Food for a thought from here to 2015
------------------------------------
Human Rights Reader 126
MDGs ARE TO (EVENTUALLY) END EXTREME POVERTY, NOT MOST POVERTY;
SO, WHERE ARE HUMAN RIGHTS LEFT?
How can we be content with health for half when health for all
is possible? The MDGs are too little too late. Let's face it:
The 1978 Alma Ata Declaration could, much more fittingly, be
called the "People's- Millennium-Goals-for-Health". (Wim De Ceu-
kelaire)
1. In all honesty, what the MDGs have done is to infuse neolib-
eral priorities into development policies using only the 'lan-
guage' of human rights (HR). They have been an attempt to 'wash-
the-face-of-neoliberalism' without touching the structural
causes of poverty in the world. Conversely, the genuine language
of rights is powerful; it implies standards of what is unaccept-
able in society. So, the real goal of the MDGs ought to be more
than achieving certain average, arbitrary benchmarks; they ought
to pursue greater equity or, better even, they actually ought to
pursue greater justice --and one of the best ways we have of en-
suring justice is the fulfillment of HR beyond pure lip service.
(Y. Susskind)
2. While all MDGs seem plausible in their own right, the priori-
ties were, as said, arbitrarily set. And, at that, they were of-
ten prescribed from outside --so much so that they represent a
form of dubious 'actionism', i.e., pretending to be vehicles-of-
real-change. Are they thus just another attempt to achieve good
looking statistics?
3. The MDGs cannot be achieved without respect for HR overall
and in particular for minority rights. They cannot be achieved
without redistributive steps either. (But beware: Redistribution
always takes place: just not from the rich to the poor!). I
would say that poverty reduction without redistribution is only
to be seen as flimsy rhetoric.
4. The MDGs can be seen as the-goals-of-the-industrialized-
countries-for-the-developing-countries; they are a watered-down
version of earlier international goals, now simply rescheduled
for later achievement. MDGs mostly refer to the consequences of
maldevelopment, but that does not mean that development will be
brought about by achieving them. As MDGs consider development a
technical problem that should be solved by technical means, they
focus on measurable technical indicators. The solutions being
offered focus on quick fixes. The whole Millennium Declaration,
from which the MDGs are drawn, does not make any reference to
the causes of poverty, of HR violations and of hunger. (W. de
Ceukelaire)
5. In the best of cases, only if the structural causes of pov-
erty in India and China can be overcome can the aim of halving
global absolute poverty be achieved by 2015. (This, since over
50% of the world's poor live in these two countries).
6. Otherwise, to achieve the MDGs, economic growth in Africa has
to climb-to and stay at 7%/year. Sub-Saharan Africa recorded
barely a 4% growth in 2003, i.e., half of the growth needed. But
in this continent, too much aid may be the enemy of achieving
the MDGs. (for example, there are 600 projects in the social
sector alone funded by the EU and its member states in Tanza-
nia). Is anybody keeping track?
7. Finally, market liberalization strategies are oblivious to
the MDGs. Corporations are not geared to invest in helping
achieve them. This, despite the fact that corporations know it
takes a minimum of education for people to become addressable
consumers (advertising needs to be read!); even then, transna-
tional corporations still ignore the education MDGs. They also
ignore the economic and health MDGs (as much as the prevailing
practice of self-medication is resulting in huge profits for
pharmaceutical houses). Is greed making them short-sighted?
Claudio Schuftan
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
mailto:claudio@hcmc.netnam.vn
Mostly adapted from D+C, 32:5, May 2005, D+C 32:6, June 2005,
D+C, 32:7, July 2005, and D+C 32:8/9, Aug/Sep 2005.