Ed note. This column, from Project Syndicate, is reprinted with permission. The author, Erik Solheim, is the former Norwegian minister of development and minister of the environment, and Chair of the OECD Development Assistance Committee.

Today, roughly one-quarter of the world’s population lives in conflict-affected and fragile states. Despite vast sums of money spent aiding such states over the last 50 years, armed conflict and violence continue to blight the lives of millions of people around the world. International and national partners must radically change the way they engage such states.

I experienced firsthand the need for a new approach in 2004 in Sri Lanka. Within the first two months of the devastating tsunami that struck that December, close to 50 heads of state and foreign ministers visited the island. Each came with their own programs, their own civil-society organizations, and their own television crews. Few came with any deep understanding of the dynamics of the political conflict between militant Tamils and the Sri Lankan state. Big mistakes were made, fueling further violence.

Our major challenge today is to move away from the model of partnership according to which priorities, policies, and funding needs are determined in donor capitals and development partners’ headquarters. Conflict-affected states need to be able to determine their own destinies.

We should establish models of post-conflict transition like the one advocated by the g7+, a group of eighteen fragile states. The model is simple: Countries assess their own situation, using tools that they develop and that are appropriate to the context, in order to formulate a vision and a plan to consolidate peace and achieve prosperity.

This may sound like pie in the sky, but we have already tasted it in Africa, where Sierra Leone’s Agenda for Prosperity 2013-2017 and the Liberia Vision 2030 exemplify the potential of such programs. Progress on meeting national priorities such as peace consolidation, expanding access to justice, or increasing security is monitored locally. Using local systems and capacities, it turns out, can strengthen them.

The “New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States,” which builds on a series of international commitments regarding aid and development, and was endorsed at the at the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea in 2011, proposes just such a model. It enshrines what matters most in building peaceful states and societies: commitments – the Peace- and State-building Goals – to improve how national and international partners engage in conflict-affected and fragile contexts.

The New Deal recognizes what the history of peace-building teaches us: national leadership and ownership of agendas are key to achieving visible and sustainable results. As Kosti Manibe Ngai, South Sudan’s finance minister, has put it, “Nothing about us without us.”

In many conversations with South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir, we have discussed setting out a short list of clear priorities for the new state. But such goals are meaningful only if a fragile state’s partners are ready to accept the lead from a capital like Juba rather than from their own headquarters.

More than 40 countries and institutions have endorsed the New Deal way of working, committing themselves to building better partnerships – and to investing the required resources and political capital. This is why the New Deal model is innovative; it creates political support around issues that need to be addressed if countries are to make the transition from conflict and fragility to peace and stability.

Supporting inclusive political dialogue and ensuring that conflict is resolved through peaceful means are the highest priorities, as are security, access to justice, and a dynamic private sector that generates sufficient job opportunities. Moreover, many fragile states are rich in natural resources, and must establish transparent resource management – aimed at curbing corruption and controlling illicit flows of money and goods – in order to raise the revenues needed to deliver services.

A focus on these processes would ensure that fragile states take the lead and the responsibility. As partners, we must accept this national leadership. After Haiti’s catastrophic earthquake in 2010, the country was dubbed “the republic of NGOs.” Unable to create conditions in which Haitians themselves could take the lead in rebuilding their country, Haiti’s external partners undermined the establishment of a functioning internal governance system.

So, how can we translate our commitments and priorities into better lives for people who are affected by conflict and fragility?

OECD countries need to lead by example and meet the commitments that they have made. Our partners, through groupings like the g7+, must continue to demand the changes in policies and practices that have been promised.

We also must plan to change for the long term. As the Millennium Development Goals’ 2015 end date approaches, promotion of peace, security, and non-violent conflict resolution continues to be vitally important, and must be fully integrated into any future development agenda.

