Creating decent work for all should be at the center of policymaking

On November 28, 2007, The United Nations released the 2007 Report on the World Social Situation. The report calls for governments to promote employment and decent work as their cornerstones of their economic and social policies. According to Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs Sha Zukang at a press briefing to launch the report, “Employment and decent work need to be not a by-product but a central objective of development strategies.”

The 2007 Report on the World Social Situation addresses the fact that productive employment and decent work are essential to reduce poverty and promote social development. In arguing for decent work, which is defined by the International Labor Organization (ILO), as satisfying for the person performing it, promotes personal development, and contributes to the well-being of families and society, these are some of the recent trends of international markets documented within the report:

• Labor markets have been evolving in the direction of greater economic insecurity and greater levels of inequality, limiting people’s opportunity to live a life of decent work and satisfactory employment;

• Governments and employers around the world, in their desire to remain or become competitive, have taken many steps to increase labor-market flexibility, thus increasing insecurity among most groups of workers;

• There has been a global spread of informal employment and short-term contracts, giving workers fewer entitlements and little sense of job security;

• The deregulation, privatization and marketization of social services has led to reductions in employment and income security, as well as a loss of voice and representation for workers providing these services

• Labor security is further undermined by the globalization of financial markets and the emergence of a globalized labor supply;

• Statutory regulation is being replaced by self-regulation as part of the liberalization that has accompanied globalization, increasing work insecurity;

• Standardized and collective contracts are giving way to more individualized contracts based on direct bargaining between employers and workers, further shifting the balance of power in favor of employers; and

• The principle of social insurance can no longer be considered the cornerstone of social protection systems, since it is weaker in economies dominated by informal economic activities.

Such recent trends have the international community worried. Mr. Sha pointed out at the press briefing that, “Globally, despite robust rates of economic growth, employment creation is lagging behind growth of the working-age population. From 1996 to 2006, global output expanded by 3.8 per cent per year, yet unemployment rates increased from 6 to 6.3 per cent. Economic growth and job growth are not trending together, to the detriment of our societies and citizens.” Furthermore, inequality within society continues to increase as workers with low education and limited skills are the ones being hardest hit. Unfortunately, current macroeconomic and social policies have not been successful in lowering unemployment rates to desirable levels. Therefore, with the release of this 2007 report, governments must utilize this information for intergovernmental discussion and policy analysis to ensure that economic growth promotes human development.

Empowering Women = Economic Development

On November 16, 2007, Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro stated, “When women are empowered, all of society benefits.” In speaking at the International Women Leaders Global Security Summit in New York that day, she elaborated upon the importance of empowering women to build healthier, better educated, more peaceful and more prosperous societies.

The international community has acknowledged the fact that achieving gender equality and empowering women is not only a goal in itself. It is also a condition for advancing development, peace, and security. As set forth by the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), gender equality is one of the main objectives to be achieved by 2015. Nevertheless, as the Deputy Secretary-General claims, “Study after study has shown us that, when women are fully empowered and engaged, all of society benefits. Only in this way can we successfully take on the enormous challenges confronting our world -- from conflict resolution and peace building to fighting AIDS and reaching all the other Millennium Development Goals.” Therefore, it seems that there is much more to do in order accomplish these MDGs. Though the goals sound extraordinary on paper, making real world progress is complicated and complex; financial support as wells societal changes must be coordinated to achieve such goals.

As of October 2000, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 which discussed women, peace, and security. This particular resolution was ‘a landmark on many fronts’ according to Migiro because it established the increasing, disproportionate and unconscionable tolls that modern conflict has taken on women and girls. Ultimately, there have been global goals and commitments focused on empowering women, but implementing them fully have been the greatest adversity. In her speech, Deputy Secretary-General Migiro commented that, “We [member states] in the United Nations system need to work better with Governments to establish truly joint programs, driven by national priorities. We need to work better as a team, so as to give countries access to a common entry point. And we need to appoint more women in leadership positions, at headquarters and in our peace operations around the world.” Recent studies have shown that in almost all countries, women continue to be underrepresented in decision-making positions. Furthermore, women’s work continues to be undervalued, underpaid, or not paid at all. Out of more than 100 million children who are not in school, the majority are girls. Out of more than 800 million adults who cannot read, the majority are women. Accordingly, violence against women and girls continues unabated in every continent, country and culture. Thus, Migiro prescribes specific changes required to alleviate the current situation:

• Ensuring that men take on a greater role in household and family care
• Challenging traditions and customs, stereotypes and harmful practices, that stand in the way of women and girls
• Ensuring that women have access to education and health care, property and land;
• Investing in infrastructure to make it easier for women and girls to go about the daily business of obtaining safe drinking water and food
• Integrating gender issues into the follow-up to United Nations resolutions and decisions including the work of recently established bodies such as the Peace Building Commission and the Human Rights Council.

Overall, there is a dire need for governments, international organizations, civil societies and private sectors to work together in partnership to ensure that these objectives instituted by the MDGs are fulfilled. However, it is because of illegitimate practices, as in those described in a fellow international relations colleague’s blog (IYE.ART), that hinder such efforts. In is essential that a true international effort be enacted to not only achieve global gendered equality, but more importantly, economic development; the key of which can solve the world’s problems.

Environmentally Friendly Energy Resources? No Thanks, Coal is Preferred

Current discourse about environmental sustainability and global warming is at an all time high. With all those hybrid cars, like the Toyota Prius, lurking on every street corner and movies, which wasn’t really a movie at all but a rather elongated PowerPoint presentation, like Al Gore’s and Inconvenient Truth hitting the big screen, more and more people are becoming aware of the potential environmental problems we face in the near future. Even the seventh goal of the United Nations’ MDGs is focused on environmental sustainability while promoting economic growth. However, according to a recent Associated Press article entitled, “World's coal dependency hits environment,” the international effort to integrate alternative energy resources is far from becoming a reality. In fact, dependency on coal is expected to drastically increase by 60 percent by 2030 to 6.9 billion tons a year. How then, can the UN increase environmental sustainability when the world continues to destroy the environment by consuming fossil fuels?

Coal is simply cheap and abundant. It is the fuel of choice in much of the world with a majority of it going towards electrical power plants. Accordingly, the fossil fuel is responsible for the economic booms in China and India and it has seemingly lifted millions of people out of poverty. Of course it is great to see economic development in parts of the world where poverty has been a longstanding issue, but because of the pollutants emitted by the burning of coal, the environment has suffered drastically. Most of the buzz on global warming today is an externality of carbon emissions. An atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, Dan Jaffe, states, “Hands down, coal is by far the dirtiest pollutant.” The growth of coal-burning is also directly related to environmental and health issues including acid rain and asthma. An estimated 2 million people are killed prematurely as a result of air pollution, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

It would be politically incorrect to point fingers at individual nations with respects to who is responsible for global warming because every nation has made their contributions. Yet, recent trends have shown that some countries are contributing more to the carbon mission than others. In fact, China and India have been on the forefront of polluting the environment. It takes five to 10 days for the pollution from China's coal-fired plants to make its way to the United States, like a slow-moving storm. An AP Environmental Writer, Michael Casey, comments in an article that it takes 5 to 10 days for the pollution from China's coal-fired plants to make its way to the United States, like a slow-moving storm. China’s pollutants have been found in the form of mercury in the bass and trout caught in Oregon's Willamette River and contributes to acid rain in Japan and South Korea.

Despite all the environmental concerns, China shows little desire to convert to alternative energy. A prime example would be population of the town of Taiyuan and the surrounding Shanxi Province. This area is China's top coal-producing region and one of its most polluted. Nevertheless, coal has turned poor farmers in this city of 3 million people into Mercedes-driving millionaires. Therefore, it all comes down to the power of money. I guess it’s time to think about what’s more important; a sustainable planet for future generations or wealth and pleasure today?

163 Million Women are Missing in Asia...

It’s too late for sorry. The United Nations’ failing attempts to achieve their Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are unrealistic as gender inequality continues to exist amidst the rapidly approaching 2015 deadline.

Experts at the 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights have estimated that there are 163 million women ‘missing’ in the Asia-Pacific region.

Therefore, with one of the main objectives of the MDGs being to promote gender equality, the overlying question here is how does the international community expect to empower women when there aren’t any to begin with?

But where have all these girls gone? The answer to this mind-boggling question can be best explained by studies commissioned by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). According to their research, millions of women have gone missing as result of modern gender determination techniques and selective abortions. Countries that have been contributing to the skewed sex ratios at birth (SRB) are the likes of China and India. The two nations have yielded SRBs amounting to just 100 females for every 120 males and 108 males per 100 females, respectively, according to the country’s 2001 census. The deputy executive director for UNFPA stated in a recent press conference, “We place it (skewed SRB) in the context of discrimination against women.” Yet it’s not to say that the countries with the most skewed SRBs have neglected this phenomenon. Renuka Chowdhry, India’s junior minister for women and child development describes the situation as, “When there is no economic recognition to women’s work and no social value attached to this particular gender, when resource sharing remains inequitable, when women are paid less then it becomes easier to do away with this gender.”

However, the most disturbing part of this whole ordeal is that initiatives enacted to mediate the problem have only been addressed as a result of the MDGs in 2000. But, knowledge of this ‘gendercide’ had been presented to the international community two decades ago in 1980.

