So What Exactly Happened at the Summit of the Future?

And what you need to know about the "Pact for the Future"

Though it did not register too deeply on the radars of mainstream media, the most important outcome of the 79th United Nations General Assembly last week was the Summit of the Future. Yes, presidents and prime ministers gave important speeches, and, yes — this UNGA unfolded as conflict in the Middle East escalated sharply. But I would bet that in five or ten years from now, the single most important event of UNGA79 was the Summit of the Future and the adoption of its outcome document, the Pact for the Future.

This almost didn’t happen. Russia raised some last-minute objections to the Pact on the very morning the General Assembly was meeting to adopt it. Russia’s objections were skillfully shot down through some procedural craftiness by Congo, and then the Pact was adopted by consensus.

So, what exactly did the Summit of the Future achieve?

As the dust was settling on UNGA79, I caught up with Daniel Perell, Representative to the United Nations for the Baha'i International Community, and someone who has been following and participating in the Summit of the Future process as closely as anyone.

“It is a long document with many important and new initiatives that were ‘out of bounds’ a few years ago, but are now being discussed,” Daniel Perell tells me.

In this special episode of Global Dispatches, Daniel Perell and I have a wide-ranging discussion about what was included in the Pact for the Future and why it has such potential to catalyze profound change for the United Nations — and the people it serves.

The full episode is freely available across all podcast listening platforms. The full transcript is freely available below.

This episode is produced in partnership with the Baha’i International Community, an NGO that represents the worldwide Baha’i community at the UN and other international forums, where it emphasizes that recognizing humanity’s interconnectedness is key to a shared global future.

If you are with an organization and want to showcase your expertise to the international affairs audience that congregates around Global Dispatches, please be in touch.

Transcript edited for clarity.

Mark Leon Goldberg: So Dan, in the previous episode of Global Dispatches, we went through the play by play of the very last minutes before the adoption of the Pact for the Future. So, I’m not going to rehash that, but in summary, Russia launched a very last-minute objection that threatened to torpedo months of negotiation, probably also years of your professional life! I’m just wondering — what was going through your mind at that moment?

Daniel Perell: Well, honestly, I expected it a little bit. I have been paying close attention to my WhatsApp messages where this amendment that Russia introduced was shared and flagged for those of us who are close watchers of the Summit of the Future. And I’ve been around long enough to know that there are often procedural workarounds to ensure that such kind of amendments don’t end up sidetracking the whole process. So, when I heard the no-action motion, which was another motion introduced, in this case from the African group, to halt debate on the amendment, I wasn’t terribly surprised. The question is always, how are the countries going to vote? And in fact, it was quite telling when it was 143 in favor and only seven against. The rest were abstentions or not participating.

It was quite telling that, in fact, this was an inclusive process. And those countries that had been kind of skeptical of the Summit of the Future had come around and were taking ownership of it. And I thought while it’s disheartening and while it’s challenging for the negotiators and the leaders in the room, there is a degree to which this was an indicator of progress. That this is something that the overwhelming majority of the nations of the world are behind. And I think that’s quite nice.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Well, that’s a really important point to emphasize. Congo represented the African group, and basically put forward a motion to ignore Russia’s attempts to torpedo it. And that motion passed 143 to seven, which is a lopsided vote that you get at the UN, almost never. So that to you demonstrated just the fact that so many countries of such diversity all wanted to get on with it and adopt this pact, and really was a sign of an endorsement of this pact in a really profound way. That’s interesting.

Daniel Perell: Yes, there was a group that was known as the Likeminded Group that had been really struggling, I would say, with finding utility in the Pact. And the fact that everybody from the Likeminded Group, more or less, voted to discard debate on this amendment was really heartening because it means that, in those final hours of negotiation, they did come to agreement and everyone is happy. I mean, with the exception, of course, of those seven. But then we can move on and move to implementation. And I think that’s a step in the right direction.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Okay, so that’s where I wanted to take this conversation. You have been following and participating in this process pretty much as closely as anyone in the world, probably. So, I’m glad to be talking about it with you. I’m sure we can talk for hours. But looking back now, we’re speaking five days after the Pact for the Future, the outcome document was adopted, with that degree of reflection are there, maybe say three, I’m arbitrarily picking a number, you can add more or less if you see fit, top outcomes you see as most impactful that were included in this Pact for the Future?

