The document Keeping the promise: a forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, dated 12 February 2010, is the fundamental point of reference for the MDG summit meeting.

"Our challenge today is to agree on an action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. With five years to go to the target date of 2015, the prospect of falling short of achieving the Goals because of a lack of commitment is very real. This would be an unacceptable failure from both the moral and the practical standpoint. If we fail, the dangers in the world — instability, violence, epidemic diseases, environmental degradation, runaway population growth — will all be multiplied." Keeping the promise: a forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, 12 February 2010, section 4.

In the May 2010 issue of this journal, a few recommendations were offered pursuant to facing this challenge. These recommendations are structured around the "guiding principles" proposed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Keeping the promise, section 99, and are reiterated here with a an added sense or urgency:

"1. National ownership and leadership complemented by supportive global programmes, measures and policies that align with national priorities and respect national sovereignty are essential." Since global solutions are imperative, and solutions must be consistent with national priorities, it follows that national priorities must be supportive of global solutions. Managing the circular feedback loops between global and national needs is unavoidable. Iterating around these loops requires that all nations agree on the principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, and sustainability. The principle of subsidiarity is especially critical if global and national interests are to be mutually supportive. It is indispensable if some form of global governance is eventually required -- and it is hard to envision global solutions to global problems without global governance. Even if global governance could somehow be avoided or postponed, the principle of subsidiarity must be applied to all sustainable development initiatives ate the local, national, and global levels. Else, MDG8 becomes an impossibility. "2. The interdependence of human rights, gender equality, governance, development and peace and security must be recognized to attain success and sustainability." Respect for human rights and the need for governance, development, and peace and security are already acknowledged (at least in theory) by all nations. This is not the case with regard to gender equality. In this sense, gaining a universal commitment to gender equality should be a pivotal goal of the "MDG summit." It is reasonable to anticipate universal secular support for this commitment. But universal religious support will be harder to achieve. In fact, some religious institutions will actively try to sabotage any such commitment as being (for some "divinely revealed" reasons) contrary to the wellbeing of humanity. These are the same institutions that persist in excluding women from roles of real religious authority due to the inordinate attachment to the "phallic syndrome." If the religious dimension of gender equality is not addressed, MDG3 will never come to pass, and MDG8 will never come to pass either. "3. The need to look at the Millennium Development Goals through a gender lens is critical, since women and girls typically face the greatest burdens of extreme poverty, hunger and disease. All of the action areas need to include specific strategies for tackling challenges faced by girls and women. On top of this, critical actions are needed to focus on overarching priorities for gender equality, including challenges of women’s political representation and the intolerable reality of violence against women." Indeed, "a gender lens is critical." But when it comes to issues that pertain to vested interests and/or ancient prejudice, the lens must be really transparent; else, various interest groups will see only what they want to see. This is especially true with regard to gender equality. Gender equality is a visceral issue. In the secular world, people with a mindset that gender inequality is "the natural order of things" often display visceral reactions to any proposal in favor of gender equality. In the religious world, it is even worst as visceral reactions are exacerbated by religious fanaticism about obeying "God's will." Of course, men and women are genitally and psychologically different -- and, as the French say, Vive Le Difference!. And of course, it is also generally recognized that gender inequities (economic or otherwise) are morally wrong. But the issue of gender equality transcends differences in genitalia and/or equity. Gender equality is about the equal dignity of men and women as human persons who share one and the same human nature. And gender equality is about fostering the integral human development of both men and women, boys and girls, without artificial restrictions imposed by primitive thinking, some of which persist as "sacred traditions" in many religious institutions. It is hoped that the "MDG summit" will be unequivocal in calling for gender equality in all nations and human institutions, both secular and religious; anything else would be a disservice to humanity and a sabotage of the MDGs. "4. The norms and values embedded in the Millennium Declaration and international human rights instruments must continue to provide the foundation for engagement, in particular the key human rights principles of non-discrimination, meaningful participation and accountability." Specifically, what is needed is a worldwide commitment to end all human rights abuses, all discriminatory practices, all exclusivist organizations, and all secular and religious structures in which the authorities restrict participation of all stakeholders in governance and make decisions (or evade making them) under the privilege of secrecy. Lord Acton's dictum remains prophetical: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Now we also know that secrecy corrupts, and absolute secrecy corrupts absolutely; and this applies to both secular and religious institutions. "5. The need to empower the poor through scaled-up efforts focused on citizen monitoring of Millennium Development Goal delivery, capacity building and improving access to financial and legal services remains crucial." Specifically, this should include supporting development in geographical areas that lack basic necessities and compensating this by an equivalent reduction of extravagant consumption in the overdeveloped areas. In all countries, it should include enhancing human development opportunities for girls and women to bring them into balance with those available for boys and men. This is not reverse discrimination. It is simply a matter of distributive justice.

These recommendations are difficult but not unfeasible. All the recommendations are interdisciplinary. Everyone who wants to make a contribution can have a piece of the action. Politicians will have to rise to the occasion. Let's hope they will. If the "MDG summit" meeting is successful in achieving the necessary national commitments, then the collaborative/integrative work could be accomplished via the National Sustainable Development Strategies. These national strategies might eventually be integrated into a Global Sustainable Development Strategy to be approved by the General Assembly. This will take time. Structuring some appropriate form of global environmental/climate governance will take time. Let's hope that Gaia is patient and kind.

Finally, a note of caution: Leveling the playing field between the two halves of humanity (male and female) may eventually require a critical examination of the MDGs and MDG targets as currently formulated. The patriarchal mindset is so pervasive that it may be necessary to exorcise the "phallic syndrome" from the definition of MDG targets. I am indebted to Japanese scholar Miwako Kamimura for convincingly bringing this point to my attention in recent correspondence. Further research is urgently needed to ensure that the MDG targets actually mark the right direction to achieve gender equality as opposed to simply paying lip service to it. For the time being, however, the MDG targets as presently defined should be pursued with every resource at the disposal of the UN and the member nations.

Clarification: The preceding paragraph might give the impression that the "phallic syndrome" is Ms. Kamimura's terminology. It is not. She uses the more nuanced phrase "male-centered model of citizenship" to argue that an explicitly feminine perspective may be lacking in the MDG definitions and targets. Habitual readers of this journal will recognize the "phallic syndrome" as a term we use to describe situations in which a "male-centered model of citizenship" has become so pervasive as to degenerate into a form of social pathology. It is based on "phallagocentrism", a term coined by French philosopher Jacques Derrida to describe the propensity to favor masculine terminology in the articulation of meaning.

3. General Consultation and Opportunities for Participation