In the late 1980s, Nobel Prize laureate Dr. Amartya Sen coined the term ‘missing women’ to describe the great numbers of women in the world who are literally not alive due to family neglect and discrimination. He estimated that in 1980, there were 100 million women missing, of which 50 million were accounted for in India alone.

Since Sen’s studies in the late 80s, experts have asserted that women are missing in South Asia not only due to neglect. In many cases, girls are missing because they are murdered at birth, or never allowed to be born. In South Asia, drastic measures are taken to eliminate girl children. These practices are most widely documented in India. An estimated 3 to 5 million female fetuses are aborted in India each year. Furthermore, in one study of a clinic in Bombay, 7999 out of 8000 aborted fetuses were female. However, the discrimination against women is so severe that efforts do not stop there. Many girl children are even killed as soon as they are born. Thus, experts suggest that these practices contribute to the unnaturally high risk of death for young girls.

So then, the only question left to answer is why girls are being discriminated against. After all, biologically, females are stronger and tend to live longer than males. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is hard for people like us – citizens living in a developed country – to fully understand. The logic behind gendercide derives from social implications. Particularly in poverty stricken nations, the female gender is typically seen as less productive in terms of contributing to a family’s household income. By being less desirable, boys are seen as essential because they are physically stronger and can work laborious jobs that flood the labor markets of less developed countries (LDCs).

Therefore, current actions taken up by the international community has come extremely late with respects to the MDGs. Having known about the gendercide since Sen’s studies in the 1980s, progress towards reaching key goals of equality and empowering women is highly improbable especially with the millions already ‘missing’ and the 2015 deadline just beyond the horizon.

Migrants' Contributions Exceed Figures of Foreign Aid

A recent United Nations study revealed that migrants working in industrialized countries sent home more money than donor nations did in foreign aid in 2006. I guess you’re wondering how much funds a group of migrant workers could provide in comparison to that of entire countries? To be exact, migrants working in developed countries (DCs) sent home an approximated $300 billion to their families in 2006 – surpassing the $104 billion provided by donor nations in foreign aid to less developed countries (LDCs). Therefore, how do international institutions like the U.N. expect to accomplish its objectives, as in those set forth by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), if migrants can provide more funds than it does in foreign aid?

According to Sending money home: Worldwide remittances to developing countries, a report generated by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Asia received the largest share of the remittances – more than $114 billion – followed by Latin America and the Caribbean with $68 billion, Eastern Europe with $51 billion, Africa with $39 billion, and the Near East with $29 billion. Kevin Cleaver, Assistant President of IFAD, stated in a U.N. News Centre article that, “[These figures], which [are] conservative estimates, shows that the seemingly small sums sent home by migrant workers when added together dwarf official development assistance.” The study also found that the remittances sent home regularly by more than 150 million migrants exceeded foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries, which in 2006 totaled around $167 billion.

Nevertheless, it would be quite impractical to try and regulate this phenomenon within the countries of which these funds are being outsourced. These transactions are typically sent in the denominations of hundreds of USD at a time, through more than 1.5 billion separate financial transactions. It can be argued that this money is not being recycled within the economy and is in turn hurting these countries. This has been one of the leading arguments for stricter immigration policy amongst advocates within the United States. However, to my knowledge, no nation has seemingly faltered as a result of this to date.

Instead of dwelling on the facts, policies should be set forth abroad by international institutions to productively guide these funds to stimulate economic growth. The report provided by IFAD shows that a majority of these remittances flow to families in rural areas, and is mostly used for basic necessities such as food, clothing and medicines. Yet, 10 to 20 percent is being saved, but not in the proper financial institutions. Therefore, to effectively utilize the money being saved in LDCs, which in 2006 would have amounted to between $30 and $60 billion, organizations like the U.N. should provide educational programs to encourage people in LDCs to save their money in financial institutions, which would then create major opportunities for local development.

In theory, in addition to increased foreign aid for LDCs, the U.N. must harness these funds and increase efforts to leverage remittance flows for greater development impact. The key to resolving the overlying problem of LDCs’ governments inefficiently allocating resources is to better direct their economic plans. If these remittances sent by migrants were effectively used by LDCs in addition to foreign aid provided by DCs, the total amount of funds available for economic growth in 2006 would have been, at most, $164 billion; not to mention the $167 billion already provided in the form of FDI that would have allowed for significant global progress towards accomplishing the MDGs.

