MALIR EXPRESSWAY

 

These are the bunch of news which reflects that Malir express way is not "development". This is the Malir expressway so called "development" which will come into being as a result of displacement of homes that fall along the route of this road network.

 

IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT 

o   Nowadays everyone is talking about the green area destroyed for this development project. but infact, there was a large part of Malir river which was used for cultivation that often caused flash floods during monsoon season which resulted in loss of life and valuables in the area. As the construction for Malir expressway is being done on the riverbed the condition of floods will become worse with every upcoming year.

o   Karachi, the city affected most by climate change will be facing the same issue again but now even worse as the additional traffic would lead to additional greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution hence increasing global warming and yearly heatwaves.

o   It is destroying the only greenfield in the city which was the source of fruits and vegetables. It will also lead to unemployment because for some these green fields was the only source of livelihood

o   The worst impact of this project will be the people living around the construction area who will be forced to move into a different area and their houses will be needed to be demolished for the continuation of this project. This is not the first time such action will be taken, we have seen the same process of construction and razing of people’s residence during the Lyari expressway project and CPEC. During these people were told they’ll be given alternative accommodation but still they haven’t been gotten back to which has resulted in people being homeless and as for now there is no hope of shelter for people being forced to evict.

Avoidance of demolishment of people’s houses: 

Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah approved some changes proposed by the local government department in the alignment of the Malir Expressway project.

At the 36th meeting of the Public-Private Partnership Board, officials proposed “minor” changes in the alignment of the Malir Expressway in Gadap and Memon Goth areas.

these changes were aimed at improving hydrology and engineering design of the project.

The officials said the change in alignment would require only 10.3 acres of private land instead of 148 acres and save Rs3 billion in land acquisition.

They said that earlier 204 houses were affected but now no house would be affected.

The meeting also reviewed several projects, including safety and security of the Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, regional blood centre projects, clean blood supply to National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Jhirk Malla Bridge Link Road project, Karachi-Thatta Dual Carriageway

 

Even if the routes have been realigned to avoid further homelessness doesn’t make this project a development project as it is still affecting the climate, green fields, livelihoods of people; causing unemployment, proves that this project will continue to affect the city in the long-term.

WHY NATIONS FAIL By Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson (CHAPTER 1)

 

The masterpiece by James A. Robinson and Daron Acemoglu is titled "Why Nations Fail." This book offers a solid and thorough analysis of those elements. This has the potential to either bring about national prosperity or national impoverishment. The first chapter of the book "Why Nations Fail" is summarized in this article. "So close and yet so different" is the subtitle of the first chapter.
 
The author focuses on the two areas in this first chapter. Despite being so close together, these areas are very distinct. These areas, which were divided by a fence, are Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora. Nogales Sonora is located in Mexico, while Nogales Arizona is a part of the United States of America.
The author starts with Nogales, Arizona. People in this region are healthier and earn a decent living. And it leads to their success. People in this area can invest in the company. They are unafraid of corruption or injustice. Because they have more political influence. They can also use their political rights to depose any corrupt leader.
However, the case of Nogales Sonora differs from that of Nogales Arizona. People in Nogales, Sonora, do not have enough political rights. Their government is in a state of flux. People are afraid of crime, which is a common occurrence in Mexico. People are concerned about injustice. Their monthly income is ten times that of Nogales, Arizona. They cannot invent in business due to high restrictions and the law only work for the elite class.
The author examines both regions' situations and institutions. Many people believe that a country's prosperity or poverty is determined by its geography. Because it contributes to the expansion of the economy. However, according to the analysis provided in this chapter. It claims that different institutions shape different countries. Different institutions create different types of policies and incentives. They either drive the country to prosperity or to poverty. The distinction between these institutions in the United States and Mexico is due to the formation of societies during the colonial period.
Both societies emerged in the late 16th century in very different ways. Spanish colonists invade Peru and Mexico in the early 16th century. They also victimized the indigenous people as well as the king of the time. Their colonization strategy was to capture the area's leader. Indigenous peoples were enslaved. And they were getting food and equipment by victimizing them. They had taken over all of their gold and silver mines.
They began these savages by torturing their king, who provided these Spaniards with a place to live. After torturing the king, they took control of the entire region. Brutality, corruption, and injustice have pervaded Mexican institutions throughout history. Following independence from the Spanish regimes. The inhabitants of this region became antagonistic. Because of their internal conflicts, desire for power, and lack of concern for the nation. They were unable to establish viable institutions.
In the case of Nogales, Arizona, England established colonies in North America. Their colonization strategy was quite different from that of the Spaniards. Because the local indigenous leader was already aware of the dangers of colonization. It took England a long time to establish colonies in America. They were unable to enslave indigenous people due to the presence of the inhabitant king. They had to work for themselves, and England established colonies in America in the 17th century.
They established constitutional laws in the colonies in the mid-seventeenth century. They also established institutions that were founded on honesty. These institutions have been working for them since the 17th century. Americans gained their independence in 1789. Then, with the same sincerity, these institutions began to work for America.
A check and balance system were established in the United States, and people were granted political rights. If they discover any leader engaging in corruption and injustice. Then, through proper political mechanization, people can change leaders. In 1789, the leaders of the United States established proper democracy. It also brought about constitutional democracy. Politicians' power was limited by a system of checks and balances.
However, in Mexico, the elite held all of the power, and there was no balance in political rights. Citizens who used to speak out against violence. They were murdered by the elites. In Mexico, they established monarchal democracy. This is the distinction between Nogales in Arizona and Nogales in Sonora. The sincerity and honesty of the institutions established by states determines whether or not a country is prosperous. Because of the different natures of governmental institutions, prosperity is unequal in both regions.
 
It is worth noting that those countries that become developed nations live healthier lives and follow the laws of the land. In exchange, the government ensures the nation's safety from attacks, poverty, and fear. Those countries where the government is untrustworthy. Nations do whatever they want without regard for the law of the land. It was created by corrupt and crooked officials. These nations are being destroyed.
CONCLUSION:
It could be said that for the sake of the nation's prosperity. Sincerity is required of both the government and the general public. History demonstrates that corrupt leadership can only be eliminated through revolution. However, if the revolution is successful in removing corrupt leaders. As a result, the new one must be truthful. There should be no more dictatorships. And corrupt leaders ruling the country, as in Mexico.
In the 21st century, constitutional democracy is the most effective ingredient. As it could get used to resolve the weaknesses in the running system of institutions of the state.

MDGs and SDGs

 

MDGs (millennium development goals) 

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the eight goals set by the 189 UN member states in September 2000 and agreed to be achieved by the year 2015. 

HISTORY OF MDGs:

The 20th century’s grand finale was fastest approaching, and the world was in disarray. global inequality, financial crises, HIV AIDS cancer epidemics all running rampart. how did the world get here and did the un have a solution? In 1983, the created the Brundtland commission as response to the global outcry on environmental economic and social challenges this commission produced the iconic report, our common future, where they popularized the term sustainable development. the un the further elaborated Brundtland report in an action plan called agenda 21. It was presented bat the UNs first earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 agenda 21 was a non-binding action plan for countries to execute sustainable development at the local national and international level. Despite agenda 21s good reception it failed. Large organizations did not embrace sustainable development and many developing countries thought they were predominantly drafted and represented by policymakers for rich developed countries. adding on to these global problems were starting to pile up all of this led to mistrust towards the un because how they handle the economic situation in the 80s and 90s. despite the un Mix track record in the twentieth century its core premise of “one country one vote” still gives them enough legitimacy to continue to reframe global debates. finally, the year 2000 had arrived a momentous calendar events what better time than this thought the UN to revise the term of global cooperation. The UN used his renewed spirit to make a global promise to reduce poverty and human deprivation at historically unpresented rates using different nations collaborative action the world would come to know this global commitment of the millennium development goals 191 united nations member states and 22 international organizations came together on the 8th of September 2000 in New York pledging to achieve the eight MDGs by 2015 the MDGs received a mixed reception people either viewed them as an optimistic blueprint for global equality or believed that they did not have any meaningful target, policies and actions. The MDGs were even seen as a new rationale for rich developing countries to promote the ideology of capitalism and globalization disguised as aid for developing countries.  despite this mixed reaction, the MDGs have still become the world central refence point for development cooperation.it packaged global critical issues on poverty hunger disease inequality and environmental degradation into easily understandable goals which in turns promote a global awareness despite the MDGs achievement they were widely criticized civil society groups were livid to see no mention of women’s reproductive health issues ,political conflicts ,employment or economic growth in any of the MDG target .even the UN high commissioner for human right criticized the MDGs for not aligning with global human rights standards and principles .but the worst was yet to come .the MDG agenda’s biggest criticism was how extraordinary narrow they were. they reflected a top-down process of a north south aid agenda sometimes referred to as the minimum development goals. Eight out of six MDGs were predominantly relevant to developing countries. This meant the UN and the rich developed countries only needed to invest in developing countries and did not have to change the status quo in their own nations this resulted in the MDGs not being connected to the world’s development priorities, as 2015 was approaching it was clear that the MDGs desperately needed a successor that were going to overcome the challenges that plagued them.

