Is the Millennium Project Achievable?

                                                           May 1, 2005

                                       Ghelawdewos Araia, Ph.D.

This article will discuss and critically examine the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations, an upshot of the Millennium Declaration signed by 189 countries, including 147 heads of state, in September 2000. The MDGs constitute 8 goals and 18 targets: ‘eradicate extreme poverty and hunger,’ ‘achieve universal primary education,’ ‘promote gender equality and empower women,’ ‘reduce child mortality,’ ‘improve maternal health,’ ‘combat HIV/AIDS, and other diseases,’ ‘ensure environmental sustainability,’ and ‘develop a global partnership for development.’ We will discuss the feasibility and achievability of the MDGs and their attendant targets.

Given the current complex globalization, North-South dichotomy, unequal partnership of trade between rich and poor countries, and even marginalization of the poorest of the poor especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), can poverty be halved by 2015 and can extreme poverty be eradicated by 2025? The courageous and optimist Columbia University economist and head of the Millennium Project, Professor Jeffrey Sachs answers the above questions in the affirmative. Both in his book The End of Poverty and his speech on C-SPAN (3/22/2005), Sachs contends that the Goals can be achieved in spite of the still unchanged global economic parameters that have left some countries affluent and others destitute. Unlike arm-chair researchers confined to their offices, Sachs had the fortune to visit many developing countries and learn the level of development of these countries first hand, and unlike traditional scholars, he insists, with almost missionary zeal, that wherever we go we must go to the villages, to the waterholes, and to the people in order to understand and appreciate “the paradox of our time” and advocate on behalf of “the voiceless.” As per Sachs, “the voiceless” are, of course, the ‘wretched of the earth’ with minimal living conditions vis-à-vis the affluent industrialized nations whose citizens enjoy the bounty of worldly goods.

In order to uplift the downtrodden and cure world poverty, therefore, Sachs suggests that the rich must spend at least 150 billion per year (see www.africanidea.org/spend.html). On top of this, the poor countries are expected to come up with sound macroeconomic policy, development strategies, or “a coherent national plan of action” as Sachs aptly puts it. But the question still remains, is the rich ready to help the poor and are the poor nations in a position to formulate and design their own independent master plan of development strategies without any pressure and precondition from the rich and/or donor nations? On the one hand, Sachs tells us that “our generation's challenge is to help the poorest of the poor to escape the misery of extreme poverty so that they begin their own ascent up the ladder of the economic development,” and on the other, he recognizes that “the international processes are cruel” with respect to the poor. Sachs offers a concrete example and puts it as follows: “The donor governments – including the United States and Europeans – told Malawi to scale back its proposal sharply, the first proposal was “too ambitious and too costly” and finally “the donors prevailed on Malawi.”

The experience of Malawi best exemplifies the stark reality where the donor countries almost always prevail over the relatively helpless and poor Third World countries. How can we then remain optimistic to halve poverty by 2015 when in fact the donor countries are not allowing or encouraging the poor nations “to begin their own ascent up the ladder” of development?

It seems to me we will encounter a major hurdle to the development of poor nations given the current global scenario with its attendant unequal partnership among nations and the inability of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to overcome the protectionist policies of the North, especially in trade and agriculture. And if the current trend continues, it is unlikely that MDGs will be realized by the poor nations. Contrary to my contention, however, Sachs thinks that the MDGs, though bold, are still achievable despite the “dozens of countries [that] are not on track to achieve them” at this juncture. But, to his credit, Sachs corroborates my thesis and insists that “we should ensure that the international rules of the game in economic management do not advertently or inadvertently set shares along the lower rungs of the ladder in the form of inadequate development assistance, protectionist trade barriers, destabilizing global financial practices, poorly designed rules for intellectual property, and the like, that prevent the low-income world from climbing up the rungs of development.” This is the current global scenario that I have alluded to above and Sachs has sensed it by all measure.

However, although I am in full accord with Professor Sachs’ argument that “technology has been the main force behind the long-term increase in income in the rich world,” his thesis  “it is not the exploitation of the poor” is unpalatable to me. In my work entitled Africa in the Global Economy: Aid, Debt, and Development, following Stephen R. Lewis, I have indicated how Africans were made “hewers of wood and drawers of water” by European hegemony and how the latter impacted on Africans’ inability to control their destiny. In fact, Sachs also argues that “European imperial powers forced Africans to grow cash crops they chose.” Furthermore, he says, “the IMF and the World Bank virtually ran the economic policies of the debt-ridden continent” of Africa.

Lets assume that things will fundamentally change and the North will alter its attitude and behavior, and in fact will genuinely and generously contribute toward enhancing the development of the poor nations, and hence the realization of the MDGs, can we then hope to halving poverty by 2015 and eradicate extreme poverty by 2025? In his In larger Freedom Report, the Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan, in no uncertain terms states, “without a bold breakthrough in 2005 that lays the groundwork for a rapid progress in coming years, we will miss the targets.”

