THOMAS G. WEISS| ECOSOC IS DEAD world politics, the once creative voices of the Non­Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 developing countries have become prisoners of their own rhetoric. These counterproductive groups—and the artificial divisions and toxic atmosphere that they create— constitute almost insurmountable barriers to diplomatic initiatives. Serious conversation is virtually impossible and is replaced by meaningless posturing in order to score points in UN forums and media at home. Moving beyond the North-South quagmire and toward issues-based and interest-based negotiations is an essential prescription for what ails ECOSOC and the United Nations. Fortunately, states have on occasion breached the fortifications around the North-South camps and forged creative partnerships that portend other types of coalitions that might unclog deliberations in ECOSOC and elsewhere. Examples of wide-ranging partnerships across continents and ideologies include those that negotiated the treaties to ban landmines and to establish the International Criminal Court. Landmines mobilized a very diverse group of countries across the usual North­South divide as well as global civil society under the leadership of the World Federalist Movement and the usually reticent International Committee of the Red Cross. The idea of a permanent criminal court had been discussed since the late 1940s but received a push after the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda; the shortcomings(including costs and the burden of evidence) demonstrated the need for a permanent court that could also act as a deterrent for future thugs. The 60-country, like-minded coalition gathered in Rome in 1998 represented a formidable and persuasive group that joined forces with the 700 members of the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court; and the ICC treaty moved ahead vigorously in spite of strong opposition from several permanent members of the Security Council. These breakthroughs in security and human rights were mirrored in the economic arena by the Global Compact, which seeks to bring civil society and transnational corporations into a more productive partnership with the UN. It is a successful effort to move beyond shibboleths about the dangers of the global market, which was seen as a neo-imperial design from the advanced capitalist North and thus outright rejected by the global South. The Compact suggests how ECOSOC could evolve. One bridge across the so-called North-South divide would involve enhanced transparency. While major problems still exist for any hard-nosed implementation of the Universal Periodic Review within the Human Rights Council, a variation would be worthwhile for ECOSOC. Why not require a universal periodic review of commitments to the Millennium Development Goals for the 54 elected members of the council? Rather than a voluntary system that allows member states merely to report what they wish on the topics that suit them, would it not make sense to move toward more transparency with independent and across-the-board scrutiny of the wealthy and poor, of industrialized and developing countries? While they were discredited during the Iraq War, serious international politics invariably involves “coalitions of the willing.” Less posturing and role­playing is a prerequisite for the future health of the world organization. The results-oriented negotiations on landmines and the ICC and the operations of the Global Compact suggest the benefits of more pragmatism and less ideology in international deliberations, and that such a reorientation is not impossible for climate change, development finance, nonproliferation, reproductive rights, and terrorism. Within international institutions, we should be seeking more diverse and legitimate coalitions of the willing around specific policies. The tired North-South rhetoric of the past is unproductive in tackling global problems and thus should be relegated to history’s dustbin. Within ECOSOC, policy debates and negotiations can and should reflect issues-based and interest-based coalitions. 3. Pursuing Consolidation Not Coherence It is hard to take seriously documents and resolutions about“system-wide coherence,” growing from the last major study commissioned by outgoing Secretary­General Kofi Annan—the 2006 report Delivering as One. The overlapping jurisdictions of various UN bodies, the lack of coordination among their activities, and the absence of centralized financing for the system as a whole make bureaucratic struggles more attractive than sensible cooperation. The UN’s various moving parts work at cross purposes instead of in a more integrated, mutually reinforcing, and collaborative fashion. Not to put too fine a point on it, agencies relentlessly pursue cut-throat fundraising to finance 2