Back to Index

Millennium Development Goals: Global integration that impersonates a dark nature
Marshal N. Mapondera
August 19, 2010

At the dawn of a new millennium, one hundred and eighty nine government leaders making up the United Nations General Assembly met at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York in September 2000 under the United Nations Millennium Declaration. A nine-page resolution, set eight new challenges for "a more peaceful, prosperous and just world", to be achieved by 2015. The yardstick being "Inclusive and Equal Globalisation"; one that seems to struggle against a gloomy background of ever-widening economic disparity as rich countries get richer while poorer countries get poorer especially in Sub Saharan Africa. Plagued by disease and bad governance, this great region of Africa sinks deep into economic recession, with only as much as a nibble of global trade.

The UN General Assembly in New York recognised a central challenge, briefly that:

" . . . While globalisation offers great opportunities, at present its benefits are very unevenly shared, while its costs are unevenly distributed (and), . . . Thus, only through broad and sustained efforts to create a shared future . . . can globalisation be made fully inclusive and equitable" (Article 1.5 Resolution 55/2 United Nations Millennium Declaration September 2000)

In detail the eight MDGs are;(i) eradicate extreme poverty, (ii) achieve universal primary education (iii) promote gender equality and empowerment of women (iv) reduce child mortality, (v) improve maternal health (vi) combat HIV /AIDS, (vii) ensure environmental sustainability, (viii) develop a global partnership. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) coordinates these goals with aid by the `UN Development Group`, as well as the IMF, World Bank and OECD. The importance of these MDGs cannot be overemphasised, they, for one encourage governments, donor agencies and civil society groups to reorient their efforts towards attaining specific development goals within a specified time frame as defined within the eight development categories.

Globalisation (in the context of International Economic Law) is the process whereby States attempt to engage in international economic co-operation that allows for opportunities in free trade and foreign direct investment in an open market, while upholding State sovereignty and respect for territorial integrity and political independence. It is therefore a balance between liberal international business relations and respect for human diversity on one end, and State Sovereignty on the other. Globalisation, more broadly entails the integration of politics, technology, information and free movement of capital.

Inclusive and equal globalisation therefore should mean effective and full participation of all developing and least developed countries (LDCs) in international business relations, while the latter are equal partners in world economic development. Such equitable trade and investment policies would result in equal benefits and equal liability at international economic law. In essence developing countries and LDCs become masters of their own destiny while enjoying globalisation on a level playing field.

Sub Saharan Africa has suffered tremendously in the past two decades prior to the heralding of the new millennium due to the Economic Structural Adjustment Program imposed by the World Bank and IMF on most of the developing and Least Developing Countries in the world. Currency devaluation, privatisation public sector layoffs and other such measures have crippled any meaningful development. Though this program was aimed at creating sustainable economic development it has actually exacerbated poverty and widespread environmental degradation. Debt has increased in the developing world since the 1980s, as repayment to the World Bank amounts to five times due to high interest rates; the total debt of the developing world equals about half their combined Gross National Product (GNP) and nearly twice their annual export earnings. As a result of such huge budget deficit foreign governments lack any sound negotiating capacity (bargaining power) when negotiating a structural adjustment program and compelled to accept any condition by the IMF and the World Bank.

The Bretton Woods institutions seem to hand down conditions and policies that benefit the Northern countries more than the Southern especially Sub Saharan Africa. The IMF is empowered to give conditionality according to the Amended Articles of Agreement of the IMF: Article 1(v), the purpose of giving 'confidence to members by making the general resources of the fund temporarily available to them under adequate safeguards- and Article V, Section 3 (a) as well as 3 (b) (1). The provisions are vague and allow for arbitrary, if not discriminatory abuse of power by the organisation at the expense of poor countries. It has been described as a way of enforcing governmental and economic reform on some member states, critics argue that it may be a way simply to punish poorer states that refuse policies that benefit the richer states especially in foreign direct investment.

The end of World War II, therefore which brought about sovereignty and legal equality of states as part of customary international law still failed to address the problem of economic dependency of non industrialised sates, which the West itself had actually created. In the case of Sub Saharan Africa it is the colonial system that continues to weaken any efforts of economic recovery as a region infested by multinational companies where foreign direct investment has an exploitative meaning. The foreign currency required to ensure more viable trade transactions is simply shipped back to the home countries of the foreign companies. Domestic production increases export by multinational companies of cash crops in the international market while local producers and economies lose out as corporate profits are repatriated abroad in executive salaries and shareholder dividends. The cheap local labour fuels the insatiable creature of exploitation; the host nation does not develop as locals are remunerated in local currency.

