The Millennium Development Goals
Read about the MDGs and review each of the eight goals. What do you think of this initiative? Do you think we will be able to achieve these gaols by 2015? Read the 2005 report on the MDG and assess the progress of the intitiative.
73 Comments:
I think that it is very interesting that 43.5% of the world's poor, which are characterized by living below one dollar per day, are from South Asia. Whenever I think of the really poor areas of the world, I automatically think of Africa, with places such as Somalia and Ethiopia, but Africa only accounts for 25% of the world’s poor people. I guess these numbers are due to the fact that South Asia has such a high population, with China and India both having populations over 1 billion people each. It is very interesting because China and India have both been predicted by many experts to become global superpowers before this century is over…2050 has been a popular year for predictors to say this will happen. However, I think that 2015, which is in 10 years is a little too soon for India or China to be complete world powers. Although China and India have many people that live comfortably, since they have so many people, the amount of people that are poor is very large…I think that it will be very hard to solve this extreme problem of poverty as well as all of the other eight goals within the next 10 years, but maybe within the next 50 years would be a more fair estimate.
Kandis Kovalsky
November 21, 2005
The main goal that concerns me the most is the fifth, maternal health. On January 22, 2001, on his first business day in office, President George W. Bush re-imposed the Global Gag Rule on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) population program. This policy restricts foreign NGOs that receive USAID family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion. 78,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions, a statistic that could more or less be eliminated with appropriate health information and services, as well as legal reform efforts. Organizations that are well suited to provide comprehensive reproductive health-care services, including abortion in countries where it is legal, will lose their funding or be frozen out of seeking U.S. aid. Nepal has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in South Asiain in which 539 out of 100,000 die from pregnancy-related complications, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. Half of these deaths are caused by unsfe abortion. On September 26, 2002, however, the King of Nepal signed a historic law that legalized abortion on broad grounds. Despite the landmark reform of the abortion law, safe abortion services will remain out of reach for many women in Nepal, particularly rural and low-income women, thus furthering the demarcation of poverty. The Bush Administration’s global gag rule poses as an added barrier by preventing the organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance from providing or advocating for any aobrtion-related services. These organizations also will not be able to provide counseling or referrals for women to obtain abortion services elsewhere. To provide safe abortion services, these organizations would have to risk bankruptcy and forego U.S. family planning assistance-the largest source of such foreign aid in Nepal.
By reducing funding to reproductive health care providers in third world countries, the Global Gag Rule decreases a woman's ability to access pregnancy-related care, family planning, and services for HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmissible infections. Cuts in family planning funding mean higher rates of unintended pregnancy and spreading of disease without proper health care. This leads directly to the 6th goal regarding disease, specifically HIV/AIDS.
Until the health of men and women are addressed equally, the goals defined to combat poverty will not be obtained any time soon.
I agree with the ideas Millennium Development Goals. However, the deadline to reach these goals is only ten years away. I believe that developing a global partnership is very important step in improving living conditions for all the planets inhabitants. The people who are starving are living in countries that are not benefiting from globalization. People living in these impoverished nations can barely afford to eat if they are lucky enough to get jobs. They are also the ones severely affected by diseases because they cannot afford medication. Women are dying during childbirth, because if there are nay complications, the chances of them receiving good medical attention in the poorest countries is very small. The richer countries need to extend more energy fight global poverty. For the Millennium Development Goals to be successful, countries like the United States need to be able to provide cheaper drugs to poorer nations. In Africa, AIDS will continue to spread unless protection because cheaper and more readily available. Almost 30% of the world lives on less then one dollar a day, of which has to go to food so they can survive. Because of globalization, the rich are getting richer and the some of the poor are getting poorer. We need to need to enforce more global rights for civilians, such as increasing minimum wage, provide cheaper medication, and educate people about protecting themselves from diseases and ways not to spread them.
Megan O'Toole 11/21/05
I was pretty surprised when reading this article. I had assumed that the extremely poor region in the world was the area of Africa. Upon reading this article though, it was evident that numerous areas in Asia, are incredibly poor. The spread of disease in Africa is a huge problem, but people living in underdeveloped areas of Asia face similar problems. Also as a previous blogger stated that the millenium goal is creeping up on us, but it doesnt sound as though these problems will be corrected at the time preferred.
Josh Kalish 11/21/05
I think that the Millennium Development Goals are a good start and a worthy cause, however it seems that many of their goals are not achievable by 2015. Unfortunately with an initiative as all incompasing as this one truly is, it becomes something that needs so much money and so much effort that governments and individuals look at it and think 'wouldn't it be nice if we could do all that' but don't give the support that is needed to complete it. I think that some of the data was very promising because in most areas analzyed, in most of the goal areas there was some slight improvement. I think that the overall report was an important one, but it does not provide any real suggestions for specific problems in specific areas. The report and the intiative would be more effective if after this report was completed, there were specialized groups for each region that proposed specific solutions and funding needed to reach these goals.
The Millennium Development Goals are a positive step in the right direction and a good means to keeping countries around the world aware of the severe problems that still face us all in 2005. I want to be optimistic and say that reaching these goals is possible by 2015, but the reality of the situation is that it is highly unlikely. Although progress has been made in some areas, it is very obvious that we have a long way to go in 10 years. The MDG states, “We have the means at hand to ensure that nearly every country can make good on the promises of the Goals. Our challenge is to deploy those means”. This will be a challenge indeed, and I think the only way to make any headway in these areas is to constantly have progress reports delivered to the UN by various governments to keep the goals realistic and moving forward. I think one of the most difficult goals to be achieved is #3 which says,“promote gender equality and empower women”. This ideology goes against cultural ideals and religions practiced by a majority of people around the world and to get them to change their views on life in 10 years doesn’t seem probable. Regardless, this document is important and if carried out in practice, as it was designed in theory, our world may be on the path to greater success, equality, and quality of life.
