Abandonment of the Millennium Development Goals would be a Death Sentence for Millions by Los Angeles Times / New York Times / IPS / UN News 10:09am 31st Aug, 2005   31 August 2005    "Ahead of September World Summit, UN Secretary-General stresses importance of MDGs". (UN News)    Secretary-General Kofi Annan today gave a ringing endorsement for advancing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) at next month’s United Nations World Summit, saying the targets that seek to cure of a host of global socio-economic ills by 2015 form the basis of a mutual pact between developing and developed countries.    His reaffirmation came amid reports that the United States was basically seeking to eliminate any mention of the MDGs in the development section of the summit’s outcome document, including the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product in official development aid by developed countries to developing nations.    “One of the great achievements of the Millennium Declaration was its success in focusing the world's attention on precise targets which, if achieved by 2015, would mark a real turn of the tide in our struggle against life-destroying poverty,” Mr. Annan told a General Assembly Core Group drawing up a draft outcome document for the 14-16 September summit, after breaking off his holiday yesterday to fly back to New York.    “Since codified and widely endorsed by Member States as the 'Millennium Development Goals,' these targets form the basis of the great pact of mutual accountability between developed and developing countries, which was sealed at Monterey (meeting in which the US took part) two years ago,” he said of the targets that seek to halve extreme poverty and hunger, slash maternal and infant mortality, and increase access to health care, education, water and sanitation, all by 2015.    “We are not yet on track to achieve them, but they have proved to be an unprecedented catalyst for global action. The challenge now is to put the bargain into effect. I believe the commitments outlined in your draft document would be a big step towards doing so,” he added.    Asked by reporters after the meeting about the US position, Mr. Annan said: “I don't think anyone can remove it from the general public's perception of how we are moving ahead with development. And I'm not sure that the US is going to insist on that. I think they've made their point, but I'm not sure the other Member States would want to see the Millennium Development Goals dropped or, the worse, expunged from the document..”    August 30, 2005    "Bolton's mischief". (LA Times)    After a year and a half of studies and negotiations, the United Nations recently came up with a draft proposal calling for extensive internal reforms and world action against injustice, poverty and environmental catastrophe. Last week, soon after being appointed U.N. ambassador by President Bush, John Bolton may have sabotaged the entire effort. Now that's getting things done.    Bolton has introduced hundreds of amendments to the 62-page draft, which is supposed to be signed by the leaders of 175 nations during the U.N.'s 60th anniversary summit starting Sept. 14. Other nations, notably Russia, also have objections to the draft proposal and have submitted their own amendments, but they haven't caused the same turmoil.    Bolton's amendments have been received like a wasp's nest at a picnic. Throughout the drafting process, a fragile consensus had been built; now everything may end up back on the table, and time is extremely short. A core group of 32 nations is scrambling to finalize a document by Friday, to be submitted to member states on Tuesday. U.N. diplomats fear that the only way to reach consensus will be to water down the draft until it is all but meaningless.    The original proposal spelled out internal U.N. reforms, such as creation of a new human rights panel that would exclude rights violators, as well as pledges of increased foreign aid, measures to combat climate change and calls for nuclear disarmament. Bolton's amendments focus on cutting references to international efforts the U.S. has opposed, such as the International Criminal Court, while strengthening sections on spreading democracy, freeing markets and fighting terrorism.    His most odious change was to delete all references to the Millennium Development Goals, which commit industrialized nations to cutting world poverty in half by 2015. Part of the deal was that rich countries would eventually contribute 0.7% of their gross national product to foreign aid. The goals were a world-changing burst of optimism from international leaders in 2000, a recognition that all people have the right to be free from misery, starvation and preventable disease and that those able to pay have some responsibility to alleviate needless suffering.    Most of Europe is moving closer to the 0.7% goal, but the United States has long lagged; last year it contributed 0.16% of national income to foreign aid. Bolton's amendments make it clear that the Bush administration would like to pretend the millennium agreement never happened. This is a slap in the face for the aid organizations and international donors that have been working for years toward meeting the Millennium Development Goals. But it's far worse than that for the Third World, where their abandonment would be a death sentence for millions.    Published: August 30, 2005    That's No Way to Treat Visitors. (New York Times: Editorial)    Two weeks before world leaders are due in New York to talk about global poverty and United Nations reform, the United States is trying to renege on commitments to fight poverty. If this wasn't so gut-wrenchingly important to the one billion people in Africa, Latin America and Asia who subsist on barely anything, the United States' proposal, presented last week by America's new United Nations ambassador, John Bolton, would be almost funny.    On Sept. 14, the leaders of more than 170 countries are to show up to sign an agreement, under negotiation for six months, to bolster the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which was drafted with great fanfare in 2000. Chief among the Millennium Declaration's goals was for developed countries, like the United States, Britain and France, to work toward giving 0.7 percent of their national incomes for development aid to poor countries by 2015.    