AMERICA IS 'TURNING ITS BACK' ON POVERTY: U.K.'S SHORT, COMMENTATORS. British International Development Secretary Clare Short yesterday criticized America for not fully understanding how tackling global poverty could help to defeat international terrorism, reports the Daily Telegraph (UK). Speaking to the House of Commons international development committee on the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, Short said America was "almost turning its back" on the rest of the world. It was a "paradox" that a country which prided itself on its generosity gave only 0.1 percent of its GDP in international aid, compared to Britain's 0.3 percent and the UN target of 0.7 percent, she said.
Short noted that institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF had come to the view that poverty alleviation in states like Afghanistan was needed to stop them becoming breeding grounds for terrorism. But America did not accept this concept, she said: "It is not that the US is ungenerous. It is just that it is not sharing the insight that other countries have got and it is very important that we try to get them there ... The suicide bombers of September 11 appeared not to come from poor countries. But the conditions which bred their bitterness and hatred are linked to poverty and injustice."
The terrorist attacks created an "historic opportunity" for the international community to make a concerted effort to try to solve global poverty, BBC Online adds Short said. "Whether the US will do that, I don't think we can see it as guaranteed." Persuading America that international development was in its own self-interest, because it would help prevent future terrorism, was "profoundly important", said Short.
The news comes as Le Monde (France, p.5) reports that officially, Europe has taken care not to draw links between the war on terrorism and the fight against world poverty. But diplomats in Brussels say there has indeed been a "bin Laden effect." During a meeting of EU development cooperation ministers on November 8, the debate on increasing member states' official development assistance (ODA) divided those countries in favor of an increase-the Nordic countries, the UK, Belgium-and more parsimonious states, including France, which nevertheless likes to pose as the best advocate of the Third World, says the story. France, whose ODA levels have fallen from 0.64 percent in 1994 to 0.34 percent in 2000, limited the debate to establishing a timetable for member states to increase their ODA.
In Germany, meanwhile, Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul says she feels the last party conference of the ruling Social Democrats gave strong backing for her position, reports the Nürnberger Nachrichten, noting that she has once again asked to increase German ODA to 0.7 percent of GDP.
The news comes as Martin Wolf of the Financial Times (p.17) writes that if the west really wants to tackle global poverty and hunger, it should start by practicing what it preaches on trade. The World Bank notes that the average poor person confronts trade barriers roughly twice as high as those confronting the typical worker in an advanced country. In general, tariffs in advanced countries on imports from developing countries are four times higher than those on imports from other advanced countries. Exceptional protection is imposed against imports of many farm products (particularly in the EU and Japan), of textiles and clothing (notably in the US and Canada) and of footwear.
In complaining of the wastefulness of much aid, US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill strains at gnats and swallows camels, says Wolf. Total farm support is today barely less than in the late 1980s and, as the World Bank notes, "the share of subsidized exports has even increased for many projects of export interest to developing countries."
Also commenting, a Washington Times editorial (p. A16) notes that increasingly, trade will be a critical factor in underpinning global stability and peace, not only by generating prosperity, but also in building and fortifying global partnerships. According to the World Bank, an new trade round, coupled with market reforms, could boost global income by $2.8 trillion over the next 15 years.
Commenting on the US aid levels, meanwhile, Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard University writes in the Washington Post (p. A23) that this country is now so rich, and has so many rich partners in Europe and Asia, that we [the United States] wouldn't have to do much, relative to our income, to accomplish an enormous amount of good. The Marshall Plan cost the United States more than 2 percent of GNP for several years. Now we don't even provide one-twentieth of that. If the United States raised its aid budget this year from less than one-tenth of 1 percent of GNP to two-tenths, we'd have an extra $10 billion to devote to disease control, primary education, clean water and other vital needs of impoverished places with strategic significance. That $10 billion extra would quickly leverage at least $20 billion more from the Europeans and Japanese. Only then would we start having an adequate strategy for fighting terrorism at its roots, says Sachs.
Of the 183 nations represented at the World Bank meeting in Ottawa on Sunday, all but one expressed support for a substantial increase in aid to developing countries, writes Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy (p. B3). That one was the US.
At the World Bank meeting in Ottawa, Britain's Brown proposed a $50 billion increase in aid provided annually to developing countries in an effort to reach a U.N. goal of halving global poverty by 2015. The proposal was aimed at feeding the hungry, reducing infant mortality and ensuring that children learn to read. The amount suggested is less than the world coughed up virtually overnight for the war in Afghanistan.
Half of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day, while the richest 20 percent consumes more than 80 percent of the world's resources, according to United Nations Development Program statistics. We [the United States] profess to care about this inequity, says Milloy. But when it comes to putting our money where our mouth is, we say, "Go fly a kite."