Social Justice in an Open World: The R ~ l of e the United Nations
by their evocation! Is it not preferable to focus on a more tangible objective, such as strengthening cooperation with pharmaceutical companies to ensure access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries, and to make concrete progress in this direction, than to insist on, for instance, a legislated code of conduct for multinational compar~ies,which is both unrealistic and a bad idea? The establishment of a cooperative, mutually beneficial relationship with the private sector requires practical, results-oriented strategies; is such cooperation not eminently useful for facilitating ICT dissemination in developing countries, for example! OS this type of activity not a visible manifestation of the pursuit of global social justice and more likely to be appreciated by those it is meant to help? Those espousing an egalitarian ideology would like to see in these texts a denunciation of the expanding gap between rich and poor countries and of the growing inequalities between rich and poor people in most national settings. Whatever one thinks of such disparities and differentials, broad generalities should be avoided and the valuable text space used instead for specific provisions on, for example, the development of a rule-based and non-discriminatorytrading system or the building of new schools to ensure universal access to primary education. It was possible to achieve a consensus on targets such as these in the Millennium Declaration and Goals precisely because care was taken to avoid divisive and ideologically charged pronouncements. This is no "ordinary" consensus but rather an instance of sincere agreement and true accord-a committed consensus. There are many difficulties associated with the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, but the commitment of all, notably the main economic and financial powers, cannot be doubted. This commitment has remained strong, even in the context of the growing preoccupation with security in the wake of increased terrorist activity. This apologia of the Millennium approach could go on, but the definitive argument of its proponents is that it constituted not only the best but ultimately the only possible approach, given the prevailing power relations and global political configuration. This is a strong argument-and one that was certainly in the minds of some of the key players in the World Summit for Social Development when they decided to focus on the commitment to eradicate poverty and, for all practical and political purposes, to allow the other commitments to sink into oblivion. This was clear in a number of the concluding statements made in Copenhagen in March 2005, notably by delegations of Western countries and of international agencies and funds, in particular UNDP and the World Bank. The Summit took place when the great ideological and political transformation that had begun in the mid-1980s was in full swing. For some idealists and the politically naive, this marked the beginning of a new era of international cooperation focused on the building of a just, prosperous and peaceful world community. It was seen as significant that the Copenhagen Declaration, accepted by so many Heads of State and Government, appeared to reflect a happy