When incorporating disability and development together, we run across the “Grand Challenge”. This is a challenge but also an opportunity for the world in which all people with disability are and feel included. Currently, more than one billion people in the world live with some form of disability which, in fact, is about 15% of every country’s population in the world. There may be physical impairment, but there are other components to disability like mobility and blind or visually or deaf or hard-of-hearing impaired barriers that people face. This goes to show that at any point in time, anyone can be become disabled. These barriers to such physical impairment can hinder their everyday actions regarding transportation, education, ICTs, employment, and political representation. Grand challenges are very difficult to resolve but they are very important problems.
We should care for this because of the moral rationality to this, because it is the right thing to do. Also, there is an economic rationale which is an universal design and provides accessibility that benefits everyone. Economically, there may be job creation and economic development opportunities are made by addressing the “Grand Challenge”. Additionally, there are legal and policy rationales that incorporates the CRPD—UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is one of the fastest-growing human rights treaty in history. This factors in human rights instruments and development (socioeconomic) instrument. There are many articles within CRPD that demonstrates the shift become medical model to the social justice rights-based model. The United States has not ratified the CRPD and therefore, this becomes a critical time in the United States for people to have a paradigm shift.
The “Grand Challenges” are pretty time-bound and they seem to be ambitious goals but achievable. They aren’t impossible so we should strive to reach these goals. One thing that I’ve learned from this capstone class and about inclusive sustainable development is the fact that this study is very multidisciplinary. From Obama’s administration, there was a shift and from his administration, there was more of a focus on science and technology—a mobilization of our goals. Goals are so pertinent to achieving the global challenge, especially if they are attainable and achievable.
There are many actors involved in achieving the “Grand Challenge” and the UN DESA (Department of Education and Social Affairs), the Office of the High Commission of Human Rights within the Committee on the Rights of Disabilities. The MDGs were started as goals without persons with disabilities. Therefore, SDGs had goals that included the persons with disabilities. Since we saw that there is a high correlation between disability and poverty, we can have development for people with disabilities, but it should definitely include persons with disabilities. The study of inclusive sustainable development is such an interdisciplinary field of study where we find the relationships between these subject matters and need to consider various components and stakeholders for achieving these initiatives and goals.
Internet governance was a very controversial topic at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) from the General Assembly, as an awakening of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. There are many approaches to the Internet governance issue, and we understand that it should be inclusive and responsive. However, to what extent should certain stakeholders be involved and how does the multistakeholder policy dialogue change the ways that the discussions are brought out?
Once exploring the Internet Governance Forum, we are able to see how various stakeholders are involved in order to address the topics of internet through the discussion of public policies encompassing these issues. Hence, the “IGF is a global multistakeholder platform that facilitates the discussion of public policy issues pertaining to the internet. There are many initiatives and topics discussed within the forum. In terms of the issues discussed in the 12th meeting of the IGF in 2017, with the on-going industrial revolution, there are topics regarding the impact of modern technologies in the industry, society, and the economy. The new digital economy and sustainable development, are they really create opportunities for everyone or are they actually creating a digital divide? My understanding of this “deepening of divide” is that while more people who already have access to technologies are become even more powerful and enablers of changing the society through online platforms; those who do not have the internet access and who do not have the available resources to access anything via Internet, they are experiencing and even greater gap and isolation from the society utilizing the Internet as the main platform for important issues like policy making, decision making, and even just basic human rights. Some other topics that are brought about at the IGF are cybersecurity, AI, Blockchains and bitcoins, fake news, access, inclusion and diversity. I find that these topics are quite critical and require an interdisciplinary approach to learning (with cybersecurity, development, sustainability, and technologies) and understanding our “Internet Governance”.
The IGF is an Annual Meeting for Internet Governance Forum which has an overarching theme that differs every year. In 2019 November, the Government of Germany in Berlin hosted the 14th Annual Meeting with the overarching theme: One World. One Net. One Vision. IGF serves to bring people together the stakeholder groups for all of them to be treated equally and discuss the policy issues that is related to the Internet. This forum is intended to influence various public and private sectors to work together and exchange information to have a better understanding of how the Internet can help maximize the opportunities of our international development.
In a time of digital transformation, internet governance is integral to the study of global governance and international development. Within the definition of internet governance, the words development and government are all included. There are many stakeholders important to the study of internet governance. Because so much of society utilizes the Internet to do anything, many business decisions, procedures, programs are regulated through the Internet. The platforms accessible on the internet allows for more stakeholder groupings to be involved. For instance, for those who are not able to attend a development conference because of a certain disability or because of proximity, they are able to access the conference virtually and even contribute through that chat function or through video calls. Although the Internet has revolutionized a lot of our experiences and gave us more opportunities to perform certain tasks, there is a certain risk factor that we need to take into consideration. There are incidences where some people can have too much power or access over other people’s personal data, with a powerful internet system, sometimes there are risks of cyber-attacks and insecure internet systems. For this reason, we need governance of our Internet.
