We have just landed on concepts and needs for a new framework of a Sustainable living, however not on a real movement towards a change at system level. We are paying the consequences of personal resistances to the new and rejection to get out from a comfort area represented by an excess of reliability on political leaders and a system that delivers solutions “by itself”. The emotional bias prevents to change at personal and institutional level. We still believe that institutions transform itself without action from citizens, but this stage only works within a results-driven leadership. Is not the case, and despite the fact that global institutions work through strong philosophical principles and determined legal framework, they have loosen effectiveness within a weak world in which there is a steady violation of minimum standards of living. We must move faster and resilient by a strong conviction that structures can finally change without awaiting from political leader´s actions.
The failure on implementation of a legal framework of guarantees -as the case of International Humanitarian Law- exposures the need to move forward to new systems that hold 100% accountability to the national and international community. There are not clear and solid responses and global institutions are just a good statement of intent with no much impact, under the threat of war stages harder than before by a sophisticated technology and sense of impunity.
Sustainability processes are not sustainable if we are not able to move with determination towards a change of the system. Is in this sense that changes at personal level become key as a way to start building a new path –not just for environmental purposes-. If citizens change habits and innovate also on the way they demand it, institutions would be forced to adapt to this new focus, not just to new challenges but a new framework of living. If citizens give up this fight is it translated into small powerful groups that lead the path within biased leaders centered on specific interests on specific areas of the planet. The result is devastating including the environment. Is not a coincidence that this “trend” of climate change denial is boost by the country that has a threaten military agenda and a roadmap based on becoming an axis of power worldwide. In addition, to a truly boycott to international institutions, starting by UNESCO with the only support from Israel, a partnership with focused goals but not effective ones in terms of sustainability on the long term, conciliation, peace or just popularity. Any strategy of “ambitious super power” must be seen through the eyes of a world in crises and the loss of basic standards of living or better said of surviving.
Its fair to mention that, global institutions are not effective, that Brussels is not delivering and that NATO has not performed in a way that guarantees peace on the long term, but we also believe that is a framework that needs to be respected in order to become united towards a sustainable system.
Change the structure by making less bureaucratic and more “from the people” does not mean to quit but to stand with determination and search for reforms. Simply: more democratic and with capacity to influence. However, this is not a logical expectation and changes will not come from within but from external pressure that demands a results-driven roadmap and tangible results to current crises.
Refugees, climate change, poverty, diseases, war, are not just part of populist speeches, there all characters of a dramatic stage that pushes history towards a new system framework.
America´s strategy of interventionism-isolationism is not credible and reliable in terms of Sustainability and a sense of delivering global solutions –with or without the traditional concept of global-. In fact, there are not giving alternatives for their idea of “extreme bilateralism” or their Nationalist bigotry, particularly because they continue holding there ambitious goal of being an influencer on the political global map. Its very important to be consistent on the goals and make of Nationalism something productive, realistic and updated to current challenges. Only the selfish defence of national sovereignty on a growing global concept of doing business and politics is not enough. Nationalism is an ideology but must be updated and inserted to a global model, if not is it just an anachronistic system full of contradictions that hinder a profitable joint action in terms of a Sustainable system. Global joint action not necessary comes from global institutions but certainly from an open mind, vision and sense of Union towards crises without the excess of leadership from the political sector.
Its too late for just specific reforms and projects, we need the power of a complete change at system level in which we go through each Government, department, leader or discipline, analysing how we can transform it within innovation and sense of being part of a global world. Out from traditions.
Lets take off! Towards a reform of the system. Now is the moment!