, for the first time in UN history, did unqualifiedly condemn terrorism "in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes."

_______________________

Tokyo, Japan: How do you assess the feasibility of the efforts by G-4 (Brazil, India, Germany and Japan) to get permanent membership in the Security Council during the current session of the U.N. or in the near future?

For your information, it is advocated here that if permanent seat continues to be denied, Japan, the second largest contributor to the U.N. budget after the United States, should seek her contribution to be reduced below the present 19.5%, larger than the combined contributions of four permanent members (China, France, Russia and the U.K.).

Ramu Damodaran: This remains a subject which Member States have to agree and decide on and the G-4 initiative is one of those which have brought countries together to offer a possible scenario. Its success, like that of any initiative, will depend on the degree of support it commands among the membership as a whole.

_______________________

Rye Brook, N.Y.: Is it difficult to enforce a code of ethics at the U.N.?

One can understand the need for diversity, but how does an organization enforce the rules when some may not staffers come from nations without a strong legal history.

I've been to the U.N. for conferences and was amazed at the "smoking discouraged" signs and wine in the vending machines.

Ramu Damodaran: Haven't noticed the wine myself, and am unsure whether you thought "discouraged" too weak or too strong! But you would be less than fair to United Nations staff if you pegged them by your perceptions---however right or wrong---of their national legal backgrounds. Just as the UN is an effort to enable Member States to reconcile national interests for the global interest, so too do staff members see themselves as belonging to an international whole while preserving their individual identities. You are right to be concerned about ethics; we have clearly not been as inviolate---or inviolable--as we would have hoped, but I would urge you not to personify specific instances to the staff as a whole.

_______________________

Allentown, Pa.: Did the discussions to reduce poverty include any mention of the impact on government budgets by the growing number of older people?

Ramu Damodaran: A fascinating point. Certainly, in determining the indicators for the success of the goals, there has been reference to numbers and their extrapolation into 2015, in most cases. This has inevitably reflected the demographic evidence that the "percentages" the goals seek to support will be considerably enhanced by the numbers who will, though older than the eldest of a half century ago, still very much need to be counted and considered in any calculation.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What are some of the success of the 2000 Millenium Summit, and what does the future hold for the world's poorest and for poverty?

Ramu Damodaran: Did you mean 2000 or 2005? I suppose 2000, since you referred to the Millennium Summit. Two things. First, the willingness of the world (as reflected by its then 189 Member States of the UN) to seek from the Secretary-General very specific ideas on what they could do for their peoples and to act upon these ideas giving them the muscle of political commitment. Second, their willingness to accept that the well-being, dignity and happiness of their national citizens does indeed demand international responsibility.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Are there plans for another major summit in five or ten years to assess the progress of this and the previous summit? Thank you.

Ramu Damodaran: Not so far. But what has certainly happened over the past ten years or so is the higher---summit---level of participation by most Member States at the opening of the UN General Assembly each September. There was a time when most delegations were led by Ministers; today that's not so and the convening power of the UN, as a place where nations can bilaterally, regionally or globally talk to each other at the highest level,continues to grow, informally as much as formally.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Did the Bush administration seriously consider barring any heads of states from entering the country and what would have been the consequence if they did?

Ramu Damodaran: Not that I'm aware.

_______________________

Lakeland, Fla.: As individual states adopt what appears to be U.N. policy in conjunction with goals of the IMF and World Bank, what protections are in place for common citizens against corruption of the monies utilized for implementing these new policies? For instance, money allocated for mental health programs in the U.S. fosters greed and false diagnosis and unneeded and dangerous treatment programs for women and children. At the same time, there is no focus on mental health issues in men. How are mental health facilities "policed" for fraudulent records, and fraudulent statistics to gain these monies? The same is true for child protection issues.

Ramu Damodaran: An important point raised. I'm not certain about the specifics of the instance you mention. But, as a general point, it underscores the essential inter-State character of the UN and that concerns about the national disposition of international support and assistance is best addressed nationally. That was easier said than done twenty or so years ago, but with the pace of democratization the world over, governments are alive---and susceptible---to what their citizens, individually and within civil society groups, the media and the legislature, feel and are at pains to make sure that those perceptions are not left so unaddressed as to endanger their political longevity.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Did family planning and reproductive health make it into the final resolution?

Ramu Damodaran: I will need to check on that specifically>

_______________________

Ramu Damodaran: The Summit did agree to "achieve universal access to reproductive health by 2015 as set out at the ICPD, integrating this goal in strategies to attain the international development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration aiming at improving maternal health, reducing child mortality, promoting gender equality, combating HIV/AIDS and eradicating poverty."

_______________________

Ramu Damodaran: Thanks immensely!

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.