By Gonzalo Alcalde, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru (Lima)
At the recent UN Summit of the Future, 143 countries adopted a Pact for the Future. It is a comprehensive roadmap designed to accelerate implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and address key global challenges. As with the Political Declaration that came out of last year’s SDG Summit, the Pact also reaffirms broad official support for the SDGs.
However, backing for this recent outcome document was not unanimous. Several countries voiced their reservations, including Russia, which stated that it reflects the interests of Western countries and requires further negotiation.
A distinct line of criticism from Latin America
In the case of Argentina, its Head of State expressly dissociated his country from the Pact and the 2030 Agenda at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), alleging conflicts with national priorities related to economic freedom and free trade. Overall, President Javier Milei’s speech on 24 September showed hostility towards the SDGs and the UN itself. He described the 2030 Agenda as a set of solutions that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states and violate people’s right to life, liberty, and property, while depicting the UN as a supranational government of international bureaucrats who seek to impose an ideology and a way of life on the rest of the world.
In the Latin American context, Milei was not alone in expressing strong disapproval of the Pact for the Future, the 2030 Agenda, and the UN in recent weeks. In Peru, for example, conservative members of Congress used terms similar to Milei’s to support their demand for the Foreign Ministry to explain national adherence to the Pact despite perceived threats to national sovereignty and lack of consultation. The mayor of Lima and members of his conservative party, Renovación Popular, also published a statement protesting official support for the Pact and the 2030 Agenda.
Conservative media echoed these sentiments in several other countries in the region. Such was the case in Costa Rica, where the Pact for the Future was denounced as a threat to national sovereignty, and in Venezuela, where El Nacional rejected it as coming from a “globalist UN dictatorship.” Even in US media addressing the US Hispanic population and Latin America, the Pact for the Future was characterized as a dangerous movement that could have “devastating consequences” for national sovereignty and individual freedoms.
This new wave of criticism towards UN-sponsored development frameworks is fundamentally different from several lines of criticism that were aimed at the SDGs from the outset. Current challenges characterize the 2030 Agenda and the Pact for the Future in ways that basically contradict what is stated about them in official UN documents and mainstream academic literature, including how they were arrived at and their implications for countries.
Previous objections to the SDGs
Indeed, amid the enthusiasm expressed by many at the time, the 2030 Agenda was also sharply criticized as it was being rolled out. Different voices around the world focused on aspects such as: perceived inadequacy of its purpose and goals; insufficient means proposed to reach such lofty goals; and even disagreement with its underlying concept of development. Nevertheless, all of these critics basically recognized the 2030 Agenda and related frameworks as they are described in official documents.
Some critics found that the 2030 Agenda did not go far enough in its scope, purpose, and goals to be transformative. For instance, these highlighted the absence of analysis and guidelines on unequal power relations and other structural aspects at the global and national level that have produced persistent socioeconomic deprivation and inequities throughout history. Without these, and a clear political strategy to address them, they argued, significant change would not be possible.
Other early critics focused on the inadequacy of the expected means to reach ambitious goals. They saw the 2030 Agenda as overestimating the impact of governments and official planning on development outcomes, instead of focusing on the private sector and markets. Moreover, the 2030 Agenda was seen as attributing too much potential impact to global arrangements and goals, rather than to domestic policies. From this perspective, some actors portrayed the 2030 Agenda as a declaration of principles without grounding in reality, practically impossible to attain due to the lack of commitments to channel new official aid or private resources that could cover an annual gap estimated initially at USD 3 trillion. In this sense, The Economist harshly called the SDGs “worse than useless” in 2015. In addition, some critics missed the focus of the 2000-2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on few priorities and measurable targets.
Others yet questioned the very concept of sustainable development that is at the basis of the 2030 Agenda. Thus, from perspectives such as degrowth, it was highlighted that it is not possible to continue encouraging growth and, at the same time, to achieve environmental sustainability and social well-being, as the SDGs propose.
Criticism that contradicts official accounts of the 2030 Agenda
The recent reaffirmations of the 2030 Agenda as a shared roadmap have been countered by an emerging type of criticism that does not build on a common understanding of the nature of global development frameworks. Rather, it focuses on elements not mentioned in official texts: an alleged mandatory nature of global goals and the UN’s threat to the sovereignty of countries; aspects of the SDGs that have been imposed by the UN despite being contrary to nations’ traditional values; and the lack of consultation with ordinary people regarding such goals.
With respect to national sovereignty, critics allege that there is a mandatory element to the 2030 Agenda or the Pact for the Future that takes precedence over national norms. This contradicts what is mentioned in the 2030 Agenda’s foundational document, namely that adoption and implementation of this resolution was intended to be explicitly voluntary and oriented by each country, including reporting elements such as voluntary national reviews (VNRs). Moreover, while there exist UN-sponsored treaties and other international agreements that are binding, official UN documents state that UNGA resolutions like Resolution 70/1 are not legally enforceable.
Regarding the condemnations of the 2030 Agenda as an imposition from an organization outside countries and their governments, this also directly contradicts evidence of the negotiation process that started in 2012. According to documents such as the Secretary General’s synthesis report from 2015, the SDGs represent a collective agreement that was arduously negotiated by representatives of the Member States within the framework of the UNGA starting in 2012.
And while various public figures in Latin America have recently pointed out that the 2030 Agenda was not consulted with the citizens of the world, and is therefore an unjustified imposition of foreign values, consultation did occur. In response to criticism of previous frameworks like the MDGs, the UN has documented how it carried out a more inclusive process (“the global conversation”), initiated in 2012. This included two rounds of national consultations, and a series of inclusive global consultations. Between 2012 and 2013, participatory consultations were held in more than 80 countries.
How to address this rising wave of criticism
There does not seem to be a call for constructive dialogue or debate in this recent wave of critical statements – either explicitly or implicitly – or any intentions of improving existing frameworks. Therefore, it leaves open the question of what is the best way for international organizations, civil society, and academia to address it. Would it be by seeking to engage the bearers of such criticism to try to clarify basic facts regarding global frameworks and their actual implications? Or would it also be necessary to launch campaigns that inform the broader public about these matters?
