Somehow I am always drawn to analysis in three parts. There are two such in Rene Wadlow's essay: First he

Somehow I am always drawn to analysis in three parts. There are two such in Rene Wadlow's essay:

First he mentions "three crucial challenges facing the emerging world society: State fragility, climate governance and the stewardship of the world economy."

Then, since the nations are hopelessly stuck in the status quo, there is this: "change and improvements will come only through forceful and coordinated efforts from the nonstate sector. In the “nonstate sector” the report places NGOs in consultative status with the UN, currently some 4000 NGOs, the 2000 largest business firms, most of which are active in more than one State, and the 750 largest cities which increasingly have trans-frontier impacts."

Change will come from civil society, business and cities first before the nations budge. While this makes sense in a way, am I wrong in thinking that civil society, business and cities are also stuck in the status quo? I see change originating in a global movement of individuals, who then persuade the NGOs, businesses and cities to use their leverage to get the nations off the dime. Actually, I would add the smaller, non-nuclear armed nations as a fourth set of potential allies for our movement for human unity. It is the big nuclear armed nations that control the Security Council that will be hardest to persuade.

Thanks for posting, Sue.

#vohcc, #un_goals