Michael Donahue 11/21
I think that these Development Goals are a nice idea, but that is all they are. There is no way that these goals can be fully reached by the year 2015. For years the United States has had the production and distribution capabilities to feed most of, if not the entire world, yet we haven't done that because we wish to keep our produce prices high and the amount of money requiered for such a job would be enormous. The idea of providing complete primary education for every child is, again, a dream. Complete, quality, education is something that the United States is still having trouble with. No Child Left Behind was an attempt to deal with this issue, but the program itself is falling behind. In the end, these Goals are nice things to point at and say that we are doing something to help developing nations. But the Goals will take much longer than 10 years to complete and even then they will only be completed if there is some measurable benifit for the developed nations to help out. In a capitalistic, democratic world people are only going to give the needed effort if there is something in it for them.
Paul Thompson 11/21
Reaching these goals by 2015 would be a very good thing, but like everyone else, I think it is highly unlikely. In the beginning of the report, it is stated that "we have the means at hand to ensure that nearly every country can make good on the promises of the Goals". While this might be true, I feel that this has been the case for some time now. But because of economic and political reasons, the "means" have been held back from these developing countries. While I think all of these goals are extremely commendable and worthwhile, more effort needs to be put in from developed and developing countries. A lot of emphasis should also be put on sub-Saharan Africa, especially since they were specifically mentioned during several of the goal descriptions.
Just because I do not think all of these goals will be fully achieved by 2015 does not mean I don't think every country should try. If countries put 100% effort into these goals, we might not reach them by 2015, but we will reach them much sooner than without such a persistent effort.
Marissa Brescia 11.21.05
While it may seem that these goals are extreme for such a short 15 year time period, I think that it was necessary of the UN to set such a limit. This brings an element of necessity to work on the goals because of the imminence of the date. If such a short goal was not set, I think the world as a whole would tend to dismiss the goals as merely ideals. The 2015 target may not be very practical since every country cannot focus on these goals alone and "break with business as usual". However, it provides a standard for both developing and developed countries world-wide to strive for.
Katie Ruiz
November 22, 2005
I think that the most significant aspect of the Millennium Development Goals is very formulation of a fairly comprehensive agenda. As we can see from the 2005 report, in most areas we have made some progress, yet just like the other bloggers I question is it realistic to expect that these goals will be met by the current deadline. Many others, including Kofi Annan himself, believe that the agenda can be accomplished by 2015. However, one thing that we all can agree on is that these goals provide a particular vision of what should be done. Regardless of success of failure in 2015, various governments and organizations will still have internationally accepted agenda to guide their efforts in helping the poor.
Juris Pupcenoks 11/22
The idea behind the millennium development goals seems like a very good plan but it looks like it will fail in some of the areas that it was trying to fix. Some of the areas that it is attempting to work on are actually getting worse or have made very little improvement since 1990, more people are living on less than $1 a day in Sub-Saharan Africa as well as CIS countries and more people are living with insufficient food in Western Asia and Northern Africa has not made any improvements with regards to that. While i don't think that these goals will be reached in the next 10 years i do think that the effort should not stop and the fact that it looks like the goals will not be reached in all areas means that more effort needs to be put into those areas. These issues all relate to one another and you cant try to solve one without solving the others so a great deal of time will be needed to fix what is wrong in all the countries.
kevin burke
nov 25
As with my other classmates I tend to believe though the intentions of these goals give hope and strive, serious institutional changes must occur. These goals tend to be linked and with the decrease in percentage of one issue, a decrease in another should occur. The best way to achieve these goals involves development of the global economy in issue plagued countries. China saw a monumental decrease of about 10 percent, poverty wise. Its no coincidence that China has also experienced a momentous boom in it's economy. With more businesses, jobs can be created. The greater flow of income taxes also allows for better services to aid the poor, sick, uneducated and famished. Africa and other south eastern countries must market themselves and become valuable players in the global community to increase internal capital flow. The biggest cure to all these issues is the leveling or redistribution of wealth. Most of the worlds wealth is concentrated among elite businesses and small percentage of the population. Although highly unlikely, if there was an organization granted power to monitor a required percentage of wealth beyond a certain point, transitioned to aid the poor; these goals would stand a much higher chance of achievement.
M.Andrew Campanelli
11/26
Many people's first thought is that Africa breeds the poorest people. But since my family is from Africa, i never thought of it that way. Media mostly covers poor places in Africa, although there are just as many (if not more) in South Asia. But these towns and cities have barely half of the media coverage.
Even though i do believe in the Millennium Development goals, i dont believe that they will happen in the next ten years. There is too much to be corrected and not enough time to do it in. Altough it is good that the UN set a time limit, I think a more reasonable time limit could have been set.
The growing epidemic of AIDS in Africa contributes to other problems afflicting the area. AIDS generates less productivity from the population, more poverty, and many health implications. If the people were educated further of the virus and ways of protecting themselves, this should reduce the numbers. Although many NGOs and missionaries have assumed this role, this is not enough. Those currently with AIDS tend to lack productivity due to health problems. If the greedy drug companies would sell generic AIDS inhibitors, than more people living with the virus could have the health and incentive needed to be productive.
After taking a second glance at this report, I feel it is extremely necessary to stress the importance of Goal 7 which is aimed at ensuring environmental sustainability. To some it may appear secondary to the other 6; however, it in fact encompasses them. Currently, half of the developing world lacks improved sanitation and nearly one billion people don't have access to clean drinking water. While equality and education are obviously very important, none of these goals can be achieved if the people fighting for these things keep dying from contaminated water and disease. With many of these areas growing rapidly in population, clean water is a matter of life or death. One organization that is working to help bring clean water to these areas is Ethos. Ethos Water is natural spring water that helps children around the world. Each purchase contributes directly because for every bottle bought 5 cents is contributed to the fund. The company’s goals is to donate $10 million dollars over the next 5 years.
