Hijacking Our Compassion For the World (2020)

Hijacking Our Compassion For the World: Examining the Foundation of the UN SDGs M. Nadarajah*

Leave No One Behind Flipbooklets July 2020 Note: The content of the flipbooklets is meant purely for educational/academic purpose. It is not intended for any commercial use. Dr. M. Nadarajah Chair Professor Xavier Centre for New Humanities and Compassion Studies (XCHCS) Xavier University Bhubaneswar (XUB), Odisha July 2020 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 2

Hijacking Our Compassion For the World: Examining the Foundation of The UN SDGs 3

Leave No One Behind Flipbooklets FBL 1: Hijacking Our Compassion For the World: Examining the Foundation of UN SDGs (July 2020) 4

Business-as-Usual and Business-as-Always On a lighter side, I like to agree with the comment of a development expert that the UN SDGs seem like “a high school wish-list for how to save the world.” In earnest, I am increasingly convinced of what the UN SDGs are — to stabilise the capital accu- mulation process with another fillip to save global capitalism from being trans- formed. Ironically, it is supposedly a global ‘trans-formation’ programme to remain on the same track! It will undoubtedly be not business-as-usual, but it will be busi- ness-as-always. As I come to make sense of the true character of the 17 goals and 169 targets, I am concerned for the people who are animated by the genuine desire to trans-form the world for the better. The disturbing part is how the SDGs have mobilised and gar- nered all our legitimate concerns and compassion for a safer and just society. We have some of the most committed persons, national communities, universities, and founda- tions, from around the world, backing it to the core in their programmes, almost with a religious fervour. We all so much want a better world. A supposedly non-partisan political international body, the UN, has finally given us a blueprint for our complete collective wellbeing and sustainable future. It draws a sigh of relief. The UN seems to have taken on the role of a non-violent revolutionary vanguard aiming at trans-forming the world. But is it authentically promoting trans-formation through the SDGs? Will it nurture a social formation that is genuinely inclusive, and, as we progress, ‘no one is left behind’? There is certainly a small but growing voice critical of SDGs. Public intellectuals and concerned students working on indigenous people and their cultures, feminism, post- colonialism, neo-colonialism and post-development are raising systematic criticisms. Despite these criticisms, where are we today? Unfortunately, most have been seduced by ‘goals and targets’ promoted through beautifully designed flyers, posters and web- sites. We organise national and global events. We fund and manage research on the goals and targets. We offer courses based on SDGs to nurture generations of young minds. We set SDGs as the framework for organisational work and bottom lines. We have no time for all the growing criticisms. We dismiss or demonise or silence them (the experience of this writer). We are indeed ready to defend the SDGs at any cost. It is so well-written, focused, convenient and easy to report. The SDGs seem to be so seductively comprehensive. I sincerely hope that we (individuals, institutions and nations) will purposely pause for a while. We need to reflect on the SDGs in totality and ‘excavate’ the ground from which the goals and targets unfold. We need to take some time to evaluate what we are committed to supporting and nurturing. We should ask what hegemonic or meta- stories govern the UN SDGs? Are they innocent, apolitical, objective, technical, and do not articulate partisan, vested interests? We need to think again. 5

Source: Poverty, Policy and Economic Ruin? The True Folly of Neoliberalism; https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/the-overton-window/news/ poverty-policy-and-economic-ruin-the-true-folly-neoliberalism-1746823 Let me share some critical analyses and observation at some length. In the Jacobin, a voice of the American Left, an article appeared in 2015 entitled The Problem with Saving the World.1 Yet despite this growing realisation, the core of the SDG program for development and poverty reduction relies precisely on the old model of industrial growth — ever- increasing levels of extraction, production, and consumption. And not just a little bit of growth: they want at least 7 per cent annual GDP growth in the least developed countries and higher levels of economic productivity across the board. In fact, an en- tire goal, Goal 8, is devoted to growth, specifically export-oriented growth, in keep- ing with existing neoliberal models. What does this really mean? The SDGs’ contradictory relationship to growth extends to its approach to global poverty. The Zero Draft promotes growth as the main solution to poverty, but this re- lationship is highly tenuous. Of all the income generated by global GDP growth be- tween 1999 and 2008, the poorest 60 percent of humanity received only 5 percent of it. Given the existing ratio between GDP growth and the income growth of the poor- est, it will take 207 years to eliminate poverty with this strategy, and to get there, we will have to grow the global economy by 175 times its present size. This is terrifying to contemplate. (Emphasis mine.) 1 Jason Hicket, ‘The Problem with Saving the World,”, Jacobin. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/global-poverty-climate-change-sdgs/. November 2028. “The UN new sustainable goals aim to change the world without transforming it.” 6