Daniel Perell: So, it’s an interesting question, Mark. You’ve said ‘most impactful.’ And I think what is impactful will only be understood maybe a year or even five years from now. So impact, I’m going to caveat it, but what are the few things that I think are most significant or have the greatest potential? I am a UN guy through and through, which means that I took this document and then the Transforming Our World document from 2015, the one that established the sustainable development goals, and the 2005 World Summit Outcome. And I did a word search just to see what is trending, what is different. And without applying judgment, it’s a really rough analysis. I was trying to look at some normative shifts because I think that we undervalue the importance of language in a sense that is not solely the establishment of new institutions but, actually, what is the way that we understand challenges today.

And so I looked at a few words just to see how it’s changing. And trust was mentioned 23 times in this Pact. In 2015, it was mentioned just once. And in 2005, it wasn’t mentioned at all. Solidarity was 11 times. Just, as in justice, was 40 times. Generation, like intergenerational, was 65 times. Each of these significant increases over-mentions in the past. Even evidence, data, and science were mentioned many more times. And I think these are normative concepts that are helpful for us to think about as we’re considering progress. It means the international community wants to be grounded more in data and evidence. That’s a good thing. It’s looking at foundational principles like justice, solidarity, and trust. That’s a good thing. We’ll see what we can do with it to make it more than just words on a page and actually have an impact on lives lived in the world.

But I think that this normative dimension shouldn’t be overlooked as we’re looking at the different institutional arrangements that this summit gave birth to.

Mark Leon Goldberg: That’s fascinating. I was there for those. 2005, that’s like the 60th anniversary of the UN, then 2015 when the SDGs were adopted, now 2024. These are the last key three inflection points for multilateral reform, UN reform. And each of those have given birth to a whole suite of really significant reforms within the UN. But you are identifying just normative shifts beyond the machinery of how the UN works is really interesting to hear.

Daniel Perell: Yeah. So that was one thing that I think is important that we acknowledge, at least tip our hat to it. But then, of course, we have to talk about the nitty-gritty a little bit. Now, there are three documents that serve as the outcome. There’s the Pact for the Future, of course, and then two annexes — The Global Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations. Each of them, importantly, have anchored themselves in a follow-up process. So, whether that’s in 2027 at UNGA 82 where the Global Digital Compact will be reviewed or the subsequent year in 2028 at the 83rd session where the Declaration on Future Generations and the Pact for the Future are going to be reviewed, these are important moments because it gives us sort of the timeline that will allow these institutions, these shifts to bear some fruit.

There are a number of processes that have been planted, a number of seeds that have been planted by this summit. And as we discussed in our last conversation, the UN is famous for process giving rise to process, giving rise to process. But it’s actually very important. I mean, 2012 was the Rio +20 conference, which gave rise to a process that then established the SDGs. And I think we have to acknowledge that that’s a little bit how, as they say, the sausage is made here. But we have commissions being established on science and technology for development, a working group. We have measures beyond and complementary to GDP, global domestic product, that will be articulated.

We have a proposal to appoint a special envoy. Actually, importantly, they said takes note of the proposal to appoint a special envoy for future generations. There are the big-ticket items like reform of the Security Council. This is an issue that has not had significant or meaningful progress in decades. And now we have it out on the table, out in the open. We have countries like the United States coming out with explicit proposals. And I think that that would not have happened were it not for the Summit of the Future.

Mark Leon Goldberg: I mean that is worth emphasizing. I’m like the least cynical person in the world when it comes to these things. But when it comes to Security Council reform, I’m cynical through and through. And this week has pierced that armor of cynicism for me. I am actually seeing, for the first time in almost 20 years of covering this, actual tangible progress towards Security Council reform. It’ll be slow, but I’m seeing actual progress like pen two paper, which is something I had not seen before covering this stuff.

Daniel Perell: And importantly, it’s not just on membership. Of course, membership is there, but there’s also language around the working methods, a reference to the future of the veto. This is really foundational and at the core of some of the most pernicious challenges that the UN is facing. There’s this great little report that was requested on military spending; how military spending impacts the implementation of the sustainable development goals, which I think is an issue that all of us should be paying very close attention to. Instead of listing one, two, or three things, I realize I’m giving you a litany which may not be the best strategy.

