A white line drawing, on a black plain shape, very much alike to our analysis of the current global agenda based on only one axis of power. Instead of a multipolar world that develops the power to build stability through the acceptance of different colors, and a human-centered approach. The passion for changing archetypes and getting immersed in a new dimension where all shapes and colors are allowed and harmonically merged into a giant canvas. Not necessarily about a supranational power but a global democracy within national standards.

Maybe the view from the eyes of a child, although with a realistic stroke leading from a grow-up citizen that decides their destiny.

The need to join efforts after the current global crises are driving all stakeholders, -particularly from the political sector- into new paths for whom the idea of a supranational power gains popularity, and is pacifically accepted, even without taking into account the risk that represents. Is indeed, a threat, and undermines the own meaning of globalisation.

Are we pushing for changes or pushed by the changes -crises-? Once we are ready to realize the powerful role of citizenship is when crises are placed in the right “box”: Searching for the correct balance is what truly leads to empowerment, becoming owners of a variety of processes and not mere witnesses from an only-one axis that dominate the rest. In the end, centralized power supposes being in the hands of elites with not a democratic exercise.  

The fact that we are not living in a consolidated globalization system, however in a global model of living may be confusing in political terms, however, is it when the citizenship exercises advocacy -rather than activism- on a steady and long-term basis, mainly from bottom-up initiatives that we realize their feasibility in the short-term. 

A new distribution of power is extremely needed to get into a global model, by changing the current passive role from citizens into an engaged, active and creative results-driven community.

The SDGs’ mission comes precisely from the capacity to join efforts at different levels. not to build only one dominant criterion or/and approaches over the others.

Merging with different ideological positions may become the true purpose, and the challenge to become global, is not about creating a new power, but several axes of power that join within the same purposeful goal of becoming stable in the long term. 

The standardization of products and centralized information by massive Media make citizens perceive international issues as global, although, without the guarantees of the latest in terms of respect, tolerance, and integration from all national sovereignties, within the complexity of religions, cultures, and traditions. Thus, the capacity to join efforts through strategic alliances is key, however, is imperative not to build political alliances under the expectation and understanding that are representing a global political system, but only related to a specific topic. 

Let’s go through the main pillars that may challenge the achievement of a global system and are preventing the goal of an authentic and sustainable global model: 

Political leadership

Globalization: concept and implementation 

Social Media & Media

Do you feel like a global citizen? 

How much attachment do you have to a global system?

Technology makes you “More global” or just international

Media news how much do you trust? Do you perceive it as a reliable source?

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 

Moving towards a true democracy, nationally and internationally represents the capacity to make the citizenship a voice, not an echo from massive Media. Any step towards a global democracy demands a reshaping from the current status quo delivered by the civil society that is based entirely on a full delegation of political leaders, in a vertical relationship that is preventing to transform citizens into change-makers. 

Following Edmund Burke´s model: do we need a trustee or a delegation? What do voters expect from their leaders? The political leaders taking decisions on their own? or based on citizens’ contentment? Voters expect from their leaders a steady rapport or do they need to wait 5 years to renew their trust? May demand accountability at any time or just delegate all their rights to their leaders? 

Once we decide which model is the best, is only then that we may choose the correct political leadership. Currently, the so-called global political leaders are not so, although they are taking decisions with a global impact paradoxically in a multi-lateral scenario out of citizens support or/and deep knowledge of the road map followed by their leaders. 

A political leadership up to the current challenges and global goals, demands a realistic implementation of the SDGs framework and in particular SDG 17 “Peace, Justice, and strong institutions”. All processes to get into sustainability are political and the lack of strong leadership has as a result small initiatives without the needed and greater impact in the societies. The role of political leaders on this new stage for the planet may be a goal in itself. 

The capacity to be innovative, creative, and act from a global perspective although within the tolerance that demands a multi-polar world to get into balance, supposes new leaders or at least, old leaders within open approaches. However, leaders are tied up to old patterns that guarantee their permanence in partisan politics. Is it so that renewing leaders should be the new normal for politics. Dynamic politics rather than traditional politics may be the focus to effectively “surf the wave” from crises.

No matter if repeatedly stated, that the SDGs are based on a “human-centered” approach, if it doesn’t encompass the process it becomes a theoretical focus with little impact on the people. Is for that reason that the SDGs may become unsustainable in themselves if they are not considered in the context of people’s needs from their demands and assessment. Thus, political representation should be harmonically adapted to those changes by implementing politics from a changeable, dynamic, and results-driven approach. 

