SDGs and global governance

Sustainable development is the challenge of how to build a society in which humanity can live with dignity in this global environment. The SDGs set 17 goals and 169 targets to achieve sustainable development. Goals 16 and 17 are aimed precisely at building global governance through the formation of global rules. Goal 16 lists 10 specific targets, while Goal 17 lists 19 targets.

Sotaro Kusumoto

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to analyse the relationship between the legitimacy that defines the rules of governance in each country and the governance structure in the first place, and based on this analysis, identify issues and make proposals that can overcome these issues.

Laws of respective country and legitimacy

In modern societies, national laws are legislated under national constitutions. For example, the pros and cons of the death penalty are debated, but the essential reason why this is controversial is whether the fundamental question of on what grounds a person can deny the life of another person, even if he or she uses the institution of law, exists there. This question becomes clearer in the case of democracy. The epistemological question becomes whether the people, as sovereigns who constitute the sovereignty of the state, can take the lives of sovereigns on the basis of law, even if the law is legislated by parliamentarians elected through the system of elections.

In fact, the institution of the state is the only institution that can legally kill. International law recognises war as the final solution measures to international disputes. It is also regarded as a means of settling disputes over the sovereignty of states, recognised by international law, in the absence of any superior power.

Osamu Kusumoto

And the legitimacy of this rule is, surprisingly, provided for in the preamble of each country’s constitution. Even if there is no such statement in the preamble of the constitution, it is stipulated in the more fundamental texts of the fundamental law of each country, in the case of the UK in the Magna Carta, in the case of the US in the Declaration of Independence, and in the case of France in the Declaration of Human Rights.

The international order to date has made the values of the hegemonic powers, such as Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, the de facto rule. However, in an international community where diverse cultures and values exist, it is not possible to conduct global governance with the values of any one country as the global rules.

Possibility of global rules

Even though it is a difficult question how to set values, the legal conditions under which global rules can be established are relatively clear. Fairness, rationality, transparency, stability and predictability are required. A rule of law is established when people understand that the rule has validity.

The question is how to construct transcendental values that correspond to the sovereignty of people’s belief systems as values in the law of each country. The sociology of religion and the sociology of domination shows that the legitimacy of the transcendent rule of law, which forms the basis of the values of each country, is formed from the fact that the survival of the group is possible.

When we consider that humanity is an inhabitant of this fragile planet and that the idea of humanity as a community is at the root of the SDGs, and that our lives and the lives of others have equal value as the very basis of human rights, the legitimacy of global societal domination in the era of the SDGs must be based on sustainability, this means that the legitimacy of global society’s domination in the era of the SDGs must lie in sustainability.

Despite criticisms of idealism, the only logical solution to global governance is to create the conditions for its realisation.

Sotaro Kusumoto, Staff, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan
Osamu Kusumoto, Secretary General, Forum on Future Vison

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Shinzo Abe, the longest-serving Prime Minister of Japan, has died. It was a murder caused by a personal grudge rather than political terrorism. And it was not a direct grudge against Mr. Abe. A religious group had supported Mr. Abe, and a murderer with a grudge against the religious group killed him. Murders targeting politicians are often related to political messages or claims. This is a very unique case in that the murder was committed out of a personal grudge, not against the individual for what he did, but against the organization that supported the individual.

Osamu Kusumoto

As for Prime Minister Abe’s political achievements, he has just passed away, and I believe that there are many aspects of his life that we can only wait for history to judge.

Abe’s grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, former prime minister of Japan, understood that Japan’s prewar population growth caused poverty and that poverty and population pressure were major factors in World War II. Together with General Draper, the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense, and others, he worked to stabilize the world’s population problem and established the first bipartisan parliamentary group, the Japan Parliamentarians Federation for Population (JPFP), to address the issue of the population to achieve world peace.

Abe’s father, former Foreign Minister Shintaro Abe, was also involved in population politics, serving as the third president of the JPFP. Late Shinzo Abe himself attended a meeting of the International Parliamentarians Meeting on Population and Social Development in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1995, when he had just become a member of Parliament, held in conjunction with the World Summit on Social Development.

I was involved in that conference as the Japanese secretariat and worked with Mr. Abe for about a week. I was impressed by Mr. Abe’s cheerful personality and proactive thinking. Mr. Abe is well known for his loving wife, and I saw this in Copenhagen, which made me smile.

As I said at the beginning, we will have to wait for history to judge Mr. Abe’s political achievements. However, in my close contact with him and watching his actions, I felt that he had inherited the political philosophy of his grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, from his father, Shintaro Abe.

Japan was defeated in World War II and had to realize the reconstruction of its devastated land. One of those who took charge of this was my grandfather, former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi. For the politicians in charge of politics, the various political decisions of the time can only be said to be the result of the best decisions made under the conditions given at that time. It is the job of historians to weigh the pros and cons of such decisions, but I believe that Mr. Abe witnessed and understood the background of the political decisions that his grandfather and father were forced to make as they ran the country.

Seventy-seven years after its defeat in World War II, Japan has not yet escaped the effects of the war, as evidenced by the application of the UN’s “enemy clause. As a result, from the perspective of international common sense, I think there is room for debate as to whether Japan is in an adequate situation as a nation-state in the international community.

During his tenure as prime minister, Mr. Abe has focused on diplomacy. He actively engaged in what is known as “globe-trotting diplomacy,” traveling around the world and maintaining close contact with world leaders. Although Abe’s political beliefs were often described as right-wing, he also repeatedly communicated closely with the leaders of the former communist bloc.

What is clear from these actions of Mr. Abe is that he wanted to make termination of Japan’s postwar period situation. I understand that this is not a matter of left-wing and right-wing, and conservatism or liberalism, but rather a desire to remove the fetters of defeat and create a normal country.

I feel that he had a passionate desire to create a Japan that is respected by the world, as stipulated in the Constitution.

He lost his life at a very young age as a politician. I believe that he was a rare politician who was able to pursue his political ideals, including the environment in which he was blessed to grow up. I sincerely regret his death and pray for his soul.

Osamu Kusumoto, Ph.D Lecturer, Nihon University
Founder, Global Advisors for Sustainable Development (GAfSD)

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which had declared abortion constitutional, and a woman’s right to abortion is no longer guaranteed. This is another example of the divisiveness that has surrounded abortion to date, and has sparked controversy on both sides of the issue. While it is politically perceived that this Supreme Court decision resulted from a majority of conservative judges appointed during the Trump administration, an important point is being forgotten.

Osamu Kusumoto

The change in interpretation may have been a change to the question of whether abortion constitutes a right guided by the U.S. Constitution.

This question can be translated into the question of the relationship between basic human rights and abortion.

Human rights are regarded as rights, but they are different in nature from ordinary rights. In social life, most rights are defined by law and guaranteed by legitimacy. When it comes to human rights, however, they are often treated as universal or God-given rights, but their logical basis is not clear.

In response to this issue, the author believes that human rights are a necessity created by the cognitive structure of human beings. Because humans have the capacity for self-recognition, they are necessarily agnostic, unable to determine their own existence on their own. The other is absolutely indispensable in order to determine oneself. Based on this argument, it is logically impossible to protect human rights in the sense of affirming one’s own life without respecting other lives in the same way.

Much of the concept of rights is closely related to the issue of freedom from oppression. The history of modern civil society is the history of winning/ acquires freedom from various forms of oppression, and this process has been recognized as progressive in the Western value system. A woman’s right to abortion is part of this logic. When a woman becomes pregnant in a way she does not want or intend, she feels forced to do so and seeks freedom from it.

This is the view that modern Western intellectuals have held in the modern era, that women are in control of their own lives. Based on this concept, an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of a woman’s fundamental human rights. Therefore, the right to choose abortion is part of her fundamental human rights.

However, if we apply the definition of human rights as defined in this paper, the question arises whether abortion is a right and whether a woman can deny the right to an unborn child, no matter how different from herself, to exist as a life form. It is logically difficult to position abortion as a woman’s human right to choose.

However, another conclusion that can be drawn from the definition of human rights is that women are human beings before they are women, and their lives must be respected. It is on this issue that women are victimized because they are women, with crimes such as rape as an extreme example. Even though abortion is a burdensome and sad procedure for women, it is also a stark fact that if the procedure is not secured, it can lead to even worse misery.

In other words, abortion is not a matter that should be treated as part of fundamental human rights or as a right itself, but as an emergency refuge to avoid the worst possible outcome, and as a matter that should be properly secured in order to ensure human justice.

The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development identified reproductive rights as the advancement of women, sexual education, and access to reproductive health for all. Once this is achieved, unintended pregnancies will be reduced to zero. However, to date, this commitment has not been fulfilled.

In the absence of full implementation of this commitment, the failure to ensure medically appropriate abortion as an emergency refuge is a lack of justice. Ensuring fairness is an important function of the law. The debate should not be about abortion as a right, but about allowing medically appropriate abortion as an emergency refuge/evacuation to ensure social justice and to avoid more tragic events as a rights.

Osamu Kusumoto, Ph.D Lecturer, Nihon University
Founder, Global Advisors for Sustainable Development (GAfSD)

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The new coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to wreak havoc across the world, as the number of infections and deaths rapidly rise. It has the potential to infect anybody regardless of age or gender. There are grave concerns that the economic fallout from COVID-19 may be comparable to that of the Great Depression. According to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, there are 2,064,668 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 137,124 deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing COVID-19). In Japan as of noon April 15, there were 8,100 cases of COVID-19 , 119 deaths, and 901 patients discharged from hospitals.

Osamu Kusumoto

This situation is related to population issues because the spread of infection increases exponentially relative to population density. The outbreak in Wuhan quickly spread because it is a mega city of 11 million people.

The Ebola hemorrhagic fever is another infectious disease that caused global fear because it gripped regions of Africa intermittently from 1976 to March 2019 with 30 regional outbreaks. Until the outbreak in West Africa in 2014, the majority occurred in rural areas with relatively small populations.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is far greater in scale. Globalization breaches physical gaps which means that whatever occurs elsewhere inevitably becomes our own problem. However, attendant challenges such as reproductive health (RH) and family planning attract little attention despite its enormous contribution to the spread of Covid-19.

