Category: SDGs 2024

Media Strategist, Former War Correspondent | USA

Courtney Kealy
Media Strategist, Former War Correspondent | USA

 Short Bio:

Courtney Kealy is a master storyteller, on-air television anchor and correspondent. She has more than 25 years experience reporting on and from the Middle East. Ms. Kealy covered globally impactful events ranging from major conflicts to cultural revolutions and experienced correspondent with time spent covering some of the most turbulent years in U.S. history, including racial justice protests, impeachment proceedings, and domestic policy creation. She has delivered breaking and live news across the world and now based in Washington, D.C. and New York City after bases in Beirut, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Istanbul.

 

Event: SDGs Conference 2024	Date: Sept 25, 2024

SPEECH

When people talk about what is coming, we should also acknowledge that, as journalists, we are often the ones who say it is here whether it is a war, conflict, crisis, or disinformation. “Authentic” is a term that has been overused, and I was excited to hear that “integrity” was part of this panel. It is a great word, and I have been thinking about it over the past few days. I did my due diligence, as I am supposed to do, and Googled it. My top search results said it means having moral principles and, quote, “being honest when no one’s watching.” But to be honest, the results came from an AI overview, not directly from a dictionary. So, when I went to look for the source, it turned out to be Artificial Intelligence (AI), but I trusted my sources. It helped me find the right words, and AI can be a good tool. Being honest when no one is looking is the foundation of journalism. It is one of the basic tenets of considering the source. My source is AI, full disclosure, which is also part of journalism; but being honest when no one is watching relates to ethics. Doubling down on ethics is important, whether it is about day-to-day practices or just being a good human being. Despite the machinery and the noise, do not Photoshop a digital photo. Do not write an incorrect headline. Do not fabricate a quote, person, or story. Get your facts straight and be honest. It takes a lot of work with an invested team, all maintaining their integrity, to put out the news. 

But since the words “fake news” and “crooked media” have been circulated by U.S. politicians and their followers by the tens, if not hundreds, of millions for nearly a decade, do we have to quantify what is real news? Somebody recently posted a comment on a link that I shared on my LinkedIn. They said, “Thank you for your factual analysis.” I thought that part was baked in; I did not realize that facts and factual analysis are now quantifications for people to point out and thank me after 25 years. It is possible to create photos of people along with biographies that do not exist in real life. Russia did this during the invasion, creating pictures and profiles of people that did not exist. 

As the invasion of Ukraine started, misinformation campaigns came out in full force. This is sometimes where I see them the most—on steroids. I thoroughly debunked and exposed false claims when I worked as a fact-checker and was part of misinformation correction at a place called Lead Stories, which I highly recommend. It was about operational U.S. bioweapons labs in Ukraine. I worked to stop it from going viral, digging deep into how the U.S. had been working with Ukraine on bioweapons labs since the nineties. When I was done, I received a direct message on what was then my Twitter account, ending with, “But idiots like yourself just go all the time. You are a partial-birth experiment that went wrong.” I went about my day. 

My reporting, along with others, during the years of the Israeli conflict, when I was based in Beirut and Jerusalem, was done forensically. Foreign correspondents shared eyewitness reporting from places like Gaza. The rule was: If you have not seen the dead body, you cannot report it. We used to go to the morgue to check ages, entry, and exit rooms, and then call the IDF for comment. After the Hamas massacre, the President of the United States claimed he saw the dead body of a decapitated baby. That did not exist. 

It was a fabricated image. I am not saying the massacre did not happen; I am not taking sides. But he did not see that dead body, and he reported it. That information cannot be put back. The audio of a video of a top U.S. correspondent, literally on the ground sheltering from incoming projectiles, was altered less than hours after her first report. Audio was inserted, making it sound like she was talking to her control room and saying, “Okay, look, I hit the ground. Let’s stage this.” It made her look like she was taking a side in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. That clip went viral and got a lot more views than her cable station. 

