|
MDGs: From Bad to Worse?
Angela Zarro interviews Roberto Savio*
In this interview, Roberto Savio provides his critical
reading of the entire MDGs process, explaining why this is
considered a 'missed opprotunity', what didn't work and how
things should evolve in order to achieve them.
AZ: What is your reading of the entire MDGs process and the
way it has performed so far?
RS: My reading of the entire MDG process is that it started
poorly and is now much worse. First, at the time of the
preparation of the assembly of heads of state in 2000, the
data used for the projection and the calculation of the MDGs
were five years old, meaning that the process -- the
Millennium Summit as it was called in a 'modest and
understated way' started with all data and proposals which
were insufficient for the goals established. Even for those
which were sufficient, there has never been any chance to
achieve the goals, because there never was sufficient
political will and enough resources to achieve them.
Of course the fact that China, and in some way India, were
able to develop/to perform better -- the population of the
these two countries represents close to the 40 % of human
kind -- makes the situation look better. But if we look at
the situation in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Asia, it
is clear that there hasn't been any real progress in
attaining the MDGs.
Secondly, with development institutions increasingly become
bureaucratic -- which is the death of utopia- it is this
bureaucracy that has kept the process alive. It is the
ministries of foreign affairs (ndr. rather than technical
people) that deal with the MDGs, with the result that the
mechanism which is kept alive is entirely devoid of content
and any hope.
The figures are there and I am very curious to see what will
happen after the upcoming review summit. I don't think that
the MDGs will be met before the 2035.
AZ: Critical voices -- also among those people involved in
the process -- describe the MDGs as a 'missed opportunity'.
What do you think?
RS: Of course they are a missed opportunity. The entire
development process is a missed opportunity. The MDGs
process is just the most visible part of it. Visible because
it implies the engagement of heads of state from all over
the world. The MDGs are the further evidence that this kind
of process -- be it the G20 or any other summits -- have
lost sense. The ministers attend these meetings, take
commitments and then forget about them.
The Social Watch, as you know, regularly publishes analyses
about the missed opportunities of development and every time
there is a new analysis, the situation is described as
getting worse.
In the last 20 years, since the collapse of the Berlin wall
and the end of the threat of communism, capitalism was
considered - not as a victory of one part of the world
(Western Europe and the United States) against another part
of the world (Eastern Europe and Russia) -- but rather a
victory of an ideology over another one; because of that
victory, all aspects and themes having to do with the losing
ideology were discarded. Social responsibility, solidarity,
accountability, anything having to do with the development
paradigm was discarded and a new paradigm -- based on
competition, profits and the market -- prevailed. The real
aim of such a paradigm -- that is also the core of
globalisation -- is 'to have more', while the paradigm of
development is 'to be more'. We moved from 'to be more' to
'have more', which are 2 entirely different things.
As a result, global finance, global investment and global
speculation have prevailed: today development cooperation is
at most the 0.10 % of the global speculation. This tells you
how the world is divided. I always say that if we could take
back the concept of global security -- that is now conceived
merely in military terms - and reach an agreement according
to which the 90 % of the global military budget goes for
military security and 10 % of the budget is used for global
human security -- which if you speak with military people
they will say they have no problem -- this 10 % of military
expenses would be enough to solve all problems of the world
development strategy.
AZ: If you say that many of these international summits have
lost sense, what alternative do you envisage? Do you see the
need to rebuild the international architecture or rather to
fill it in with more content?
RS: I think we need to understand what international
relations means. Today international relations comprises
everything. Today we see a situation where a country -- such
as Italy for instance - which is contributing far less than
others in terms of international cooperation, can declare to
be ahead of every European country.
Now of course if you include the costs of military missions
(ex. in Afghanistan or Iraq) within international
cooperation, then the overall budget is higher than
countries, such as Sweden, who spend less on military
missions and more for development aid. So the point is on
what does international cooperation mean. This is the debate
that needs to happen.
AZ: Which are your expectations about the outcomes of the
2010 review summit?
RS: Well, I am afraid that things will not go further than
hoped. There will be some general declaration on the need
for a better world and for a greater effort of cooperation.
I think it will be long on themes and short of substance.
AZ: Which priorities and policies are necessary to be
undertaken between now and the 2015 in order to maximise the
achievements of the MDGs?
RS: First there should be some debate on what the MDGs mean.
Is it the tip of an iceberg of a wider problem of hedonistic
approach? Who can do this? The international community have
lost strength. The World Social Forum is in crisis, there is
nothing new really coming up. Organisations like ATTAC,
which were very active, are declining. The civil society at
global level is declining and this, from my point of view,
is because there is a disconnect between civil society
organisations and the citizens. These organisations are
becoming increasingly self referential and they are not
doing enough to connect with the people on the streets. So
they don't represent much in terms of power. The power is in
the hands of the politicians, and the political class is
totally subject to the financial market and, to minor
extent, to the economic market. The result is that, because
of the financial crisis, we are having a monetary school of
solutions to the budget crisis, that means cuts everywhere,
with no political will to invest in anything. I don't think
that there is any real possibility of making any significant
change between now and 2015. There are only two items of the
development strategy people are still passionate about: one
is the environment and the other one is the employment (or
unemployment) that is where people are starting to feel
their personal life are affected directly. I am not very
optimistic.
AZ: In your opinion, what do the MDGs miss or need to
include in terms of topics, strategies, partnerships?
RS: We are facing a structural crisis. As long as we think
that development -- as a paradigm to achieve a better
society -- is only a quantitative problem, and we look at a
better society only in quantitative and not in qualitative
terms, we are talking about a world that is going in the
opposite direction of what the MDGs mean.
I don't see people getting out of this trap of getting rich,
and of the greed of market. In my view the current crisis
will continue, at least, for another 5 years and we will not
be out of the tunnel before the 2015, only when there will
be a reaction to the crisis that will hopefully provoke a
new debate. Right now we are in a crisis and there are no
leaders to get out of it.
AZ: In other words, we need to wait until the end of the
economic crisis to see some kind of change?
Who will promote such change?
RS: Yes, I think there will be a new perception of politics,
and a new awareness that capitalism needs to be kept under
control by some rules and principles and we will eventually
go back to a kind of social democratic society which has
made of development an important point in the past. All
social democratic countries (like Finland, Netherlands,
Norway, Sweden), are built on the principle that wealth
needs to be better distributed and there is some sense of
social justice, if not solidarity, at least social justice.
Social justice in today's world is dead. (END)
*Roberto Savio is Founder and President Emeritus of
IPS-Inter Press Service and Former Secretary General of SID
(Society for International Development). This interview was
published initially at
http://www.sidint.net/mdgs-from-bad-to-worse-interview-with-roberto-savio/
and then at
http://other-news.info
|
