The United Nations General Assembly plans a number of big-picture discussions for its annual high-level week gathering some 150 global leaders in New York beginning Sept. 22. The issues include ways to “bolster global cooperation and adapt to current challenges effectively,“ how to reverse the backsliding on the Sustainable Development Goals that were intended to push human progress worldwide, and an “International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons” at a time when global powers seem to be determined – or resigned – to expanding their arsenals instead.
The deep divides that have made global cooperation increasingly difficult in recent years are likely to continue to play out – the divisions between “the West” on the one hand and Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea on the other, those between wealthy countries and the rest, between democracies and autocracies. But U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres aims to reboot multilateralism with his Summit of the Future on the eve of the high-level week. Against that backdrop, attention in formal sessions and on the sidelines also will be focused heavily on the crises of the day, such as the wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan.
Just Security’s continuing coverage of the runup to UNGA79 has included pieces by longtime U.N. watcher Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group on the evolving draft “Pact of the Future” and the coming session’s “formal and informal agendas.”
Here, another slate of pros analyze the prospective developments and what they’ll be looking for as the debates unfold:
Yousuf Syed Khan (@yousufsyedkhan), Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council (Strategic Litigation Project)
As the U.N. General Assembly is geared to convene for its 79th session in New York, the “High-level Week 2024” comes at a time when the world is witnessing simultaneously at least three ongoing uses of starvation as a method of warfare, though each in different forms, namely in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan.
Regarding Ukraine, these acts may be continuing by virtue of Russia’s repeated attacks against grain silos and civilian vessels, and ongoing, systematic pillage of grain during the occupation phase of its battles. As for Gaza, and while the International Criminal Court (ICC) has yet to issue possible arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, including on starvation-related charges, the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, will be discussing his latest report on the starvation of civilians with the General Assembly on Sept. 18. Regarding Sudan, just two weeks ago, the Human Rights Council’s (HRC) mandated fact-finding mission released its first report, in which it cited a July Famine Review Committee finding that “at least one in five (or 20 per cent) [of] people or households have an extreme lack of food and face starvation and destitution, resulting in extremely critical levels of acute malnutrition and death.” Similarly, on Sept. 17, U.S. President Joe Biden acknowledged that “famine has taken hold in Darfur,” and that El Fasher City, specifically, has been under siege for months.
While bringing to the fore the pernicious conduct of starvation as a method of warfare, associated starvation crimes, and freedom from hunger, these three ongoing armed conflicts are likewise testing the influence of a polarized and paralyzed U.N. Security Council, with several of its resolutions, such as for a ceasefire in Gaza, continuously ignored.
Slovenia is presiding over the Security Council this month, and its signature debate, scheduled for Sept. 25, is titled “Leadership for Peace,” at which all heads of state and government or foreign ministers are invited to participate. The “Leadership for Peace” debate will take place on day two of the Sept. 22 and 23 “Summit of the Future” speeches in the General Assembly, where more than 1,000 delegates from 193 countries will be meeting to negotiate three documents, among which is the “Pact for the Future,” with chapters on sustainable development. The current draft of the pact states, under Action 3, that “We will end hunger, eliminate food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition,” and acknowledges that “one-third of the world’s population remain food insecure.”
Notably, the second of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is “zero hunger,” characterized by achieving food security, improved nutrition, and the promotion of sustainable agriculture, and that member States “will respond to and tackle the drivers of food insecurity and malnutrition.” (emphasis added)
Aside from scaled-up humanitarian responses and financial aid, however, nowhere in the draft of the pact are the actual drivers of hunger mentioned explicitly. The 2022 update report on progress toward – or the lack of progress on – the SDG on zero hunger does reference Ukraine’s grain exports and how the conflict has impacted the world’s most destitute individuals.
Overall, it is vital to pay attention to how member States mention food in the context of armed conflict and food security, particularly at an unprecedented time when at least three countries across three different continents are experiencing starvation as a method of warfare. This comes against a backdrop of at least six different mechanisms mandated by the U.N. Human Rights Council having documented starvation as a method of warfare just in the past six years, namely: Gaza, Syria, Yemen, Tigray (Ethiopia), Sudan, and South Sudan (with findings on both Gaza and Sudan over the past three months alone). By the U.N.’s own determinations, then, these six contexts in which starvation has been documented as being attributable to the belligerents demand world attention and vigorous discussion and action, beyond mere token acknowledgment in the SDGs.