Michael Donahue 11/27
I think that is good that these goals were created, but I think some of the goals are unrealistic to be finished by 2015. For example goal number two, achieve universal primary education is a goal that will not be reached by 2015. I am a history education major and there is no way that by 2015 that everyone will have the access to primary education. There are tribes that are living in the rain forest in Africa that must people do not even know about. Do you think that they will be able to have access to primary education by 2015? Also since some parents are not educated they do not see the point in having their children educated. The parents think that their children are better to be helping out at home rather then going to school. The government and agencies will have a huge problem convincing and keeping children in school by 2015. Achieving universal primary education is a long process and involves more then just setting up schools.
Stacey Closterman 11/27
This post has been removed by the author.
When faced with the question, "what do you think of these initiatives," the answer is clear. The United Nations Millenium Development Goals are many things; brave, beautiful, and euphoric. The problems that are listed in the objective are serious problems that our world is facing; disease, poverty, gender inequality, death, and the list goes on. But to propose the alleviation of these societal detriments, we are proposing a miracle. Yes, we are working for these goals. Yes, we would all love to see these things occur. But when you are facing problems that are so far intertwined with each other, these goals are seemingly more problematic. It is a perilous cycle of evil that we are facing. We have widespread disease leading to poverty and death. It also leads to a lack of education which leads to gender inequality which further perpetuates the other issues of developmental problems and environmental instability. And these problems, in turn, lead to more disease, more death, more poverty. The goals are incredibly important, yet with the causes of our problems being the effects of our problems and vice versa, trying to set goals as separate entities seems unwise. I was impressed by the goals and the plans that were proposed in the article. Do I believe that we can achieve these desired goals by 2015, no. But, the desire to reach these goals will offer a push that we had been lacking. The United Nations is clearly trying hard to fix what they can. By reducing or eradicating education costs, we may be able to increase education, which may lead to medical advancements, which may lead to a decline in disease, or at least an increase in quality medical care, which could offset the high death rates in poverty stricken countries. The data is truely staggering and the numbers are daunting, but the UN has proposed goals, and goals, even if not attained in the manner planned, make change.
Lauren Price
11/28/05
I don’t think that we will be able to achieve the goals set forth by 2015. I’m not sure that we’ll ever be able to fully eradicate things such as poverty and diseases. These are noble goals indeed, and perhaps I am being a bit cynical, but these problems are so ingrained in society and with the population growing as it is I doubt that the right people are hearing the messages.
A bad omen though, is the goal to end gender disparity in primary and secondary educations by 2005. This has obviously not happened as is pointed out on page 10 of MDG Book. Though it is good that the disparity in gender in education is decreasing.
I would also like to comment on the fact that there are three different goals that deal with women. The three goals are the education, empowerment, and maternal health of women. Those can all be under the same heading as empowerment. I feel like splitting them up is the wrong way to approach women’s lives because they are all very much intertwined. (In fact, under empowerment at least two of the graphs have to do with schooling still.)
I feel as though this is a good step, but not enough is being done if the goals are really going to be reached by 2015. These goals are idealistic at best and unattainable at worst. I know that if nothing else, they are worth trying to reach.
Adria Andersen
11/28/05
Most of the MDG's are obvious statements of what our world needs to improve on. Why we need all these organizations to get together and tell us that we need more equality and less starvation is a waste of time and money.
Sorry, posted 11-28 by Sean Guidera
The United Nation’s Millennium Developmental Goals report thoroughly explains eight goals that the UN is working towards to better the international community. These goals focus on underdeveloped regions plagued by hunger, inequality, disease, child mortality etc. The goals put forth by this initiative are absolutely necessary for the betterment of the global population and I agree that the United Nations should be working to achieve them. However, I think that the timeframe in which the UN plans to accomplish these goals may be a little idealistic. Yet, the UN does give many encouraging statistics in the report of how much progress has already been made.
The report was very educational, describing the status of different regions and their current improvements. I noticed, for instance, a great improvement of Latin American countries on several different issues. It was also very informative on the progress that the UN has made since 1990 in addressing the major world issues. One thing that I would have liked to see more of in the report would be more of an explanation of how the UN plans to achieve these goals in the next decade. The report contains many graphs and information about what is wrong, what needs to be fixed, and the improvement made since 1990; however there is not as much description of future plans of reaching each of the goals. I think that their plan of action would be very interesting to read.
This post has been removed by the author.
Fifteen years really is not a long time when dealing with these millennium development goals. I'm not certain that by the time fifteen years roles around that the problems will be solved. I think they will be in working progress, but not solved. Another thing to take into consideration is how will the solved problems stay that way. Will the poverty rate in the effected countries go back up only to be brought down again?
Although I had blogged in earlier, writing about my reaction to the article, and how surprised I was about the current developement goals, I have come to the conclusion that, although the goals are certainly not so attainable, it is a step in the right direction. The fact of the matter is, the world can not be pessimistic in regard to the current state of underdeveloped nations. We as a society have to believe in the possibility of underdeveloped nations improving within the time annointed.
Josh Kalish 11/28
I agree that these aren't realistic goals, but the one thing a lot of people have failed to address is that nobody other than the UN is focusing on global humanitarian initiatives. Kofi Annon said a week ago that the primary goal, eradicating world hunger, is NOT on track, especially in Africa. International events, such as the recent Pakistani earthquake, are complicating factors. Additionally, individual countries are not financially supporting the UN's initiatives. It's frustrating because people have no global focus. Few Americans know about or care to know about international attrocities, such as the current Darfur situation. Or if they know about these problems, people fail to take action. They assume someone else will. Well with these guidelines people have an opportunity to step up. I'd really like to see at least one or two of these goals met by 2015. The goals are purposefully broad. It's easy for people to find the negative and focus on that. How about we figure out a way to help these initiatives become a reality. Pick one.
Identifying "Millennium Development Goals" is an excellent initiative, though identifying the ultimate end without clearly examining the means available and necessary to achieve that end makes the initiative a “nice idea” instead of a “practical process.” The objectives are clear, but the process is the key element necessary but unfortunately absent. This initiative seems similar to the “No Child Left Behind” initiative recently instituted domestically, and appears to fall short in the same manner, that is, the goal is clear, but the appropriate process is not, and the appropriate resources were never considered. There must be reasons that these goals have not already been realized, be it political, economic, or social factors, and without an included recommendation for process changes, or, more likely, ideological changes, these goals will remain out of reach. Even with the necessary inclusions, a ten year time frame seems unrealistic, as such a widespread change and a reinvention of values and understanding is a process that, if it can happen, will happen slowly.