Recently, the members of the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, the high-level political forum that produced the New Deal, met in Washington, DC, to assess our progress in changing how we work and in implementing the New Deal commitments. They agreed to theWashington Communiqué, which urges development partners, g7+ countries, and civil-society organizations to intensify their efforts to use the New Deal to deliver concrete results on the ground, and calls for a post-2015 development agenda that recognizes the universal importance of peace- and state-building.

Ultimately, our progress depends on the resolve of everyone to transform the lives of the 1.5 billion people whose lives are marred by violence, conflict, and insecurity.

On May 17, United Nations agencies commemorate the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.  May 17 was the date back in 1990 that “homosexuality” was removed as a mental disorder from the World Health Organization’s master list of diseases. Since then, it’s been a day of commemoration for many international NGOs, and more recently the United Nations itself.

The administrator of the United Nations Development Program just released  this statement which I think  a pretty powerful explanation of why equality is not just important for its own sake, but can catalyze important health and development goals as well.

Last month, my country, New Zealand, became the thirteenth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, and the first in the Asia-Pacific region. When the results were announced, lawmakers and onlookers to the historic vote in Parliament began singing a Maori love song in celebration.

In the United States, a majority of the population now believes that same-sex marriage should be legal, and we see a number of states moving in that direction.

Today as we mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, it is tempting to focus on these victories. But so much remains to be done in securing rights for gay, lesbian, and transgendered people, and ensuring they can live lives free from violence, intimidation, and secrecy.

The United Nations agency I head, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), is on the ground in over 170 countries and territories, implementing programming which focuses on the rights of all people to access important services and live lives of dignity. Many of the people we work with are excluded from development opportunities specifically because of their sexual orientation or gender expression, contributing to the staggering levels of inequality around the world. Such inequalities impede development progress for society as a whole.

For example, 78 countries criminalize same-sex sexual activity, according to the UNDP-led Global Commission on HIV and the Law. Penalties range from jail sentences to execution. In those Caribbean countries where homosexuality is criminalized, almost one in four men who have sex with men is HIV-positive, compared to one in fifteen in countries where it is not illegal.

Transgendered people often face extreme levels of prejudice and violence, with many countries refusing to acknowledge them as legal persons, by law or by practice. Many are denied the accurate identification documents they need to access basic rights and services including employment, health care, travel, and participation in democratic processes. In some countries, a transgendered person’s very expression of self is a punishable offence, and police may refuse to stop acts of violence against this population.

Through its work in human rights, access to justice, and HIV law reform, UNDP is partnering with government, civil society and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people themselves in many countries to tackle these gross inequities.

In India, UNDP worked with the government to ensure that state safety nets like welfare and pension schemes include transgender people. Thanks in part to a UNDP-supported nationwide campaign against stigma and discrimination in the Philippines, the City Council of Cebu unanimously outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and HIV status.

Going forward, UNDP is supporting greater attention to LGBT rights as the international community prepares a post-2015 development agenda. Increasingly, the international community is recognizing that LGBT people, just like the rest of humanity, are entitled to live their lives free from fear, violence, discrimination, persecution, and pervasive inequality.

And finally, here’s a video from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Take a moment out of your day to do something positive for equality! You can find a list of actions here.

Top Stories from DAWNS Digest

Nigeria Counter-Insurgency About to Get Really Real

The efficacy–or not–of Nigeria’s military campaign against Boko Haram will be profoundly consequential for security of the entire region. “Nigeria’s military said Thursday that it was ready to launch air strikes against Boko Haram Islamists as several thousand troops moved to the remote northeast to retake territory seized by the insurgents. ‘The entire Nigerian military is involved in this operation, including the air force,’ defence spokesman Brigadier General Chris Olukolade told AFP. ‘Definitely, air strikes will be used when necessary,’ he said. A force of ‘several thousand’ soldiers along with fighter jets and helicopter gunships have been deployed for the offensive in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa state, he added.” (AFP http://bit.ly/110vkLUv)

Now the Good News: Tetanus on the Decline Worldwide

Tetanus has been eliminated in half of the 59 target countries, says the Maternal and Neonatal Tetanus Elimination Initiative. “Since 1999, more than 118 million women of child-bearing age have been vaccinated against tetanus in 52 countries. Many of these women received their tetanus vaccine as part of an integrated campaign which included other life- saving interventions for children – such as immunization against measles, Vitamin A supplements, deworming tablets and information on umbilical cord care. (UNICEF http://bit.ly/13yWLld)

Ed note. This essay — by me —  originally appeared in the Diplomatic Courier

In 2000 world leaders gathered at the United Nations to agree on a set of eight targets for international development. Since then, the Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs have become the single most important organizing principle of the international community’s fight against extreme poverty and disease.

World leaders gave themselves a deadline of 15 years to reach these goals. Fast forward to April 2013 and we are now 1000 days until the MDGs are due. So how far have we come? What is left to do? What should replace the MDGs once they expire? And most importantly, what can ordinary citizens of the world do to help the cause?

On Friday, April 5th, over 70 organizations—including United Nations specialized agencies, governments from around the world, and members of the private sector and NGOs like the United Nations Foundation—marked the 1000 day countdown with a 1000 minute “digital media relay” to address those questions in a way that could not have been imagined just 15 years ago. Through Twitter and Facebook chats, Google Hangouts blog posts and more, millions of people came together from every corner of the globe to celebrate global progress in eradicating extreme poverty and disease and press world leaders to close the gap for those MDGs that have yet to be achieved.

The Momentum 1000 Project was an impressive show of global solidarity. It was also exceedingly necessary. If world leaders are going to achieve the goals they set for themselves 15 years ago we are going to need to sprint to the 2015 finish line.

Some MDGs have already been met. The very first Goal—to reduce by half the number of people living on less than $1.25/day—was reached in 2005. This was due in large part to the tremendous economic growth in India and China over the past decade, which lifted hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty. China and India’s economic development pulled the aggregate global numbers up, but there are also success stories in regions that have not experienced that pace of growth. Cameroon and Guinea have achieved the target while Senegal, Gambia, Swaziland, Uganda, and Mauritania are very nearly there.

The second MDG deals with access to education. That is another great global success story. Primary education in developing regions reached 90 percent in 2010, up from 82 percent in 1999, which means more kids than ever are attending primary school. The progress in Africa has been even more dramatic: The aggregate net primary school enrollment for Africa rose from 64 percent in 2000 to 84 percent in 2009. Gender gaps in education are also disappearing—there are more girls enrolled in primary school now than at any other time in human history. This is progress for which all of humanity can be rightfully proud.

The genius of the Millennium Development Goals is that they put some of the great moral challenges of our times squarely on the political agenda of every single government of the world. Governments and civil society rose to the occasion by backing up the MDGs with new sources of funding to roll back some of the great global scourges of our time.

Nowhere has this been most apparent than in the health related MDGs. Rolling back the tide of HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and TB is at the heart of MDG 6. And fighting deadly childhood illnesses like diarrhea, pneumonia and measles is at the heart of MDG 5. Tackling these challenges required money. The levels of required funding is not an onerous amount in budgetary terms, but an injection of new funds was needed. In 2002, donor governments and civil society created the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria in an effort to pool resources. Large philanthropies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation added a new and nimble source of funding for global health; and in 2003, President Bush launched the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPfAR), which was the single largest injection of cash to fight HIV/AIDS worldwide.

The health related MDGs were the organizing principle around which these efforts coalesced. The results have been impressive. On Malaria, for example, prevention strategies like indoor residual spraying and long lasting insecticide treated bed nets have decreased infections by 17 percent globally since 2000. Deaths have decreased by 25 percent. Access to HIV medicines in the developing world has also increased substantially to about half of all people in need today. That is clearly not enough—the goal calls for universal access to HIV/AIDS medicines—but this progress has been meaningful nonetheless. For the first time since the AIDS epidemic began nearly 30 years ago the number of people who died from AIDS decreased in 2010.