Sub Saharan Africa is the only region in the world that has got poorer in the last generation. Its share of world trade has halved between 1980 and 2002. It makes up 13 % of the world's population and 28 % of world poverty. Despite the advocacy of MDG 1, the number of people surviving on less than US$1 per day is continuously increasing such that 41.1% of the people are currently living on less than a US dollar a day. Zimbabwe has had the highest inflation rate in the world in 2008 when it reached one million percent, such that over 35 %of the population was unable to provide basic food needs as over 56% survived on less than a US dollar a day, despite the fact that the government exercised land resettlement under Constitutional Amendment number 17 and the Land Acquisition Act. This is particularly sad for a country once hailed as the breadbasket of Southern Africa.

Zimbabwe-s prospects of achieving the set target of 2015 is quite dim with the high unemployment rate of over 80% and millions of the most competent workforce leaving the country since the turn of the century. Most of the progress made since independence in 1980 has since been eroded due to a number of socio economic factors among them internal and external retrogressive policy.

What then is Africa-s own strategy to assist itself? There has been the New Partnership for Africa-s Development (NEPAD) initiative. NEPAD is a holistic, comprehensive integrated strategic framework for the socio economic development of Africa to accelerate integration of Africa into world economy with development based on Africa-s own agenda and plan of action. The mandates of this home grown initiative are beautifully worded, however very little development has been noted in the key areas inter alia; bridging the infrastructural gap; building human resources (reversing brain drain); developing a strong and sustainable agriculture; ensuring the safeguard and defence of the environment. Probably the greatest criticism of all is that NEPAD suffers the fate of a stillbirth as it struggles under the oppressive arm of discriminatory conditionality and programs that compel African governments to repay debts instead of investing in health care and education only to reinforce dependency and underdevelopment.

The track record of the Millennium Development Goals for Sub Saharan Africa since the year 2000 reveals a dark age. It is sad to note therefore that the feasibility of attaining these is still but a dream. The writer notes in summary, two main categories of impediments in answering the question of the dependency ratio and the integration dilemma.

Firstly, 'globalised- slavery in the twenty first century neo liberal market supported by the suppressive lending policies of the World Bank IMF and the discriminatory conditions of the WTO places Sub Saharan Africa in an endless cycle of poverty and underdevelopment. The cumulative reality is continued debt servicing, hence an increasing budget deficit such that negative development ensues, further giving rise to continued dependency on the Global North. It may be safely established therefore that the developed countries are not doing enough to assist Sub Saharan Africa in its perpetual economic recession, with a workable economic recovery program.

Secondly, it should be noted that Sub Saharan Africa has been crippled by retrogressive government policies that do not allow for integrated and sustainable development due to lack of respect for constitutional democracy. It is constitutional democracy that allows for participation from all key stakeholders in any aspiring nation as well as a level playing field for both indigenous and foreign investors alike. The region suffers disunity in its policy making due to an exaggerated definition of national sovereignty. This has hampered any progress of the African Peer Review Mechanism- governments see it as a threat to their national sovereignty and hence keep it under strict control.

The writer proposes that the major players of the Millennium Declaration go back to the drawing board, not to redo their initiatives, but to rethink the definition of inclusive and equal globalisation. If the true sense of the vision is to be achieved in the true spirit of that 55th Session of the General Assembly, then the UNDP and its partners, the World Bank, IMF, WTO and OCED must live up to their mandates to assist Africa fairly. This may only be achieved with strict review of the structure and policies of these organisations. Overall, there is need for inclusive administration of these organisations to allow for third world regions to determine their own destiny. Therefore inclusive and equal globalisation may only be gradually achieved if the crucial resources essential for survival are cooperatively managed, globally under the United Nations Development Program. Sub Saharan Africa, however needs to implement measures that ensure for better foreign direct investment, by including its indigenous people in the benefits of export market where both the host country and the multinational corporations benefit.

* Marshal Mapondera can be reached at marshal@mail2consultant.com with comments

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP