Democrito2000’s Weblog

By Daniel Ruiz Sandoval

When one works in the international development field it is common to hear the phrase: “to make the world a better place”. And yes, the ultimate objective of international aid is to reduce the human suffering going on in the world, be it disaster relief, extreme poverty, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, climate change, malnutrition, human rights abuse, gender discrimination, child labor and so on.

Who in his or her right mind could oppose such altruistic goals, right? But if we look at the set of values and beliefs upon which the discourse of international development is founded, we may find out that they not only originate in an ethnocentric worldview, but also that the results they intend to reach might conflict with each other. Take the Millennium Development Goals for instance: Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger is probably the most basic requirement in order to reach higher levels of human welfare and equality. But then there is the question of how to actually go about reducing poverty and hunger. Well, if we take a look around us, it is not hard to notice that there is a considerable part of humanity that has been making steady progress towards higher living standards for some time now. India and China, that is.

Together these two countries account for nearly one third of the world’s population and in the last decade their per-capita income has increased considerably. However, this economic boom is based in part on huge deposits of coal in both countries, which make them also increasingly important contributors to global warming. Energy consumption in China has been growing by 5.5 percent a year over the last 25 years and India is already the 5th largest source of CO2 emissions (United Nations Statistics Division). It looks like we constantly attempt to have the best of both worlds without giving up anything in the process. In the case of climate change, it seems clear that somebody is going to have to give up their SUV in order for other people to satisfy their minimum material and spiritual needs.

Achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health and combating HIV-AIDS are also part of the Millennium Development Goals. Nevertheless, there are considerable areas of the world where people think women should not be allowed to attend school, let alone have their fair share of power within the household. And then there is the question of what kind of education we are talking about.

Fighting HIV-AIDS implies the notion that women are entitled to make their own decisions regarding sexual activity. Fighting HIV-AIDS can also require some degree of sexual education. These ideas clearly challenge established traditions in many parts of the world. The same goes for maternal health, which also implies that women be able to decide over their own bodies.

In short, The Millennium Development Goals reflect to a great extent the values emanating from the French and American revolutions of the Eighteenth Century and their subsequent developments. The fact that we strive to shape the world according to these values does not make them universal, but they are at least an alternative to sub-cultural violence and religious extremism.

On the contrary, sitting on the fence with a “let the world go round” attitude entails the responsibility of leaving the rest of humanity at the mercy of fanaticism and intolerance, as well as possibly succumbing to it in the long run.

That is why is so important to be involved in the international struggle to alleviate human suffering, because what makes these values universal is not their origin but the fact that everybody has the right to enjoy their benefits.