The world’s geopolitical system is not delivering what we want or need. Sustainable development is our declared goal, meaning economic prosperity, social justice, environmental sustainability and peace. Yet our reality is continued poverty amidst plenty, widening inequalities, deepening environmental crises and war. To get back on track, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has wisely called for a summit of the future at the UN on Sept. 22 and 23, a call that has been endorsed by the 193 UN member states.
The core idea of the summit of the future is that humanity is facing a set of unprecedented challenges that can only be solved through global cooperation. The crisis of human-induced climate change (especially the warming of the planet) cannot be solved by any one nation alone. Nor can the crises of wars (such as in Ukraine and Gaza), or geopolitical tensions (between the US and China) be settled by one or two nations alone. Each nation, even the major powers including the US, China, Russia, India and others, are part of a complex global structure of power, economics and politics that requires truly global solutions.
The summit is to revolve around five core topics, all of them related to multilateralism, meaning the system by which nations coexist with the rest of the world. These topics are: the goal of sustainable development; the goal of peace; the control of new technologies such as artificial intelligence; the empowerment of young people and future generations; and reform of the UN architecture.
The UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, which I direct on behalf of Guterres, has issued a statement summarizing the view of leading academics around the world about the reform of the multilateral system. The statement on the summit of the future is chapter 1 of this year’s Sustainable Development Report.
On the goal of sustainable development, the core challenge is global finance. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals — including the fight against poverty, hunger, disease and environmental degradation — requires sizeable public investments. The main priority public investment areas including education, healthcare, zero-carbon energy, sustainable agriculture, urban infrastructure and digital infrastructure. The problem is that the poorer half of the world — the low-income and lower-middle-income nations — lack the access to financing they need to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The most urgent reform of the global system these nations need is access to long-term, low-cost financing.
On the goal of peace, the core challenge today is great-power competition. The US is in competition with Russia and China. The US aims for primacy in Europe over Russia, and primacy in Asia over China. Russia and China resist the US. The result is war (in Ukraine) or the risk of war (in Asia). We need a stronger UN-led system in which great-power competition is governed and restrained by the UN Charter rather than by militarism and power politics. More generally, we are past the era when any single nation can or should aspire to primacy or hegemony. The major powers should live in peace and mutual respect under the UN Charter, without threatening each other’s security.
On the goal of technology, the main challenge is to ensure transparent and responsible governance of new advanced technologies, including biotechnology, artificial intelligence and geoengineering. Such powerful technologies cannot continue to be managed in secrecy by militaries and powerful corporations. They need to be governed by honesty, transparency and responsibility to the public.
On the goal of young people and future generations, the major challenge is to ensure that every child can achieve his or her potential through high-quality education. Education is essential for a decent job and a life of dignity. Yet hundreds of millions of children, especially in poor nations, are either out of school or in sub-standard schools that are not teaching the skills needed for the 21st century. Without a quality education, these children would face a lifetime of poverty and underemployment or unemployment. We need a new global financial arrangement to ensure that every child, even in the poorest nations, is given the opportunity for a decent education.
On the goal of reforming the UN system, the key is to give more power to UN institutions and to make them more representative. The UN today depends too much on a few powerful nations, most on notably the US. When the US does not pay its dues to the UN, for example, the whole UN system is weakened. We need to strengthen the UN system by ensuring that it is properly and reliably financed through a new system of international taxes — for example, on carbon dioxide emissions, shipping, aviation and financial transactions — rather than the contributions of individual governments.
We also should make UN institutions more representative of today’s world rather than the world of 1945, when the UN was established. India, for example, should become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. India is the world’s most populous nation, the third-largest economy and a nuclear power. In 1945, India was still a British colony and so was not given its proper place in the UN system at that time.
Another core recommendation of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network is to introduce a UN parliamentary assembly as a new chamber alongside the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly gives each member state one vote, with the power of that vote in the hands of the executive branch of each government. A UN parliament would represent the peoples of the world rather than governments.
Most importantly, the summit of the future is an invitation to intensive global brainstorming on how to make our deeply interconnected world fit for sustainable development in the 21st century. It is a great challenge that should be welcomed and joined by people all over the world. A great debate is to begin in September and continue for years to come.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, is president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The views expressed in this column are his own.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS