For many at the United Nations, Youssef Mahmoud needs no introduction. As former UN Under-Secretary-General, he headed peace operations in Burundi, the Central African Republic and Chad. He has served as a member or led various UN review processes, including in 2019, when he led the independent strategic review of the UN peace operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO). Youssef is currently a senior adviser at the International Peace Institute.

In this interview, Youssef talks about the UN’s upcoming Summit of the Future and its Pact as it relates to people and the planet; the role of civil society; and the question of transformative action versus reform to sustain peace. Youssef also speaks to the ways the global majority is asserting its agency in the multilateral system, and the need to decolonize our thinking so we can make it work for everyone.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

There is a lot to admire in the vision the UN is promoting in its Summit of the Future. Yet I struggled to get past the first sentence in the chapeau of the most recent version of the Pact:

We, the Heads of State and Government, representing the peoples of the world, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters to protect the needs and interests of present and future generations through the actions in this Pact for the Future.

This feels very disconnected from how the world is now, geopolitically, financially, environmentally. In your career at the UN and as a keen observer, how do you think about this chasm between what the UN says member states want and believe, and how member states act?

There are two huge assumptions in this first sentence of the Pact for the Future’s chapeau that create discomfort for me. The first is that governments represent people. In some contexts that may be true; in other contexts, governments have been captured by elites, well or ill-elected, that are usually more enamored by power rather than effective governance.

The second discomfort is that the planet is absent. The sentence represents a human centric vision, and our Earth trusteeship obligations are not reflected. Yes, it is important to think about the needs of current and future generations but in light of all the ecological disasters we’re grappling with, we need to pledge that these needs will be met within the limits of the planet.

On the gap, or chasm as you call it—I think it can be attributed to a complex interplay of factors, but I’ll be specific about three of them. The first  is that states often prioritize their sovereignty and national interests above international commitments, especially when these conflict with their own strategic, economic or political objectives. Another factor is domestic pressures, either from voters, from the private sector, from interest groups that influence government’s policies. A third reason is the change of leadership in certain countries, which can affect changes in foreign policies—things that were being adhered to by the previous leadership all of a sudden are ignored or flouted by the incoming leadership. This can have deleterious consequences when done by powerful states that can afford to act with impunity and bend the rules to their advantage.

The Pact for the Future is being revised as we speak. Is there one or two key areas you take issue with?

I fear the Pact as it stands now is not transformative. The actions contained in it constitute in my view, palliative measures designed to help the survival of the current multilateral system so the safeguards that still work in the UN charter can continue, during this perilous interregnum in international relations to “save humanity from hell,” to quote Dag Hammarskjold.

What specifically I don’t like about the latest draft of the Pact (rev 4) is that the package of reforms and commitments take the continued relevance of the UN charter for granted, even though its principles and values continue to be flouted by its most powerful members. Yes, there are commendable pledges to abide by the international rule of law or the rules-based order. But no one has interrogated the dominant assumptions that have informed those rules.

The UN was built and created by the victors of the Second World War, at a time when over two thirds of humanity were not eligible for membership. Many have called, to no avail, for a charter review in accordance of article 109 with particular focus on the reform of the Security Council—which I view as a myth when it comes to the maintenance of international peace and security. Over the past several years, because of the division among its permanent members the Council has become an incubator of collective insecurity.

In the the Pact (rev 4), member states pledged to fully implement and adhere to Article 27 (3) of the charter which stipulates that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. Time will tell when the ink is dry and the Pact is finally adopted, whether the concerned Security Council members will abide by this pledge.

In the same draft there was an agreement among member states “to redress the historical injustice against Africa as a priority and, while treating Africa as a special case, improve the representation of the underrepresented and unrepresented regions and groups, such as Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean.” As I argued elsewhere, adding more members, permanent or otherwise to enhance representation will not necessarily enhance the effectiveness of the Council, as long as power asymmetries and the use of the veto that has plagued its functioning remain unaddressed.

You have been a vocal advocate for the role of civil society in UN processes. What has that looked like so far in the process of producing the Pact of the Future, and what are the Summit’s plans to include civil society?

Notwithstanding the three enigmatic words “We the peoples” in the UN charter, the UN is an intergovernmental organization—basically, a “we the governments” organization. To make up for that shortcoming, a number of processes have been created to make room for “we the peoples” in decision making through engagement with civil society organizations. In fact, CSOs have just published a People’s Pact for the Future.

As you know, many of these organizations have a consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Civil society has played an important role in the formulation of the SDGs, for example. They have participated very actively—at times vociferously—in the margins of UN climate conferences. They have done a great deal to raise awareness and engage in all kinds of advocacy activities, mobilizing public support for global issues they believe can benefit from a multilateral cooperation. In developing his report, Our Common Agenda, the Secretary-General consulted civil society across the globe, using information technology. These are very important, positive engagements.

However, there are some impediments and conundrums pursuing people-centric decision making, particularly in the area of peace and security. In the political arena, certain member states view civil society organizations as Trojan horses used by powerful states to perpetuate particular views about how the world should be ordered and polities governed. This has led some countries to impede the role of civil society in decision making by taking measures to shrink the space for their engagement. Some of these countries contend that non-governmental organizations are led by elites, divorced from realities of common people and tend to promote policies and values of the foreign donors that finance them.

Despite this reticence, last May the UN helped organize in Nairobi, Kenya a successful global civil society conference in support of the Summit of the Future.  It was the first time such a conference take place in the South rather than in a country in the North where, if you come from the global majority in the South, you have to go through hoops to get a visa and secure the necessary funds for travel and sojourn.

In Nairobi, the global majority were fully represented and unabashedly vocal about what the Pact for the Future and its annexes should contain. One of the highlights of the conference, in addition to the encouraging remarks by the President of Kenya and the UN Secretary-General, was the genuine interaction between civil society leaders and the member states, including the co-facilitators of the Pact and its annexes.

One of the outcomes of the Nairobi conference was the creation of impact coalitions for the future. These are civil society groups who organized themselves along particular themes mirroring more or less the key chapters of the Pact for the Future and its annexes. These coalitions are expected to exercise their collective leadership to hold member states accountable.

Following the Nairobi conference and in order to generate additional opportunities for engagement of all actors, the Secretary-General, to his credit, decided to convene two pre-Summit of the Future action days on the 20 and 21^st of September. He wanted to offer an opportunity for civil society to further interact among themselves and with member states and together imagine what needs to be done to help ensure that the institutional reform seeds planted in the Summit’s outcome documents grow and flourish.

To answer directly an important part of your question, I wish to cite an example of how civil society has remained engaged and vigilant throughout the negotiation process of the Summit outcome documents. In draft zero of the Pact there was a mention of the need to transition away from fossil fuel towards renewable energy sources. This language reflects the landmark agreement countries reached during COP 28 in Dubai. In revisions 1 and 2, the transition language disappeared. Civil society mobilized and addressed to member states a well-publicized letter signed by Nobel Prize laureates and other eminent persons calling for the reinstatement of the language.  It is now back in the latest draft of the Pact.

In order to truly make the United Nations measure up to the promising opening words of its charter “we the peoples,” we need, in my view, to push for the long-standing proposal of establishing a UN Parliamentary Assembly as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly according to Article XXII of the charter. This article stipulates that the “General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.” This organ would give directly elected representatives of the world’s citizens a formal role in global affairs. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that the proposal of a global citizen assembly will make it into the Pact of the Future, even if it doesn’t involve a charter amendment.

Some have expressed concern about the extent to which the “global majority” will be able to exercise agency in shaping the outcomes of the Summit of the Future. Based on what you’ve seen so far, do you think these concerns are warranted? Are there areas where countries from the global majority, particularly Africa, are ensuring that the outcomes reflect their interests and perspectives?