possibility but ultimately self-defeating and immoral. Fixes like carbon trading and renewable energy aren’t going to cut it. We have to confront the core of the problem, which is an economic model that relies on ever-increasing consumption.4 The UN SDGs are NOT going to get us to the world we desire for our children (to- morrow) and us (today). It is just going to delay disasters, the seeds of which we had already planted a long time ago. Our children will face the broken world and mess we have created, quite recklessly. They are waking up to our pretensions and recognising our bluff. Small, delicate fingers are pointed at us. Innocence just woke up to our gross negligence. We ought to be ashamed. The concerns of ordinary people for others in distress and pain i.e. our compassion for the world is in grave danger: It is being mobilised and hijacked to be misused. Will we wake up? Can we stop and turn back? Can we look at the basics? Can we let go? Can we re-write the stories we live by? Can we re-look? Can we re-imagine/re-orient? We look at causes, not just symptoms. We look at being, not just having. We look at the maximum wage, not just the minimum wage. We look at affluence, not just pover- ty. We look at people, not just the profit. We look at culture, not just the economy. We look at service/volunteerism, not just “what’s-in-it-for-me”. We look at sustainable livelihood, not just careers. We look at the culture of sustainability, not just the cul- ture of economic growth. We look at minimalism, not just material possessiveness. We look at health and wellbeing, not just the medico-pharmaceutical industry. We look at wholesome nourishment, not just the food industry. We look at agroecology, not just the agrochemical industry. We look at mobility, not just the transportation industry. We look at learning and being, not just the education industry. We look at labour, not just capital. We look at our compassionate foundations, not our competi- tive spirit. We look at peace, and not profit from wars. We look at indigenous peoples, not just the professional experts. We look at spirituality, not just religion. We look out for all, not just our kind.5 Another Future is Possible We have to address and break down our mindless taken-for-granted ways. Being alert to the dangers of the present normality, routines, comfort zones and hegemonic stories we live by forms a vital component to building a better future. They are otherwise disastrous to all life. It has given us a world that does not work for all. It has given us a broken world. There is a lot to give up or let go. We need a profound non-violent revolutionary agenda of trans-forming the present. New methodologies, theories and practices need to inform our search for a better fu- ture. There is a need to do a comprehensive ecological footprint of UN SDGS, which is on a neocolonial expansionist journey. Universities and institutes educating genera- 4 Jason Hickel, ‘The Pope V the UN: Who will Save the World First?, “ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/jun/23/the- pope-united-nations-encyclical-sdgs . Nov. 2018 5 Based on M. Nadarajah, https://aliran.com/thinking-allowed-online/the-common-good-and- new-malaysia/ . Nov 2018. Revised and updated. 11

