The Dominion - Nathan Lepp

UN Report: Ending Global Poverty "Utterly Affordable"

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:24:35 +0000

A UN report released this week called on industrialized nations to double their foreign aid budgets in order to meet the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) designed to lift 500 million people out of poverty by 2015.

Headed by Columbia University economist, professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, the report predicts that the MDGs are achievable only if developed nations increase foreign aid budgets from one-quarter of one per cent to one-half of one per cent of GDP. The previous commitment by wealthy nations to allocate 0.7 percent of GDP to aid has been met by only a handful of countries. The US places at the back of the pack at 0.15 per cent.

Sachs recommends focusing on at least a dozen poor but well-governed nations - including Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique - as a kick-start for the plan. He specifically focuses on some "quick win" policies such as eliminating school fees and providing free mosquito nets in areas where malaria is endemic, along with more far-reaching investment projects in infrastructure, health, agricultural productivity and education.

Critics of the report argue that while its intention is admirable, the plan is nothing more than a band aid solution that ignores the need for deeper political and social change in the developing world. They observe that simply infusing cash into developing economies is not always money well spent, particularly in an environment where corruption and mismanagement disrupt real development. Yet a growing body of economic literature, including a recent report by the Center for Global Development in Washington, suggests that the potential for aid to boost growth is significant, even in countries lacking infrastructure and sound economic policies. Supporters of the UN report argue that if aid is directed to carefully chosen projects in countries that are likely to use it well, the potential for positive results increases significantly.

Professor Dani Rodrik of Harvard University warns that cynical criticism may be dangerously close to recommending doing nothing at all. "[The UN report] has the potential to making a difference in a number of countries that take this opportunity and put it to good use," he said. "One has to ask the question: If not this, what else?"

» The New York Times: U.N. proposes doubling of aid to cut poverty

» The Washington Post: Fighting global poverty

» The Economist Global Agenda: Whatever it takes

» UN Millenium Project: Overview of "A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals"

Historic Peace Deal in Sudan

Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:10:33 +0000

Africa's longest running civil war - extending back 21 years with 2 million dead and 4 million displaced - ended on Sunday following a comprehensive peace agreement reached in Nairobi when southern rebel leader John Garang and First Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha signed a peace accord two years in the making.

Included in the accord is an agreement to grant the South its own regional government, the sharing of oil revenues, and military integration. Also included is the right of the South to vote for secession at the end of a six-year interim period. To the dismay of many, however, senior members of the Sudanese government will not be held accountable for human rights abuses committed in the rebel-held areas.

US interest in the conflict has been high as Sudan is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. The South is also home to significant oil reserves that bring the Sudanese government $4 billion each year. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, following the signing of the agreement said, "What was spent on fighting will now be spent on health, education and other services."

Along with the 4 million people displaced internally within the Sudan, observers expect that more than half a million refugees in neighbouring countries will return to their homes. The resettlement effort will require significant resources and coordination, and it is hoped that it will take place gradually.

Diplomatic pressure on the Sudanese government will remain strong as the civil war in the western Darfur region continues unabated with more than 1.6 million Darfuris displaced and an estimated 70,000 killed since last March. While it is hoped that the North-South deal may prove to be a model for Darfur, warnings of escalating violence from both the UN and US Secretary of State Colin Powell cast a shadow over the Sudanese government's statements of goodwill. Observers remain hesitant even about Sunday's agreement, warning that implementing the agreement peacefully will take a great deal of negotiation and a policy turnaround on the part of the Khartoum government.

» Reuters: Sudan, southern rebels end 21-year war

» BBC: UN warning over Darfur violence

» The Guardian: No justice for Sudan

» Reuters: Powell says genocidal acts continuing in Darfur

» Christian Science Monitor: Day for peace in a splintered Sudan

Disaster Relief Politics Complicate South Asia Effort

Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:12:14 +0000

As the $2 billion pledged worldwide for disaster relief in South Asia slowly begins to reach those who need it most, political concerns are seen to be playing too large a part in the raising and distribution of resources.

In Sri Lanka, the US is treading carefully in what is traditionally India’s sphere of influence. Washington’s decision to deploy up to 1,500 Marines and an amphibious assault ship to the island has been regarded with some suspicion in New Delhi. India was quick to send its own military to aid in the disaster recovery, including 1,000 personnel, five Navy vessels and six Air Force helicopters.

In the civil war between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil-dominant north, India has supported the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eeelam (LTTE), although it has recently made inroads into restoring its credibility in the south. The US has declared the LTTE a terrorist organization and is unlikely to operate relief efforts in Tamil territory where their presence would not likely be welcomed by rebel forces. The tsunami's effect on Sri Lanka initially prompted both sides in the civil war to state that they would seek to cooperate in the recovery effort, leading to speculation that the disaster may even result in a lasting peace. Organizations like the World Food Programme (WFP), operating in the rebel-held areas, cite significant cooperation and investment on the part of the government, but the Tamil leadership has accused the Sri Lankan government of diverting aid resources and failing to live up to its promises.

Meanwhile, India has politely refused to accept any foreign aid, preferring to coordinate its own relief efforts. NGOs seeking access to the Andaman Islands, where up to 16, 000 people are either dead or missing, have been denied. The ban on foreigners is partly due to the presence of a key military base on Car Nicobar island, as well as fears that the cultural lives of a number of primitive tribes on the island would be compromised.