The global majority is making inroads and are more and more organized among themselves along various alliances and like-minded groupings. They also are becoming increasingly aware that those who used to control the narrative are becoming geopolitically vulnerable and therefore might be ready to accept or make room for alternative narratives, such as the need to treat each other as equal partners, given that the problems that afflict us cannot be solved by the dominant paradigms that created them.

There is also more coordination at the regional level. The African region has been organizing itself so it has a common position on particular international issues. On Ukraine, they don’t want to vote with X or against Y—they have their own position. There is a common position on the reform of the Security Council, which is well known. In Nairobi, Kenya and the African Union organized the first Africa climate summit where commitments were made to progress towards net zero.

By the way, when we talk about the global majority, it’s not only governments, but it is also an increasingly hyper-aware, hyper connected young people who are no longer taking things lying down. If some of these countries continue to be under the thumb of powerful local elites or outside nations, guess what? Their people will rise up. And if the young people don’t do something, the military will, as we’ve seen in the Sahel—though of course, this is not the best way to bring about a change.

In a sense, the global majority is finding its voice, it’s inserting itself, and it’s pushing for not “us versus them,” but “we” together on the basis of a common vision. And if there is no room for this unitive message within existing structures, the global majority are finding ways, including new institutions for multilateral cooperation where their independent voices can be heard. Whether it is the BRICS or the G20, the shift from multilateralism to plurilateralism is increasingly evident. Such a shift constitutes a challenge for the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN as they turn 80.

So if institutions do not make room for Africa in a way that recognizes the continent’s full contributions, full capacity, full potential, Africans are going to find another way where they can express and function in correct proportion.

Indeed. And we are not going to buy the charity narrative where the hegemony will “make room for Africa” in a global governance system it controls, as the ongoing discussion on the reform of the Security Council epitomizes.

Ah, yes. Good catch.

 Most Africans have been indoctrinated in one particular way of knowing, being, and doing. In order for future institutions to be legitimate fora for the unfettered expression of Africa’s agency, there is a need to liberate ourselves, to decolonize our minds from this indoctrination in all policy sphere. When it comes to the climate crisis, African leaders still, unfortunately,  talk about economic growth, often prefaced by the word “inclusive” to cover up for the scourge of inequalities and destruction this economic model has created for people and the planet. As long as our economic and political governance systems remain beholden to this and other dominant orthodoxies, I fear the future of Africa will continue to be colonized.

You’ve been a longtime proponent of the concept of “sustaining peace,” which you’ve called a paradigm shift in how we understand peace and how to build it. To what extent are you seeing this understanding of peace reflected in conversations and negotiations in the lead-up to the Summit of the Future? How much have you seen the paradigm shift since 2016, when the UN General Assembly and Security Council adopted twin resolutions on sustaining peace?

The 2016 twin resolutions by the General Assembly and the Security Council were meant to broaden our understanding and show that peacebuilding is not just fixing something that is broken after the fact, and that conflict should not be the only starting point for restoring peace after it is ruptured.

Sustaining peace as a new paradigm encourages people to build on what unites them, not what divides them. But I must confess, this paradigm is having a hard time displacing old ones that put emphasis on fixing what is wrong without paying the needed attention to strengthen what is strong—the threads and stiches that hold a nation together in times of crisis.

But the sustaining peace paradigm, to my delight, has been revived with this Pact for the Future, at least in the latest iteration of the draft, where we talk about financing not only for peacebuilding but also for sustaining peace.

What I like about the paradigm of sustaining peace is that it is unitive. It integrates development, the environment, governance, and peace and security as a seamless web addressing the threats to peace and lays the foundations for its sustainability once restored.

Many member states have adopted what the resolutions have called for: prevention as a proactive national strategy to sustain peace. There is now more emphasis on prevention as a governance function and as a whole of society endeavor to restore or safeguard peace when it is under threat.