The hatred of reporters is still fueled by fake clips in some online groups. It is now possible to create a video of any world leader speaking in any language, saying almost anything, and it all looks and sounds realistic. Right now, there are videos circulating of U.S. Presidential candidate and current Vice-President Kamala Harris saying things she never said. The only way to change this is to rely on national and international fact-checkers who are trained to find the actual real video and post a debunk. That is an investigative skill set you could be trained in. I have been, but it takes hours to unravel it, and certainly not from Elon Musk and his apparent gleeful endorsements of conspiracy theories on Twitter, what was once known as Twitter, now called X. They do not have robust labels and often lack information that points out the truth. They often cut teams when they need to trim budgets, resulting in millions of posts not being taken down. 

Right now, it is a David-and-Goliath battle between news teams, in-house fact-checking teams, misinformation experts, geolocators, reverse imaging, and expert sources, versus conspiracy theorists who make millions. For instance, Alex Jones, the right-wing radio host and conspiracy theorist, long denied that the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, actually happened. He claimed the victims were child actors staging the event. The shooting occurred in 2012 and was one of the most heartbreaking stories I covered after returning to the U.S. from the Middle East to work as a national correspondent. Just yesterday, nearly 13 years after that devastating school shooting, a U.S. bankruptcy judge ruled that Alex Jones’ media platform and its assets would be sold piece by piece at auction to help pay for the $1 million in damages he owes the relatives of the victims. However, families will likely not see that money for various reasons, such as Jones’s declaration of bankruptcy. 

Meanwhile, he vows to continue his talk shows and social media accounts. He even suggested that his Infowars assets could be bought by his supporters, allowing him to continue hosting his show as an employee. Deceit, trickery, and greed have been the main ingredients for success, leading people to buy into what he has to say. 

Ultimately, his Infowars platform may live on with him still at the helm, wielding his microphone. Last week, a national political scandal erupted, or maybe it continues, regarding the North Carolina Republican nominee for governor, Mark Robinson. He made disturbing comments on pornography websites’ message boards over a decade ago, unearthed by an incredible team at CNN who specialize in this kind of research. One of his posts said, “I am a black Nazi.” He also claimed to support slavery, among other lewd comments too numerous to mention. Although he says he has since lost followers and campaign staff, he continues to deny making those posts, which CNN has documented factually and clearly. 

The Republican Party in North Carolina issued a statement saying, “The left can continue to try to smear Robinson all they want and demonize him via personal attacks,” which is not the case. It is a factual report that he denies, and people choose to side with him. 

These are not smear campaigns or personal attacks, people want to believe what they want to believe when they want to believe it. Amid the doom, gloom, and fears for the future, we must double down on fostering integrity and impeccable news delivery. Whether it is making the second, third, or even fourth call to confirm details and facts, or supporting journalists who do the same, we must continue our work. Brave journalists around the world are doing this in environments where the most important thing is the people they cover, the humanitarian crises, the people caught in conflict, and the loss of their homes. I reiterate my commitment, and I am thankful for organizations like the Journalists and Writers Foundation, which help us maintain our integrity and stay honest, even when nobody’s watching

Honorable Mcebisi Jonas 

Former Deputy Minister of Finance, South Africa, Founder, Nucleus | South Africa

 Short Bio:

Honorable Mcebisi Jonas is the Founder and Director of Nucleus, a non-profit think tank based in Johannesburg, which conducts in-depth, nonpartisan research to improve policy and governance. He leads to drive democratic reform and activate the citizenry behind a new agenda for South Africa geared towards growth and prosperity. Mr. Jonas is the Group Chairperson of the South African multinational mobile telecommunications provider MTN. He was a former Deputy Minister of Finance in South Africa. He served as the Chairperson and Non-Executive Director of Public Investment Corporation Limited. Mr. Jonas served as a Member of the National Assembly in the Parliament of South Africa for the African National Congress. Mcebisi Jonas was previously appointed by the President of South Africa as part of his four special envoys on investment.

Event : SDGs Conference 2024	Date: Sept 25, 2024

SPEECH

Allow me to start by quoting Lawrence Summers’ recent comments on the state of the developing world in April 2024. His remarks highlighted the challenges of debt, inflation, and climate change, pointing out that despite bold promises, 2023 was a disappointing year in terms of support for developing countries. Against this bleak backdrop, the 2024 Financing for Sustainable Development report estimates that the SDG financing and investment gaps range between 2.5 trillion and 4 trillion U.S. Dollars annually. 