Asia-Pacific Region Lag in Reaching Antipoverty Goals

On October 8, 2007, the United Nations publicly released a report in which assessed the progress of the Asia-Pacific region on reaching the antipoverty Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Results from this report have clearly shown that Asia and the Pacific are well on track and ahead of its peers in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa to reduce extreme poverty by half, attain universal education, and achieve gender parity in education by the target year 2015. Nevertheless the report seemingly yields mixed results as well. Some of which have made surprising correlations between antipoverty progress between Asia and the Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Based on findings within the report, parts of the Asia-Pacific region are severely lagging behind Africa in achieving specific MDGs. In fact, statistics show that Asia and the Pacific accounts for about two thirds of the world's underweight children. More than one in four children under the age of five is underweight. Furthermore, maternal deaths in Asia and the Pacific are anything but satisfactory. The region accounts for almost half of the global total, according to the report, The Millennium Development Goals: Progress in Asia and the Pacific 2007. The region's overall maternal mortality ratio, at over 300 per 100,000 live births, is more than 30 percent higher than in Latin America and the Caribbean. Unfortunately, these rates in many Asian countries exceed those of its regional counterparts.

According to a joint publication by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the UN Development Programme (UNDP), “The region's greatest challenges lie in addressing the issues of child mortality, malnutrition, improving maternal health and providing safe drinking water and sanitation facilities.” Haishan Fu, the Chief of the Statistics Development Section for UNESCAP believes, “The 2007 MDG progress report gives us an indication of what the region stands to gain if we intensify our efforts to meet the MDGs. We need to focus on those countries that are moving slowly or not making progress, and within those areas concentrate on improving the lives of the most vulnerable.”

Therefore, despite Asia and the Pacific’s monumental success in making progress towards achieving the MDGs, this report explicitly shows that even the most accomplished regions have much work to do before 2015. As the deadline quickly approaches, Asia is struggling to better the condition of the impoverished. When basic necessities of a healthy life like safe drinking water and sanitation facilities are not present, it’s practically impossible to lift millions of people out of poverty. Consequently, regions all over the world continue to struggle with the MDGs. Ultimately, when the most successful regions are having difficulty making progress, it puts into questions whether or not these goals can actually be completed.

Democrats and Relgion Go Hand In Hand?

In a recent post made by Stephen Mack entitled, “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual,” he outwardly argues that, “If there’s any truth to the old adage that religion and (liberal, democratic) politics don’t mix; it isn’t because they are polar opposites—an ideological oil reacting against a metaphysical water. Rather, it’s because they are, more or less, alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination.” I must say, Mack does make a really good point. Since my background centers on International Relations, there is a very fine line when it comes to differentiating between religion and politics. After all, the history of the United States all started in 1630 when according to Mack, “a prosperous lawyer by the name of John Winthrop and a band of English Puritans left the security of their English homes, migrated to the new American wilderness. There they launched one of the most daring experiments in Christian civil government the old world had ever seen.” The foundations of principles and morality essentially began with religion and implementing these fundamentals into law and order is what sparked the American way of life. It is true that these pioneers established the importance of separating church and state, but difference between religion and politics has constantly been a controversial topic; even till this day. It is different in the sense that the separation of church and state entails keeping government and religious institutions independent of one another, while religion and politics is not as easily distinguishable.

I guess the big debate here is that since government and religious institutions can not be one in the same, is it acceptable for politicians to use religion as grounds for campaigning? Mack comments on this debate state that:

What these liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there’s something dangerous in that. And they’re right. It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them—as much as possible—in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can’t be theological.

Nevertheless, politicians competing for the upper hand in the upcoming 2008 Presidential Election have taken particular interest in the issue; hoping to gain the support of the undoubted religious.

In a recent CNN article entitled, “Obama: GOP doesn’t own faith issue,” writer Peter Hamby comments on Senator Barack Obama’s campaign message to a multiracial evangelical congregation in traditionally conservative Greenville, South Carolina. Obama acknowledged in his speech that, “[He thinks] it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party. At least in politics, the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that oftentimes seemed intolerant or pushed people away.” It seems the Democratic candidates’ recent efforts in South Carolina are to reach out to Christian voters. And what better way than to comment on the most important issue to such an audience: religion. However, Obama’s attempts to reach out to a crowd of “church-going Republican primary voters” as Hamby put it, shows that religion is a controversial campaign issue, especially within the United States. Similar efforts by politicians beg the question as to how far some will go to get their votes. Yet, Obama’s speech in Greenville, I must say, was especially well designed. He never delved into religiously controversial issues but instead tip-toed around the general idea. I mean when you’re applauding evangelical leaders such as T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren for beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals have never done, and making statements like, “We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth,” it’s quite apparent to see what the main objective; to gain support.

Therefore, I believe that as long as politics are involved religious insight is not too far behind. I guess it’s because religion is an aspect of life that people can always resort to. But in a nation where religious freedom is embraced, using such issues to gain political support creates the foundation for debate. Politicians can not rely too heavily on such grounds because every person in the U.S. does not practice the same religion; resulting in conflicting views on particular key issues. The Democratic approach seems to have achieved a happy medium when it comes to religion, not that I’m stating my political position, by giving credit to the spiritual for their current views on key campaign issues. However, religion and politics remains to be a particularly sticky concern.