 Russia Ukraine war: the slingshot that shoots to win not to settle the conflict 

A slingshot helps to visualize the Ukraine-Russia war as a profitable game in political terms, out from Negotiation or/and Diplomacy, like a slingshot that delivers a fairground only from a Media perspective. There are no healthy, nor dynamic drivers to end the “game” but an irresponsible attitude to increase military deployment that means: “throw the rock and hide the hand”

EU is part of the conflict -not a Mediator-, within a pretended global leadership, that instead of searching to settle the conflict it becomes biased, euphoric, and aggressive, sadly supported by manipulative Media. 

Global leaders are supposed to search for global peace and not fuel a conflict that is already vicious in its origin. Please note that there is a very important probability that Ukraine is searching to regain Crimea, maybe a legitimate ambition, but, not part of international affairs, absolutely local ones. Supporting Ukraine with a super-powerful military deployment is a dangerous precedent for present and future armed conflicts. Coming, once again, from a centralized power, and the wrong leadership.

Is a lack of political will to end the conflict and play a facilitation role, rather than a conflict with no possibilities to be settled. Finding solutions exclusively by military deployment is precisely the element that questions the fairness of a zero-sum game in terms of finding an end.

This war is not fair, but negotiation is always fair. Is not possible to ignore the controversial claim from Russia in the Dombass region, moreover, acknowledged by thousands of Russian citizens in the last illegal, although a democratic referendum

The disgrace of Russia´s initiative to deploy military operations was followed by another disgraceful -although successful – counterattack from Ukraine within a surprisingly high technology

Ukraine searches to win, which indeed does, making part of the international community and the worst part, global institutions, in complicity with this brutal attack -from both sides-.

The intention to recover Crimea is not to defend themselves but to a political agenda determined and ambitious.

In war, since one side of the conflict decides to fight back is time to accept the consequences and apply war rules, and not self-defense actions. If there is no will for negotiation there is no fair claim in terms of gaining international support.

Let s be clear, negotiation would suppose allowing Russian military presence, at least to some of the territories claimed are four: Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. I am pretty certain that if so, they will be a true end, identifying “winners”, and “losers” only by Analysts.

Because before the war, the European Union was not precisely a “fan” of NATO and was considered just one more strategic alliance, not better than the European Union Army.

The real intention to build peace relies on the implementation of PIP agreement (Partnerships for Peace1991), “partnerships for peace” that is NATO + countries like Russia, a way to settle conflicts and keep geopolitical tension without the political implications to belong to NATO. Is it only now that we may realize the power of this agreement, in the sense that is precisely the expansion from NATO that is increasing the conflict in the region

Definitely, there is no need to have more countries in NATO as members to build bridges, although more implementation of wider partnerships that identify the key facts that are driving countries such as Russia to look at them as “provocations”. Imposing an odd global agenda: centralized, elitist, manipulative, and with no respect to conflictive historical-regional processes. 

The rebirth from PIP would represent that step towards a determined political will to build peace, and not to further biased political agendas. Is in this context that a peace-builder scenario may be constructed by the joint action, dialogue, and negotiation from NATO, the European Union Army, and the rest of the countries (under PIP). Is it only then that we may consider military deployment and not the other way round.

GLOBALISATION MEANING: Block of Nations

Let’s start by describing what is not: is not meant to become one only world, as wrongly assumed, but to maximize the power from national sovereignties making from globalization a resource to unite in diversity, not a tool to cancel culture, and traditions or religions,  

Although we agree that in commercial terms to have consumers with equal choices may be profitable, is also a healthy reflection to separate commercial goals from sustainable goals.

Multicultural means exactly that “multi”, not one culture over the rest, is precisely this wrong concept that is preventing to get into the goal of global gender equality SDG 5

Is not reasonable to expect that Afghanistan will address equity in the same way that USA does, there is a political element that clashes with the own nature of respecting the Nations´ identity. 

Banning the burka, for instance, may be a condition to become a resident in a European country, however, is also a matter of tolerance that Muslim countries may hold a different approach. Furthermore, they may be women that freely agree with that rules. A global model should never cancel individual freedom, although it may serve as a framework that guarantees human rights and offer choices for those that are demanding a model adapted to their needs.

An altruist goal of reaching equity should not suppose establishing standards that erase religions and cultures. We will never get to a global goal if Muslim communities are forced to apply equality in the same way that the rest of the world, the direct consequence is even more rejection and danger for women. 

Globalization means the creation of harmony, and collaboration, not an imposition of standards, that if so are only a framework, and should never be interpreted as a threat.

Is about keeping a multipolar world to get into a negotiated balance, rather than a centralized one, that in the end, tends to become dictatorial, and biased.

There is no better example than the current contradictory situation: “NATO & Partners against Russia”.

