With the change of the US Administration from Trump to Biden a sudden shift in US politics came. Subjects ignored by the old administration (including climate change, inequality the severeness of the corona pandemic) are all of a sudden at the frontline. Not that the USA would have become all of a sudden, a heaven for sustainability and peace-loving politics. No, one should be realistic. What the US is doing is not more than facing the reality as it is: The world including the US is challenged by multiple crises and sooner or later has to face the crises.

The second thing the change from Biden to Trump demonstrated is that one country – even a powerful country like the US – cannot face all perils alone. The return of the Biden administration to the Paris Climate Agreement and Biden’s halting the US withdrawal from the World Health Organization repair mistakes of the old administration but could also mark more general a turning points in the world towards the acknowledgement that the real borders of our life are not national borders but the atmosphere of our planet. Everything within that atmosphere is interrelated and requires cooperation.

It has been acknowledged by the UN and member states, the 2030 Agenda with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) is off track and the impact of SARS-COV-2 and its mutations is far from under control. Still we see the majority of countries following old national reflexes and fight on their own. Where there are efforts for coordination as in case of COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) it also shows the challenges to scale up vaccine distribution. The UN Secretary-General calls equitable availability of vaccine doses the biggest moral test for the global community. In a statement the Secretary-General stated:

„Noting that progress on vaccinations has been wildly uneven and unfair, with just 10 countries having administered 75 per cent of all vaccines, he emphasized that more than 130 countries have not received a single dose. “If the virus is allowed to spread like wildfire in the global South, it will mutate again and again,” he warned. “This can prolong the pandemic significantly, enabling the virus to come back to plague the global North.” Recalling the creation of the COVAX facility — the one global tool to procure and deliver vaccines to low- and middle-income countries — he stressed the urgent need for a global vaccination plan to bring together all those with the required power, scientific expertise and production, and financial capacities.” (SC/14418, 17 February 2021)

The situation hasn’t much approved since the statement of 17 February 2021 but the rich countries are staring to learn. In spite of their advantage of better access to vaccination and other precautions taken many of the rich countries entered a new deadly wave of the virus and the so-called ‘South African’, ‘British’ and ‘Brazilian’ mutations of the virus play an important part in it. There is the acknowledgements that new mutations may breed somewhere in the world and there are concerns that such future mutations even may be immune against available vaccines. That would destroy all efforts so far in the fight against the virus. And not even the rich countries are rich enough to permanently finance emergency measures in their own countries. Therefore, I am sure, soon there will be the acknowledgement that no country can win the fight against COVID-19 alone.

So, if I am optimistic, it’s not because I think that all people on earth have an intrinsic motivation in favor of international solidarity and cooperation. Unfortunately, that is not the case. But the facts that egoism may threaten us all and may even destroy life on earth cannot be ignored anymore. It will force world leaders and their countries back on track of a more cooperative approach for problem solving.

In a sense, history is repeating: The foundation of the United Nations wasn’t preceded by a value driven honeymoon but by the aggressions of Germany and Japan during World Word II which forced even antagonistic political systems like the capitalist USA and socialist USSR into a coalition. This is learning from mistakes or trial and error but, never mind, as long as wisdom kicks in early enough.   



Reviewing and rebooting the 2030 Agenda

The rediscovery of the 2030 Agenda may take even longer as the cooperation to fight COVID-19 but it will be important to be prepared when the moment comes. Don’t forget: There are vaccines against SARS-COV-2 only because some member states supported basic research since decades and because in early 2020 in several places on earth scientists started searching for a new vaccine. In a similar way it is now necessary to review the way the 2030 Agenda is implemented and to get ready for rebooting the implementation process.

To be clear, we need to stop distractions and lullaby politics where the ambitious 2030 Agenda would be boiled down to a minor program easily to be handled without major efforts. Instead, what is need is a strategy fit for the purpose as stated in the Preamble of the Agenda:

‘We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.’

Wow, what impressive words! A call for action to change our world! Instead, today political leaders are distracted by other crises (although – as we know by now – that those other crises are often mutually related in one web) and kick around the 2030 Agenda like an annoying burden. They don’t see that in reality the 2030 Agenda maybe the best golden nugget they have at hand to address the multiple crises with an integrated approach.

Please read the 2030 Agenda and build your own oppinion: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

‘Maybe’ and ‘maybe not’ as driver and as killer of result-based cooperation

That something may be or may not be the outcome of a policy is a normal element in political dialogues and developments. To ask ‘maybe there is an alternative’ can be the beginning of out-of-the-box thinking and innovation. So, it is important to raise questions.

Unfortunately, the ‘maybe – maybe not’ stylistic element in political dialogue is also often used to blur a situation, to prevent taking a firm stance and to keep all options open. The reason for this is not necessarily a bad intention. Sometimes it is defended with the argument that ‘politics is the art of the compromise/possible’ (Prince Otto von Bismarck) where you look for the biggest common denominator which allows to unite all stakeholders. Well, and that is usually somewhere between the extreme positions. However, to confront every firm stance with the position that there ‘maybe’ might be a better alternative can also undermine a clear result-based policy. Of course, different things need to be tried out. We need to develop our capacities because agenda implementation is a necessary learning and transformation process. But the world has to be bold to face global challenges.

• We need bold investments in research to improve the knowledge base and to cope with emerging challenges.

• We need to support national and local governments to become champions in agenda implementation and goal achievement.

• We need to unlock the creativity and energy of all citizens in the world because the challenges are too big for the world leaders alone. Instead, we need all hands on deck.

Risk all - ‘Maybe’ has never won a game

Let me close this post with a reference to the world of sports.

The Football World Championship in 2014 was won by Germany and the decisive scorer was Mario Götze. In memory of him and the achievement a street art mural was produced in Berlin shortly after. The artwork expresses the determination of the goal getter to score the goal during the highly competitive match. Fitting to the expression the mural is titled

Risk all – Maybe has never won a game

Riskier Alles – Vielleicht hat noch nie ein Spiel gewonnen

Wouldn’t it be great to see such a determination in fighting against SARS-Covid-19 and in achieving the United Nations 2030 Agenda with its Sustainable development Goals (SDG)?