To me personally, internet governance is a fascinating topic for us to understand the implications and application to the global frameworks that have been discussed in our Senior Capstone class: Inclusive Sustainable Development. There is a huge role that technology plays because we have integrated systems and we are able to have a space that allows for more agility and opens up time and space to communicate across a wide range of groups. The internet seems to lack its governance; therefore, we need regulations by actors. But the question is, who is really governing the Internet and to what extent should the U.S. government be in charge of our Internet accessibilities or data? Do people understand what Internet Governance is? To what extent should the government have control over Internet Governance?
The multistakeholder approach for internet governance has the idea of decentralizing institutions and governance, opening it up to include everyone and allowing for full participation by all (including persons with disabilities), and having an open-mind aspect for innovation. From my opinion, this approach does work. These components play a huge role in understanding the international norm for enabling decision-making to be accountable, sustainable and effective for all stakeholders. Therefore, there is the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that allows for people to incorporate and adapt to new challenges surrounding the Internet. I believe what’s truly important to evaluate here is the ability to meet new challenges that evolves around the idea of inclusiveness and transparency.
The concept of intersectionality is a phenomenal study that looks into the social, political identities combine and studies the nature of the interconnected-ness of the social categories like race, nationality, rank, status, class, and many more that is associated to one individual or a group and is shaped in a way that could become of discrimination or disadvantage is a group or larger setting. Intersectionality is really important to understanding the inclusivity discussion in development on a global scale. Because there are so many people in the world, there are many concepts and groupings of diversity that needs to be incorporated in the discussion of inclusion. More specifically, for the understanding of the concept of intersectionality, when studying these things internationally and having a global agenda like the UCLF (United Cities and Local Governments), we need to keep an eye out for how international processes are governed through inclusiveness means. For this reason, intersectionality helps us to understand what these components include and how they all people should be valued and listened to regardless of how one’s identity is composed.
The concept of intersectionality affects inclusive sustainable development as seen by such forums and summits. The GovTech Summit happening in Paris oversees how new startups and entrepreneurs are successfully “breaking into the public sector”. At this time, it is critical that government entities are understanding the importance of private firms and the role of technology that is flourishing our current GovTech ecosystems. For example, take a look at what AWS is doing and how there has been a huge transformation from physical infrastructures to the cloud. What the government is concerned with is the security and transparency of data. The private firms are willing to bring this transformation of data and store it in the cloud. There have been many efforts from the government like the DevSecOps which integrates the practices of security within the DevOps process.
Therefore, the inclusive environments like GovTech Summit enables tech starters and all other stakeholders like government agencies to come to one table and discuss the transformation of our nations’ important discussions to the incorporation of technology. For instance, GovTech Summit had discussions on transforming health care through technology, leapfrogging towards a digital government by delivering effective and sustainable technological development in the economy. The summit and the impacts from it recognized that there are multiple stakeholders that need to be in par with the initiatives—those stakeholders include: national governments, local economies, and decision-makers (on a grassroots level), multilateral organizations, and development banks.
The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner developed the CRPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) as a framework for the first human rights convention of this time.The CRPD provisions are supported by human rights indicators as well as a list of articles. When we think about CRPD as a framework for development, the implementation of human rights indications are clearly sought out for, especially in regards to CRPD linkage to the SDGs. This type of consultation supports the “Bridging of Gaps” as a means of strength
ening the rights of persons with disabilities in mutual consultation with the CRPD and the SDGs. The cool thing about the CRPDs is that these indicators are closely linked to the SDGs. Additionally, they specify the importance of monitoring, reporting, and implementing the targets and indicators listed in each of the SDGs. Then, how are SDGs relevant?
Building the world’s smart sustainable cities together is one of 17 goals (SDG 11) of the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. In 2018, the UN High-level Political Forum (HLPF) met to discuss some goals, SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) being one of them. With rapid urbanization and movement of people from rural to urban cities, the growth of cities is staggering. In today’s society, mass potentiality also bring challenges to maximize Information Technology (IT) and Internet of Things (IoT). I cannot emphasize enough the impact of “big data” and how “data is king”. Through the indicators and targets of SDG 11, we are able to come to solutions that truly enable cities to become smart and sustainable.
Development is a key thematic area of focus within the study of international affairs. Although I do not come from the background of ‘Development’, these theoretical and conceptual approaches are very familiar to an international relations researcher, like myself. In fact, development theories reach deeper into the practicality of solving foundational issues which are commonly based on economic or social policies. According to Development Studies literature, such approaches in development consists of means, opportunities and substantive freedoms that bring human beings value.