Linking Human Rights and MDGs

At the September 2000 Millennium Summit, members of the United Nations adopted the Millennium Declaration. At the heart of this Declaration are eight goals known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).1 Time-bound and measurable, the MDGs aim to provide a common development strategy for the international community.

Past initiatives have ignored the inherent link between development and human rights. The Right to Life stated in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cannot be separated from MDG 1, the goal to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty. Stating that a person cannot live without food and basic necessities may seem obvious, yet the first UN link between poverty and human rights was only made in 1990.2 Despite the conceptual evolution of development from ‘material attainments and economic growth to a broad based notion of human development,’3 the gap between development and human rights remains substantial.

Why is it imperative that the interdependent relationship between development and human rights be recognized?

At the heart of the human rights approach is the ‘legal character of the international treaties that creates rights and duties.’4 Article 55 of the UN Charter obligates the signatories to promote the ‘universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.’ Human rights do not exist without corresponding obligations.

The MDGs are not part of a treaty but part of a declaration. They are not legally binding and thus, their implementation depends on the political will of the international community. Within a human rights frame work, development is no longer viewed as a ‘needs based exercise in charity’ but ‘genuine entitlements that span all aspects of (sic) life- economic, social and cultural as well as the civil and political.’5

Professor Aryun Sengupta applies the legal foundations of human rights to development with his ‘Development Compact.’6 Poor countries must be able to demand increased donor assistance and access to markets from rich countries. Poor people must be able to hold their governments responsible for achieving the MDGs. And donor countries must be able to insist on good governance in recipient countries and greater accountability in the use of donor assistance.7 From a human rights approach, MDG 8, the creation of a global partnership to advance development, is Sengupta’s ‘Development Compact.’

MDG 8 is often seen as the responsibility of the donor countries. The problem with this perception is that it assumes that members of the developing world do not have the right to demand assistance and cooperation from their Northern counterparts. It assumes that MDG 8 is not a ‘Development Compact’ but a whim of the rich countries. This assumption has allowed for the dilution of MDG 8, the only MDG without clear measurable timelines and targets. No date has been set for donors to reach the 0.7 percent minimum of official development assistance, no specifics have been outlined to increase market access for the developing world, and no strong commitment to debt cancellation has been made. Instead, MDG 8 is composed of vague terms like “develop further” and “deal comprehensively with.”

It has been five years since the Millennium Declaration, and the developed world has not fared well in its commitment to the MDGs. While all developing countries which would like to receive assistance must complete a national development strategy monitoring what steps have been taken by their governments to implement the MDGs, only four developed countries have produced such documents. Not surprisingly, these four countries—Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Sweden—have also surpassed the official development assistance measure of 0.7 percent of GNI and are all ranked within the top five donors of the OECD.8 Canada currently has an official development budget of 0.26 percent of GNI, an embarrassment to our Pearsonian heritage.

If a real global partnership (a ‘Development Compact’) is ignored, then, as the 2003 Human Development Report states “it is hard to imagine the poorest countries achieving Goals 1-7.” No other UN document has experienced a similar level of consensus as the Millennium Declaration,9 yet, political will is not political obligation and it has not been successful in advancing the MDGs. MDG 8, the MDG upon which all others hinge, will only be achieved within a human rights framework.

The MDGs provide an opportunity for the international community to take a human rights approach to development and thus, actually ensure that development is achieved.

---

1 The MDGs can be found at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

2 Libertas Rights and Democracy

3 Louise Arbour, ‘Statement to the UN Working Group on the Right to Development.È (15 February 2005). www.unhchr.ch

4 Mary Robinson, ‘Bridging the Gap Between Human Rights and Development : From Normative Principles to Operational Relevance.’ World Bank Lecture. (3 December 2001).

5 Louise Arbour, ‘Statement to the UN Working Group on the Right to Development.È (15 February 2005). www.unhchr.ch

6 Arjun Sengupta Thursday June 9, 2005 Rights and Democracy conference.

7 Human Development Report 2003

8 Asbjorn Lovbraek Thursday June 9, 2005 Rights and Democracy Conference

9 Kumi Naidoo, November 1, 2004 CIDA International Cooperation Days