In a recent vote at the United Nations General Assembly, the United States made a bold statement by rejecting and denouncing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This decision marks a significant shift in U.S. policy and has raised eyebrows and sparked discussions among the international community.
U.S. representative Edward Heartney stated that the American people have made it clear in the November elections that they want their government to focus on domestic interests. He further added, “Simply put, the globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box.”
The resolution in question was titled “International Day of Peaceful Coexistence” and aimed to reaffirm the commitment of member states to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective and accountable institutions. However, the U.S. was among the three countries (along with Israel and Argentina) that voted against the resolution, which ultimately passed with an overwhelming majority of 162 countries in favor.
This is not the first time the U.S. has taken a stance against a UN resolution. In February, the U.S. voted against a resolution supporting a comprehensive and lasting peace in Ukraine, and even submitted its own text that did not name Russia as the aggressor in the ongoing war. The U.S. also stood alone in rejecting a resolution titled “Education for Democracy,” which recognized the importance of equal opportunities for young people, including women, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global education.
The U.S. decision to reject these resolutions has drawn criticism from many who see it as a departure from traditional American values of promoting human rights and democracy. However, Heartney reiterated that the U.S. strongly supports efforts to sustain peace and pursue diplomatic solutions to global crises, and that individual rights remain fundamental to U.S. security and the promotion of international peace.
Some have argued that the rejection of these resolutions is a part of the Trump administration’s broader agenda to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which it has deemed as promoting discrimination. This is evident in the U.S. decision to vote against a resolution recognizing the right to education for all, which includes a reference to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The U.S. has also cited concerns about the “proliferation of multiple international days” as a reason for its opposition to resolutions such as the proposed “International Day of Hope” and “International Day for Judicial Well-Being.” However, it is worth noting that the U.S. was the only country to vote against these resolutions, which had broad support from the international community.
The rejection of these resolutions has raised questions about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and its role in the international community. Many fear that this move signals a retreat from global leadership and a disregard for the values and principles that the U.S. has long championed.
The General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, but they carry the moral weight of the international community. By rejecting these resolutions, the U.S. is sending a powerful message that it no longer intends to automatically support core UN platforms, including sustainable development and global goals.
Despite the U.S. rejection, the international community remains committed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs. These goals aim to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of these goals and the need for global cooperation to achieve them.
In addition to the rejection of these resolutions, the U.S. also recently stunned the international community by abstaining from a vote on a resolution supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This move has been seen as a departure from the long-standing U.S. policy of condemning Russian aggression.
It is yet to be seen how the rejection of these resolutions will impact the U.S.’s relationship with the UN and its role in promoting global peace and development. However, one thing is clear – the international community remains committed to working towards a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world, despite the challenges posed by the current political climate.