Alas, if the American proposal is to be taken seriously, President Bush has had a change of heart. The draft document that Mr. Bolton shared with other diplomats calls for striking almost all mentions of the Millennium Development Goals, which also call for poor countries to adopt good governance.    American officials at the United Nations also complain that the section on poverty is too long. And the United States wants to erase parts of the text that would ask countries to "achieve the target of 0.7 percent of gross national product for official development assistance by no later than 2015."    Not all of the American proposals are so wrong-headed. Mr. Bolton is right in calling for radical reform of the United Nations' bureaucracy. He is also correct in urging the substitution of the Human Rights Commission with a more powerful Human Rights Council that wouldn't make a mockery of the name by having countries like Sudan and Libya as members. And few would argue with his call to strengthen antiterrorism efforts around the world.    But in international negotiations, you have to give a little to get a little, and right now, America isn't doing a whole lot of giving. It would be truly unfortunate if more than 170 world leaders show up in New York for a summit meeting on poverty in two weeks only to get the door slammed in their faces by their apparently indifferent host.    30 August 2005 (UN News)    Breaking off his holiday, Secretary-General Kofi Annan is returning to New York today to throw his support behind efforts to produce a comprehensive document for the September World Summit, barely two weeks before the gathering brings together nearly 180 Heads of State and Government at United Nations Headquarters.    At the same time a UN spokesperson reiterated Mr. Annan’s full support for including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the Summit and said any effort to remove the eight targets that seek to cure of a host of global socio-economic ills by 2015 would hurt billions of people.    Spokesperson Marie Okabe was asked at the regular noon briefing if Mr. Annan would urge UN members to resist calls by the United States to take out references to the MDGs at the Summit, convened to discuss UN reform and the status of the MDGs, five years after they were adopted at the 2000 UN Summit.    “The Secretary-General and the United Nations stand fully behind the Millennium Development Goals, which are internationally accepted and which have the broad support of Member States and civil society,” Ms. Okabe replied.    “Any effort to eliminate the MDGs from the Summit outcome would be a step back to the global fight against poverty and for the billions living in poverty,” she added of the goals, which seek to halve extreme poverty and hunger, slash maternal and infant mortality, and increase access to health care, education, water and sanitation, all by 2015.    The announcement of Mr. Annan’s return came as the General Assembly Core Group set up by Assembly President Jean Ping of Gabon embarked on a weeklong marathon of meetings to draw up a draft outcome document for the 14-16 September summit.    “He has decided to interrupt his vacation to take stock of progress towards the 2005 World Summit, and to support the President of the General Assembly in his efforts to ensure a successful Summit,” the statement said.    The Core Group will tackle seven priority issues identified by Mr. Ping: development, UN Secretariat reform, establishment of a Human Rights Council, creation of a Peace Building Commission, disarmament and non-proliferation, terrorism, and the responsibility to protect civilians under threat of genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.    The Group took up terrorism and the Peace Building Commission yesterday, and appointed a smaller group for each of the two subjects to conduct negotiations and hammer out details on those sections. A similar approach will be followed for the other priority items as well.    Ever since he put forward in March a comprehensive plan for tackling poverty, security threats and human rights abuses while reforming the UN, in his report “In Larger Freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all,” Mr. Annan has spoken of the unique opportunity offered by the Summit in this 60th anniversary year of the world body.    “I am hoping that Member States will be galvanized, not only by the self-evident urgency of taking steps to deal with poverty, as well as terrorism and the spread of deadly weapons and, indeed, deadly disease, but also by a sense of the unique opportunity that this year presents,” he said in April. “Both on the development side and on the security and institutional side, there is now a widespread sense of 'if not now, when?'"    30 Aug 2005    "UN ambassadors launch crisis talks on reform plans", by Evelyn Leopold. (Reuters)    United Nations, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Some 32 U.N. ambassadors began a week of crisis talks on Monday in an effort to rescue a mid-September world summit on extreme poverty, human rights, terrorism, proliferation and U.N. management reforms.    U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, who had put forward more than 500 amendments or deletions to a 39-page draft text, submitted several letters, including ones on development and terrorism, explaining the U.S. position.    "I'm optimistic that we have all the proposed amendments out on the table and we can engage in negotiations," Bolton told reporters during a break in the talks. "That's what they pay us to do."    But time is short and diplomats said conclusions would have to be reached this week so the document, which has been under discussion for six months, could be translated and submitted to more than 170 world leaders expected to attend the Sept. 14-16 summit.    The session, called by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is aimed at revitalizing the United Nations and approving new approaches to world issues in the 21st century.    The definition of terrorism, which has been discussed for eight years so it can be included in a binding treaty, is so contentious that Monday's meeting broke up into an evening sub-group to discuss it. The main thrust would be to outlaw attacks against civilians.    Bolton, in a letter to ambassadors, said the text should not "address military activities that are appropriately governed by international humanitarian law," an apparent reference to U.S. soldiers in Iraq or Israeli armed forces.    