A Catholic Framework for Economic Life...

The issue of religion and politics has become an all but too common topic in political debates. I guess most people, like me, want to know where politicians should draw the line when it comes to including their religious views with their standpoints on certain campaign issues. I know that religion is where most of us grasp our sense of morality and foundations between what is right and what is wrong, but religious views have seemingly established the framework of political. Since my background focuses primarily on International Relations, I came across an interesting document that outlines certain economic policies that pursue Catholic ideals.

In 1996, the American bishops of the Catholic Church issued the following statement entitled, “A Catholic Framework for Economic Life.” Within this document, the bishops explain 10 principles that are directly drawn from Catholic teaching on economic life:

1. The economy exists for the person, not the person for the economy.

2. All economic life should be shaped by moral principles. Economic choices and institutions must be judged by how they protect or undermine the life and dignity of the human person, support the family, and serve the common good.

3. A fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring.

4. All people have a right to life and to secure the basic necessities of life (e.g., food, clothing shelter, education, healthcare, safe environment, economic security).

5. All people have the right to economic initiative, to productive work, to just wages and benefits, to decent working conditions as well as to organize and join unions or other associations.

6. All people, to the extent they are able, have a corresponding duty to work, a responsibility to provide for the needs of their families, and an obligation to contribute to the broader society.

7. In economic life free markets have both clear advantages and limits; government has essential responsibility to provide for the needs of their families, and an obligation to contribute to the broader society.

8. Society has a moral obligation, including governmental action where necessary, to assure opportunity, meet basic human needs, and pursue justice in economic life.

9. Workers, owners, managers, stockholders and consumers are moral agents in economic life. By our choices, initiative, creativity and investment, we enhance or diminish economic opportunity, community life, and social justice.

10. The global economy has moral dimensions and human consequences. Decisions in investment, trade, aid and development should protect human life and promote human rights, especially for those most in need wherever they might live on this globe.

Taking a look at these principles definitively shows how current economic policies within the U.S. share the views and goals of the Catholic Church. The one’s that are most apparent are the Catholic views of all people having the right to life and to secure the basic necessities of life. Indeed in the U.S. debates on abortion and social welfare are always key topics on politicians’ campaign agendas. We have actually seen such views flourish as programs like Social Security still play overwhelming roles in today’s society.

Furthermore, their view on having government intervention in an economy of free trade is one that surprises me the most considering current negotiations within the World Trade Organization (WTO). Foreign economic policy has been one of the greatest issues for the U.S. to date with respects to globalization and an internationally integrating world economy. Nevertheless, taking into account the current Doha Round of negotiations facilitated by the WTO, attempts to lower trade barriers around the world, permitting free trade between countries of varying prosperity are still high on the priority list.

I guess my point here is that religion and politics seemingly go hand in hand. In order to participate in political debates, you must develop a credible viewpoint. And most of the time our views are inspired by religious ideals; despite the fact that we might nit be aware of it.

Global Warming... Really?

In a recently published article by Inter Press Services’ (IPS), a news agency associated with the United Nations, reporter Stephen Leahy wrote on the United States and President Bush’s current position on the imperative issue of climate change. According to Leahy, “After years of denial, the U.S. White House-sponsored summit on climate change ended Friday, [September 28, 2007], with President George W. Bush admitting that global warming was real and humans were responsible and asking for heads of state to join him at yet another summit next year (when his presidency ends).” It seems that the U.S. has finally come to terms with the fact that it just might be humans and their practices of burning fossil fuels that have been the undisputable causes of global warming. As stated by Chris Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute, a U.S.-based environmental group, “President Bush has so little credibility on climate change,” which is of no surprise to me seeing as how throughout his presidency, he continued to push voluntary cuts to greenhouse gas emissions despite the fact that the rest of the world had already concluded that such an approach simply was not effective. Nevertheless, President Bush’s strategies towards dealing with climate change have been described as an attempt to derail the U.N. process on climate change. Apparently, the White House-sponsored summit was seen to be some sort of tactic to divert U.S. public and media attention away from the U.N. climate summit held earlier in the week, where more than 80 heads of state endorsed the concept of an international post-Kyoto agreement to cap emissions.

The U.S. has not been the ideal advocate against greenhouse gas emissions. Quite simply, it seems President Bush is intending to leave this issue up to the upcoming President. However, Bush is not left to entirely blame for the current U.S. position amidst international concern with climate change. The nation’s demise essentially began when it signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 because under the initial conditions, it was non-binding on the U.S. Consequently, no plans were made to ratify the Protocol because the U.S. thought it would be a threat to their economy if developing nations were not bound to measurable targets and timetables. Thus, the U.S. has failed to make a constructive effort towards the overall objective of the Kyoto Protocol, which is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, considering their status as the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels in 2005.