The one set of goals, though, that need the most help is related to maternal health and maternal mortality. MDG 5 sets a target of reducing maternal mortality by three quarters and achieving universal access to reproductive health. Both goals, sadly, are far from their targets. Maternal mortality has only been decreased by 47 percent; and there are still about quarter of a million women who do not have access to family planning services. In many ways, these targets are the single most important of all the MDGs: studies have shown that investing in women and girls can have profoundly positive economic and social consequences society wide.

In 2010 the UN Secretary General took a hard look at the world’s collective failure to meet this MDG and launched an initiative called Every Woman, Every Child. This initiative used the UN’s unique convening power to secure financial commitments from donors and concrete political and policy commitments from recipient countries to help close the gap on women and children’s health.

Progress has accelerated since then, but this MDG is still behind schedule.

In the next 1000 days, we are unlikely to fully close that gap—but projects like the digital media relay help keep the spotlight on those MDGs that still need help—and can help make sure that this issue stays on top of the international agenda once the MDGs give way to the post 2015-agenda.

Surely, the experience over the last 13 years has demonstrated that combining some of the great moral challenges of our time with political and financial backing can yield impressive results. The UN system is now exploring ways to build on the successes of the MDGs—and on the momentum of the next 1000 days—to design a new global development agenda once the MDGs expire. Government leaders from the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Liberia are co-chairing an important committee that will make recommendations to the United Nations about what should be included in a post-2015 development agenda. Their report is due at the end of May, and chances are it will build on the foundation of the MDGs, but expand them to include principles of sustainable development. That would be key. Among the greatest challenges of the next decade will be to maintain impressive levels of economic growth and social progress in the developing world, but in a way that does not jeopardize the health of the planet.

As the experience of the past 13 years demonstrates, this is a perfectly surmountable challenge so long as the international community keeps its eyes on the prize—and citizens keep up the pressure on their leaders.

Top stories from DAWNS Digest

International Community Rallies to Support Mali with $4.2 Billion

A very successful pledging conference. “International donors have pledged more than $4.2 billion for development and peace-building efforts in Mali, a sum that far surpassed initial expectations for the pledging conference held Wednesday in Brussels. The donations exceeded the $2.5 billion Malian officials hoped international donors would provide the West African nation. At a press conference in Brussels, French President Francois Hollande, who co-hosted the conference along with the European Union officials, characterized it as a big success. (VOA http://bit.ly/12c7TS1)

Some More Good News on Global Health

The health inequality gap between rich and poor countries is shrinking, says a new WHO report. “This year, the World Health Statistics compares progress made by countries with the best health status and those with least-favourable health status at the MDG baseline year of 1990 and again two decades later. It shows that, in absolute terms, countries in the lowest 25% category of health status have made impressive health progress . For example, the absolute gap in child mortality between the top and bottom countries was reduced from 171 deaths per 1000 live births in 1990 to 107 deaths per 1000 live births in 2011. Some countries that were among those with the world’s highest child mortality rates in 1990 – including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal and Timor-Leste – have improved child survival to such an extent that they no longer belong to that group.” (WHO http://bit.ly/19ugfqZ)

Annual Cost of sub Saharan Africa’s Child Malnutrition: $25 Billion

Chronic malnutrition among children in sub-Saharan Africa is a big burden. A UNICEF conference that ended yesterday said that the loss in productivity and health expenditures add up to $25 billion a year. “It’s proven that because of chronic malnutrition, children can miss two to three years of school,” said Laurent Duvillier, UNICEF’s regional spokesman for West and Central Africa. “So actually, in the case of sub-Saharan Africa, we realize that those countries actually need that qualified manpower, but they may not have those intellectuals, those engineers, those doctors that they actually need because those children cannot reach their potential and their development as they should.” (VOA http://bit.ly/10Ai2Wn)

Episode 3 of the Global Dispatches Podcast is here. There’s no stopping us now!