Without a responsive financial system and increased investment, the 2030 SDG targets will not be met. For example, Africa, with 18% of the world’s population, holds only 2% of global capital. Without capital, the SDGs will remain unmet. So, how do we bridge the gap? An “all hands-on deck” approach to prioritize SDG targets is the only logical response, calling for global cooperation across governments, the private sector, as well as multilateral institutions. Some experts point out that high interest rates and loan repayments resulted in nearly 200 billion U.S. Dollars flowing out of developing countries to private creditors in 2023, completely negating the increased financing from international financial institutions.

When we talk about raising finance, it is not just about mobilizing private sector funds for development but also adapting the system so that locally generated revenue is not immediately channeled out of countries to service debt, as is currently the case. The global financial and trade architecture must be transformed to reverse the tendency of poorer nations to continually serve the wealthier ones. The current model focuses on extraction and export, often with limited reinvestment in local infrastructure. We need to reverse this trend, prioritizing the strengthening of ecosystems within these countries.

To that end, there must be a greater effort to redirect global liquidity away from tax havens and towards infrastructure and reproductive investments in the developing world. There should also be a stronger focus on reforms that foster an enabling environment for private, institutional, and multilateral investments. Reforms at the national level are critical, but they also represent a global imperative. Collective political will from the global community is essential to achieve any solution. However, current geopolitical tensions pose a significant obstacle to meaningful cooperation. It is impossible to discuss global financing without acknowledging today’s geopolitical dynamics. Developing countries, particularly those in Africa, are bearing the brunt of these challenges as multilateral bodies are sidelined by ongoing conflicts in Palestine, Ukraine, and Sudan.

In closing, I want to highlight two key points. First, transforming the global financial and trade architecture to benefit poorer countries is essential. This transformation requires not only governmental action but also the active involvement of civil society. Second, to facilitate public-private partnerships, we need strong states. Many countries most in need of financing have weak states, which struggle to engage in partnerships with the private sector and multilateral institutions.

 

To conclude, I am reminded of Francis Fukuyama’s thoughts on neoliberalism. He argued that it is not just about celebrating the market but also about the denigration of the state. If we are to build meaningful partnerships with the private sector and multilateral institutions, the state must be strong.

Senior Director of the Eurasian Security and Prosperity

Dr. Kamran Bokhari

Senior Director, Eurasian Security and Prosperity, New LinesInstitute | USA-DC

 Short Bio:

Dr. Kamran Bokhari is the Senior Director of the Eurasian Security and Prosperity portfolio at the New Lines Institute. He served as Director of the Analytical Development Department from 2019 to 2023. He is also a national Security and Foreign Policy Specialist at the University of Ottawa’s Professional Development Institute. Dr. Bokhari has also served as the Central Asia Studies Course Coordinator at the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service Institute. He has been a Senior Consultant with the World Bank since 2009. He has 15 years of experience in the private sector intelligence space, where he provided intellectual leadership in publishing cutting-edge geopolitical analysis and forecasts. He is the author of “Political Islam in the Age of Democratization”.

Event : SDGs Conference 2024	Date: Sept 25, 2024

SPEECH

While we need to discuss Sustainable Development Goals, we must do so in the context of reality. We aspire to achieve these goals, but we must consider how we can get from where we are to where we want to be. That requires a geopolitical roadmap. We need to understand the world as it is today, which is difficult due to information overload. Everyone on this planet is suffering from it. I will not speak for anyone else, but I still remember the days when there were fewer sources of information. I remember the daily newspaper, and I had a choice between which paper to read. There was the evening news, the morning news, and maybe something like Time Magazine or a competitor like Newsweek. 

That was it. If I wanted more information, I had to glance through encyclopedias or go to libraries. Barnes and Noble was not a thing just yet, and I am only talking about 30 or 35 years ago. Back then, the world was simpler, and there were fewer sources of information. With the advent of the Internet, followed by social media, and now Artificial Intelligence (AI) in real-time, we are witnessing an explosion of information. The amount of available information has reached levels that the human brain was not designed to process. While this is one trend, another trend is the decline in our analytical abilities to analyze what is happening.

