Approximate reading time: 3 minutes, 25 seconds
I
The UN General Assembly has adopted the 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. This is an action plan in favor of people, the planet and prosperity. Furthermore, it is intended to strengthen universal peace and access to justice. The document has been approved by the Member States in a resolution that recognizes that the greatest challenge in the world today is the eradication of poverty, which, without achieving it, there can be no sustainable development.
The 2030 Agenda proposes 17 objectives with 169 goals that contemplate, in an integrated and indivisible way, the economic, social and environmental spheres. States have committed to mobilize the necessary means for its implementation through alliances focused on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable: “We are determined to end poverty and hunger worldwide by 2030, to combat inequalities within and between countries, to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies, to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, and to ensure lasting protection of the planet and its resources natural”.
The 17 Goals of the Agenda were developed during more than two years of public consultations, interaction with civil societies and negotiations between countries. As each country faces specific challenges in its pursuit of sustainable development, States have sovereignty over their wealth, resources and economic activities. Therefore, each country will be able to set its own national goals, adhering to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are the following: 1) End poverty. 2) Zero hunger. 3) Health and well-being. 4) Quality education. 5) Gender equality. 6) Clean water and sanitation. 7) Affordable and non-polluting energy. 8) Decent work and economic growth. 9) Industry, innovation and infrastructure. 10) Reduction of inequalities. 11) Sustainable cities and communities. 12) Responsible production and consumption. 13) Climate action. 14) Underwater life. 15) Life of terrestrial ecosystems. 16) Peace, justice and solid institutions. 17) Alliances to achieve objectives.
II
During 2022, Chile experienced a truly democratic constitutional process through the Constitutional Convention. From there a proposal for a Constitution emanated as a guide to accompany the decisions of society, in such a way that it could have advanced, grown and developed with more democracy; inclusively; with freedom of thought and expression; with gender equality; protecting nature and the environment; with real decentralization; with a responsible and fairly distributed economy; with guarantees of the rights of all; with future horizons for childhood and youth. Everything then proposed is contained in the 2030 Agenda. Consequently, the accusations of improvisation and bias are false assertions that indicate profound political ignorance on the part of those who have formulated them. The proposal for the 2022 Constitutional Convention was recognized by the world’s greatest thinkers. However, it was rejected by the majority of citizens who came to vote, although 40% recognize that what was prepared at that time is more valid today, especially if the UN 2030 Agenda is disseminated and assumed as a political program.
III
Today, retarded sectors have proposed a Constitution that recalls the Constitution of 1833, expressing longing for authoritarianism and the figure of Diego Portales, “intellectual mentor” of Pinochetism. It is designed for “true Chileans”, according to what the president of the Constitutional Council said. This is also how Luis Silva, representative of the Republican party of José Antonio Kast and delegate of Opus Dei in the recent Constitutional Council, regarding his proposal, has pointed out: “I would have loved it if he had said here (in his Constitution proposal) that the UN “It would not have any influence in Chile, but it does not say so.” And he adds that in relation to globalism and the 2030 Agenda, his proposal “is better.” For his part, José Antonio Kast, leader of the Republican party and member of the Schoenstatt Fraternity, in responding to a journalistic question, pointed out: “If you are worried about the 2030 Agenda, read the proposed text (of the Constitution) and you will realize “It takes into account everything that is done to prevent the 2030 agenda from ideologizing our children, which is where it first comes in.” The president of the Republican Party, Agustín Squella, has stated: “Parents are the people primarily called upon to determine what is the best interest of children. That protection remains in the Constitution (of the Republicans) because unfortunately those who promote Agenda 2030 do not understand it that way and believe that a State bureaucrat or a court of justice has to come.” (…) To continue threatening that with his proposal “I have a constitutional element to go to the public authority and demand that it comply with the Constitution. “I can go and accuse the Minister of Education of violating the Constitution if he is not restoring order to an establishment that has been taken.”
IV
It seems that plunging a people into ignorance and discouragement is the closing of a perverse circle. This is how the visible dictatorship of political power works and also the invisible one of the true hidden interests, which have taken over the resources and the ability to express opinions and think. It is these interests that are unaware of the 2030 Agenda, whose content is the aspiration to build a world in which we all have a place. This requires broad, serene and deep dialogue that allows us to delve into fundamental questions. In this regard, Pope Francis says in the recent apostolic exhortation “Laudate Deum”: “Hopefully those who intervene can be strategists capable of thinking about the common good and the future of their children, more than about the circumstantial interests of some countries or companies. I hope they show the nobility of politics and not its shame. To the powerful I dare to repeat this question: why do we want to preserve today a power that will be remembered for its inability to intervene when it was urgent and necessary to do so? (LD, 60).
Hervi Lara B.
Santiago de Chile, November 20, 2023.
The opinions expressed in this section are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the thoughts of the newspaper El Clarín