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (@NiAolainF), Former U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Countering Terrorism, concurrently Professor at University of Minnesota Law School and Queens University School of Law in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
This is another year of low expectations and little hope we might exceed expectations. The singular global issue is peace, and its relentless absence. States, international institutions, and civil society alike are feeling chronic war fatigue, and a sense that conflict-ending sequences in obvious places like Ukraine, the Middle East, and Sudan as well as less prominent locales such as Syria, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Myanmar is simply beyond us. States and international institutions lack collective will and imagination to prevent, find ways towards, and effectively negotiate confidence building, ceasefires, and negotiations that conclude with tangible outcomes. Instead of a pause in warfare and destruction, they intensify relentlessly.
In this context of unrelenting violence, I echo the recent appeal by Cordula Droege, the chief legal officer of the International Committee of the Red Cross, on Just Security for enforcement of international law, and the hope that States in massive numbers across all regional groups reject non-compliance, impunity, and skirting international law’s limits. Solidarity is needed to push back against the obstinacy and ignominy of State practices that make a mockery of the U.N. Charter’s core commitments to peace. Concrete and defined action to deliver impartial humanitarian access and demand the protection of civilians (i.e. not tolerating the actions of States that deliberately undermine these necessities) will be one clear litmus test of the relevance of the United Nations to those who need its protection the most.
The Summit of the Future takes place before UNGA high-level week. Finding agreement on the outcome document, now on revision 4, has been tense for co-facilitators Germany and Namibia. Beyond the outcome document, ordinary people need reassurance that is not simply more talking shop, more cover for inaction, and more double-speak affirmed in New York and determinedly ignored in the practice of States. And while consensus on a document of any substance will be an achievement, what we should look for are concrete commitments by States to action that will “do” what is asked of them. That includes paying for what is needed to achieve the sustainable development goals, advance climate mitigation, and the meet the concrete realities of the polycrisis. Political resolve and political courage will be needed.
Where does my hope lie? It sits with small countries that have, despite the odds, demonstrated singular leadership for the common good. Two country examples, not unsurprisingly led by formidable women ambassadors at the United Nations, illustrate the point. Costa Rica in recent years, under the inspiring leadership at the U.N. of Ambassador Maritza Chan-Valverde, has led initiatives on arms control, disarmament, sustainable development, and the regulation of commercial spyware. Malta, currently a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and also led by the impressive Ambassador Vanessa Frazier, has shown consistent political courage and concluded the first Security Council resolution focused on the humanitarian situation in Gaza in November 2023. She also has been a passionate advocate for protecting children in armed conflict.
The difference at UNGA and beyond can be made by the determined few, not by the inert many, and we should applaud and recognize those leaders who simply won’t tolerate the status quo.
Chidi Odinkalu (@ChidiOdinkalu),, Professor of Practice in International Human Rights Law, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University
I am looking out for the Summit of the Future in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). I am also interested in what is not likely to be raised directly in the high-level week, even when it rises to the status of a crisis of international concern. For that, I am not holding my breath that Sudan will be mentioned, but even an omission of Sudan from the contributions during the week will be a very notable issue.
Steve Pomper (@StephenPomper), Chief of Policy, International Crisis Group
While it would go too far to say that diplomats working on the Sudan file have great expectations for UNGA’s annual high-level meeting, they do have hopes. The gathering comes just weeks before Sudan’s rainy season is expected to end. Clear skies will allow the ground to dry and open the door to renewed military operations in the country’s 18-month civil war, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives, displaced roughly 10 million people and risks fragmenting the country for decades. Fighting has already ticked up in the North Darfur city of El Fasher, leaving thousands caught in the crossfire. Diplomats worry that they are running out of time to broker at least a temporary deal between the warring parties – the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – that would forestall the melee that could lie ahead.