You will notice that even the best speakers on TV or elsewhere often conflate what is happening with what has happened and back and forth. There is not a serious attempt to say, “Okay, let’s first figure out what’s happening,” and then chart the course for the future based on where we are today. On top of this, everything has become politicized, including partisan politics. This is true not just in the United States but everywhere in the world. There exists a left-right spectrum, and even if you are not somewhere on that spectrum, you are still part of the conflict occurring at multiple levels in every single country.

As a result, people are not talking to each other. If you pick up TikTok or Twitter, you will see people screaming out there as if they are arguing with their neighbors. No one is listening. This is a huge problem that will not go away easily. This is the challenge of our times. When I was growing up in this very city, my parents worried about whether I would do drugs. That was probably the main concern. Now, I worry about my kids and whether they have the right information. Are they being persuaded by fake news or by ideology disguised as social science? This is a real problem we are not talking about, and there needs to be a bigger conversation. 

This is an issue that transcends borders. It is not limited to one area. The political debate in this country, as we get closer to the election, is emblematic of what I am trying to discuss. Everybody has their way of explaining reality, and we are not addressing it. Now, let’s drop down from that meta-narrative problem level to the level of states and their conflicts. The last 30 years have seen different drivers of conflict and factors exacerbating geopolitical conditions. Someone mentioned Francis Fukuyama and The End of History. That was a great time. Life was much simpler. We thought, “Okay, the Soviet Union has imploded, and the world will be one nice democracy where everybody sings Kumbaya.” That did not happen. It was wishful thinking. 

The reality is that we have fragmentation at all levels. The nation-state, as an entity that emerged after World War I and World War II, is either failing or has already completely failed in many parts of the world, which is why we have conflict. The idea that there is an international rules-based order, while true and built post-World War II with the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, faces multiple problems.

If you look at an arc of crisis extending from the southern tip of the Eurasian supercontinent, as Zbigniew Brzezinski identified, you will see that starting from Southeast Asia, we have Myanmar, where five rebel groups are holding territory and challenging the regime. Moving forward, there are problems in Bangladesh, and while India is a rising geo-economic player and the fifth-largest economy, an impressive demonstration of development, it has its challenges. 

But if you keep moving westward, you reach Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East, and you complete a full 360 with Russia and China. There are multiple problems, and the institutions that are supposed to address these challenges cannot currently do so. This is why we need out-of-the-box thinking. We are still stuck in old paradigms, and there is a need for fresh thinking that is not constrained by certain disciplinary boundaries and is not confused by the information problem I mentioned earlier.

Associate Professor of Law, Associate Dean at the Faculty of Law

Prof. Collins Odote

Associate Dean of Faculty of Law, University of Nairobi,Chairman, Council of Legal Education | South Africa

 Short Bio:

Prof. Collins Odote is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya with a Doctor of Philosophy in Law from the University of Nairobi. He is an Associate Professor of Law, Associate Dean at the Faculty of Law, and Research Director of the Centre for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy at the University of Nairobi. He is also an arbitrator, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and a member of the Law Society of Kenya. Prof. Odote is the Chairman of the Council of Legal Education and the President of the Association of Environmental Law Lecturers in Africa, which focuses on capacity building and knowledge exchange in environmental law across African universities. His research interests include governance, elections, land law, and environmental and natural resource management. Prof. Odote has consulted various government bodies, non-state actors, and international organizations.

Event: SDGs Conference 2024	Date: Sept 25, 2024

SPEECH

Nine years ago today, on the 25 September 2015 when the 17 Sustainable Development Goals were adopted the title of the document was “Transforming Our World”. Therefore, it is important to ask ourselves why the word is transforming at the heart of inclusive governance. I think it is at the forefront of our conversations because the current pace and direction of global governance are not delivering the dividends required. The Pact for the Future notes that sustainable development is impaired. If the UN Charter that was adopted 79 years ago were fully implemented, we would be able to address ensuring peace, upholding human rights, and promoting dignity, justice, and social progress. As we see today, those same challenges that existed decades ago require us to transform how we govern the globe. Establishing peaceful and accountable public institutions requires strengthening and adherence to the rule of law. The Pact for the Future mentions the “rule of law” seven times in the context of the declaration. Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs) 16 also underscores that the rule of law is essential to the realization of SDGs. Addressing the gaps in the rule of law concerns many relevant topics ranging from violations that journalists encounter, shrinking space of civil society, protecting religious rights, and many others. However, the reality across the globe is that the principles and quality of institutions that guarantee the rule of law are under threat.