I chat with the filmmaker Dodge Billingsley, who is putting the final touches on a fascinating documentary that takes a look at the political and cultural challenges that face the eventual re-unification of the Korean peninsula. Dodge also spent several years covering the Chechen civil war and insurgency, which has obviously come into play given the recent events in Boston.

We talk about all that, plus the films that shaped our foreign policy worldview. I cite three movies that I found particularly influential: The Battle of Algiers, Doctor Strangelove and Contagion.  (Audience participation: what films would you choose? Let me know over Twitter)

Dodge’s films offer a depth of policy analysis that is unique to the medium, I recommend you check out his ouvre over at Combat Films and Research. And stay tuned for the release of Unfortunate Brothers: Korea’s Unification Dilemma.

In the meantime: Have a listen now, or download our conversation via Itunes.

Previous Episodes

Episode 2: Laura Seay, a.k.a @TexasinAfrica 

Episode 1: Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network

The Islamist insurgency in northern Nigeria is casting a long shadow on the country, as President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states, in the northeastern part of the country. Northern Nigeria has been the seat of a protracted insurgency led by Boko Haram, a local jihadist militant organization which finds its roots and its support in the same parts of Nigeria that it targets through attacks, kidnappings, bombings and targeted killings. Following another wave of attacks, which President Jonathan has said amount to a “declaration of war“, the sweeping powers given to the federal government are meant to give the Nigerian military greater authority and reach to target and root out Boko Haram militants.

Northeastern Nigeria has witnessed ongoing violence, perpetrated both by Boko Haram and the Nigerian military. Because of the grassroots, local nature of the Boko Haram movement, the Nigerian military has struggled to effectively deal with the threat posed by this group. Indeed, in its efforts to root out militants, the Nigerian military has been targeting civilian areas, and has been accused of indiscriminate, extrajudicial killings of individuals whose ties to Boko Haram were often ascertained “on flimsy or no evidence.” Adam Nossiter has been reporting on the ongoing conflict for the New York Times, noting that the “military’s harsh tactics, which it flatly denies, have reduced militant attacks in this insurgent stronghold, but at huge cost and with likely repercussions, officials and rights advocates contend.” Recently, the Nigerian government had pledged to negotiate with Boko Haram, but the recent brazen attacks by the group, compounded by the military’s ruthlessness in the northeastern region, have made it all but impossible to continue with the planned negotiations.

Boko Haram – which, according to some sources, literally means “Western education is sin” in Hausa – has been pursuing a violent, extremist agenda which the Nigerian government has a duty to quell. Over the course of the past few months, the group has been targeting public schools, burning or destroying 50 of Borno state’s 175 schools, according to IRIN. A few weeks ago, a raging battle between the Nigerian military and Boko Haram in Borno state left 2,000 homes burned and 180 dead.  “The Nigerian military has a duty to protect itself and the population from Boko Haram attacks, but the evidence indicates that it engaged more in destruction than in protection,” Daniel Bekele, Africa director at Human Rights Watch, noted in a recent report.

President Jonathan is faced with the complex task of rooting out a militant group that is deeply embedded within the local population, in a part of the country that is far removed from the central government and its authority. His predecessor, Olusegun Obasanjo, had also declared a state of emergency for similar reasons in 2004 and 2006, replaced the democratically-elected governors of those states with appointed, former military leaders, yet failed to quell the unrest caused by Boko Haram. The increased tensions between the Nigerian authorities and Boko Haram will likely have the greatest impact on local populations, who find themselves caught in the middle of a protracted power struggle which shows no signs of abating.

The New York Times posts the horrific account of a mass atrocity which took place in the Tartus province of Syria this month. The province as a whole is an Alawite stronghold, but the village of Baniyas is largely Sunni. The village had not seen much conflict in the two years until May 4th.

That’s when the systematic murder of families took place.

Government troops and supporting militias went house to house, killing entire families and smashing men’s heads with concrete blocks.

Antigovernment activists provided lists of 322 victims they said had been identified. Videos showed at least a dozen dead children. Hundreds more people are reported missing.

“How can we reach a point of national forgiveness?” said Ahmad Abu al-Khair, a well-known blogger from Bayda. He said that the attacks had begun there, and that 800 of about 6,000 residents were missing.

Multiple video images that residents said they had recorded in Bayda and Ras al-Nabeh — of small children lying where they died, some embracing one another or their parents — were so searing that even some government supporters rejected Syrian television’s official version of events, that the army had “crushed a number of terrorists.”…

Men in partial or full military dress went door to door, separating men — and boys 10 and older — from women and younger children.

Residents said some gunmen were from the National Defense Forces, the new framework for pro-government militias, mainly Alawites in the Baniyas area. They bludgeoned and shot men, shot or stabbed families to death and burned houses and bodies….

One video said to be from Bayda showed eight dead children on a bed. Two toddlers cuddled face to face; a baby rested on a dead woman’s shoulder.

Here is a horrid photo, purportedly from Baniyas, of several dead children.

Civilians — babies —  are being killed for no other reason than their ethnic affiliation.  This is what sectarian conflict looks like. What’s worse, the logic of the Syria civil war suggests that these kinds of atrocities will  come more frequently. As the war grinds to a stalemate, we can expect ethnicities to be purged from the provinces in which they are in the minority. Alawates will be driven from Sunni held territory; and Sunnis purged from Alawite territory.

This is ethnic cleansing. And it is well underway in Syria today.

Top stories from DAWNS Digest

State of Emergency Declared in Nigeria

President Goodluck Jonathan has declared a state of emergency in three northern states amid a rising Boko Haram insurgency. Key question: can the Nigerian military fight this battle without violating human rights of  civilians in those states? “‘What we are facing is not just militancy or criminality, but a rebellion, an insurgency by terrorists groups who pose a very serious threat to national unity and territorial integrity,’ he said. Jonathan said attacks have amounted to a ‘declaration of war’ against Nigeria and ordered the military to deploy more troops to stop the insurgency using ‘all necessary actions.’ Extraordinary measures, he said, include authorizing soldiers to seize any building or area they believe to be associated with militants.  The military will also conduct searches and arrest people found with illegal weapons.” (Voice of America http://bit.ly/10onpMl)

Bangladesh is on the verge of yet another disaster. Myanmar too. The very regions of these two countries that may be hardest hit are also the ones least equipped to deal with a major natural disaster.

Cyclone Mahasen is bearing down on eastern Bangladesh and Myanmar. 8.2 million people are potentially in the path of the storm.

Even a moderate cyclone can spell disaster for Bangladesh, where much of the country is low lying and vulnerable to floods and storm surges. A bad rainstorm sometimes wipes out whole villages.

The trajectory of this cyclone is particularly worrisome. Cox’s Bazar is province of Bangladesh that buttresses Myanmar’s restive Rakhine state.  Many thousands of ethnic Rohingya refugees from Rakhine have fled ethnic violence and discrimination in Myanmar to refugee camps and informal settlements across the border in Cox’s Bazar. The Bangladeshi government does not much like this influx, and keeps conditions there fairly  miserable so as to deter refugee flows. Last year, three respected international NGOs were expelled from the region.

In all, there are about 400,000 stateless Rohinyga living in Cox’s Bazar. These men, women and children have fled violence and discrimination in Myanmar, and now live informal settlements in Bangladesh. Government services don’t reach this population; and neither does much international humanitarian aid.

A massive humanitarian crisis could befall this regions should a cyclone hit. And there is  little chance that authorities in Dhaka would respond with appropriate urgency; nor would authorities make things  easy for NGOs who want to provide emergency relief. After all, they’d rather these people just go away.

If the path of this storm stays true, expect a major, major human rights catastrophe in the region.