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.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS