Hailed “the people’s agenda” by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the sustainable development goals (SDGs), have taken about two years to negotiate. The SDGs in their final form are set to be agreed to by all governments at a special summit next month.
However, the final 48 hours leading up to this milestone moment were marked by closed-door deals and bad faith.
As a civil society advocate working on the SDGs, I have been witnessing the negotiations since March 2013. The negotiations had, until the evening of July 31, been a genuinely open and inclusive process. They were open to observers, included opportunities for civil society and the private sector to speak directly to the governments and were broadcast online via the UN’s own live TV channel.
Illustration: Mountain People
However, that weekend, as the 17 goals and 169 targets were being debated for the last time, observers were kept out and information was relayed only by a small handful of specific negotiators to a small handful of civil society advocates such as myself.
After the negotiations stalled, the US delegation laid down an ultimatum, asking for changes to the language of the final document, without which they would refuse to adopt the SDGs.
The US asked to replace the word “ensure” with the word “promote” in two targets, 2.5 and 15.6, in regards to equitable benefits from natural resources — which, when applied, would see rich nations whose corporations and research institutions extract the vast majority of world’s natural biodiversity fairly share the profits and patents reaped from those resources with the nations and communities from which they are extracted.
The legal agreement on biodiversity, published in 2011, clearly uses the word “ensure,” but by insisting on the much weaker word “promote,” the US has diluted hard-won legal language and replaced it with something that is nebulous at best, and unenforceable at worst.
In response, a statement was issued by Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines and Trinidad and Tobago. The statement said that the legal language was vital to maintain, as it is an international commitment stipulated in the Nagoya Protocol that must not be weakened.
This last minute take-it-or-leave-it deal — proposed despite the fact that nations had repeatedly stressed that the goals must not be reopened to debate — filled the air of the UN conference room with distrust and tension.
A second alteration was made on Aug. 1, this time by the EU, which negotiates as a block in the UN. They inserted the following text into the specific paragraph that addresses debt management: “Maintaining sustainable debt levels is the responsibility of the borrowing countries.”
It is plainly obvious why this language is harmful and — given the situation in Greece — it is callous for the EU to even propose it. If debt is the sole responsibility of the borrower, then the role of the lender in exacerbating the debt burden and setting countries up to default and crisis, as has been evident in Greece’s financial meltdown, is undermined.
Talk of debtors and creditors simply “working together” ignores existing UN agreements, dating back to 2002, that clearly recognize the joint responsibility of both the lender and borrower.
It was particularly disappointing to see human rights and nondiscrimination, cornerstones of the global goals become bargaining chips in the final hours. African and Arab nations — who negotiate within blocks called the African Group and the Arab Group respectively — attempted to delete language on human rights and nondiscrimination.
While the specific words “human rights” were thankfully kept in the final document, “discrimination” was demoted to “distinction” and “fulfill” was reduced to “promote.” In both instances, these words are vague and inconsistent with established international human rights language, which is set to make it difficult to monitor progress and change.
Mention of discrimination on the basis of categories such as ethnicity, migration status, culture, economic situation or age as a protected status were also scrapped from the document, in an attempt to appease the African and Arab groups. However, race, color, sex, language, religion, political opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status managed to survive.
The way in which the SDGs have been adopted leaves a sour taste in the mouth and mirrors the bullying and blackmailing on display at the UN’s Financing for Development conference in Addis Ababa.
The UN is supposed to be a democratic and universal institution, one in which every nation has a vote, unlike the IMF or the World Bank, which are dominated by rich nations. Backroom deals and pressure campaigns inevitably throw the legitimacy and fairness of international negotiations — not to mention the political will of governments to take the sustainable development goals seriously — into question.
The new global development agenda has captured the imagination of civil society, international institutions and many governments — rich and poor — because they have the potential to make ambitious and universal change to our economies, societies and environments. However, the process by which we arrive at this new deal is important.
What transpired in the first weekend of August should cause all who are serious about the mantra to “leave no one behind” to reflect on the reality of vested interests and the unequal power between negotiating governments.
If we cannot address this, we are left with the same system under a different name.
Bhumika Muchhala is a senior policy analyst at the Third World Network.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.