Coincidentally, the developing nations in which the U.S. used as an excuse to not comply with the Kyoto Protocol during the first round of negotiations, which include China and India, have instated automobile fuel efficiency requirements, a commitment to 15 percent renewable energy by 2020, and other concrete emissions reduction initiatives that far surpass U.S. efforts. Furthermore, during the second round of commitments period scheduled to take place in Bali, Indonesia in December of this year, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) plans to make further progress on the issue.

Critiques like Hans Verolme, director of the WWF’s Global Climate Change Programme, believe that, “Everyone is getting ready to move as soon as there's a change in the White House,” and I must say that I truly believe him. There is still much more progress that needs to seen in order to regulate to viciously changing climate. It’s hard to believe that of all living organisms on the planet, humans are the ones destroying the sole entity that allows them to thrive. I can’t say that I’m not for saving the soon-to-be extinct polar bears, but if current trends don’t change within the next few decades, drastic changes will be quite apparent throughout the world. I couldn’t put any better way myself, but as the former Vice President Al Gore puts it in his book An Inconvenient Truth, “Perhaps, but inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen. Indeed, when they are not responded to their significance doesn’t diminish; it grows.”

A United Nations Dilemma: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals

At the turn of the new millennium, it had become apparent to the international community that the harsh conditions under which millions of the world’s people were living, was an issue that crucially needed to be addressed. As a result, in September 2000, the United Nations (UN) organized the Millennium Summit where leaders from 189 nations agreed on a vision for the future. A future which entailed a world with less poverty, hunger and disease, prospects of greater survival for mothers and their children, better educated youths, equal opportunities for women, and a healthier environment. They envisioned a world in which developed and developing countries could work together for the betterment of all. This vision took the shape of eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which provided a framework for development planning for countries around the world, and time-bound targets by which progress could be measured. These eight MDGs were designated to be fulfilled by the year 2015. However, it is now 2007; the midway point of the life of these MDGs, and their progress towards being accomplished is anything but near. In some parts of the world advancement towards these goals has been on track, while others have made little or no progress. Therefore, in order to establish why some regions have made progress while others have not, it is essential to examine regional performance in achieving the MDGs.

Upon the completion of the Millennium Summit in 2000, the participating nations developed eight specific goals: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and develop a global partnership for development (Smith 24). Accordingly, each of these goals has precise indicators of achievement that allow for determining as to whether or not they will be met by 2015. To date, some significant progress has been made on reaching some of these goals in certain parts of the world, but the international effort on the whole is far from being at the state in which it should be at this point in time. There are two regions in particular that have generated most of the debate as to whether or not these international objectives are feasible. They are Asia and the Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa.

The Asia-Pacific region has been the more successful of the two in terms of pursuing the MDGs with respects to their deadline of 2015. Asia and the Pacific has been described as, “one of the world’s most dynamic regions,” which is of no surprise judging by the regions uplifting statistical results (Asian 1). With the first MDG responding to extreme poverty, the overall objective is to halve the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day and those who suffer from hunger (United 6). Following suit, based on The Millennium Development Goals Report 2007, the number of the world’s people in developing countries living on less than $1 a day fell to 980 million in 2004 – down from 1.25 billion in 1990 of which is mostly due to rapid economic growth in Asia (6). Eastern and Southeastern Asia, in particular, have exemplified impressive reductions in poverty with numbers falling from 931 million to 679 million, and accelerating growth in India has also put Southern Asia on track to achieve this goal by 2015 (Asian 1).

As a whole, the Asia-Pacific region is set to achieve a large majority of the MDGs by 2015. Progress on halving poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, and eliminating gender inequalities at all levels of education is more rapid than required to meet the targets. The prevalence and death rate associated with TB have started to fall and increases in protected forested areas and decreases in CO2 emissions suggest a reversal of the loss of environmental resources has begun. Nevertheless, success has not been widely shared by all developing countries in Asia and the Pacific.

Some of the countries that have showed the most difficulty in adhering to the goals are Armenia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Timor-Lest. Such nations have only recently started to convalesce from decades of war and civil strife, and their performance in terms of progress towards the MDGs and poverty reduction is weak. The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in Asia-Pacific have the region’s highest rates of child mortality, maternal mortality and TB prevalence and death. Moreover, even though several LDCs seem to be hindering the region’s advancements while others continue progress towards fulfilling the MDGs, reports have speculated that on the whole, current trends show that many countries are likely to miss vital targets, such as those for infant mortality, HIV prevalence and access to water and sanitation in urban areas (Smit 1). Consequently, such disparities in progress have led to the debate as to why varying results amongst regionally similar countries manage occur.

