THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS GIVE POOR

PEOPLE FALSE HOPE.

In September 2000 at the UN Summit, heads of Governments from 189

countries across the globe signed the millennium declaration. This millennium
declaration was “built on pledges made in the series of important UN
conferences of the 1990s”(Global Future 1st quarter 2004). From this
declaration on human rights, gender equity, environment, peace, and the
priorities of the least developed countries and Africa, the eight Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) were set.

Defined as time-bound and measurable goals and targets for combating

poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation and
discrimination against women, many were those who believed that the MDGs
would he the best source of hope for poor people in the world. But I speak for
the motion that the MDGs give poor people false hope.

In summary, the MDGs seek to

• Eradicate extreme poverty
• Achieve Universal primary education
• Empower women and promote equality between women and men
• Reduce child mortality
• Improve maternal health
• Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
• Ensure environmental sustainability
• Develop a global partnership for development.

To begin with a critical look at the details of the MDGs shows that the time
period set for majority of the MDGs is from 1990 to 2015 that is, twenty five
years (25). The declaration itself was made in 2000 September at the
millennium summit. This means that the leaders of the world in setting the
goals for themselves did so ten years into their own schedule, perhaps to cut
down on the population of the world which obviously was lower in 1990. The
world leaders also showed a lack of urgency in the execution of the MDGs
because they waited till the International Conference on Financing for
Development early in 2002 at Monterrey Mexico, before money and other
resources were committed to the programme (Implementing the Millennium
Declaration UN fact sheet 2002). Two more precious years were further lost in
waiting. And then in 2003 the USA-led war on Iraq shifted debate from “How
the international system can reduce poverty to whether there was an
international system at all” Accordingly, rich nations failed to deliver on their
commitments on the Monterrey Commitment (McArthur J. et al Global future
1st quarter 2004). This shows that whereas the world was in a race against
time to fulfil the MDGs the there was somewhat a lack of full commitment by
the world leaders to pressing issues.

Added to this the UN publication (Implementing the Millennium Declarations

October 2002) stated the MDGs are measurable, that 11 million young people
die every year and 1 in 48 mothers risk dying in child birth. That 1.2 billion
people live on less than 1 dollar a day. The question that arises is how these
statistics were reached. Taking Ghana for instance, the last time a population
census was conducted was in 2000 that is eight years ago simply because it
is very expensive to do so and the case might not be any different in other
developing countries. This raises obvious doubts about the accuracy of the
figures being quoted by the UN. What about the children and the poor and
rural settings who have no access to hospitals, schools and other amenities
where data is collected? This group of people form the vast majority in
developing countries.

There is also the issue of different UN bodies running multiple programmes,

which seek to address the same problems. In 1998 for example, the UN body
WHO launched the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) programme, which seeks to halve
malaria associated mortality by 2010. With no report released by the RBM
programme the UN still allows it to run alongside the MDG 6. The same
applies to the tuberculosis (Direct Observation and Therapy System)
programme of 1991 run by the WHO which coexist with the MDG 6 which also
covers tuberculosis. Would the UN and WHO not be more efficient if they
concentrated all the funds on one programme and run it other than in the
two, which seek to address the same problems? The end result is waste and
inefficiency

In conclusion, my opinion is that the MDGs ought to be met but considering

the stillbirth of the whole programme, the short time frame, the unnecessary
competition among the UN bodies on the same issues and the enormous
work that is to be done it will be suicidal for poor people to put their hope in
it.

Cephas Joshua Beujung Samwini

Second Year Agriculture Student of
Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and
Technology.
Kumasi, Ghana.