Matthew Shalk
November 28, 2005
This post has been removed by the author.
After reading the eight goals of the Millennium Declaration, I must commend the authors of the report for their efforts to promote positive change for the world's poor (albeit overly idealistic). While perusing the goals set forth, I realized that human ingenuity often develops technology to overcome most of what this planet throws at us; that often times the technology is available but it is not distributed to the people who need it most. I just read in my Popular Science about the LifeStraw, a $5 personal filter that cleans and purifies water simply through the force of the handler's suction of the water through the straw's filters. This has been hailed as perhaps the best hope yet for the 1.1 billion people without access to safe drinking water. I have also read of genetically modified grains and rice that can more effectively withstand droughts and insects; thus allowing for the cultivation of larger amounts of food in impoverished areas around the world. Perhaps technology and human ingenuity will save us after all.
This is an interesting article because the millenium goals are problems that the nations of our world have wanted to solve for as long as I can remember. I believe these are very important issues that need to be addressed, poverty and HIV/AIDS have been long standing issues. However, I agree that it seems very unlikely that within the next ten years the poverty rate could be halved. With so many people in South Asia, much help is needed. I believe much improvement can be made, I just think for a population as large as India's and China's, there needs to more time to accomplish these goals. The HIV/AIDS epidemic I believe, however, will take more time and maybe more focus on more strategic plans in order to help this crisis. So many people in third world countries, especially in Africa, are infected, and while there are and have been many efforts to help reduce this number, much of the help being offered and giving is being redirected and not focussed on the main issue. HIV/AIDS has already done so much damage, that simply treating people can't solve all of the problems. There are so many other factors affecting nations that stems from HIV/AIDS, like a high number of orphaned children,lack of education. and high unemployment rates. Overall, I think these millenium goals are important, I think there needs to be more time though and more strategic planning in order to solve any of these problems in the next half a century.
In theory the millenium development goals sound wonderful, however implementation by the deadline of 2015 seems near impossible. The goals attempt to bypass the regular growth of development and in 10 years have the people living in a safe, healthy, and forward world. The reasons that countries such as America and Western Europe are setting the standards is because we were the first imperialist countries, and only because of the world wars did we diminish our roles in monopolizing trade and the creation of goods. These countries were just small colonies, that had their raw materials exploited, then shipped to the mother country and then sold back to them once they were finished goods. It has taken a lot of time for those countries to try and build themselves up after such strong control was taken over them. I have no doubts that all countries will continue to grow and thrive, but fastforwarding years of development might set them up for failure. Shortcuts rarely pay off in the end.
I agree with Maria, the HIV/ Aids epidemic is one of the biggest issues facing our world. Perhaps these initiatives were created to light a fire under drug development companies in finding drugs that improve the quality of life or even a cure one day. Many of our worlds problems can be chalked up to lack of education. Perhaps if the goal is met of educating all children the world will one day begin to understand how to protect itself from such terrible diseases. The future of our world depends on the success of these goal, i just doubt they will all be achieved in my life time.
I would like to think these goals could be reached within my life time, but it will take some serious effort by our global community. To add to Lauren's comment, I think that education is one of the most important focusses our world must have. HIV/AIDS will continue to be a problem if young men and women in third world countries don't even know what the disease is or understand it due to a lack of education. So many people infected with the HIV/AIDS epidemic are living in the impoverished rural villages of Africa, some of the most vulnerable, poor and illiterate places in the world. We need to focus on the spread of education. People can't identify a problem without understanding it or even knowing what it is.
I don't know how the UN can propose all of these goals and try to say that they will be solved ten years from now. About five of the goals stem directly from wealth. If poverty can be eliminated then in a sort of waterfall effect maternal and child mortality rates will go down, education will increase and in turn more research will be able to be done relating to HIV/AIDS and other major diseases. But how many years has poverty been a serious problem. I don't think i would be wrong in assuming it is in great excess of ten. The UN seems to think that they will be able to fix such a serious problem in so few years though. Environmental sustainability is not a realistic goal either. For everything the environment is used for to keep the economies of the major countries going, do you really think they will just say, "You know what, I think we should let our business go under and support the environment instead"? No, these companies are more concerned with their money and success whether or not they are destroying the environment. And the partnership between nations with no currency issues and open trade between all nations is also ridiculous. The fact that we have any wars going on in the world at all right now makes that impossible. Its like saying hey lets have world peace. The only attainable goal might be better gender equality in some part. But then there are countries like Saudi Arabia where women must have chaperones whenever they go into public. These laws might not be so easily changed by the UN. I know that the UN would love to make the world that much better of a place but I do not think that they once mentioned how they would go about this. With a set of high goals and no means with which to accomplish these aspirations, no real progress can be expected.
Matt Linder
Novenber 29, 2005
I feel that we sometimes take for granted just how lucky we are to be living in the United States. Even today in class we discussed how most things do go in our favor to be successful. Dr. Khan mentioned just how difficult it is to fail in America. We face such a different world every morning when we wake up than the people living in these underdeveloped countries. I can truly not even imagine facing the problems that were discussed in this article on a daily basis. Living in a place without opportunity and hope must be devastating. The number of children that are malnourished and are dying everyday is astonishing. It is unbelievable to me just how many children are not in school and have received no formal education. This article has given me appreciation for the place I live. This nation has given me so many opportunities and has allowed me to pursue my dreams without much difficulty.