There is no easy explanation as to why some Asia-Pacific countries have progressed while others have not. Several factors ranging from national government participation to developed countries’ commitments to assistance plays an immense role in aiding these nations accomplish the task at hand. Thus, failure to follow through with the MDGs politically, economically, and socially has greatly set back this international effort. For the Asia-Pacific region, an integral part as to why countries have experienced mixed results is in large part due to the gains of progress not being shared by all. In the case of many LDCs, it is that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people are often left behind. Another reason why countries currently struggling to achieve can not easily turn around to progress results from the lack of adequate data to access the proper measures for assistance. This fault is clearly demonstrated in The Millennium Development Goals Report 2007, where only 23 countries out of 55 could provide sufficient data to prove that the proportion of people living on less than $1 per day fell from 31 to 20 per cent (8). As a result, it questions whether or not the region as a whole is fulfilling these goals or if certain countries that have amounted to grand achievements towards the MDGs are overshadowing the statistical figures.

Despite the difficulty of assessing whether countries are making a noble effort towards achieving their goals, one report on the Asia-Pacific situation has made something clear, “Much remains to be done if governments in the region are serious about delivering the MDG promises to their poor and to achieve sustainable development” (Asian 17). Currently, too many developing countries that display little progress commit only a small proportion of their GDP to the important sectors like health and education. Moreover, the countries of most concern in the region are often those not receiving enough from trade or aid. It is true that developing country governments have the principal responsibility of prioritizing national development and committing themselves to pursuing institutions and policies that essentially promote the sustainable economic growth required to achieve the MDGs. But to help the countries in dire need of assistance, developed countries must also deliver on their behalf of the global partnerships, which includes stepping up efforts to provide more, more efficient aid, and to ensure fair trade and a fair share of global prosperity for poor people.

In comparison, the sub-Saharan African region has yielded results that are not nearly as impressive as those of Asia and the Pacific. According to figures included in an MDG progress report on sub-Saharan Africa, the regions efforts in moving towards the MDGs has been inadequate, especially for the poor: 23 countries are failing in half or more of the goals, and 12 do not have enough sufficient data to be assessed, which leaves a mere 10 countries on track to meeting half the goals or more (U.N. 1). Of these countries that have managed to achieve some success are Uganda, Ghana, and Botswana. They are on course towards halving poverty and have achieved sustainable economic growth over the last few years. Others include Cape Verde, Egypt, Gabon, Mauritius, Namibia, Swaziland and Rwanda which will, in all likelihood, achieve universal education, because of high political commitment (MDGs). However significant progress with respects to one or two of the eight MDGs is incredibly unsatisfactory; especially for an entire region. In the case of sub-Saharan Africa, the negative results certainly outweigh those that are positive.

The region has an average economic growth rate of about 3.3 percent a year, which indicates that most Sub-Saharan African countries will not achieve the goal of eradicating extreme poverty, and the number of the poor in the region, is more than likely to increase (Africa 10). Furthermore, advancements in health and education are especially inadequate. One report prescribes that in order for sub-Saharan Africa countries to achieve the MDGs dealing with health concerns, the region will need to triple its health workforce by 2015, which means adding more than a million workers (Berg). Such outrageous figures clearly display the lack of progress within the region.

Therefore, steps towards remedying the distress within the sub-Saharan region centers around reforming economic and political policies. Economic growth must be at the center of the strategy to achieve the MDGs but to promote sustained growth, policy and institutional change must ensue. On that note, Andy Berg and Zia Qureshi, the authors of “The MDGs: Building Momentum,” have clarified this reformation process:

Promoting sustained growth requires particular attention to three areas: deepening recent progress on macroeconomic management; improving the environment for private sector activity; and strengthening public sector governance. For sub-Saharan countries that have achieved broad macroeconomic stability, better public expenditure management is key to sustaining it and creating fiscal space for critical investments. Excessive regulatory and institutional constraints must be removed to invigorate the private sector. This should include a push to simplify regulations for starting a business, secure property rights, strengthen contract enforcement and the rule of law, and improve weak infrastructure. Sub-Saharan Africa seriously lags other regions in all of these dimensions. For instance, investment in infrastructure in the region will need to almost double over the next decade. But most important, governance must be improved. Recent progress on political governance, as reflected in a trend toward more representative governments, must be translated more clearly into progress on economic governance—such as improved public sector management and less corruption (Berg).

Accordingly, these changes that Berg and Qureshi prescribe are quite impossible without increased international support. Nations of the sub-Sahara African region do not have the sufficient institutions and human resources to make this a reality so it is up to developed countries to provide proper assistance. As stated in the eighth MDG, the goal is to develop a global partnership for development so that LDCs’ special needs can be addressed (Smith 24).

