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, the eight Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) were set.

Among several values it preached, many were those who believed that the
MDGs would be the best source of hope for the poor. But, the MDGs give the
poor false hope.

Details of the MDGs show that the time period set for majority of the MDGs is
1990 to 2015 (i.e., 25). The declaration itself was made at the Millennium
Summit. Meaning, the leaders of the world set the goals ten years into their
own schedule. The world leaders also showed lack of urgency in executing
the MDGs; they waited till the International Conference on Financing for
Development 2002 before committing money and other resources to the
programme (Implementing the Millennium Declaration UN fact sheet 2002),
thus loosing two more precious years. The Iraq war shifted debate from “How
the international system can reduce poverty to whether there was an
international system at all” (McArthur J. et al 2004),1 hence the failure of rich
nations in delivering on the Monterrey Commitment.

Implementing the Millennium Declarations October 2002 gives a number of

statistics on human development. The question is how these statistics were
reached. Taking Ghana for instance, the last population census was
conducted in 2000; i.e. 8yrs. ago. This raises doubts about the accuracy of
the figures the UN quotes.

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

seek to address the same problems. In 1998 for example, WHO launched Roll
Back Malaria (RBM) to halve malaria associated mortality by 2010. With no
report released by RBM, the UN still allows it to run alongside MDG 6. The
same applies to the WHO tuberculosis programme of 1991, which coexist
with MDG 6’s tuberculosis programme. Wouldn’t the UN and WHO be more
efficient if they concentrated all the funds on one programme other? The end
result is waste and inefficiency

My concluding opinion is 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 and the enormous work that is to be done,
it will be suicidal for poor people to put their hope in it.

1
Give detail reference ….
Cephas Joshua Beujung Samwini
Second Year Agriculture Student of
Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and
Technology.
Kumasi, Ghana.