But Arab nations and others insist the definition exclude the Palestinian struggle against Israel and include action of armed forces against civilians.    Bolton noted that Pakistan and Egypt, among others proposed amendments, not just the United States, which wants to focus on a commitments towards a treaty.    But in an obvious reference to the United States, Syria's U.N. ambassador, Fayssal Mekdad, told reporters," We started negotiations six months ago and we were thinking that we were reaching a good conclusion and suddenly someone comes and says 'this is rubbish' and they want to start line by line, word by word, sentence by sentence."    The United States has proposed changes on development that would remove references to the Millennium Development Goals, agreed by world leaders in 2000 and aimed at halving AIDS, extreme poverty and achieving universal primary education by 2015.    Instead the United States wants to substitute the phrase "internationally agreed development goals" and emphasize a 2002 agreement in Mexico spelling out the need for poor nations to improve investment climates.    In his letter to ambassadors sent on Friday, Bolton said that the United States backed the goals but not commitments on how to reach them, such as rich nations spending 0.7 percent of their gross national product for development.    "Let there be no doubt: the United States supports the development goals of the Millennium Declaration," Bolton wrote.    British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, who is representing the European Union, the only major group that in general backs the draft document, expressed optimism. "People are putting forward sensible amendments. There is a debate engaged," he said. "I don't favor going through it line by line, bracket by bracket. We haven't got time for that."    South Africa was also optimistic. "We are used to the United States," South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said. "We negotiate with them every year so this is normal."But this is not a summit just of the United States," he said. "We'll get through this. We have no alternative."    Aug 28, 2005    "Hopes 'Fade' for Millennium Meeting", by Sanjay Suri (IPS)    The United Nations summit next month on promoting the millennium development goals could end up delaying progress, a leading British charity says.    The UN summit has been called at its headquarters in New York Sep. 14 to 16 to review action on the millennium development goals (MDGs), a set of eight goals that include reduction of poverty and promotion of health and education. Many of the goals have a 2015 deadline, and the September summit is intended to review progress on the goals that were agreed in 2000.    A draft declaration for a UN text on the MDGs was produced Aug. 5 following proposals made earlier in June by China and other developing nations. ''Very few of those amendments were incorporated in the draft text,'' Peter Hardstaff from the World Development Movement (WDM) told IPS. ''The draft declaration makes pretty sad reading.''    The summit next month could pit the developed nations against an increasingly unified developing world. The June declaration was backed by China and the G77, which is the name for a grouping of 132 developing nations. China and the G77 have a population of 4.75 billion, which is 76 percent of the world population.    The review summit next month will now consider several amendments from the United States ''which sound like a complete reversal of even what is in the draft declaration,'' Hardstaff said. United States officials have been speaking of including UN reforms and action on terrorism in considerations at the summit.    ''The UN has produced a text that is largely an acceptance of the free market deregulation approach,'' Hardstaff said. ''It is sad that the UN itself is producing drafts which show that it is failing to think outside the box, and failing to include the developing countries' views sufficiently. And that could get weakened further because of the U.S. position.''    This was expected to be a summit on the MDGs ''to which all the governments have signed, and to agree necessary action,'' he said. ''And it is turning into a horse-trading exercise. Whatever happens, achievement of the MDGs is becoming a bargaining chip.''    The WDM has compared the submission of the G77 and the draft declaration to show how the draft has watered down the demands of the developing countries. It said that in their June submission the G77 and China want the declaration:    - To reject any conditions attached to the provision of development assistance. The Aug. 5 draft declaration contains no reference to removing any of the conditions that are currently attached to aid, loans and debt relief.    - To state that the focus of the WTO Doha Round of negotiations should be on ensuring that the interests of developing countries are fully reflected. The G77 and China specifically note reaching the 2006 deadline for negotiations should not take precedence over an outcome which reflects the interests of developing countries. In contrast the subsequent draft declaration prioritises hitting the 2006 deadline, and makes no reference to it reflecting the interests of developing countries.    - To reaffirm the commitment of developed countries to provide 0.7 per cent of their national incomes in aid. The draft declaration only ''invites'' developed countries ''to establish timetables in order to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent.''    - To specify that developing countries should have the policy space to formulate development strategies. The draft declaration makes no reference to protecting policy space.    - To emphasise the need to provide an immediate solution to the question of commodities and stress the need for more effective international action to address the problems of weak and volatile commodity prices. In reference to Africa, the draft declaration focuses on 'market-based' arrangements with the private sector for addressing the problem of commodity prices, rather than the intergovernmental arrangement called for by the G77 and China.    - To make a reference to commitments made at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002. The draft declaration makes no reference to the summit at all.
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item