The contrary is what is currently happening, US, the main donor in NATO, is leading the path towards a block with the European Union, gaining their naif complicity, going against the strategic focus from the Union in the last decades: serving as a successful Mediator, or/and Facilitator as for the Middle East processes.

The outcome is that there is no counterbalance of power at all, not only concerning the EU, but also the United Nations. Hence, the organization meant to become a catalyst that delivers stability is not showing enough political flexibility to do so. 

In geopolitics once there is an empty space is filled by those searching for a superpower rather than global stability from diverse ideologies and financial interests.

SOCIAL MEDIA & Media: a dangerous octopus 

Social Media & Media play a key role in order to transform communications power into an engine to change in terms of integration, not centralization of power. Diversity is not about imposing trends, but truly accepting the differences from an open mindset, within developed critical thinking. The contrary is a dangerous octopus, that with its tentacles embraces our lives, and we get trapped in it. The same as the octopus changes their colors while sleeping, Social Media and Media, apply their rules from a monopoly without showing their true colors and changing them according to the different -sometimes hidden- agendas.

Social Media become powerful in terms of exchange not on intellectual production. Media become powerful in terms of spreading news and guiding opinion trends, not in building a new wave of searching stability by an authentic integration of ideas and people beyond the ambitious goal of pure monopolies that transform human beings into simply individuals.

True critical thinking supposes a different outcome than the elements presented in the beginning, and that is the precious gift of reflecting, and “working” together towards stability.

The following fact is a sign that the octopus called Social Media & Media is not moving towards a common goal of transparency and accountability at the global level it prevents it to become more sustainable. 

The European Commission has investigated the collection of data “from advertisers to help boost Marketplace to more than 2 billion users of its main social network, giving it an unfair advantage over rivals in violation of European Union competition laws”. 

We must push towards a global Social Media & Media that embrace us with transparency and accountability, not a private superpower that works like a predator. The legitimation from this sector may come when a truly global system controls their processes and is submitted to ethical rules accountable to their members, and global legal rules above them within a follow-up from the international community at all levels. Once the sector moves anarchically is it when the citizens lose control, thus, they lose the legitimation to be considered a global engine.

LEGITIMATION from a Global system

To consolidate the system fairly is imperative to figure out the necessary mechanisms that print their legitimation. My conclusion from now is that we are not in a global system but in a global way of living. part of the philosophy, but not the action. The system is not legally acknowledged, although there is a determined political will to move through international agreements and the creation of supranational structures. A road map towards globalization, that has not reached its destiny yet.

To truly enter into a process of legitimization we need all actors on stage for whom citizens are key. However, they are totally out of international processes, that again, are not global but from an international exchange that the so-called global leaders implement from a political partisan agenda and institutions that pretend to be global but their impact is only through a centralized power. We are not part of global interests, but an agenda that pretend to be global. The direct consequence is that citizens individually considered, feel out from the global agenda, and Global Goals -SDGs- with no senses of ownership. Mainly because is not working as a framework but as a judge that measures results from the same solutions for extremely diverse countries. 

Endorsement from Nations is essential as any international agreement as well as a correct exercise of democracy from the citizenship. We do not have a global consumer system because we have only commercial products sold globally, out of protection and accountability.

Social Media, for instance, is paradoxically regulated in ethical terms by the own private companies.

To legitimate a global system we need the endorsement from the citizens the same as any democratic system, otherwise, we risk being part of a system led by a centralized power. There is no more threat than centralization for the achievement of a global system, as it canceled the freedom from each national sovereignty to decide which shape they may acquire that better adapts to their culture, tradition, or religion.

Facing challenges demands “sketching” the silhouette of a new human being with different needs, and reshaping values on the blank canvas from an unknown reality, getting rid of the mysterious darkness of ignorance, lack of solidarity, and goodwill. Painting with energetic purposes, and generous strokes in the same way that many famous painters did: without recognition not even getting profits just to deliver a bold and solid message that impacts new generations.Based on disruptive critical thinking; educating future generations on creativity, and inner resilience, and the present ones, re-educating leaders around new values: flexibility, openness, and interconnections. Not one speech to all, but many as needed to integrate all Nations.

Is not possible to get towards a global legitimated system if we move through unsustainable political systems within centralized agendas.Because it is not about products, leaders, or habits in a global utopian world, but a tangible multi-stakeholder process within very old patterns based on diverse cultures, values, ethics, and certainly .. critical thinking. All-in-one: the principle to legitimate a global system.

Moving from a tiny white line drawing into a colorful, giant canvas of multiple ideologies.

Simply…building peace.