Americans may think of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)—a farrago of progressive-minded deliverables from eliminating poverty to stopping climate change to institutionalizing world peace—as merely another unrealistic United Nations pipe dream, a piece of theoretical bureaucratic makework best ignored. It should not be. SDG is currently the number one vehicle for the international implementation of a liberal moral agenda. This is particularly clear in the program’s goal to achieve universal “gender equality”—in its details, it systematically promotes sexual freedom and undermines traditional family structures. Unwillingness to comply comes with financial strings attached, especially for developing countries.
SDG is very much a European-driven project. Its latest report reflects that its leaders are not only Europeans, but also consider neoliberal Europe as a compass in a multipolar world. Unsurprisingly, the European Commission is committed to implementing the SDGs in all its policies.
The seventeen goals have attractive names, which few would disagree with, for instance: “No poverty.” But the fine print of the EU recommendations for SDG implementation reveals a different story. This becomes alarmingly clear when one takes a closer look at sustainable development goal number 5, “Gender Equality.”
SDG 5 lays out the goal of global gender neutrality: “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.” To realize this, the EU wants to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive “healthcare” and “rights.” These are defined “as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences.” Those documents stipulate that access to contraceptives and safe abortion on demand should be human rights.
The way in which the EU is measuring success in this regard is revelatory: first, by the “proportion of women aged 15–49 years who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use and reproductive health care”; second, by the “number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee full and equal access to women and men aged 15 years and older to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education.” Planned Parenthood and its WHO partner organization in Germany should be proud.
The fine print also reveals that SDG 5 has an economic component. One of its aims is that women should participate in the labour market as much as possible and not be held back by care for dependent children. The EU even provides a permanent link to the European statistics on persons outside the labor force due to caring responsibilities by sex to show to what extent SDG 5 is presently implemented in the EU.
It is especially worrying that the rule of law at a national level is a secondary consideration to the mind of prominent SDG spokespersons. Where the implementation of SDG is concerned, neoliberal superiority should prevail over any democratically determined national settlements that may be in place. International Human Rights of Women, an anthology published by a UN-friendly set of scholars, arrogantly advocates that, on the basis of SDG 5, that national laws and parental rights should be set aside in African and Asian countries: “Given the serious threats to the sexual health needs of adolescent girls in the region, one would expect that any interpretation that will be provided by the courts, as regards a female adolescent seeking sexual health treatment, will favor the girl and not unduly give regard to parental powers to exercise control.” Where governments are unwilling, “the courts can play an important role in affirming the sexual autonomy of adolescents.”
These are not isolated comments. They fully agree with the views of former German federal minister Adolf Kloke-Lesch, who heads the international SDG centre in Hamburg. In an article on the SDG website, Kloke-Kesch argued for forms of international government that should be empowered to overrule national governments. In other words, the present leadership believes that SDG—which has no force of law whatsoever—and its liberal policies should be enforced on countries that do not wish to comply.
As early as 2016, shortly after the launch of SDG in 2015, the lobby group Stonewall published a guide on how to use SDG to promote liberal left-wing policies on identity and sexuality. Per Stonewall, which is heavily subsidized by the UK government (then a member of the EU): “This policy brief is designed for charities, governments and other organisations involved in aid-spending and international development. The guide will help them to understand the issues and include LGBT people in their programmes. It suggests practical actions and provides best-practice examples from around the world.”
Other European countries have similar government-funded organizations that promote LGBT as part of the SDG agenda. For instance SDG Nederland, financed by the Dutch Department of Foreign Affairs, also published a LGBT manifesto (2018) which is aimed at the integration of alternative sexual expressions in mainstream society. At the launch of SDG in 2015, its Minister for Foreign Trade made 93 million euro available to fund leadership opportunities for women. The law that was introduced to this effect specifically mentioned that it was not only aimed at achieving economic equality of women, but also at addressing inequality of “sexual orientation.” Conforming with EU standards, the law points to SDG 5 and the Beijing declaration for its justification. This specific policy in the field of foreign trade is merely one national example of how SDG is used by European governments to promote and export LGBT values.
In summary, the Sustainable Development Goals contain a liberal moral agenda which is aimed at restructuring traditional societies in the image of neoliberal democracies. SDG 5 advocates enforcing emancipation and sexual freedom by financial and regulative means. Its agenda is aimed at the breakdown of traditional patriarchal family structures and allegiances, to promote maximal participation in a neoliberal vision for a universal market economy and sexual self-determination.
Read the full article here
