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.