Therefore, we need to ask ourselves what we can do to ensure judicial independence. If one must choose between the three arms of government, I think the most critical one is the judiciary as it focuses on the rights of the minority and the rights of the disadvantaged individuals. Therefore, strengthening judiciaries must form a core component of the work that we do because it is the judiciary members who will ensure that there are checks and balances so that we can avoid living under the pressure of individuals with power. Therefore, my first point is that we need to strengthen judiciaries and the rule of law as part of our process of ensuring the transformation of local governance. The importance of education and empowerment of young people will be my next emphasis.

I would like to suggest that we need to look at education as a tool for empowering youth and engaging them in public institutions at the national level. The 79th Session of the UN General Assembly has been celebrated for spotlighting youth and global governance. However, I think we need to move beyond celebration to integration. We need to integrate young people into a global government, not just celebrating young individuals. It is only through young advocates that we would be able to achieve the first mention of intergenerational equity in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development adopted by Brazil. We need to ensure that young people are given agency so that they can be meaningfully involved. In Kenya, in June this year, we had a demonstration by Generation Z that shows that the conversation we had about the youth ballot must stop being a conversation, but we must act on it.

The first action we must take is to invest in public education institutions critically to achieve SDG #4, the quality of education. We should also take into account the content and the cost of education. Next, we need to ensure that there are linkages between educational institutions and global governance so that young people can be able to participate in these platforms at a younger age. So that the gentleman that I met from Bosnia can experience what it means to work at the United Nations (UN) in Nairobi. The ladies from Nairobi should also access opportunities to work at the UN headquarters so that we can have a new set of global citizens who reimagine global governance from their perspectives. That is the only way that we can be able to strengthen global governance.

My last point is that sustainable development is about thriving economies, society, and the environment. I think many of the conflicts that we face are about how it relates to the environment, and I would like to make a case that we need to finance environmental protection institutions. UNEP’s 2021 Report on Making Peace with Nature makes the point that our relationship with nature is one of extraction. We see nature as an object and a consequence. I think we need to change that relationship. We need to see nature as one of the entities that also has rights, but also, we need to put more effort into funding public institutions working on capacity building for environmental protection. As the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in the last Conference of Parties (COP) that took place in Africa in 2022, we are in a fight for our lives, and we are losing it. As I conclude my remarks, I think we need to ensure that to change global governance institutions, we must recognize that we must act both at the global and national levels. We must also prioritize local actions because it is only through strengthening public institutions at the national level that will deliver true dividends to the people and will make global governments inclusive and realistic for the 21st century.

Political Scientist

Ana Carolina Evangelista 

Executive Director, ISER, Institute of Studies in Religion | Brazil

 Short Bio:

Ana Carolina Evangelista is a Political Scientist with MSc in International Relations (PUC-SP), MA in Public Management and Policy (FGV/EAESP) and a PhD Candidate in Social Sciences and Contemporary History at CPDO/FGV. With more than twenty years of experience in civil society organizations and political and technical advisory activities on governmental institutions, she is a Senior Researcher and the Executive Director of Institute of Studies in Religion in Río de Janeiro (Brazil). Her research studies are focused on democratic innovation in Latin America, the Brazilian political system, elections and the role of religious groups in politics. Ms. Evangelista is also a Political Columnist at Revista Piauí and Canal O Meio.