November 29, 2005
Power in the UN is heavily dominated by developed nations, and they are taking the burden upon themselves to try to enhance the quality of life in poverty-stricken countries. However, I find it very interesting that many of the problems facing the developing world are direct or indirect results of the actions of the developed nations. Almost all of the MDGs lean toward the common theme of global equality. The UN strives towards a more level global “playing field” with regard to economics, education, healthcare, and environmental sustainability. I believe that the first step towards achievement of these ideals would be to acknowledge that the developed nations are largely responsible for the problems being addressed by the MDGs. Economic development seems to be the common underlying objective for nearly all of the MDGs, yet institutions established by developed nations, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, inhibit movement toward global economic equality. Also, the UN claims to fight for environmental sustainability, yet developed nations (particularly the United States), are the major culprits of environmental desecration. Even more bothersome is the fact that the U.S. has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, refusing to join the fight to protect the earth’s depleted resources.
Langley Bowers
11/29
The sheer numbers of people dying or that are in danger of dying are shocking. When I thought of the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped areas, I thought of sub-Sahara Africa right away because of the all the problems that continue to develop there, but seeing as how two thirds of the world is in South and East Asia, it’s understandable that this area is having the most trouble.
Ryan Fernandez
November 29, 2005
With these eight goals in mind, none of them are impossible and half of them seem like they could be reached by 2015. The first goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger seems to be the hardest goal because of the enormous effort it would take to eliminate this issue. The global costs alone would take much more than ten years to achieve an end to world poverty and hunger. However, the goals like education, equality, environment, and healthcare are all something that will create a foundation for the first goal and will certainly lead to a chain reaction of improvement. The more formal education and healthcare the third world has, the more there is an increased likelihood that the third world will develop globally and produce stability.
Healthcare is probably the most immediate and necessary issue that needs to be addressed in South Asia and Africa. The problem of disease in the third world is a threat to all age groups—most vulnerable groups being pregnant woman and children. Once we find a way to successfully battle famine and disease, health rates in impoverished areas will finally begin to rise. The effects of aid to these areas will not be visible immediately but you can already see rises in areas like education and equality of women. These areas give a sense of hope to issues like hunger and disease in third world countries and offer opportunities for these areas to rise from the poverty it can't seem to get out of.
It is interesting that the majority of the bloggers have been surprised by the fact that South Asia holds 43.5% of the worlds poor. What has bothered me most is the fact that the marker of the poverty line is one U.S. dollar per day. It is apparent that the gap between wealthy and poor is so vast that it seems increasingly impossible to begin to fix this gap. The goal year of 2050 seems extremely ambitious especially at a time when two countries are on the brink of becoming super powers in the world's economic market. The goals that are expected to be reached by 2050 could not happen if China and India are unable to reach levels of product anticipated in the layout of progress. It will be interesting to watch over the next 45 years to see how well the world solves the problem of international poverty.
I feel as though even if these goals are not all 100% attainable by the year 2015, they are still important to strive toward. The bar should always be set high to motivate developing as well as developed nations to really work together to at least reach a higher notch than the status quo. That said, I have a small critique on the comments concerning the first goal. The two resasons listed as set backs in areas of improvement concerning hunger and poverty are that of conflict and natural disaster. I feel as though not enough credit was given to recent efforts to combat the negative effects that natural disasters can have on poverty and hunger. When the tsunami hit Asia, global efforts were made to contribute to the rebuilding of the area and of the lives of survivors. Enormous amounts of money were gathered to supposrt this cause and many fundraisers were created to change a negative situation into one of hope. I never expected to see such levels of generosity to such a seemingly distant place, a place that many donators don't think about and are not directly effected on a persoanl level on a daily basis. Then, the US was hit with Katrina and the generosity did not dwindle because of recent efforts at rebuilding Asia. People abandoned their own interests and went to the devestated area to use their talents to help those in need. Many people are raising money to rebuild as well. Admittedly, this is not a major region of the world that has needed such attention in the past as it is part of a developed nation, but the point still stands; there have been many efforts to counteract natural disaster devastation and its negative effect on hunger and poverty in recent times, and I feel that credit should be given to such measures. While there is still a long way to go to improve hunger and poverty situtaions around the world, I think that such generosity should be further looked into as a possible way to combat such atrocities.
I'm wondering why it is that the global community (as in the community of nations) are better at reacting than acting proactively. Although some nations are working toward positive global goals, the world community doesn't come together to combat things like world hunger or the status of women. A case can be made that wealthy countries give aid to poor countries as a means to alleviate ills such as hunger, but there are not enough cases of countries unifing their strength toward positive goals. In reality, leaders (such as in the US) are cutting funds for poor nations who use donated money for family planning, which is a REALLY IMPORTANT aspect of raising the status of women. When women can slow their rate of their reproduction (or start their reproduction later in life) through the use of birth control they can take a more active role in society. Women can recieve more education, they can become breadwinners, and they can certainly lessen their reliance on a male partner to provide for them. Their children will also have a higher standard of living. Providing for 4 children is a lot easier than providing for 10 or 12. Simple programs can cause great change.
The Millennium Development Goals represent a very necessary initiative in undertaking many of the world’s solvable problems. However, as with much UN development rhetoric, they are highly unrealistic given the current disparity between industrialized and developing countries. The UN, being dominated by the industrialized world, is setting out to accomplish groundbreaking goals that challenge the very nature of the countries wielding power within the UN. Changing trade standards, promoting environmental sustainability, promoting international aid, improving maternal and child health, and, of course, eradicating poverty, while all are just causes, present a challenge to the foundations for western power. The US is unfortunately a perfect example. US self-centered foreign policy never accounts for any of the mentioned goals. Instead, unequal trade relationships take advantage of developing countries, and arguably perpetuate much of the poverty in the world today. Refusing to sign onto accepted scientific evidence for global warming and the very real dangers arising from environmental misuse by not signing onto the Kyoto Protocol blatantly goes against promoting environmental sustainability. And, it slaps countries like Tuvalu in the face, which are already literally losing ground to rising sea level. But, a small island country like Tuvalu obviously has little influence in promoting the MDGs. Poor business practices, which exist to increase profits, produce serious environmental pollution and even cause health side effects. Much of US aid is ineffective and reflective of ulterior motives. Pure aid lacking the combination of infrastructure development and promotion of sufficiency only perpetuates problems in developing countries by not allowing Third World governments to really address the issues. And, no one can say that the US government favors improving maternal health or reducing child mortality. As someone mentioned previously, the instatement of the Global Gag Rule, with all of its implications for international family planning and health care has shown the world that the US simply does not care, as it effectively removes funding for services (that are ironically available to women and families in industrialized countries including the US) surrounding reproductive health in places that need it the most. Unfortunately, the actions of the US have a huge impact on the success of the MDGs. However, I do disagree with many expressed opinions regarding the time frame for the implementation of the Goals. I think the UN by aiming to improve conditions in the Goals by 2015, sent a clear message that the world needed to get a jump-start on development. Countless NGOs, many IGOs, and foreign governments have taken the MDGs to the head of much of their focus and planning. I think the MDGs, in this way, have coordinated a huge amount of energy to solving the outlined problems, and have had some success, as outlined in the 2005 report. I also feel that the 2015 target for many of the goals could be very easily achieved if all countries added the MDGs to their list of priorities. However, that would require a global ethic or obligation to improve the conditions of people around the world. This global ethic is something present in many UN agreements, and which is lacking in most governments, which could have a greater impact on the MDGs than all the NGOs working towards them right now.