Mark Leon Goldberg: I mean, but your litany is like telling a story, right? That, as you noted, these kickstarts processes and plants seeds. I like to say at the UN meetings beget meetings. But as you said, that is how progress is made. And from what I’m hearing from you, this Pact for the Future is essentially like a series of the kickstarting of processes that will lead to more meetings that will eventually, if everything goes well, will lead to impactful change. It is, I think, worth emphasizing that just because this 2024 Pact for the Future calls for a 2026 meeting on so-and-so, that’s progress.

Daniel Perell: And it’s quite significant that this is coming from the General Assembly. It’s one thing for the Secretary General to call for such a process, but when the General Assembly agrees that these are things that need to be advanced, it has a real political weight that we can’t overlook.

Mark Leon Goldberg: I would imagine obviously some groups of countries are emphasizing certain parts of the Pact and deemphasizing others, and likewise.

Daniel Perell: Yes. I think one other important thing that should be mentioned are some of these issues that have emerged as quite significant. And we’ll certainly see progress on them going forward. But one of them is the international financial architecture. This was a really challenging debate among the member states, but now I think there are five or six actions of the 56 actions, five or six are explicitly referencing the international financial architecture and its reform. And I think that’s quite significant.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Could you just explain one or two of those five or six explicit reforms and what the debates around them look like?

Daniel Perell: I’m not a financing for development guy, but I can do my best. A number of them are organized around the way that the international financial architecture allocates resources to countries in need — who has the most influence in how that money’s allocated; how are the interest rates determined. Essentially it’s about decision-making, which historically has followed kind of a $1, one vote process rather than one country, one vote. And that, of course, leads to tremendous inequality. And there’s a little bit of paternalism there that because we’re wealthier, we know what to do. And I think that a lot of this historical mistrust can be overcome through these sorts of reforms.

And if the summit did anything to build trust in the international order, then it was a success. And I think this discussion around international financial architecture demonstrates that there is some give and take, there is trust being built. And, of course, it’s giving rise to new processes. And we’ll see the fruits of those labors, years into the future, but at least the conversation is out in the open, and we are all agreed that it’s something that needs to be addressed.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Yeah. I mean, when I’ve described in shorthand the summit of the future, I describe it as a way to reform the UN, in particular, multilateralism more generally, but I’m referencing really like the World Bank and the IMF and the other international financial institutions that are part of the multilateral system but operate in very different ways than the UN. As you noted, at the General Assembly, it’s one country, one vote. At the World Bank, your vote is weighted based on your shareholdings, which gives a lot of decision-making powers to the global north even though a lot of the key decisions are most impacted and most felt in the global south. And so it’s been one of those constant debates that I’ve seen over years and years of covering this is how do we get more decision-making in the World Bank, in the IMF by countries most directly impacted by those decisions. And the Summit of the Future is like a tangible progress to that end.

Daniel Perell: Yeah, I think that’s right. Maybe there’s one other unspoken dimension that, to me, is exciting about what this summit created. And in a real sense, it has created a space to talk about governance itself. We have many of these processes looking at climate governance and peace and security, governance, gender, human rights, and all of those are vital and important, but they’re all built on certain foundational understandings of what global governance looks like. And over the past two years, there have been wide-ranging conversations about the assumptions from 1945, the normative understanding from 1945. You can just look at gender equality and the role of youth as two key examples. There’s been huge changes, sea changes in terms of our conceptual understanding in the lived reality, but those understandings have not been matched by institutional evolution.

And I think now we can have that conversation far more out in the open than we could before. And I think there are many groups that have formed, made proposals about reviewing the charter of the UN or looking more profoundly at the role of the General Assembly that weren’t happening before. And these conversations themselves are a win from the summit.

Mark Leon Goldberg: It creates the atmosphere in which you can have a legitimate conversation about reforming the very UN Charter itself. That’s interesting.