After analyzing the regional perspectives of progress towards the U.N. MDGs, it is definitely apparent that intense work and worldwide cooperation are required to make these global imitative become a reality. As exemplified by both Asia and the Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa, similar issues with the assessment of MDG progress arise despite the very different levels of achievement each region has accomplished. It seems as though statistical data is crucial for assessing the progress of the MDGs and if they are not readily available, establishing solutions to countries’ problems become extremely difficult.

International institutions like the U.N. encounter great adversities when it comes to implementing global objectives like those of the MDGs. What seems to be the biggest problem is that although the 189 member-states agreed to the goals at the Millennium Summit, there is no obligation for these nations to cooperate. As stated by one report, the donor community has been dragging its feet in providing the pledged 0.7 percent of gross national incomes to help kick start African economies and extricate countries from gross poverty (MDGs).

On an international scale, the MDGs are certainly aspects of the world that would be ideal for the future. However, with the target date of 2015 quickly approaching and the current inadequate state of countries around the world, the achievements that the goals project are anything but realistic. Yet, it is not to say that that a world of peace and prosperity is not unimaginable. As Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon states in his forward of the The Millennium Development Goals Report 2007:

This will require inclusive sound governance, increased public investment economic growth, enhanced productive capacity, and the creation of decent work. Success in some countries demonstrates that rapid and large-scale progress towards the MDGs is feasible if we combine strong government leadership, good policies and practical strategies for scaling up public investments in vital areas with adequate financial and technical support from the international community. To achieve the Goals, nationally-owned development strategies and budgets must be aligned with them. This must be backed up by adequate financing within the global partnership for development and its framework for mutual accountability.

Thus, prospects of world where countries would work together for the betterment of all is not impossible, it is just not realistic by the year 2015.

BIBLIOGRAPHY



African Development Bank. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Africa: Progress, Prospects, and Policy Implications. Global Poverty Report, 2002.



Asian Development Bank, U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and thePacific. A Future Within Reach: Reshaping Institutions in a Region of Disparities to Meet the Millennium Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: United Nations Publications, 2005.



Berg, Andy and Zia Qureshi. “The MDGs: Building Momentum.” Finance & Development. Sept. 2005. 12 Sept. 2007. <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/09/berg.htm>.



“MDGs - It's not the money but what you do with it.” MDGs in Africa: A Challenge for Change. 2005. U.N. Economic Commission for Africa. 12 Sept. 2007. <http://www.uneca.org/mdgs/Story1September05.asp>.


Smit, Jan. “The Millennium Development Goals: Progress in Asia and the Pacific 2006.” Millennium Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific. 12 Sept. 2007.
<http://www.mdgasiapacific.org/files/shared_folder/documents/MDGProgress206.pdf>.



Smith, Stephen C., and Michael P. Todaro. Economic Development. 9th ed. New York: Pearson Addison Wesley, 2006.



U.N. Economic and Social Council. “Progress towards Millennium Development Goalsfor Human Resources Development in Africa.” MDG Progress in Sub-Saharan Africa. 1 July 2002. 12 Sept. 2007. <http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/meetings/hl2002/MDGs1.pdf>.



United Nations. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2007. New York: U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2007.

HOORAY for Indigenous People

On September 13, 2007, at the United Nations in New York, a majority of the 192 member states voted in favor of a resolution calling for the adoption of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text essentially gives indigenous people the rights to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations. This monumental day for native peoples marked an end to the 22 years of negotiations. According to the Inter Press Services News Agency, "Leaders of the world's 370 million indigenous people have won a powerful symbolic victory in their fight for recognition of the right to self-determination and control over their land and resources."

A more insightful look at the voting process that was conducted within the General Assembly that day, shows that 143 Member States voted in favor, 11 abstained and four, which included Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, voted against the text. It's of no surprise that these of all member states of the U.N. would vote against the Declaration, particularly the U.S. At least Canada gave reasoning for their vote which ultimately came to their “significant concerns” about the language in the document.

Nevertheless, what's truly surprising is the manner in which the peace-loving, human rights fighting, United States voted. As commented by Arthur Manuel, a leader of Canada's indigenous peoples, "The entire wealth of the United States, Canada, and other so-called modern states is built on the poverty and human rights violations of their indigenous peoples." His statement becomes seemingly valid when you think about the history of the United States. Is this not the same country that built itself on the suffering of an entire nation predominantly inhabited by indigenous people? Today, these natives of the United States commonly referred to as "Native Americans" and not Indians, have somehow been able to preserve their indigenous lifestyle on what the U.S. governments call "reserves."

Here's a map to depict the vast amount of territory they possess today:


If you so desired to inquire about what tribes these territories belong to you can find out more here.

Nevertheless, it's not that shocking that the United States didn't vote in favor of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples because after all when you give your indigenous people their own territories, take care of their children educationally, and allow them to create casinos on their land, what more do you need to give them?

World Hold On...

This site will be up shortly.