tions of young people trained in the UN SDGs have to stop and reassess their curricu- la. Only disruptively humane and inclusive futures can save the generations to come. To mindfully tread gently and lightly on Mother/Sister Earth, we need to rethink and create far more authentic stories of trans-formation. For starters, minimal rethinking and resistance to what is so dramatically presented as a solution, the SDGs, to our present predicament would undoubtedly set the tone and direction. Markus Spicke, unsplash.com *Dr M Nadarajah, a sociologist by training, is an Asian Public Intellectuals (API) fellow whose work focuses on cultural and sustainability issues. He is an associate director with Sejahtera Leadership Ini- tiative based in Malaysia. Presently, he is the chair professor at Xavier Centre for New Humanities and Compassion Studies, Xavier University in Bhubaneswar, India. Revised Article. Initially published in Aliran Monthly (January 2019). Aliran Monthly is the voice of Aliran, which is a non-partisan national reform movement in Malaysia. Also, a part of this article was presented at the International Conference on Environmental Science and Sustainable Development, 23-24th October 2019, Jakarta, Indonesia. The argument in the paper was later developed in an article ‘Living’ in a Vio- lent, Broken World:The Urgent Need for New Humanities and Compassion Studies. The article is work- in-progress. Some Additional References Andrea M. Vasquez-Fernandez and Cash Ahenakew, “Resurgence of Relationality: Reflec- tions on Decolonizing and Indigenizing ‘Sustainable Development,” Current Opinion in Envi- ronmental Sustainability 2020, Vol. 43, pp. 65–70. 12

Barbara Crossette, “Big Holes in the UN Development Goals are Exposed By New Studies,” Pass Blue, March 18, 2019 (https://www.passblue.com/2019/03/18/big-holes-in-the-un-de- velopment-goals-are-exposed-by-new-studies/) Christine Struckmann, “A Post-colonial Feminist Critique of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: A South African Application,” Agenda, Vo. 32 (1), 2018, pp. 12 -24. The vol- ume is on: The Gender Discourse of Sustainable Development Goals and other instruments for gender equality: Advancing feminist agenda in Africa? [Based on thesis presented in par- tial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Stellenbosch University, South Africa (https:// scholar.sun.ac.za/bitstream/10019.1/100863/2/struckmann_postcolonial_2017.pdf)] David Abram, Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology (New York: Vintage Books, 2011) Deborah S. Peterson, “A Missing Piece in the Sustainability Movement: The Human Spirit,” Sustainability: The Journal of Record, Vol. 7 (2) , April 2014, pp. 74-77. Dzulkifly Abdul Razak, Nasha Rodziadi Khaw, Zulkifly Baharom, Abdul Mutalib, and Hood Mohd. Salleh, Decolonising the Paradigm of Sustainable Development through the Traditional Concept of Sejahtera”, in Zinaida Fadeeva, Laima Galkute and Kiran Chhokar (eds.), Academia and Communities: Engaging for Change (Tokyo: UNU, 2018), pp. 210 - 219. Malcolm Langford, “Lost in Transformation? The Politics of the Sustainable Development Goals,” Ethics & International Affairs,Vol. 30 (2), 2016, pp. 167 -176. Mark Langon, “The UN Sustainable Development Goals and Neo-colonialism” in Mark Langon (ed.), Neo-Colonialism and the Poverty of 'Development' in Africa (Cham: Palgrove Macmillan, 2018), pp. 177 - 205. Nadarajah, Living Pathways: Meditations on Sustainable Cultures and Cosmologies in Asia (Penang: Areca Books, 2013). Oliver Albert Matikainen, “Sustaining the One-Dimensional: An Ideology Critique of Agenda 2030 and the SDGs,” Department of Earth Sciences. Uppsala University, 2019. (https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1326645/FULLTEXT01.pdf). Pope Francis, Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home (Singapore: Catholic Bishops Conference, 2015). Regina Scheyvens, “The Private Sector and the SDGs: The Need to Move Beyond ‘Business as Usual’, ”Sustainable Development, Sust. Dev. (March 2016), https://doi.org/10.1002/ sd.1623 (Published online in Wiley Online Library). Rosa Freedman, “The UN’s 15-year Goals Ignore LGBT Rights Yet Again,” The Conversa- tion, https://theconversation.com/the-uns-15-year-goals-ignore-lgbt-rights-yet-again-42067. May 20, 2015. Thich Nhat Hanh, Love Letters to the Earth (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 2013). University of Queensland, “Latest UN Sustainability Goals Pose More Harm than Good for Environment, Scientists Warn,” (July 6, 2020), https://phys.org/news/2020-07-latest-sustain- ability-goals-pose-good.html. July 2020. 13

14 gpj.elcric-utnubU/sdaolpu/tnetnoc-pw/etiswen/moc.rerepsihwtepeht.www//:ptth