Hence the hopes for UNGA. To be sure, no one foresees that the various side meetings and bilaterals where Sudan will be discussed will deliver a major breakthrough on a peace plan or even a short-term ceasefire. SAF leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan will be in New York to deliver Sudan’s remarks at the General Debate but may well choose to make an appearance without engaging in any meaningful diplomacy. Still, UNGA presents an opportunity to generate diplomatic momentum and sharpen thinking on the potential components of a future political deal or package of measures to stabilize the country, and to alleviate humanitarian suffering in the meantime.
Some of those measures have a significant U.N. dimension. For example, almost four years after the once sprawling U.N.-African Union hybrid Darfur mission (UNAMID) shut its doors, and seven months after the civil war forced its successor assistance mission (UNITAMS) to wind down, member states are thinking about what kind of role a newly formed mission might play. Such talk is aspirational but reflects genuine interest. The Security Council asked the Secretary-General to outline some options in a report due in October, which will focus on how a civilian protection mission might come together. Should prospects for a force become more real, some envisage it as providing a measure of civilian and humanitarian protection in a collapsing state, while others see it as providing a buffer between the warring parties in Khartoum — which could be a necessary element of any future ceasefire. Still others suggest a multidimensional “Swiss-army knife” mission will be required. Absent a Chapter VII authorization, any U.N. mission will require the SAF’s permission (as Sudan’s U.N.-recognized sovereign) and some cooperation from both belligerents (to protect the force and allow it to operate effectively). None of this will come easily.
The United States reportedly also is thinking that this mission might be a good pilot for the new financing mechanism created under U.N. Security Council Resolution 2719, which allows the council to commit U.N.-assessed contributions toward the funding of African Union peace operations. It is not clear, though, whether this approach has much support in either Addis Ababa or New York, or that the U.N.-AU planning required to form a mission could be completed in any reasonable timeframe. However it proceeds, U.S. diplomacy will require a delicate touch as any mission – whether U.N.-led or AU-led with U.N. financing – will need Security Council approval, allowing for a Russian or Chinese veto. Diplomats on the file quietly hope that if the SAF ultimately gives its approval to such a mission, and the AU can be brought on board, then Moscow and Beijing might choose not to be obstructionist. Again, this is a down-the-road scenario: U.S. proponents of a U.N. or AU mission in Sudan acknowledge that the most they can hope for from this UNGA is kickstarting conversations they would like to gain traction over the coming months.
Sudan-related conversations in New York will also focus on keeping and expanding routes for humanitarian assistance to enter the country, given that the present volume of aid passing through the main crossing, at Adre on the Chad-Sudan border, is woefully insufficient. There may also be discussion about broadening the U.N. arms embargo that currently covers only Darfur, which some advocates would like to see broadened to the entire country. Even the staunchest proponents of such an expansion acknowledge it would be a long-term endeavor; indeed the Security Council declined to go in this direction when it renewed the existing arms embargo earlier this month.
Progress on these items would be welcome news, as would an indication of greater international engagement on ending the war. Humanitarians and others have struggled for a year and a half to move Sudan diplomacy up the global agenda. At last, that seems to be happening, thanks in no small part to the efforts of U.N. envoy Ramtane Lamamra and U.S. envoy Tom Perriello, both of whom have come to the Sudan file since the last UNGA. While Perriello’s effort to create a new political track in Geneva last month faltered when the SAF failed to show, it was good to see the U.S. risking a modest pratfall in the interests of advancing the ball. President Joe Biden’s statement pressing the parties to end the war, issued a week before he will address the General Assembly, also sent a useful signal of high-level interest. Continued U.S. initiative, as well as senior-level support for the envoy, and a willingness to press U.S. security partners such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt (whose support for the RSF and SAF, respectively, have fueled the conflict) will surely be needed if there is to be a breakthrough. Let’s hope that UNGA provides further evidence that U.S. efforts are gathering steam.
