The world moves too fast within more complex crises, but at the same time very slow in terms of response. The capacity of being effective is not necessary based on resources but on distribution and implementation of policies that can truly boost resilience as development aid*.
Shortage of resources is not the key aspect but the unfair use of them. Indeed, donors as Sweden reports 1.36% of their GNI on development aid, U.S. 0,15% and Poland 0.09%. Even if US is on the top with $ 31.08 billion and Sweden $7.09 billion its clearly not a political priority. Is for this reason that is important to see these figures under the light of GNI percentage rather than the invested amount.
There is no possible way to achieve Global Goals if there is no a global approach in which all the countries contribute in relation to their own resources. There are resources, and that are good news, but we need an equal and fair distribution. The only way to assure that each country is aligned with the Sustainable Goals and contributes to global sustainability effectively is by a fixed rate. If not, -as the case of US- they are driven their own Nations towards goals that are not only isolationist but also unsustainable, without coordination with the rest of the world in a historical momentum that joint action is needed the most.
Isolationist steps taken by US, as the withdrawal from UNESCO along with Israel has marked a new era in which it’s extremely important to make sure which countries are leading and which are just looking for their own projects. Its fair –although wrong precisely on crises times- to quit global organizations, but once is done a new map of the world has to be drawn and we need to make sure that is it enough open for allowing diversity of focus.
The position of global leader has been abandoned by one of the most important countries in the world: US, and now its time for searching for new leaders and reshape institutions accordingly to current challenges.
Development aid represents one of the key pillars for building resilience at all levels and if it’s done equally we will see extraordinary –and positive- changes in societies as is currently happening with Africa and the investment on tech.
In addition, the impact of climate change sketches new shapes of the world in which every parcel of the world is important. Investing in countries that are supposed to be under “vulnerable conditions” its also the acceptation of our own vulnerability as “stable Western Nations”. That´s why is so important to make of development aid a matter of a global goal rather than just a good generous attitude towards the rest of the world.
Global Goals change our perspective of approaching crises, is precisely its global nature that delivers the feeling of serenity and enables joint action. Is it true, the green axis of SDGs* is unavoidable and may consider the goals only around climate change action. Is it not, and we need to move forward to a wider and open-minded focus in which Global Goals become a truly axis on any national political strategy. There are not prepared for it and many countries still rely on ineffective global organizations as the only way for achieving the Goals. The framework of global organizations is as important as the need for changing its structure towards a resilient action in itself. UN and the Security Council is the most paradigmatic model of how we can have the document, the organism, the budget but not the sustainable and results-driven implementation. A reform of the Security Council is imperative and shows –once more- that there is enough legal framework but not enough leaders or organisms to implement it.
A global world demands stronger action and interconnection beyond ideologies mainly in terms of accountability and transparency mechanisms. The world is not a cage; there is room for every ideology that does not go in contradiction with a Human Rights framework of living.
By the contrary of what it supposes, nationalisms are not exactly a threat but a challenge to address and a boost for those countries that remain faithful- at least in philosophical terms- to the concept of a global joint action.
Influence is not the same as leading and a global planet allows different influencers, although not always the same leaders that in part, are responsible for current crises- including the most obvious one: financial crisis. That’s the importance of seeing the planet as interconnected and open not locked in a cage in which the boundaries are marked by only a few ones.
Welcome to a new era that is claiming for a new roadmap ……
*The paradoxical future of foreign aid.
*The Green Axis of SDG´s
*International relations and SDG´s. Not without a global framework