Although it may not be possible to verify the following 1994 US data (since no results from other studies of a similar scale are available), it represents current world averages. It shows birthrates from planned and unplanned pregnancies and the rate of abortions, which were 50.4%, 23.0%, and 26.6%, respectively. This shows that about half of the number of lives born into the world were planned, the other half unplanned, and about the same number of lives as the number of all births were lost to abortion.

Using these ratios, a simple estimate can be made applying statistical data of the UN Population Division. If the annual average number of births is 139.53 million from 2020 to 2025, then 95.81 million of these births would be planned, 43.72 million unplanned, and 50.57 million will end up in abortion. Tragedies like this occur every year. It will have a cumulative impact which continues to affect the very foundations of society.

COVID-19 instills a genuine fear in society because we never know when we will fall victim to the disease. On the other hand, the cited issues evoke only a sense of indifference because of the notion that “it has nothing to do with me.” This fails to raise a sense of social concern.

After COVID-19, the world will appreciate more that when it comes to infectious diseases, there is no such thing as “someone else’s problem”. The principle should be the same for problems concerning the environment and the population. It may be difficult for people to realize this now but, from a long-term perspective, they will have a decisive impact on our world. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) clearly demonstrate keen awareness on inter-dependence in today’s world.

The singularity of AI is likely to accelerate separation in production and labor and precipitate changes that are more far-reaching than the capitalist revolution. In the free market, brought about by information revolution, an oligopoly of wealth represented by GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon) has emerged, but consumers with purchasing power may disappear. If social norms that underpinned our society until recently are lost, despite the notion of “being able to have a rewarding life by working diligently”, social disorder may emerge.

COVID-19 is forcing our society to change. We must view this as an opportunity to rise to the occasion and build a new society to achieve the SDGs.

(The author is Secretary General and Executive Director, Asian Population and Development Association (APDA)

By Osamu Kusumoto
TOKYO, Japan, Aug 19 2019 (IPS-Partners)

The Asian Population and Development Association (APDA) organized the “African and Asian Parliamentarians’ Meeting on Population and Development for ICPD+25” on August 5 – 6, 2019, in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, to serve as a platform to gather the opinions and set of proposed actions of parliamentarians in the Asia and Africa regions.

Osamu Kusumoto

The theme of the event, which is called ICPD+25, will revolve along with the progress made by countries on the Programme of Action (PoA) in the last 25 years, as well as on how to tackle the unfinished business of the ICPD. The event will also underscore the role of parliamentarians in ensuring that the gaps are addressed.

The ICPD+25 Summit in Nairobi will coincide with the 50th-anniversary celebration of the establishment of UNFPA, the international organization who was and continue to be the main force behind the ICPD.

The ICPD+25 Summit will define the efforts of countries in addressing population issues in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, which was adopted in 2015.

The ICPD Programme of Action shaped the discourse around the issues of population, reproductive health and rights, and gender equality. Before the ICPD, the population was regarded as the main variable for achieving sustainable development.

The ICPD achieved a paradigm shift in the way we perceive population issues as its nature from one of the most important variables for achieving sustainable development to becoming the subject of society’s debates. It used to be handled as a statistical target but following the principles of the ICPD, it became clear that addressing population issues should be a result of voluntary decision making or through informed choice.

As a result, two different philosophies were formed: the population is the largest variable in sustainable development, and at the same time it is not a means of sustainable development. The past 25 years of addressing population issues exist between these two directions, and the center of the population activities was a history that emphasizes the direction of RR.

In view of this, the African and Asian Parliamentarians’ Meeting is set to make a major contribution to the Nairobi Summit, which requires substantial international agreement since ICPD, through the integration of reproductive rights and the SDG approaches. It clarified several issues, made recommendations and affirmed its commitments.

Thus,

(1) Reaffirming the philosophy of ICPD, which clarified that the population does not just number, it refers to humans that constitute the society;

(2) Clarifying that the purpose of ICPD and SDGs are the same and that without finishing the unfinished business of the ICPD Programme of Action is not possible to achieve the SDGs;

(3) The reproductive rights concept has been clearly defined in the ICPD as early as 25 years ago. Efforts to prevent unwanted and unplanned pregnancy – which is the main cause of population growth in developing countries – must be triggered by arguments that population-related problems hamper the achievement of sustainable development goals;

(4) There is a need to achieve an appropriate level of fertility rate in developing and developed countries by using the same perspective to view to fulfill the Reproductive Rights. Fertility transition which introduces balanced fertility at both developing countries and developed countries what will be called the third demographic transition should be the result of social and economic policies that bring about the development in countries; and

(5) Mere discussions and/or interpretation about reproductive rights concept is not productive. To realize its actual meaning, questions such as “How can we achieve reproductive rights?” should be the front and center of the discussions. This and questions around requisite conditions to avoid death due to starvation i.e. ensuring food security, protecting the environment, and securing water are just as important and critical discussion components and should be considered in the bigger scheme of things.

Excerpt: