The Millennium Development Goals are all well and good, but they cannot be achieved or surpassed without addressing the imbalance of power in the international system, writes Ramzy Baroud* When the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were first declared, they were met with a sense of promise. A decade later, despite official insistence that all is on track, it is increasingly clear that this approach to development was flawed from the onset. For 10 years, numerous committees, international and local organisations and independent researchers have tirelessly mulled over all sorts of indicators, numbers, charts and statistical data relating to extreme poverty and hunger, universal primary education, gender equality, child mortality, and so on. The conclusions derived weren't necessarily grim. And the sincerity of the many men and women who have indefatigably worked to ensure that the eight development goals -- agreed to by all 192 UN member states and over 20 international organisations -- were fully implemented cannot in any way be denigrated. They were the ones who brought the issue to the fore, and they continue to push forward with resolve and determination. The problem lies with the concept itself, and with the naive trust that governments and politicians -- whether rich or poor, democratic or authoritarian, leading global wars or trying to steer clear of the abyss of famine -- could possibly share one common, selfless and unconditional love for humanity, including the poor, the disadvantaged, hungry and the ill. The utopian scenario might be attainable one day, but it certainly won't be anytime soon. So why commit to such goals, with specific deadlines and regular reports, if genuine global consensus is unachievable? Since its inception, the United Nations has sustained two conflicting agendas. One is undemocratic, championed by those who wield veto power in the UN Security Council. The other is egalitarian, embodied in the UN General Assembly. The latter reflects the global mood and international opinion much more accurately than the former, which is largely dictatorial and caters only to power. As a result, two conflicting sets of ideas and behaviour have emerged in the last six decades. One imposes sanctions, leads wars and destroys nations, and the other offers a helping hand, builds a school and shelters a refugee. The latter offers assistance, albeit on a relatively small scale. The former spreads devastation and destruction on a grand scale. The MDGs evolved from the heart of this dilemma that continues to afflict the UN and undermine its noble principles. For now, MDGs have to settle for being a true reflection of peoples' aspirations, but with little expectation of achievable results. That does not mean there is no good news. On the contrary, there will always be reasons to compel us to push further towards desired change. Since 8 September 2000, the day in which the General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration Goals, many encouraging results have been reported. Although progress, as reported during the 2005 World Summit, has fallen short of set targets, much has been achieved. On 23 June, Charles Abugre, director for Africa of the UN MDGs campaign, presented the 2010 Millennium Development Goals Report in Berlin. The same report was simultaneously presented in New York and Paris. According to its findings, the 2008 food crisis and 2009 financial crises didn't stop progress, but they certainly made the goal of reducing global poverty by half "more difficult to achieve". Abugre nonetheless said that progress has been made throughout the world, with the exception of Central Asia, which is "riven by war and armed conflicts". In areas such as child mortality and combating epidemics, there has been little or no progress. Moreover, "environmental degradation continues at an alarming pace," according to Abugre. "CO2 emissions have even increased by almost 50 per cent over the past 17 years, and in spite of a minor slowdown in emissions due to the [global] crisis are set to increase further." It is important to mention that some countries are much closer to succeeding with their MDGs than others. China, for instance, has slashed the number of its poor by a huge margin, while other countries have fallen deeper into poverty. While the numbers offer strong enough reason to maintain a global push for reducing poverty, there is little evidence to suggest that the improvement is in any way related to the global pledge of 2000. It may well be a reflection of the state of affairs of individual countries. For example, China's economic progress is hardly related to the September 2000 meeting, and Afghanistan never really opted for the US- NATO invasion of 2001, which eliminated any realistic chance for the country to ever meet such seemingly lofty standards. In its constant search for consensus, the General Assembly's goals hardly view development from a critical perspective. They do not take into account the way in which structural adjustment policies, designed by international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, forced poor countries into debt and extreme poverty in the first place. They also ignore the way in which rich and powerful countries, in their quest for military, economic and political dominance, ensure the subordination of poor, politically fragile and militarily weak countries. Of course, delving into the real issues would undermine the futile search for consensus, threatening the "amiable" image of the General Assembly. Such issues are left to the Security Council or those members of it whose "opinion" truly counts and who regularly prescribe decisive and cruel policies. All of this is not to say that the MDGs should be relegated to the backburner. Every noble effort should be supported and lauded. But unwarranted optimism can border on folly if one intentionally ignores the dynamic of lasting change, whether at a micro or macro levels. Discussion of the MDGs should not come at the expense of realism and truth, and it should certainly not serve as but another feel-good moment for the rich, while humiliating further the poor. * The writer is editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
