When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote that “All that is solid melts into air,” they intended it as a metaphor for the disruptive transformations that the industrial revolution implied for established social norms. Today, their words can be taken literally: Carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial pollutants released into the atmosphere are said to be changing the planet — with huge implications for the environment, health, population movements and social justice. The world is at a crossroads, and much of the progress that has been made in these areas could vanish into thin air.
In 2007, former South African president Nelson Mandela founded The Elders to address just such risks, mandating this independent group of former leaders to “speak truth unto power.”
That is what we will do at the launch of the new Sustainable Development Goals at the UN General Assembly later this month.
The goals will succeed the Millennium Development Goals, which guided international development efforts from 2000 to this year. The current plan is credited with helping millions of people escape illiteracy, disease and hunger, and placed development at the heart of the global political agenda. However, their overall impact was often inadequate, particularly in fragile, conflict-ridden states — and they failed to include sustainability in their targets.
The new goals represent a quantum leap forward, because they recognize the vital links among challenges — including poverty in all its forms, gender inequality, climate change and poor governance — that must be addressed in tandem. Seventeen separate goals might seem unwieldy, but their cumulative effect should mean that no topic or constituency falls through the cracks. Sustainability is finally being integrated into global development, in line with what campaigners have been demanding for decades.
As former leaders from the global north and south, we are particularly pleased that the new goals will apply to all UN member states and not just those in the developing world. In this way, we hope they will become as “universal” as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — a vital element of the civic armory in the fight for fairness.
Implementation and accountability are key. Fine words are not enough; leaders must commit to putting plans into action, and societies must be vigilant in tracking progress and blowing the whistle when not enough is being done. Too often, summit declarations have melted into air once the delegations went home and short-term political calculations regained the upper hand.
This time, the stakes are higher. The decisions taken this year, at the summit and at the climate conference in Paris in December, could have a lasting impact on the planet’s future. A stable climate underpins prosperity, poverty reduction, and the rule of law. If world leaders in Paris do not agree to credible measures to keep a rise in temperatures to below 2oC, the new goals will not be realized.
It is not a choice between reducing poverty and addressing climate change. Indeed, the effects of climate change could undo the development gains that the existing goals helped to achieve. There is a risk of suffocating heat waves, severe droughts, disastrous floods and devastating wildfires. Entire regions could experience catastrophic declines in food production. Sea levels could rise, drowning major cities and small island states. Large populations could be displaced, exacerbating existing economic strains and social tensions.
At the same time, there is an emerging consensus — among grassroots organizations and central bankers alike — that inequality poses a serious threat to people’s livelihoods and prosperity worldwide. Globalization has led to a weakening of social contracts within nation-states and regional blocs and even among continents.
The answer to inequality cannot be to build walls, hoard wealth, and stigmatize poor and vulnerable people. Sustainable prosperity requires that all groups within a society share equitably in the benefits of economic growth — especially as societies become ever more interdependent. For this reason, we are particularly encouraged by Goal 10 of the new plans, with its commitment to reducing inequality within and among countries, as well as a focus on gender equality throughout the goals.
Any framework or process will have its limitations. International summits are too often conducted in a way that is remote and alienating for people outside the conference hall. Back in the 1980s, the UN commissioned what became known as the Brundtland Report to address mounting global concern about damaging environmental, social, and economic trends. The report defined the concept of “sustainable development” and called for radical change.
It warned: “Unless we are able to translate our words into a language that can reach the minds and hearts of people young and old, we shall not be able to undertake the extensive social changes needed to correct the course of development.”
Sustainable growth and development policies cannot be imposed by diktat; they must be designed and implemented in a way that heeds the views and experiences of ordinary people. To implement the goals and minimize climate change, massive shifts will be required to move away from the fossil-fuel-driven economic model. Public understanding and consent will be crucial.
World leaders must have the courage to take bold decisions, explain their necessity, and implement them in a just and effective way. They have no right to deny a decent future to future generations. It is no longer a question of choices, but an obligation to prevent catastrophe. The time for action is now. This opportunity must not be allowed to melt away.
Gro Harlem Brundtland is a former prime minister of Norway and a member of The Elders, a group of independent global leaders working for peace and human rights. Graca Machel is former minister of education of Mozambique, founder of the Graca Machel Trust and a member of The Elders.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers