The United Nations Millennium Development Goals on Education have been unrealistic

The other day, I read an interesting news article by the BBC discussing the issue of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) on education and if these goals will be achieved by 2015.

Back in 2000, international leaders pledged that all children in the world would receive a primary education by 2015, but a recent report published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) state that the goal will not be achievable by 2015.

Although the report argues that the amount of children receiving a basic primary education has increased since 2000, this has only happened in some parts of the world and not all. There are large parts of Africa that have seen no major increase in children receiving primary education.

Like all ideas, enthusiasm was there at the beginning, but as time passes, the will of the people achieving a conclusion fades over time (these people been the world leaders, and even us as global citizens). 

Perhaps, the goal of achieving universal primary education in 15 years was a little ambitious, and as history has shown, grand expectations take more then 15 years to achieve. Just look at the development of most industrial nations, it took more then a couple of decades to go from poverty to industrial powerhouses.

Funding and good governance seems to be the main problem in reaching the MDG on education. As the BBC article mentions, world leaders have been preoccupied with recent economic down turn and fighting terrorism, rather then increasing funding for global education. Also, a lack of good governance in many parts of the world has undermined much of the achievements so far. The persistence of war and corruption in especially Africa has prevented further efforts to achieve the goals setout by world leaders in 2000.

I think that we can provide universal primary education in the near future, but we need to be realistic on the time frame and the challengers ahead. There is no use for governments promising large amounts of money, without securing a framework to deal with issues such as good governance, peace and security, and global cooperation. 

What is going on with our politicians in Canberra?

Every week it seems that the Parliament house has become a school ground for bullying and personal attacks. Over the last few months, if not since Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot became the leaders of their parties, personal attacks have taken over debate, instead of issues that matter to most Australians.

Parliamentary sittings are becoming the soap opera that is Home and Away and Neighbours.

Last week, in light of the resignation of the House of Representatives Speaker Peter Slipper, who has been accused of sexual assault, by one of his male staff, the Parliament became a place where both Gillard and Abbot once again contrived to personal attacks. This time in a speech to Parliament, Gillard accused Abbot of sexism and of been a misogynist.

Although, I do agree with Gillard that Abbot does have a history of sexist comments and actions that where mentioned in her speech, I do think that all of these personal attacks by both parties need to come to an end. All sides of politics should be debating real issues facing the nation, rather then petty political point scoring that we have witnessed over the last few months.

Australia’s bid for seat in the United Nations Security Council

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Minster Bob Carr was in New York attending the annual United Nation (UN) leaders meeting last week, where they have been trying to gain support from other nations for Australia’s bid for a temporary two year non-permanent seat on the United Nation Security Council (UNSC).

Australia is bidding for a seat against Luxembourg and Finland. Both these nations began their campaigns to gain a seat eight years before Australia, giving them a clear advantage in drumming up support from other countries. Both Gillard and Carr are not letting this advantage halt Australia’s own chances of winning, arguing that Australia has a good record when it comes to participation in the UN, with many successful contributions to Peacekeeping operations in the past.  

As usual in politics, the campaign has not been without a few critics. Opposition leader Tony Abbot  criticised the bid,saying that Ms Gillard should be in Jakarta talking to the Indonesian government about the more important issue of stopping the boats, rather then trying to bid for a costly UNSC seat. Abbot went further, saying that “Australia’s pursuit of the temporary seat was a waste of money and distorted the nation’s foreign policy priorities.”

Although the campaign to gain a temporary seat cost an estimated $55 million, in my opinion the money spent will be worth it. Australia has as much of a good chance of winning the seat as the two other bidding nations. Australia has a good UN record, with regular contributions to peacekeeping operations and campaigning on behalf of smaller nations in the international community. Furthermore a UNSC seat would give Australia influence in some of the major global decisions that could be in the national interest both in our economy and diplomatic relations (such as, a long term, internationally coordinated plan of how to "stop the boats").

We will need to wait until October 18th when all 198 member states cast a secret ballot to decide who gains the Security Council seats.  

All these protests will just fuel stereotypes further

Protests on the anti-Islamic film reached Sydney (Image source: Wiki Commons)

So the worldwide protest about a silly film has reached Sydney.

Following on from my previous post, I am amazed at how much outrage a poorly made anti-Islamic film can spire into so much destruction and hatred against the US and the west in general.

Most of the protests and violence has been against the United States (US), where in many North African, Middle Eastern and some Asian countries, thousands of Muslims have taken to the streets near the US embassies protesting against the anti-Islamic film. But this fury has extended to Sydney, Australia last Saturday,  when a few hundred mostly young Muslim men and some mothers and their children began a violent protest in anger over the film.

As I have already said in a post I wrote last week, that I do not support the message of the film that has inspired this global protest by the Muslim community, however I do condemn all the attacks against innocent individuals with no links to the film.

The violent protest last Saturday in Sydney, were not even aimed at the US, as the event happened no where near the US consulate.

The violence was perpetrated by a group of young Muslims, and many of the leaders of major Islamic organisationsin Sydney have since stated thatthe attacks are un-Islamic and are condoned by majority of Muslims.