At a recent meeting of the Peacebuilding Commission held at the ambassadorial level, we heard Kenya, Timor-Leste, and Norway share captivating details about their respective national prevention strategies. The key message emerging from the presentations is that prevention is not only relevant for countries in the throes of violent conflict or emerging from war. It is a universal governance imperative for all countries yearning to sustain peace. However, for this shift to take place, a particular kind of peace leadership is required.

For the sustaining peace paradigm to take root, we have to question the prevalent methodology for addressing humanity challenges, whether at the national or global level. This methodology is still wedded to a linear problem-solving approach. It basically dictates that when a problem arises, a solution can always be conjured with the help of technology as needed.

COVID and the planetary crisis we are living through are global challenges that have democratized vulnerability and therefore are not just problems “out there” that we can solve with our solutions, technology, and finances. The pandemic has shown that solutions tend to come easy to those who have the means to create them and the power to impose them or deny their availability to the most vulnerable. This problem-solving paradigm is showing its limitations, as solutions in times of stress tend to focus on the symptoms rather than the systemic causes which these solutions try to obfuscate.

You’ve talked about the issue of migrants as an example of how, to sustain peace, people have to expand their understanding of the issue and their sense of personal responsibility. That it’s not just governments that have to change.

I am glad you brought up the issue of migrants on which I have written from the perspective of sustaining peace. I lamented the emphasis that peacebuilding places on treating the symptoms of the problem rather than the root causes that led to that problem, namely, the wars that are fanned by local war lords or perpetrated or supported by external actors. These wars are the leading cause of forced migration.  The decision to escape one’s country rather than participate in conflict makes displacement a non-violent self-protection strategy. No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark, to quote a British Somali writer. For those who can flee, they do so at a great cost to themselves and their families. This desire to escape belies the characterization of the displaced as a security risk.

Looking at migrants from a sustaining peace perspective means that, when dealing with distress migration, we need to move beyond vulnerability-based paradigms. Displacement is a condition, not an identity. The “migrants” or the “displaced” are doctors, teachers, bakers, poets, farmers, students who, long before they come to be displaced, have skills and capacities in addition to needs. These enable them, if circumstances allow, to contribute to communities in which they find themselves.

Many countries have called for social cohesion and solidarity at a time of radical uncertainty fueled by internal contradictions, external pressures. and the fears of others, near or far. One of the reasons that humanity is in such a dire state is because there are so many divides. Divides within oneself, divides between us and others, divides between us and nature.

If you want to sustain peace, you have to address the scourge of separation these divides have created and heal its devastating consequences. This means making a concerted effort to move from “me” to “we” and reviving global solidarity as a means of overcoming division and as a pathway to make peace with nature.

The Secretary-General has called for a “networked and inclusive” multilateralism, which you have said requires “future-back” thinking to achieve, as opposed to our current “present-forward” thinking. Yet it does seem that transformative, future-anchored action is incremental when achieved through intergovernmental negotiations. How can we reconcile this?

Future-back thinking is one of several foresight skills that helps us imagine what the future of a system under stress would look like, and bring that future “back to the present” so something can be done about it before the system collapses. Future-back thinking is not about predicting the future. It is about disrupting an unsatisfactory present.

One way to do that is to interrogate the dominant narratives, assumptions, and structures that do not serve that future and start harnessing the seeds of system regeneration that are already visible in that present.

Starting with a vision of the future breaks away from the present-forward thinking approach implied in the theme of the Summit: “multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow.” An approach offering solutions that may facilitate inter-governmental consensus on what to do to fix an inadequate system will likely extend the lifespan of a problematic multilateralism whose expiry date may have long passed.

The Secretary-General offered a vision for a multilateralism of the future with the UN at its center, and he said it should be inclusive, networked, and effective. For my part, I would add a multilateralism that is in the service of people and planet. We need to imagine what will replace the current system in a way that meets the current and future needs of both people and planet.

We do seem bent on maintaining ways of life and systems that contribute to our poor relationship with the planet.