Jordan Street (@jordan_street07), Senior Policy and Advocacy Lead, Saferworld USA, and Jason Calder (@JasonCalder15), Director, Saferworld USA
What we are focusing on? Sudan. We will be at the Clinton Global Initiative event on Monday to support the Call to Action on Sudan. Coordinated by the philanthropic collaborative Strengthening Local Humanitarian Leadership (LHL), the event aims to raise urgent funding for the humanitarian response in Sudan through mutual aid groups. Sudan is quietly becoming the site of radical changes in how aid is delivered through local groups that could have global implications. We will also be following the “High-level Ministerial UNGA event — The Cost Of Inaction In Sudan: Working Together In Support Of The Humanitarian Situation In Sudan And The Region,” on Friday, Sept. 20, and the proposed high-level meeting hosted by the United States with foreign ministers and other top officials from African nations and the Gulf States on Wed., Sept. 25.
What we are avoiding? The Summit of the Future. There remains deep skepticism internally — and across many of our partners — of the U.N. Secretary-General’s rationale for pushing for such a summit in the fraught multilateral dynamics of 2024. The high-water mark of 2015, when U.N. member States agreed on the Sustainable Development Goals now seems like a distant dream. Nine years on, the possibility of a progressive, ambitious “Pact for the Future” seems muted. As we type this – delegations from certain member States appear to be trying to remove references to human rights throughout the draft text. Whether or not there will actually be a pact to adopt at the summit is still hanging in the balance. We cannot help but think that all the time, energy, passion, and commitment that so many have invested in the process could have been better spent elsewhere.
Laura Thornton (@LauraLThornton), Senior Director of Global Democracy Programs, McCain Institute
As world leaders gather in New York for UNGA’s “Summit for the Future,” I will be tracking how the discourse addresses – or doesn’t – a decade of democratic backsliding across the globe that has created a world in which fewer people live in free countries than 10 years ago. According to the U.N.’s sustainable development goals (SDGs, specifically SDG target 16.7), countries should “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels,” but they are clearly falling short. It will be hard to deliver on UNGA’s Summit objective of “innovating our global systems” and making multilateralism more trustworthy if member States themselves are not selected and trusted by their own citizens and routinely suppress their freedoms. I’m interested whether UNGA can result in more concrete and clear demands for democracy, including language in the SDGs on free and fair elections and creation of a Special Rapporteur for Democracy.
Additionally, the U.N. Charter (Article 2, 4) prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations and requires all member States to respect the sovereignty of other States. Within days of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a nonbinding resolution that Russia withdraw its forces from Ukraine. I will be watching now for language on Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine and how members approach the UNGA objective of “a more peaceful world.” Relatedly, will leaders make more forceful commitments to reform and bolster the U.N.’s peace and security architecture, or will the event once again demonstrate how hamstrung and impotent the U.N. has become. The U.N. is at a defining moment in re-asserting its relevance in preserving global security and providing concrete solutions.
John Tierney (@reptierney), Former U.S. Representative and Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (@nukes_of_hazard) and the Council for a Livable World
Top of mind concerns for the upcoming UNGA that one would hope the policy community would be concerned about foremost should include the great deal of disturbing rhetoric around international security these days. From Russian nuclear threats to irresponsible Chinese nuclear buildups, to some extremely callous voices at Project 2025 calling for more nuclear weapons, it seems the world may be headed in the wrong direction. Some irresponsible members of congress, including some senators who should know better, are advocating for arms build-ups despite history’s proof that such action is not wise.
Something is missing: arms control.
Even at the height of the Cold War, when ideological divides seemed irreversible, the leaders of the great powers grasped that the world needed an alternative to devastation. They put into place arrangements that helped lower the temperature and reduce the possibility of catastrophe.
The issues creating international tension in 2024 are complex and not easily resolved, but this should serve to highlight the importance of sensible risk reduction and dialogue to move us away from a perilous situation. Leaders of nuclear states should be able to agree that a nuclear arms race is not in anyone’s interest and commit to a new set of dialogues to avert one. Leaders have signed onto a statement echoing that of President Ronald Reagan and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev asserting that a nuclear war cannot be won and therefore should never be waged. They are obligated by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and their own promises to adhere to that intent.
Good arms control is never easy, but the benefits to pursuing it at this time far outweigh any costs. This year’s UNGA is the time to begin. Will we see leadership or equivocation?