UN2020: Between “likes” and love

Photo by Elena Malmo

"Last year over 200 defenders of Human Rights and the environment were killed in Latin America. They gave their lives for their communities and for the principles that the United Nations stands for. And yet, the statistical framework for the SDGs tells us that the “partnerships” that should contribute to achieve sustainable development will be measured by the dollars they mobilized. The blood spilled by our friends and colleagues doesn't count." During a debate over the 75th anniversary of the UN, at the Pyeong Chang Peace Forum, Social Watch coordinator Roberto Bissio expressed the frustrations of civil society over the lack of meaningful interaction with the UN.

By Roberto Bissio^*

I am from Latin America. Last year in my region over 200 defenders of Human Rights and the environment were killed. They gave their lifes for their communities and for the principles that the United Nations stands for. For us Human Rights and the 2030 Agenda are not “nice to get” accessories but matters of life or death.

And yet, the statistical framework for the SDGs slowly put together by the UN development agencies, the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD and the Statistical Commission (and not yet complete after five years and dozens of meetings) tells us that the “partnerships” that should contribute to achieve sustainable development will be measured by the dollars they mobilized. The blood spilled by our friends and colleagues doesn't count.

Nevermind. Many of our organizations have achieved “consultative status” at the UN, and the common thread of what the people going out to the streets by the millions in these days demand is to be heard. We were thus more than happy to learn that the Secretary-General Guterres is starting a “conversation” around the 75th anniversary of the UN this year.

But yesterday we learned that the way to engage in that conversation for our members is to spend one or two minutes answering three questions, starting by judging wether the world will be better or worse in 2045, a futurology exercise that is summarized by choosing between a happy face or a sad face, in the same way that I was asked to judge the toilets at the airport on my way here.
So far some 40 thousand people have answered already but we were told that for the SG to have credibility when he reports about the conversation to the heads of state he needs to show millions of replies.

Being politicians, our heads of State certainly know the diference between scientific opinion polls and publicity gimmicks. The National Council on Public Polls of the US says in its website that “unscientific pseudo.polls are widespread and sometimes entertaining, but they never provide the kind of information that belongs in a serious report” And the British Polling council adds: “A phone-in or write-in poll in which, say, one million people take part is likely to be more accurate than an opinion poll sample of 1,000? Not so. A biased samble is a biased sample, however large it is.”

Further, we were also told by UN officers in this Forum that just in case the mobilization of our constituencies does not suffice to reach the envisaged millions of respondents, the UN is partnering with Facebook to help spread the multiple choice questionnaire.

We see two problems here. First, the 17 SDGs, same as Human Rights, are an indivisible and mutually supportive package and it does not make sense, nor is the basis for any sensible planning to learn wether we prefer health, education or environmental protection, as we are asked to choose. And second, Facebook is a corporation that makes money by promoting extreme emotionally charged memes, not scientific analysis. Known as having been instrumental in the rise of many of the forces that are now identified as threats to multilateralism, Facebook should be not be partnered with by the UN, but the subject of a deep global debate on how to curtail irresponsible behaviour of social media while defending our essential rights to speak and organize freely.

We do not mind publicity tricks, of course, and let's admit that we love to use them in our campaigns, but we do object to them substituting a meaningful conversation in the same way that some are lead to hope that thousands of “likes” can replace the lack of real friendship or love.

Talking of which, let me declare our love for the UN, in spite of its many defects. And we love it because it stands for our rights, for gender equality and for the environment.In Latin America, as a reaction to the massacre of rights defenders, the UN regional commission was key in formulating the Escazú Agreement, a legally binding treaty now in the process of ratification that commits signing governments to ensure to peoples and communities three access rights: Right to information, based in which the right to participation can be exercised and, if these two fail, the right to access justice and remedies.

It is certainly frustrating to see that the CEOs of many of the corporations are communities are seeking remedy from are received with the red carpet at the UN headquarters and offered even more chances to meet with our heads of State. We have written to the Secretary General about the signing of an MoU between the UN and the World Economic Forum. We want to know what happens when “we the peoples” meet with “we the billionnaires”. And we want to know why, after having adopted sustainable agriculture as the second goal of the SDGs the UN chooses as its representative to the Food Summit the head of an organization created and funded by the Gates Foundation to promote “green revolution”, which is quite the opposite in our view.

Is it unreasonable to hope for our answers to our letters? On the eve of the 75th birthday party of the UN that will help to keep our relationship alive and to start a meaningful conversation. No need to use the diplomatic pouch, we do also have email, twitter and even Whatsapp.

Note: