by Alex Roldan
Notwithstanding the limousine gridlocks and grandstanding of the gathering of world leaders to assess the progress of Millennium Development Goals at the UN in New York on September 20-22, naysayers were already lining-up days before the arrival of eminences to show their disgust over implications of the goals set for many countries and the wavering commitment of support by many governments.
Since MDG was launched in September 2000, critics of the substance of the goals remain adamant. The goals, they say, were ill-chosen as national development goals when they’re meant to be applied to countries that have very different conditions. Worse, critics say, that the goals set the bar too high, penalizing better-run countries which do not meet the targets, but failing to take into account the vastly differing conditions of the countries they are measuring.
A set of eight targets for campaigns against starvation and gender discrimination and for the promotion of health, literacy and protection of the environment should not engender wild controversy. But radicals see the goals as a means to obscure the underlying realities such as growing economic inequality across the world and the damage wrought by perennial capitalist crises.
Actually, there are two contrasting positions on the viability of the MDG in effectively eliminating poverty around the world. These come from two economists who are both Americans. Jefrey Sachs, an advisor on development issues to the UN, is confident that “the end of poverty is at hand – within our generation. The Millennium Development Goals are bold but achievable – on the path to ending poverty by the year 2025.” This contention is the main basis of the “five-step plan to double-digit growth” which he wrote.
On the other hand, former IMF staffer-turned-critic of the development aid industry, William Easterly, lamented that “the setting of utopian goals means aid workers will focus on these unfeasible tasks – instead of the feasible tasks that will do some good.
Ten years have passed almost at the mid-way of the set goals and we still have to see what the real score really is. Realists see the goals not as a blueprint for transforming the human condition but as an essential way to mobilize political commitment and public support. Meaning, the true purpose of setting the goals is to make governments and other sectors commit to help eradicate poverty by at least 50% by 2025.
I am confused because the extant question remains: who should be held responsible for making sure that the goals are met? If the answer is “we’re all responsible,” therefore, in practical terms, nobody is responsible! For example, the Group-of-8 rich countries that met in 2005 in Scotland pledged to double their aid to poorest countries. That did not happen, and the prospect of all rich countries meeting their self-imposed target – that 0.7% of GDP should go to foreign aid – remains remote.
Even smaller commitments that rich countries gave to countries that were devastated by disasters such as Haiti, recent reports reveal that many have already reneged.
This brings us to another reality that summits are simply made a venue for the delegates to pronounce on the iniquities of malnutrition that seems to encapsulate the political compromises inherent in any global initiative.
The latest gathering of world leaders should at least remind them that the international system does not only offer character performances on the world stage, but it carries obligations.
For comments, e-mail to: roldanalex@yahoo.com