In the past few days since the protest in Sydney, there have beenhundreds of hate letters been sent to the Islamic communities  by racistindividuals or groups. I think that this short of action is not helpful and inflames further hatred and bigotry in society. Revenge for certain past actions just recycles anger and violence.

An open letter written by Peter FitzSimons summed up the consequence of this action in Australia well: "the net result of such irresponsible, appalling action is to give ample fuel to every racist in the country to reinforce every bad stereotype they have ever had of <Muslims>, and that will affect badly the hundreds of thousands of other peaceful and law-abiding Islamic Australians?"

What needs to happen now is for all people of all faiths, to cooperate to stamp out religious bigotry and hatred, as to prevent further violence.       

Why all this Religious Hatred?

Image source:  http://thegoldguys.blogspot.com.au/

This week we have witnessed more  anti-American attacks in Benghazi, Libya and in Cairo, Egypt. The U.S Consulate was attacked by a group of people who stormed the compound  shooting at staff inside, which three U.S officials were killed including the Ambassador; a crowd in Cairo were protesting outside the U.S Embassy, but there are currently no reports of any casualties. 

The reported reasons for these attacks were in protest and outrage against a low budget film, Innocence of Muslims, which portrays prophet Muhammad in bad terms,emphasising him as been gay and a fraud. The film is claimed to be made by a man calling him self Sam Bacile, an Israeli-American living in the U.S, although this information has not yet been proven, as there has been no Sam Bacile found. In a  telephone  interview with the Wall Street Journal, he claimed Islam to be "a cancer."   

The film has outraged large sections of the world’s Muslim population, which is understandable as the film does offend the Islamic faith. If anyone ever makes an offensive film against the Christians, Buddhists, Hindu and other world religions, the rest of us would be equally furious.

Although I do not support the film and its portrayal in any way, but I think that the three US officials killed in Libya did not deserve to be targeted because of the action of one man or any other people involved in the production of the film.

What we need today and for the future is to be more culturally and religiously tolerant towards each other no matter what faith one practices. These recent incidents and past ones remind us of the stupidity of religious hatred that does not solve any problems, but just brings harm to the world. 

The Spectacle of the American presidential election Campaign has Officially Began

Over the last few weeks we have witnessed the official start to the 2012 presidential elections in the United States of America (USA). Both the Republican and Democratic parties have held their National Conventions to officially nominate their candidates for President and vice-President. 

The purpose of these conventions is to allow delegates from each party a chance to nominate their candidate, who will contest in the Presidential election in November, and for the adoption of the party platform, which is the statement of principles and policy proposals for the campaign.

This year, the Democrats have nominated President Barack Obama and the Republican Party has nominated Mitt Romney, after he won the parties State Primary Elections earlier this year. The Conventions are held every four years, a few months before the November General Election. They last for about four days with much of this time taken up by official party business and proceedings as well as key note speakers and other party officials, whom the chance to speak in support of the nominated candidate.

I am not from the USA, and I am amazed by the amount of money spent and the Hollywood style Spectacle that the National Conventions have become. At this year’s Conventions a number of Hollywood stars have came out of the wood work in support of the candidates and their parties. The Republican Party had Hollywood film star and producer Clint Eastwood,  and the Democrats had the services of film star Scarlett Johansson. All of these speeches by the candidates and their supporters were toped off by a concert like atmosphere with in the venues, with some of the the biggest musical bands and singers in America performing at the conventions    

After watching some of the coverage of the Conventions and the election process in general, I feel that American society and politics thrives on an over the top patriotic spectacle.

From my knowledge, no other country spends as much money or time campaigning to elect a leader. This years election is predicted to cost the individual parties and candidates about one billion dollars, with most coming from corporate and public donations.

In Australia, elections are cheap compared to the US. I don’t think Federal elections in Australia cost even any where near one hundred million dollars. Although the long time spent officially campaigning is due to how the US political system works, especially for the party not holding office, but surely over two years is a little excessive. Romney as the contending candidate had to start campaigning over two years ago, if not longer. He had to first contest the Republican Party Primaries, to be elected the parties candidate, and now needs to campaign against Obama to became President.

I personally think that all that money and effort to elect a President could be spent trying to solve the many problems that American society face.

For Information about the US Election system see the link below:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30527.pdf            

About that 'boat people ad'

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post criticising the Australian governments policy of reopening the immigration centres on Nauru and Manus Islands. Since then the government has launched a advertising initiative on YouTube to compliment the return to offshore processing of asylum seekers.

The initiative is to distribute an advert on You Tube and in DVD format, telling asylum seekers that arriving by boat will not give them or their families an advantage over those arriving legally or been processed in refugee camps. The advert will be translated into seven different languages and  be distributed on line and through Australian Embassies.

In my view, processing asylum seekers offshore and distributing a YouTube advertising will not prevent asylum seekers coming by boat to Australia. Even if the ad is translated in to seven different languages, most of the people being targeted by this ad will probably not have access to a computer or the internet to view this ad. Not to mention it has cost us a lot of money to produce.

Like the decision to open the Pacific Solution, this is just another band-aid solution to a complicated issue.