Stephen Stolte
11/29/05
The world's poor population seems to be concentrated in Asia, and Africa. The overwhelming misconception is that most of the World's population in poverty come from Africa, however they account for 25% of the worlds poor population while Asia accounts for roughly 44%. The greater number of poor people in Asia which is defined as living below one dollar per day does not necessarily mean that Asia is in worse condition than Africa. The nations of Asia have greater wealth as a whole and do not have the same problems with disease. "The Millennium Development Goals" are a great idea however is just unrealistic to be reached by 2015. If many people in Western Nations such as the United States still live in poverty how can we hope to solve the problems in Nations that are so far behind in terms of quality of life.
for above post
11/30,,1:39pm
for above post
11/30,,1:39pm
11/30/05
My main concern is the death rates of children under the age of five. It was very upseting to see the true numbers of how many children are dying each day and each year, 11 million a year and 30,000 a day. That is a lot of children especially since most of these children are dying of preventable and treatable diseases. While looking at the chart I noticed that there was a very slight drop from 1990 to 2003 in the death rate, but it is very very small. Malnutrition is large factor in the death of young children but as the report states that with raising incomes will help with this. Also with more people becoming educated about diseases and such may help. The second leading cause is measles. A disease that does have vaccine. By looking at the chart it seems that more children are getting this vaccine but in some countries less children are getting them then in 1990. For example Oceania, sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia are still lagging. About 1/3 of these countries children are unprotected. I just hope that things will continue to improve in these developing nations and I hope by 2015 that the target rate is closely reached.
for post way above 11/26
The very idea that the world will come together to organize a way of achieving these goals ever, aside from doing it within the next decade, speaks volumes. What she is forgetting is the ugly reality that the final say in all decisions are made by those who speak loudest. And as the saying goes, "Money talks, and BS walks", and in this case, money is screaming and BS is dreaming. The idea of having pharmesutical companies donate free medicine, and companies developing economies, and countries forgiving debt are all wonderful ideas, but who will supply, and what is the incentive for doing all of these things? The very thought of "business as usual" being halted, as she stated, is rediculously nieve, almost as much as the notion that even a single one of these goals can be accomplished before 2015. Aside from that, I believe this is an exellent plan to spark progress in these directions, and helps to strengthen the recognition of an emerging global society that will be more socially concious of its population as a whole.
These goals seem to have been made under the assumption that all governments of the world function under the same agenda. Unfortunately, they are forgetting that many of the most poor and third-world countries are not so open to recieving assistance and doing business with outside nations. Many third-world countries' political systems are plagued by curruption, that in most cases are realated to criminal agendas such as organized crime. This was illustrated in the film Dev by the terrorist organization that planned to intenionally enhance the poor conditions of a segment of the population as a way of keeping underground political themes. This will be an obsacle in progressing with the MDG's.
The reading states that there are 189 nations involved in the efforts for the Millenium Developement Goals. That's quite a great many, but what else is being done in regards to the goals. I am curious to know if there are any other efforts being shown in the world today. For instance, what is the role of NGO's on these goals?
To comment on Andrew Wilbur's question of what role do NGO's play in helping achieve the goals set out in The Millennium Development Goals Report, I looked up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This NGO has donated over 25 billion dollars to date; funding global education and health initiatives. By far the largest charitable organization in the United States today, this NGO has given nearly 45 million dollars in grants SO FAR THIS YEAR just towards HIV and AIDS research and prevention. This is more money than most countries of the world donate to Any cause. For ONE NGO to be able to make more of a difference than most of the United Nations members (who the report is aimed for) is truly a remarkable feat and should be commended.
After reading the report, I think the eight goals are a great start to taking action on things that really need to be addressed. The goal date of 2015 I feel is a very premature. While reading through some of the goals I reflected on my own personal experience of living overseas. Living in South-East Asia I saw first hand the tragic effects of diseases such as AIDS. The devastation may be mainly focused in Africa, but it still needs to be addressed in other parts of the world. I visited a local orphanage on a school trip, and saw many young children who either lost their parents to AIDS or were suffering themselves from the disease. It was heart breaking to know that many of them would never be able to get the proper medicine or treatment. I feel the goal to combat these deadly diseases is extremely important, and hopefully more progress will be made in the coming decade.
-Laura Coogan 11/29 7:03pm
In response to Sean Guidera, I can see your point. The goals set out for MDG are in fact obvious problems that needs world attention. The world leaders met at the United Nations in 2000, and set targets for these goals. It took them 5 years to set theses 8 goals (and some work)! Now, 5 years later, they are going to decide on how to achieve them. With that said, they propose that all 8 goals will be accomplished in the next 10 years. If it took 5 years and millions of dollars to figure out the 8 goals, then how long to do you think it will take to accomplish all 8 goals?
