Yet the crafters have kept a straight-face instead of resuming investigations into ways of rectifying their failures and researching better means of addressing the challenges presented. 
 
The first disappointment was the failure to achieve what could be seen as a test case for the future of the MDGs; the expectation that by 2005 we could have at least eliminated gender disparity in primary and secondary education.  But 2011 is at its midpoint and we have not yet surmounted that bit of our overarching goals.

According to the Brown review, less than five years from our target date 67 million primary school age children and an even greater number of adolescents are out of school.  Moreover, the poorest countries need 1.8 million teachers by 2015- one million of them for Africa alone.

The review estimates that to reach the target on education the poorest 46 countries would need a development aid commitment of $16 billion annually―and that’s just for education. 
 
The truth of the matter is that we have achieved significant changes in international development since 2000, but the question is whether we could have achieved those changes without the MDGs, which leads me to the point that the MDGs were redundant and the world could have done just fine without them.

The MDGs provided no nouvelle ideas about addressing issues pertaining to education, poverty, gender equality, etc.; most of these issues were already being addressed by existing UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNDP and FAO, or previous declarations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other UN Conventions.  What makes the UN think that it can achieve by nonbinding goals what it failed to achieve by binding conventions and declarations is rather baffling.
 
There are two major reasons why the MDGs are failing and why we should expect no dramatic changes in the state of the world come 2015.  Primarily, the UN was overambitious in setting the time limit for achieving the MDGs.  The dream of achieving in fifteen years what in my view cannot be achieved in twenty-five illustrates the idealism and overexcitement in solving chronic national problems. 

The good faith urge to heal the world was limited by meager research into feasibility and means.  There was a genuine outrage concerning the socioeconomic imbalance and suffering of the world in the new millennium, but instead of reason and pragmatism, we faced the challenges with emotional sensations that are incompatible with national politics or inherent bad governance in some of the targeted regions.
 
Secondly, the UN undertook to address issues that are mostly within national purview, and realist national politicking combined with limited national resources do not allow the luxury of good faith declarations emanating from a locally removed global institution. 
Many countries recovering from armed conflicts or other political crisis and natural disasters do not have the resources, or sometimes the political tools to engage in holistic reforms within such little time frame as allocated by the MDGs.  Even good governments with limited resources are prone to channelling their resources to the immediate needs of their people, or at least towards programs that can help them stay in office.
 
Moreover, some national legislative bodies remain sceptical about importing ideas emanating from foreign institutions.  Acceptance of international calls for socio-political reforms and remedies may appear as an acceptance of national inadequacies by countries that may want to be viewed as developing rather than underdeveloped, for instance. 

It is also a matter of pride for national lawmakers to be able to identify their own priorities and devise their own solutions, tailored according national interests.
 
However, the question is whether Africa should simply recline and wait to join the rest of the world in bemoaning the inglorious death of the MDGs.  My recommendation is that Africa should view the MDGs as a highlight of the issues they need to address in order to stabilize their young or aspiring democracies. 

The reality is that most African countries cannot afford the cost of implementing the MDGs within the given time frame; therefore they must select the issue that is most vital to their immediate future and avoid economic waste.
 
Africa must instead commit to achieving Goal two of the MDGs by 2015.  Goal two of the MDGs aim to ensure that by 2015 children everywhere, boys and girls alike will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. 

Almost every country in Africa is capable of achieving not only Goal two of the MDGs, but they can also achieve the implementation of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which makes education in the elementary and fundamental stages a human rights, and must be offered free of charge. 

There is hardly any African country which cannot, in good faith, afford to offer free elementary and secondary education to its children, and those who cannot legitimately afford to so could find assistance elsewhere. The provision of free elementary education may require the reallocation of funds from other national programs, but it is an investment that is worth prioritizing.
 
The importance of education is that it could reduce the cost of achieving other MDGs.  For instance, there will be less work towards Goal three of the MDGs, which calls for the elimination of gender disparity in primary and secondary education when all children have equal right to free and compulsory elementary education. 

All research in the field of maternal health show that increase in girl’s education can lead to significant improvements in maternal health, which will also decrease the cost of health care and prevent infant mortality.

According to the Brown review, universal basic education up to lower secondary level for women in sub-Saharan Africa could save 1.8 million lives annually.  In terms of investment, the review indicates that every $1 spent on education would generate $10-$15 through the education growth premium. These examples illustrate that Africa will fair better investing in universal elementary education than by attempting to meet all eight goals of the MDGs by 2015, because it simply won’t be possible.
 
Those in the international community who continue to think that the MDGs will solve the problems of the world come 2015 should visit countries like Sierra Leone, Niger or Liberia four years before the end date of the MDGs, perhaps they will re-evaluate their stance and start calling for pragmatic approach to development beyond an overzealous dream of saving the world. 

As Gary Dunion of the World Development Movement puts it, we should have entered this century with a resolve to change the systems that keep poor countries poor; instead we focused our attention on individual symptoms and not the disease. 

Africa must forego the MDGs and embrace education for all as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.