It is easy to criticize the UN refugee summit as being nothing more than a performance on the world stage by the current power-holders, Barack Obama and Ban Ki-moon. Both these men, who have hosted the summit, will soon be ending their terms in office. For both, the concern is the political legacy they will be leaving behind. But critics are asking what the hackneyed words offered by the politicians in New York have really done for refugees.

Empty promises

But these critics are ignoring how realpolitik works. Already in 2016 there have been three refugee summits: in London, Geneva and in Istanbul. Many countries promised generous financial aid packages. But they didn't follow through on these promises, as has now become clear in New York. Not even half of the promised aid has been donated and few countries are even embarrassed about this fact. Germany, at least, has fulfilled its duty and set a good example. But there are many other countries – including wealthy Arab states in the Persian Gulf - who are holding their purse strings tight. For this is reason it is good that the Americans can remind them of their promises – politely but insistently – at the New York summit.

This doesn't mean there's nothing to criticize about the US president's last appearance before the UN General Assembly. Who could argue with his call for free trade agreements, for more money to be invested in education, in infrastructure, in multilateralism instead of isolationism? Who could argue with Obama's condemnation of authoritarian regimes? It is persuasive to hear him point out the global improvements in the fight against poverty and the increase in the number of countries who have adopted democracy.

Refusing to look in the mirror

Obama's speech was typically American: any self-reflection, if it appears at all, comes only in homeopathic doses. The president called for respect for international law. But at the same time he ignored the way in which America often overlooks its international legal responsibility – and not only with the Iraq War. Obama called for more help for Syrian refugees. But he only vaguely alluded to the fact that the US has only agreed to take up to 10,000 refugees from this crisis-stricken country this year.

Not only this, but it is almost impossible for refugees from Afghanistan or Iraq to be allowed into the US. This is a disgrace considering the US involvement in destabilizing the entire region.

Obama's heartfelt appeal to the good in people and his call on listeners to do the work of the Lord has lost its magic. The power of his words flows into the gaping hole that will be left when he ends his term of office. The representatives of the 193 member states of the UN are already wondering about who is going to be moving into the White House next.

A choice between two evils?

If Donald Trump moves into the White House then all Obama's fears that he has warned against in New York could come true: more isolationism across the globe, walls being built, power used a basis for negotiation. But the alternative does not appear so rosy either to many at the UN. In terms of foreign relations, Hillary Clinton has proven herself, with her support for US intervention, to be frighteningly aggressive.

So what's next? It is highly likely that the listeners at the current UN refugee summit will be wishing Barack Obama back – probably by the next UN General Assembly.

Would you like to add your comments? You can do so below. The thread stays open for 24 hours after publication.