It is possible that we could miss the Targets, especially with respect to SSA. The prevalence of the highest HIV/AIDS is found in Africa; civil wars as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have become major impediments to any development agenda; democratic governance is nascent in some and virtually unknown in others; and ten years is too short to realize such an ambitious MDGs development programs.

Other international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank also seem to share the concern of Kofi Annan. In their joint memo entitled New Report Calls for Urgent Action to Cut Global Poverty and Win Better Development Results for Poor Countries, the Bretton Woods institutions underscore the exigency of the MDGs. “With just a decade left to go,” they state, “progress toward the MDGs have been slower and more uneven across regions than originally envisaged, with Sub-Saharan Africa falling far short.” Similarly, in the Executive Summary of their Global Monitoring Report 2005, these institutions indicate, “without faster progress, the MDGs will be seriously jeopardized – especially in sub-Saharan Africa, which is off track on all the goals.”

By and large, the Five-Point Agenda discussed in the Global Monitoring, concrete plan of action are suggested in order to meet the MDGs Targets, but it is not clear as to how to go about and realize the Targets. For instance, pertaining to ‘dismantling barriers of trade,’ the Report suggests that the Doha Round “should be completed by 2006,” but it is not plainly discussed who would be empowered to enforce such a plan of action. In other words, who monitors the Doha Round, and in the event it is not completed by 2006, what is to be done next? Moreover, what role should the WTO play in the translation of Doha into action?

In order to answer the above question and fully appreciate the purpose of Doha, I think it is important to understand the G-20 New Delhi Declaration of March 19, 2005. The Declaration clearly states, “our common goal is to put an end to trade-distorting policies in agriculture maintained by developed countries…” The Declaration also further indicates, “Ministers noted with concern the recent reintroduction of export subsidies by some members, which goes against the spirit of the Doha mandate.” How can then one expect poor countries to realize the MDGs Targets when the North continues to practice trade-distorting policies and export subsidies? In fact, what is worrisome is, if the rich countries continue to contravene Doha, the forthcoming WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, China on December 2005 will just become another conference, and Doha Round negotiations will not be completed in 2006 as is eagerly awaited by developing countries.

The Global Monitoring also touches upon “debt relief for poor countries with heavy burdens that are pursuing credible reforms.” Why do the Bretton Woods institutions eschew ‘debt cancellation’ as opposed to ‘debt relief’? Unless 100 percent debt cancellation is warranted or the donor countries fully award loan forgiveness to heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC), there is no way the latter could meet the deadline for the Millennium Project and realize some (let alone all) of the Targets.

On June 10, 2004, the Institute of Development and Education for Africa (IDEA), Inc. posted on its website IDEA Advocacy for African Debt Cancellation and acknowledged the following organizations and individuals who were at the forefront for the cancellation of African debt: Africa Action, Africa Focus Bulletin, Jubilee 2000, Oxfam, European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad), All Africa Conference of Churches, Percy S. Mistry, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Thandika Mkandawire, Charles C. Soludo, and Jeffrey Sachs. (See www.africanidea.org/idea_advocacy.html)                      

Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) without debt cancellation are meaningless plan of action. It is abundantly clear that public governance with accountability and transparency, sound macroeconomic management, and conducive climate for private-sector-led growth are preconditions to the realization of the Millennium Project, but in the context of SSA and other HIPCs in the Southern half of our planet, debt cancellation should be seriously considered as part of development package. Indeed Goal 8, Target 13 is about “debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries and cancellation of official bilateral debt.” Ironically, however, Target 15, in contradistinction to Target 13, wittingly or unwittingly, encourages the continuation of debt: “Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term.” Target 15 is about management of debt and not its elimination, and while the promises of the MDGs, as a whole, are brilliant, “sustainability of debt” is unheard of, and to be sure, sustainable development and sustainable debt are mutually exclusive agendas.

Finally, those of us who advocate for the poor and the voiceless need to acknowledge that the poor nations do have their own home grown problems that are inimical to development. It would be meaningless if we uphold a simple dichotomous analysis of North v. South and only blame the North for the failures of the poor countries in their development march. The South has its own immense problems of corruption and bad governance coupled by lack of vision and commitment on the part of its leaders. Africa, in particular, is haunted by tyrants and destabilizing regimes, and no matter how much a given country issues fine blue prints of development strategies and promulgates splendid and seemingly honest plans, unless there is good governance, no progress could be made in attaining the MDG Targets.

Sachs quite correctly argues, “History has shown that democracy is not a prerequisite for economic development. On the other hand, a regime that is despotic, arbitrary, and lawless will easily destroy the economy.” Between Rwanda 1994 and Durfur 2004, Africa unfortunately was torn apart by despotic regimes at best and lawlessness at worst. For this apparent reason, one cannot blame the North for all the failures of the South, but if the South enjoys good governance and the North is genuinely willing to support the initiative and endeavor of the poor nations, the rest is going to be history.