This morning I had the somewhat special opportunity to go to the U.N. to hear the Secretary General Kofi Annan present "The Millennium Goals Report" to the media. Little did I realize that I'd end up far more in awe of the physical presence of the U.N. building, the exclusivity of its pressroom--and the fact that I was in it--than Mr. Annan and his presentation. I sat utterly uninspired by Mr. Annan, his colleagues, and their report on the world's development... or lack-there-of.
As they rattled off the eight seemingly trite goals of "The Millennium Development Goals Report," I could not help but find myself incredibly disillusioned by the grimness of their release that there has been little or no improvement in poverty-stricken nations. I walked into the room nervously expecting profound, intricate goals to breeze over my head, only to feel rather alarmed. These are the 'experts' designated to mediate world issues? More like figureheads.
As Mr. Annan professed the U.N.'s goals of "eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environment sustainabilty, and developing a global partnership for development," I became nostalgic of the commencement speech given by the president of the class of 2005 of my college. They both presented undistinguished and cliched goals for the future of our world's youth.
The articulated "long-term" objectives of the "Millennium Development Goals" are the same stale "long-term" objectives from a long time ago. The redundancy of the U.N.'s "practical" plan to fix the world is practical indeed, so practical in fact, eighth graders also tackle these general "world issues" in their social studies classes everyday. Perhaps next year a panel of eighth-graders from PS-158 will present an update on "The Millennium Development Goals." I'd bet they would come up with some refreshing agendas to implement the goal of bettering the world.
Related Stories: | Topics:Work/Life, politics + government, Political Policy, International Relations, Politics, Kofi Annan, United Nations |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 5 Total
June 10, 2005 at 12:43am by Dan Haykin
I wholeheartedly agree. Although I was not able to attend the same event, Ms. Silverman's feelings parallel those that I have harvested within the last couple of years. As an avid reader of this blog, I think this was specifically very well written, and Ms. Silverman's opinions are quite accurate with what i'm sure is the majority of the readers of this blog (and on a broader spectrum, magazine). I'd like to hear what you think of the upcoming New York mayoral election, Bloomberg's campaign, and maybe his efforts in achieving a majority vote, hopefully in the near future.
June 11, 2005 at 6:40pm by Stan Gould
We don't "solve" these problems . . . because we don't want to!
June 12, 2005 at 3:06pm by Joseph Fritz Seigle
I'm confused regarding Mr. Gould's comments: who are we, the readers of this blog, to identify your "we" to. Is it the royal "we"? Is it "we the people of the United States" or is it "we the UN" ???
Starting with the royal we, well sir under such a premise the royal monarch or oligarchic ruling class in this system can do what they want to do. If you don't like it move out...
If you are addressing the people of the United States, you must remember that the phrase goes, "We the People of the United State, in Order to form a more perfect Union." This means that we are not trying to make a more perfect world, but rather, country or union. That is not to say that I oppose any foreign aide or concern for the global community, because we should and we do. To say our country does not want to help these problems is to disregard the millions, if not billions, of dollars we spend on AIDs and other disease research. The billions of dollars we spent and continue to spend on feeding the hungry. Or the financial support that Congress appropriated to fund safe s e x education in Africa, which unfortunately was harshly opposed by pro-life citizens. Or the continuing flow of American manufacturing jobs going abroad, thus providing vast work for people in East Asia, Mexico, and parts of India. If this does not help impoverished nations, what will? I could go on addressing each of goals stated in the Millennium Development agenda and how the United States does, not only address, but firmly support them. What's great about our, the United States, system is that when we attempt to "form a more perfect Union" we form a better world.
Lastly, if "we" means the U.N. then why not specify it? Or why not target the individuals in the agency that have lead to its corruption. I agree with you, Mr. Gould, some individuals in the U.N. do not want to help these problems; however, to say the entire U.N. does not want to carryout such is overlooking the good they have provided the impoverished, helpless, and needy around the globe.
The U.N. is a tremendous institution that is necessary and beneficial to the world: it's just too bad it is not able to carryout, efficiently and effectively, the goals they seek. Perhaps, it is because the goals, as Ms. Sliverman points out, are a bit "cliché" and lofty. They are idealistic and "trite" but these goals pertain to real problems in our world: just because they are cheesy and simple doesn't mean they are bad goals. It's the simple things that are complicated.
June 13, 2005 at 4:49pm by Rob Katz
I'm usually not one to promote my own work, but if you're interested in a new approach to the MDGs - through a business lens - check out NextBillion.net. The site was mentioned on FCNow a few weeks back. For reference: NextBillion.net brings together the community of business leaders, social entrepreneurs, NGOs, policy makers, and academics who want to explore the connection between development and enterprise. Check it out
June 19, 2005 at 1:23pm by Gil Friend
This is puzzling. What is "trite" about "eradicating extreme poverty and hunger" or "reducing child mortality"? Hard? Yes. Insufficiently specified? Perhaps. Trite? Nonsense. Cynical nonsense, at that.