Event: SDGs Conference 2024	Date: Sept 25, 2024

SPEECH

At the 9th Annual SDGs Conference, I represent the Institute of Studies in Religion, a research organization on the importance of faith-based communities and religion for social life in Brazil. In my reflections, I will be stressing the challenges we are facing regarding politics and the work we need to accomplish to promote the diversity of the religious groups in Brazil. Religion comes at the frontline everywhere when politics is discussed in Brazil nowadays in election coverage or in regard to the latest situation in the National Congress, especially about Christian voting intentions or a politician justifying his vote or a new legislative proposal based on religious references. Why are we seeing more religion in politics in Brazil today or in other countries? Whether the influence of religion in public and political life is a positive or a negative aspect, Brazilian society is divided in between. 

Significant differences have been viewed between Evangelicals, Catholics, and people with other religious affiliations or no religion at all in Brazil including older and younger adults. There is also an important division in Brazilian society between those who agree and disagree that the federal government should promote specific Christian moral values. But is everything really about religion? I will say no as most of it is about political polarization and the use of religion for specific political purposes. What we see in Brazil today is not an indiscriminate invasion of religion in politics. We are witnessing a systematic radical and instrumental incorporation of religion or a conception of religion and especially certain Christian values like the anti-democratic far-right political Pope increasing its influence in our countries. I am not referring to the Christian values of solidarity, community, social justice, and universal human rights. 

What is happening to democratic principles and threats to a plural democracy in Brazil and elsewhere? Who is using who? We are talking about politicians using certain religious leaders and narratives, and religious businessmen using the institutional political environment to increase their influence and therefore their religious corporations. The terms religious businessmen and religious corporations are not by chance. I would like to stress that because we have a vast and diverse Christian Evangelical and Catholic field in Brazil. I am talking about a part of some churches, denominations, and leaders who are more worried about their entire religious empire than their role as a religious leader. In a broader sense, the resident population has been dealing with different social, economic, and public security crises for several years.

Brazil is not the only country facing such a crisis. Far-end political forces are the ones most mobilizing religion in specific ways when dealing with people’s daily and concrete challenges referring to the social, economic, and security crises. In this context, politicians and religious figures are not mobilizing religion, even the well-known religious ones, in a more individualistic and dogmatic contemporary form as a way to offer alternatives for restoring order, predictability, security, and unity. Religiousness is also being used as a rhetorical resource of belonging and restoring order, or at least what they call order, by ultra-conservatives to advance their agendas in institutional spaces, especially in terms of liberty and rights of certain social groups as women and LGBTQ+ communities.

At the same time, it is not only about certain religious groups seeking to impose their morals on society through state policies but also about the new dimensions using religion to communicate with people and boost symbolic and emotional ties with society. Today, this construction makes it nearly impossible to separate religious traditional morals, political agendas, social demands, and personal expectations from Brazil’s Presidential elections. This social state is new for us, and it is challenging the plurality and the quality of our democracy.

For instance, we have always had an important presence of different religious leaders in the public and political spheres in Brazil in a more plural way. But today, the religious leaders with political strength and a prominent public voice are predominantly ultra-conservatives coming from various groups being represented in politics. They are not taking into account the religious diversity of Brazil and neither the separation between church and state that we have had since the 19th century. 

It was especially after 2010, that public opinion and voting in polls in Brazil started highlighting divisions related to religious identity and belonging, and none of this happened by chance. It was a period of reaction to the third national human rights program presented by the second term of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. This reaction led to an unprecedented alliance between Catholics and Evangelical branches in Congress to defend the fighting against the advances in women’s reproductive rights and the recognition of LGBTQ+ rights. This issue dominated the presidential election at that time and remained central to public opinion until today. In subsequent national polls, this growing alliance expanded to other agendas such as education and public security, a sort of new more radical religious cross-cutting conservative agenda that became a pillar of our national Congress today.

Today, this has been an important vector of anti-democratic political radicalization including intolerance and imposing specific norms and rules of behavior to the entire society. Just like in the USA, more than a problem of polarization, we are facing a providential and dangerous fundamentalist use of religion as a sort of political weapon. In conclusion of my remarks, I would like to underline that we do not fully apprehend all the layers behind the rise of a far-right that has expanded its social base and also occupies the public space to vocalize its demands in our society today. Understanding the role of religious groups in contemporary institutional politics, not only in Brazil, and how this is being played by anti-democratic and fundamentalist political groups has become essential. This is just the tip of the iceberg to better understand the ways to protect plural democracy in our countries.