FAILURE OF MDGs: 

One of the major MDG failures is the fact that the success of the goals was not experienced equally across the globe; this in itself is a major defeat. Consider a few of these statistics from different countries concerning the same MDGs.

Extreme Poverty 50 Percent Reduction Rate:

1.       Southeastern Asia exceeded the goal for extreme poverty reduction by 16 percent

2.       Southern Asia exceeded the goal by 12.5 percent

3.       Northern Africa scraped by at about 1.2 percent

4.       Sub-Saharan Africa was by far the most behind. It did not even meet the goal for extreme poverty reduction and was 12.5 percent away from doing so.

The extreme poverty reduction goal of at least a 50 percent reduction in those living on $1.25 a day arguably had the best statistics for each country; from there it goes steadily downhill. This trend can be seen throughout the different Millennium Development Goals. Sub-Saharan Africa was far from reaching its goals, and not one country achieved the goal set for maternal mortality rate reduction.

 SDGs (sustainable development goal)

HISTORY OF SDGs: 

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. At its heart are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are an urgent call for action by all countries - developed and developing - in a global partnership. They recognize that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.

The SDGs build on decades of work by countries and the UN, including the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs

•  In June 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, more than 178 countries adopted Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan of action to build a global partnership for sustainable development to improve human lives and protect the environment.

• Member States unanimously adopted the Millennium Declaration at the Millennium Summit in September 2000 at UN Headquarters in New York. The Summit led to the elaboration of eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to reduce extreme poverty by 2015.

• The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and the Plan of Implementation, adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa in 2002, reaffirmed the global community's commitments to poverty eradication and the environment, and built on Agenda 21 and the Millennium Declaration by including more emphasis on multilateral partnerships.

• At the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 2012, Member States adopted the outcome document "The Future We Want" in which they decided, inter alia, to launch a process to develop a set of SDGs to build upon the MDGs and to establish the UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. The Rio +20 outcome also contained other measures for implementing sustainable development, including mandates for future programmes of work in development financing, small island developing states and more.

• In 2013, the General Assembly set up a 30-member Open Working Group to develop a proposal on the SDGs.

• In January 2015, the General Assembly began the negotiation process on the post-2015 development agenda. The process culminated in the subsequent adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with 17 SDGs at its core, at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015.

• 2015 was a landmark year for multilateralism and international policy shaping, with the adoption of several major agreements:

• Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (March 2015)

• Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (July 2015)

• Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with its 17 SDGs was adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York in September 2015.

• Paris Agreement on Climate Change (December 2015)

• Now, the annual High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development serves as the central UN platform for the follow-up and review of the SDGs.

Countries failing to achieve SDGs:

• World leaders are meeting on September 24 and 25, 2019, to discuss the progress and challenges for the SDGs at the UN headquarters during the 74th UN General Assembly. This is the first meeting to evaluate the SDGs after a four-year cycle of implementation and annual review at the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF).
• The 2019 Social Progress Index, compiled by the US non-profit Social Progress Imperative, ranks 149 countries’ social performance over the past five years. The index uses indicators such as nutrition, shelter, safety, education, health, personal rights and inclusiveness.
• The index offers a comprehensive snapshot of a country’s overall progress towards the achievement of the SDGs. It forecasts that at current trends the world will not meet the SDGs 2030 targets even until 2073, more than four decades past their target date
• The data shows the biggest areas of underperformance are on measures related to water and sanitation, nutrition and basic medical care, and shelter.
• Personal rights have particularly declined, with 91 of the 149 ranked countries recording a fall in rights, with freedoms of religion and expression deteriorating the most.