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.