I think peace is about relationship, and we have problems because we’ve broken relationships with the planet and with each other. We have put the human beings at the center of the story and violently othered nature, referring to it as “climate and environment,” as if we are not part of it. This separation is done so as to continue to use nature as a resource for our limitless productions and insatiable consumptions on a finite planet. This largely accounts for the suicidal relationship we’ve entertained with nature. And it is now reacting in lethal ways, which we euphemistically call “climate change,” as if it is the fault of nature that we are now inching towards a precipice. So it is high time we make peace with nature. Indigenous traditions and wisdoms are there to guide us in this journey.

Similarly, we need to make peace with the past, or it will continue to haunt us. As you know, hurtful pasts never stay in the past.  I shudder when I think about the multi-generational traumas the ongoing wars in Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine will be bequeathing to the current and future generations. Making peace with the past means, among, other things, healing the painful multigenerational legacies of trauma caused by past violence and wars both within and between nations.

Ok, last question. The New Agenda for Peace calls for “dismantling patriarchal power structures.” What does that mean to you? What would that look like in practice? It wasn’t mentioned in the Pact, though there is a side event on the topic during the Summit’s “action days.”

When women and men are not equal partners, humanity is like a bird flying with one wing, the masculine wing. Over the centuries as we know, this wing has become tired, muscular, over stressed, and violent. Unless we dismantle—and that’s a transformative verb by the way—the patriarchal structures, we will continue to fly like this until we perish. There needs to be an equal partnership to address humanity’s challenges, including the planetary crises it is facing. We must abolish the structures that deprive half of humanity from making its contribution. Women and men co-leadership in these perilous times is critical

It is difficult to dismantle long-standing structural hegemonies without violence. Patriarchal structures are just as obdurate. One way to loosen its choking hold on society is to strengthen current policies aimed at creating gender equality. This starts with having and keeping the laws that enhance and protect the rights of women and girls, and those are against gender-based violence. This may not be transformational enough, but at least it helps us address the immediate problems created by patriarchy structural asymmetries.

Another entry point is to have women in leadership position. Given the myriad crises our world is facing, we need to ensure women have equal opportunity to participate and lead in all forms of political and economic decision-making processes. We don’t “give” women opportunities – this is not a favor. We need to ensure that this effectively takes place, be it through quotas, through leadership positions, and so forth.

I’ve always maintained that the future of humanity is feminine. And by that I don’t mean all women in positions of power. Power, not properly exercised, can corrupt anyone, man or woman. Feminine in the sense is that there is a feminine energy that men have lost and need to recover, like emotional intelligence, which is a feminine quality that has become mainstream when we talk about effective leadership by men or women. And without that feminine energy, that feminine-anchored leadership, the bird of humanity I just alluded to will crash.

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot directly tackle patriarchal structures—many men are on the defensive these days, and some feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are going to be a minority soon. We can witness here and there a backlash against the advances women have made. In certain contexts, the backlash is quite severe, as attested by the dramatic increase of gender-based violence.

To me, one of the most important ways to address patriarchal structures is to start from a young age and integrate gender equality at all levels of education. Youngsters in particular should be made aware about the harm patriarchal norms cause in societies. They need to be empowered to lay the foundation for a more just, and equitable society where both women and men equally belong. Otherwise, they will unwittingly bequeath to the next and future generations a deeply flawed social system.

Even though nowhere do we see in the successive drafts of the Pact for the Future the mention of patriarchy, I believe the genie is out of the bottle now that the UN Secretary-General has called for dismantling it in his New Agenda for Peace. It will certainly take time. Those who control these entrenched, hegemonic power structures will continue to fight for the status quo and even nibble at the gains proactive multilateral policies the women, peace and security (WPS) agenda have achieved.

The palliative, corrective measures suggested above will in time help loosen their grip. It is my hope, with the contribution of committed men and boys,  that some of these power holders, realizing the inevitable demise of patriarchal systems, will start behaving as good ancestors by thinking about the legacies they wish to leave for tomorrow’s generations.