From
email to the office of the New York Times Senior Editor for Standards and its
Public Editor
24 September 2014
To: senioreditor@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com
cc: sengupta@nytimes.com
............................
In 2001 the General Assembly referred to the MDG structure
[later note: should read 'the road map containing the MDG structure'] not as
"commitments" but as a "useful guide" to implementing the
actual commitments:
"Recommends that the “road map” be considered as a
useful guide in the implementation of the Millennium Declaration
by the United Nations system....
Requests the Secretary-General to prepare an annual report and a comprehensive
report every five years on progress achieved by the United Nations system and
Member States towards implementing the Millennium Declaration,
drawing upon the “road map”....while the quinquennial comprehensive reports
examine progress achieved towards implementing
all the commitments made in the Declaration...
Invites the United Nations system, in cooperation with Member
States, to adopt specific measures to give widespread publicity to the Millennium Declaration
and to increase the dissemination of information on the
Declaration"
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/
Did the General Assembly, at some point since the
Declaration, somehow agree that the MDG targets supersede the pledges?
Apparently not.
In respect of the US position, there seems to have been, effectively,
a specific reaffirmation in 2005 of the commitment
to the Declaration's goals.
[New
York Times quoting Ambassador Bolton:] " "Quite some time ago
the president said unequivocally we support the development goals in the millennium summit declaration," Mr. Bolton told reporters.
"Now that's different from the goals that were actually written by the
secretariat. There is no
backing away by the United States in the support for the millennium summit declaration."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/
"In a letter to other envoys, John R. Bolton, the
American ambassador, explained that the United States supported the goals enunciated by the millennium summit meeting but not the "package of
goals and subsidiary targets and indicators" that were later circulated by
the Secretariat."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/
Technically, that would mean the US was recommitting itself to the more ambitious
pledges to reduce, for example, mortality rates from 2000 levels, not 1990
levels.
In 2005 member
states stated in General Assembly
Resolution 60/1 that they
"reaffirm the United Nations Millennium Declaration".
unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/
The Declaration of 2000 stated,
"We therefore pledge our unstinting support for these
(sic)
common objectives and our determination to achieve them."
(sic).
The 2005 resolution states:
"we further resolve:...To assist developing countries'
efforts to prepare integrated water... plans as part of their national
development strategies and to provide access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation in accordance
with the Millennium Declaration and the Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation, including halving by 2015 the proportion of people who are
unable to reach or afford
safe drinking water and who do not have access to basic sanitation..."
That is a commitment to the Declaration's target, not the MDG
target.
The 2005 resolution also states,
"171. We call for strengthened cooperation between
the United Nations and national and regional parliaments, in particular through
the Inter-Parliamentary Union, with a view to furthering all aspects of the Millennium Declaration".
- which clearly means furthering not just targets but pledges.
The August 18 article is another example of recent
coverage. Its links seem to me to demonstrate that it confused the Goals'
targets with the Declaration's pledges.
August 18, 2014
"...the United Nations Millennium Development
Goals
[links to http://www.un.org/
an eight-part mission
[links to http://www.un.org/millennium/
focusing on reducing poverty, protecting the environment
and promoting peace, among other objectives."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/
I have suggested to you that the earlier coverage on its own,
irrespective of date, provided reasonable grounds for the public to expect to
be told the truth.
Another article from this year contributes to the impression:
May 6, 2014
"The new crop of objectives is meant to succeed the eight Millennium Development Goals the United Nations set in 2000."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/
It may be that the significance of this issue has not sunk
in. As you can see
from the email to the public editor, her own paper has put out similar
material. In those circumstances, I request information on
a) by whom the Times considers the public editor's role could
be properly exercised, and
b) the Times' written corrections policy to which you were
perhaps alluding in your last email.
Thank you for your attention.
Best wishes,
Matt Berkley.