Daniel Perell: Yes, and we actually heard it. President Lula announced from the roster at the General Assembly that he wants to engage in a process of charter review. He said, “Let’s not wait until a third catastrophe, a Third World War before we do this. We need to have this conversation now.” He actually said it’s not going to be easy, he’s not naive to that, but it is necessary. And I think the platform for that conversation didn’t exist a few years ago, and now it’s in the ether. And that’s quite important.

Mark Leon Goldberg: So, we have the Pact for the Future and the two annexes adopted by consensus. Where do we go from here? What are some of the key next inflection points, key next steps to ensure that the processes we described earlier proceed according to plan?

Daniel Perell: This is the $64,000 question is what do we do next? I’m hoping that after a quick respite, those of us who’ve been engaged in this process will look at the 56 actions and the two annexes and identify where we want to be getting engaged and where we want to be working with member states to advance the conversation. For example, the appointments of an expert group to look at going beyond GDP, I want to make sure that that group is appointed well, that it’s producing something that’s useful. This is not a new conversation, but it has a new weight at this time.

And so following these processes ultimately is what we’re going to need to be doing. And there’s a degree to which it’s in our hands as civil society, member states, and the UN. I mean, we have this written document, and how do we make sure it’s not just words on a page? And that’s the big question. And I don’t know, but I think that many of these processes have sufficient backing that they will advance and sufficient tentpole gatherings like the financing for development conference, the World Social Summit. There are these moments where we can revisit the norms from the Pact for the Future and see how they find expression in these different spaces.

Mark Leon Goldberg: So that’s interesting. Now it really is up to member states and civil society groups like the Baha’i International Community to just find what their comparative advantage might be in advancing the agenda and moving the ball forward. And you’re saying you, as a representative for the Baha’i International Community, you’re particularly interested in a process of measuring countries beyond GDP?

Daniel Perell: That’s one of the issues that I think is sort of at the heart of many of the challenges we see is, as long as we’re defining and understanding progress as the accumulation of wealth, we’re only going to get so far on a finite planet. We run into this fixed pie problem where if everybody is trying to accumulate necessarily, some are going to be left behind. But if we shift our notions of progress from accumulation to sufficiency or something along those lines moving beyond GDP, then I think actually a lot of these other challenges we face will be a lot easier to overcome because we’re not just looking for the high interest rates so that we make the money on the money we’ve invested. But in fact it’s about human wellbeing rather than profits. And I think a lot of this has to do with foundational norms in our understandings. And I think the conversations that we can have as a result of this Summit of the Future around those issues can be very productive.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Dan, finally, big picture, you’ve been following this from the start. Having gone through this entire process, are you comparatively more or less optimistic about where things stand?

Daniel Perell: That’s a good question. As I was reflecting on the summit, I was thinking about this expression, is the glass half full or is it half empty? And the truth is that it’s both. Every glass is both half fuller and half empty. So, if your aspiration for the summit is that it was going to end all wars, save multilateralism, reverse climate change, then your glass is more aptly described as half empty. But if you expected that there was going to be no meaningful advance, given the current political context that there would be nothing good to come from this, well, in that case, you’re going to be pleasantly surprised. And I think we sometimes try to collapse everything down to a thumbs up or thumbs down when, in fact, it’s quite complicated. The world is complicated.

And I am actually quite heartened by what we were able to achieve given the number of wars, the amount of suffering. UNDP had this really interesting report where they talked about polarization as one of the great challenges that humanity’s facing. Well, at the UN, we saw multilateralism work. It didn’t work for everything, it didn’t tick every box, but it actually made some progress in really challenging times. And to overlook that, I think, would be disingenuous about what this summit represented and should represent as we’re considering how to overcome many of the challenges that we’re facing.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Well, Dan, thank you so much. This was really, really helpful. I appreciate it. It’s a great summation of this entire process.

Daniel Perell: As always. It was my pleasure, Mark.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Yeah, thanks so much. Thanks for listening to Global Dispatches. The show is produced by me, Mark Leon Goldberg. It is edited and mixed by Levi Sharpe. If you are listening on Apple Podcasts, make sure to follow the show and enable automatic downloads to get new episodes as soon as they’re released. On Spotify, tap the bell icon to get a notification when we publish new episodes. And, of course, please visit globaldispatches.org to get on our free mailing list, get in touch with me, and access our full archive. Thank you!