Transcript Building a Consensus for Peace

From the Sustainable Development
Goals to the Post-2015 Development
Agenda
Building a Consensus for Peace
Open Working Group on SDGs: Single goal on
peace and governance issues
Goal 16:
Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
development, provide access to justice for all and build
effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all
levels
12 targets under goal 16
16.1 significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death
rates everywhere
16.2 end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence and
torture against children
16.3 promote the rule of law at the national and international levels,
and ensure equal access to justice for all
16.4 by 2030 significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows,
strengthen recovery and return of stolen assets, and combat all
forms of organized crime
Cont…
16.5 substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all its forms
16.6 develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions
at all levels
16.7 ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and
representative decision-making at all levels
16.8 broaden and strengthen the participation of developing
countries in the institutions of global governance
16.9 by 2030 provide legal identity for all including birth registration
Cont…
16.10 ensure public access to information and protect fundamental
freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international
agreements
MOI-related:
16.a strengthen relevant national institutions, including through
international cooperation, for building capacities at all levels, in
particular in developing countries, for preventing violence and
combating terrorism and crime
16.b promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for
sustainable development
Who has been engaging in support of peace?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key inputs:
HLP
UN Task Team
SDSN
Global Compact
UNSG Report
UNGA Outcome Document
People:
• My World Survey
Member states - majority:
•
•
•
•
•
AU, EU
Other OECD
19 g7+ conflict-affected
Dili declaration signatories
Numerous single states: e.g.
Qatar, Guatemala, Vietnam,
Costa Rica, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Thailand,
Libya, Philippines.
What were the main groupings during the
OWG discussions?
Skeptical
Supporters
POSITION 1: Reject any reference to
peace in the goals and targets; arguing
it has no place in a development
framework. Small minority (e.g. Russia)
POSITION 3: Support at least one
goal, which focuses on issues of
peace and governance together as a
related set of issues. Majority (e.g.
Turkey)
POSITION 2: Oppose a goal but
support the inclusion of targets
explicitly focused on peace in other
goal areas alongside targets that
address the socio-economic causes of
violent conflict and insecurity.
Significant minority (e.g. China, Brazil)
POSITION 4: Support two goals, one
on peace and one on governance,
pointing to their priority for
development and the array of issues
that must be addressed by each goal
Significant minority (e.g. UK, Liberia)
China, India, Brazil and South Africa and
the Post-2015 Negotiations: Some
Observations
•
“double identity” – both developed and
developing country
•
“denied divergence” – still part of the bloc of
developing countries, downplay ‘Rising Power’
status
What are the main concerns?
•
The inclusion of peace will lead to ‘securitisation’ of the development
agenda
•
A goal on peace and governance could lead to the violation of
countries’ sovereignty
•
Peace-related targets could translate into new aid conditionalities
•
Peace is not included in the Rio+20 agenda, which sets the
parameters for post-2015
•
Peace issues are already dealt with by the existing peace and
security architecture
Cont…
• Development leads to peace, not vice-versa
• A goal on peace will only be relevant and applicable to a minority of
countries
•
The inclusion of peace-related targets will stigmatise certain countries
•
The framing of the peace agenda is selective and limiting
•
Peace targets cannot be measured
•
The inclusion of the peace agenda could divert development
resources towards coercive security agendas
How do Rising Powers view SDG16?
•
•
•
•
Proxy for discontent with wider system of
global governance/global economic
governance and other geo-political issues
Frustrated with perceived double standards
of the West on peace and security issues
Deep seated belief that external interventions
on these issues rarely result in sustainable
change
All of which have impacted on perception of
SDG16
From the Sustainable Development
Goals to the Post-2015 Development
Agenda
Building a Consensus for Peace