Also, I agree that all 8 goals are problems that need a solution. However, the ranking of some of these goals are not right. Goal #1is Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, Goal #3 is Promote gender equality and empower women then Goal #5 Combat HIV/AIDs, malaria and other diseases. As a female, I think that AIDs should be focused on first, because it one of the tops killers for females and males…and for there to be gender equality, both genders need to be alive. Times have changed and women are getting more rights and are being seen as equal..unfortunately it will take time for women to have equal rights globally.
I do want to be optimistic in my response, I am glad that we have our goals and now are taking the steps to achieve them. However, I think that the goal is too short and were not going to make it. We need to be realistic here! I do believe that we can achieve them, but it will take time and consistent effort on our part and other world leaders part to achieve all 8 goals.
11/30/2005
After reading "The Millennium Development Goals," I feel that the expected date of acheievement to be very optimistic. For many years the UN, IMF, and WB, as well as many NGO's have been trying to conquer inequality, hunger, and poverty, I find it highly doubtful that in merely 10 years this goal will be achieved. For example, China has become highly prominent in the global world with its amazing economic growth recently, but still has huge amounts of poverty stricken areas, in parallel to the cheap labor. I think setting a date is highly optimistic at this stage of the game, but progress is being done day by day and just recognizing and continuing to persue such, should be the goal of each country.
posted 11/30/05
The UN’s Millennium Development Goals are more than just an act of goodwill. They are a necessity for peace and prosperity among countries who aren’t the subject of this initiative, as well. If the ethics involved weren’t enough, the consequences of growing poverty and spreading disease demand the rest of the world’s attention. The many problems the UN has proposed to undertake will require a sustained global effort. But it is not so lofty a goal that it cannot be achieved. As those commercials where a white man or woman is holding a visibly starving child in a third world country advertise, donating one-dollar a day can feed, clothe, and educate a child. Relatively small measures by the more fortunate can make a huge difference to people living in poverty.
The most promising aspect of the MDGs is that the first two, and most important objectives, eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and providing universal primary education, lend themselves to achieving the next six. Abolishing hunger is the first step. Even schools in America have programs where their disadvantaged students can eat free or for significantly reduced prices when they arrive in the morning because students who are hungry are less likely to learn. The second step is providing an education. An education will increase the change of people making smarter decisions; for example, taking measures to protect themselves from receiving HIV. Education is the key to help the disadvantage help themselves and it increases the likelihood of the other goals being achieved.
This post has been removed by the author.
I think this initiative is leading the world in the right direction. If these goals are even partially reached, the world will be a better place. Though some of the goals seem fully attainable by 2015 for some countries, many of the goals seem distant to regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia.
All of the problems of the world and the subsequent goals to combat these problems are interconnected. For example, the spread of AIDs robs children of their parents, which leads to poverty, hunger, malnutrition. And when one is fighting just to survive on a daily basis, little time is left for education. Lack of an education leads to more poverty. It is a cycle that needs to be broken. I think the most important Millennium Development Goal is to develop a global partnership for development. This goal will give developing countries access to the means to reach the other Millennium Development Goals and combat poverty, hunger, AIDS, etc. The most depressed regions of the world, such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia, will not be able to emerge from poverty without the aid of developed nations. Rich nations need to share some of their wealth with the less fortunate.
Steph Scholl 11/30/05
The UN’s report on its 8 development goals of the millennium is quite convincing, but highly idealistic. Each goal is necessary to bring third world countries out of their hole of underdevelopment, but the set time frames are impossible. As much as I and the rest of the world want to see all children everywhere complete a full course of primary schooling by the year 2015, its entirely too farfetched. Each goal relies on the other 8 to ensure its success. Without the distribution of necessary medication to battle the 5 main diseases sub-Saharan Africa is losing against, or without access to clean drinking water, or proper contraceptives the death rate will not decrease nor will the literacy rate increase. Regardless, as long as the Western developed countries work in conjunction with the UN and seriously attack the issues hindering growth in the third world, there will be notable improvements. In order to prevent criticism, the UN should have evaluated the conditions of the nations in question more in depth and prepared a realistic time frame in which to accomplish these goals.
I agree with the idea that the bar should be set high when making goals to lessen poverty, but I find these particular goals to be unrealistic. My fear with these unrealistic goals is that people will give up on the issue before people begin to work on them. I think if the plan was given another 25 year or lessen the levels to reach by 2050 there would be a great backing of the proposal. Perhaps these proposals can be reached, but as they stand they are a bit utopian.
I’m in agreement with many of the posters above when I say that the idea of setting goals, especially goals on a grand scale, is good. However the belief that these goals may actually be achieved within the given time period is extremely optimistic at best, and absolutely unrealistic at worst. Some of the categories, such as the promotion of gender equality, are complex, complicated issues that will likely take more than a decade to unravel and untangle. In some situations, it would require a complete overhaul of government and ideologies. While the inflated numbers give us something to shoot for, when the time comes and these development goals are not met, they may reflect failure at face value, despite any forward progress that is made. This sense of failure may outweigh any semblance of accomplishment made in any or all of these eight areas.
I think the goals presented in this report are very important and, while incredibly idealistic, it certainly gives us something to strive for. It seems to me that all these areas - education, gender equality, AIDS, hunger, poverty, etc - are all related and, in order to improve collectively, are interdependent. So I'm wondering how the UN plans to tackle these problems - as individual issues or is there an underlying problem that needs to be solved first before the others can be fixed? It seems as though it's hard to know where to start. I also think it's unlikely that these goals will be met by 2015 but I think having such high goals creatives an incentive and will encourage faster progress.
Caitlin Ginley
12.1.05
I'd like to focus a bit on the Millenium Project's goal of ensuring that by 2015, "children everywhere, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling." This seems an incredibly lofty goal to be set for such a rapidly approaching date. Education not only requires a sizeable government infrastructure, it requires teachers, administration, books, supplies, and perhaps most importantly...money. Many potential students in South Asia and Africa are also effectively incapable of attending school. Most work from a very young age, helping to support their already impoverished families. If the Millenium Project is to succeed in any of its endeavours, I believe it is absolutely essential that smaller, shorter term goals be set. All encompassing global issues such as those the Millenium Project is attempting to confront will inevitably meet logistical difficulties, financial problems, and perhaps worst of all, social attitudes resistant to change.
Although some things listed in the development goals are undisputably universally desired, such as health care and prevention of many diseases, what about goals like universal education etc that some could associate as a western ideal? Its tough to imagine how differently some cultures think from our Western ways. However, they are not necessarily 'backward' just different from our own.
The most striking statistic to me was that 30,000 kids under age 5 die every day from preventable causes. How do we change this number?!
12/1/05 ~Liz Lycett
This post has been removed by the author.
It is obvious not all these initiatives will be achieved by 2015. Even the majority will not be realized due to high, idealistic expectations, such as improving 100 million slums, halting and reversing the spread of HIV or reducing ½ of people suffering from hunger. They do not seem to practical when looking at the slow progress that has been made in these eight areas in the past. One of the main areas to reduce poverty and hunger, in the long run, is to improve the country’s economy so they can become self-sufficient. But with the capitalist ideas of free trade and cheaper, faster, better, the countries who are trapped making cheap goods will continue making these goods unless these concept are interfered with which is unlikely.
I do not think the importance of the Millennium Development Goals lies in the date they are to be achieved by, but in the commitment to set an agenda to deal with these problems. All goals have a deadline. Most deadlines are not met. The importance of the deadline is to ensure that these problems are not put off any longer, but continuously worked towards to help alleviate these distressing issues. A set date, not far away should hopefully ensure better present commitment.
The problem that interests me the most are those initiatives concerning the youth of Africa. I have read articles where scholars have basically given up on most of the continent because it is too depressing. Yes, the situation is depressing, but even more so that people are just giving up. Although western financial institutions basically control the public policies of these African countries through structural adjustment programs of conditional lending they hurt the poor people of Africa the most and ignore many of the most dire problems. I think these goals are a step in the right direction, particularly because most address the younger generations, the most vulnerable victims in their world of poverty and disease. It is good to see the next generation being addressed.
The figure of 30,000 children under five dying every day is indeed striking, but at the same time, I can't say its shocking. Considering the AIDS epidemic flooding Africa, and the extreme poverty both in Africa and South East Asia, some of these children are essentially issued death sentences the day they're born. They're living in impossibly poor, impoverished third world nations with inadequate access to food, clean water, and medical care. Many of these countries are unable to enforce any effective programs because so much money is tied up in repaying debt to richer countries, such as the United States and other members of the G8. I think the best way to move forward with the pursuit of the UN Development goals would be the eradication of third world debt.
I agree with Jodi. The year 2015 is very close and I'm not sure if thats enough time to reach all these goals. Focusing on time is less important that making sure all these factors increasing the problems in the world are eradicated. Education will help fix many problems that exist today. By teaching people about diseases, they will be less likely to participate in spreading them. However solving financial problems in other countries will be a more difficult task. Even though the goals are very good ideas, each country is different and the process of fixing problems will be different as well. We need to look at problems seperately and figure out the best way to solve them for individual countries.
I agree that 2015 is a difficult goal to reach. I think that the goals set out are a wonderful start and if they can meet most of them by 2015 it is indeed a victory. however I find the goal of women's empowerment a bit troublesome. it is difficult to set goals for womens empowerment in the developing world when women in the United States are still paid less than men in many jobs, and every president we have ever had has been a white male.
~Sarah Cochran
I agree that 2015 is a difficult dealine to reach, however the goals set ofrward are an excellant start and even if most of them are reached it would be a victory for those it was able to help and a stepping stone to a new plan to pick up where this one left off. however, I find the goal for the empowerment of women a bit troublesome. how can the US attempt to promote female empowerment in other countries when women in the US are still making less than equally qualified men, and we have never had a female or even a minority president. every president we have had has been a white, christian male. I think the US needs to take the hint from these goals as well as the many countries who have had woment leaders, and realize that half the population is female and only a small number of the nations leaders are female. basically I think while these goals are a grat start, it is dificult to promote them to other countries when they are not entirly in place in the US.
~ Sarah COchran
This post has been removed by the author.
I agree with the Millennium Development Goals. I do think that they will be achievable in time, but not by 2015. While some areas have been improving, others have declined on a staggering rate since the 1990s. This statistic does not prove optimistic for the goals set for 2015.
Education should be the primary objective in achieving these goals. Education helps people achieve a better standard of living. It educates them on the deadly diseases that are killing millions of people and provides hope for people to seek treatment and prevention.It provides potential job opportunities with higher wages. Education is a basic human right. It is upsetting that 115 million children of primary school age are not enrolled in schools. These children are usually from single mother families living in poverty. In 1999, nearly 1 million children lost their teachers to AIDS. Sub Saharan Africa and Southern Asia are losing children in the schools because of the poor educational resources that are available. The objectives mentioned in the Millennium Development Goals will only be achieved if the education provided in these areas are improved.
I think that the Millennium Development Goals are all critical, particulary those of eradicating poverty and providing universal education. I have always felt that poverty and lack of education are the breeding grounds for almost all other problems that any person, group, or nation can face. All problems essential have some root in these two areas. Dealing with the others with sepcific attention is also important, but dealing with these problems, I feel will attack all of the others at thier root and make solving the others all th emore easy. I do not feel as though these goal sare reachable by 2015, not due to lack of resources. I feel they are unreachable because of lack of proper mindset and devotion and because of current problems and issues occuring in the world that may present obstacles to such a vast and ambitious plan. If the world was at peace and all of its members ready to fight these issues on one accord, than the goals may be attainable in the enxt ten years. This is not however, the case. Not everyone wants or cares about the same things and it will take a great deal of commitment, devotion, and compromise to achieve these goals. I do feel that placing a date on the goals, that it gives these issues a need snese of urgency, even if the date is unrealistic. Regardless of whetehr the goals is met, the work towords the goals will be just as relevant and necessary to the peope who need it.
Tarilyn Little
Post a Comment
<< Home