Political posturing over the relief effort is also evident between the US and the UN. Washington’s decision to set up its own coalition of governments to coordinate relief in the region, rather than working under the umbrella of UN efforts, sparked sharp rebuke from critics. US Secretary of State Colin Powell was quick to downplay the controversy, emphasizing that it was made in the interest of efficiency and expediency based on the experience and expertise of coalition governments within the region and would not mean a refusal to cooperate with the UN in relief efforts.

UN relief coordinator Jan Egeland, after initially calling the US "stingy" for its early failure to come up with larger relief funds, has recently praised US involvement and willingness to coordinate with the UN. While the extent to which these assurances are accurately reflected on the ground remains to be seen, it is clear that the UN and the US -- both of which are suffering from image problems -- are feeling pressure to create some semblance of solidarity through the current relief effort.

Politics is also playing a positive role as governments worldwide are clamouring to turn generosity into political currency. After an initially sluggish response, government contributions to the recovery effort have ballooned in recent days and are likely to increase in the future. While purely humanitarian motivations, spurred on by increasing public pressure to increase contributions from public coffers, are undoubtedly front and centre, building reputation and credibility is also an important consideration not taken lightly by foreign policy decision makers.

Pakistan has donated money to India, its traditional rival, and Japan has made a statement by out-giving the Europeans and Americans. The US has perhaps the greatest potential to build political gains through generosity as it is battling huge international image problems resulting from the war and ongoing occupation in Iraq. But because of widespread perceptions that US action rarely occurs without significant ties to American interests, the administration has a difficult time countering cynicism directed at the massive relief efforts in a predominantly Muslim region. John Mearshimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, noted, "We’ve worked very hard over the past four years to create that animosity, and it can’t be undone quickly on one policy and one issue."

While watching the political element of the current aid effort in Asia carefully, observers are consistent in urging that while motivations may not always exclude an element of self-interest on the part of contributors, it is the end result that is most crucial. John Simpson, BBC world affairs editor observed: "It is the politics of the big gesture, and if that sounds unduly cynical, the fact is that big gestures are precisely what is required at times like these."

» BBC: Big pledges yield benefits for donors

» Reuters AlertNet: Sri Lanka tsunami aid becomes geopolitical game

» BBC: Foreign NGOs seek Andamans access

» Reuters UK: Tamils say government scrimping on aid

» Christian Science Monitor: US intensifies its role in relief

» The American Prospect: Donations for Goodwill: $350 million is a lot of money, but it won't restore America's image

Oxfam Report Highlights Decreasing Foreign Aid Budgets

Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:07:27 +0000

In a report released this week, Oxfam claims that levels of foreign aid money set aside for development NGOs by rich countries have fallen by half since the 1960s, despite increasing prosperity among donor nations. Warning that the UN's Millennium Development Goals on poverty reduction are at risk, the development advocacy group called on donor countries to set aside at least $50 billion in new overseas aid and to shore up aid budgets to 0.7 per cent of GDP.

US foreign aid spending in 2003 was 0.14 per cent of GDP, one-tenth of what the country spent on Iraq in the same year. Canada's contribution level was 0.26 per cent, down from 0.45 in 1992. Only five countries - Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Sweden - are above the 0.7 per cent mark, with Norway the highest at 0.92.

The report also challenges donor countries, the World Bank, and the IMF to focus on attaching fewer conditions such as spending caps and fiscal targets to foreign aid contributions. Domestic business interests have also been restrictive, with approximately 30 per cent of aid from G7 countries tied to an obligation to buy goods and services from the donor country.

Italy was named the worst offender in this category, with 92 per cent of aid tied to purchases from Italy or another specified country. The US percentage of tied contributions was cited at 70 per cent, while Canada was at 35 per cent. The report argues that conditional aid "undermines countries' ability to choose their own reform paths, meaning that aid money is less likely to support sustainable reforms, adapted to suit local circumstances."

Oxfam also expresses concern that anti-terrorism is threatening foreign aid budgets, and that security concerns are taking priority over poverty reduction in dictating where foreign aid funds are spent. In the past three years, levels of US aid to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan have equalled aid to the rest of the world combined.

Recent growth in US contributions to overseas HIV/AIDS victims and to countries that adopt democratic reforms are being highlighted by US officials. Yet there is a concern among development organizations that these widely acclaimed initiatives are in peril due to an expensive war in Iraq and a growing budget deficit. Fears that promised funds will not be delivered have so far been justified, as actual contributions to approved budgets have fallen short of the promised funds. Steven Radelet, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development (CGD), worries that even if budgets are met for these high profile initiatives, it will be at the expense of less prominent programs, including funding for global environment initiatives and multinational development banks.

In Canada, the Liberal government has promoted Canadian foreign aid achievements of recent months, but critics maintain that not enough is being done. Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe criticized Prime Minister Martin in November for talking about helping poor countries after his role in cutting foreign aid during his stint as finance minister. "It's great to make nice speeches," Duceppe said, "but, in reality, it takes money."

» MSN (New Zealand): Developed world morally obliged to boost aid

» Financial Times: Foreign aid threatened by anti-terrorism, says Oxfam

» The Guardian: Bush's foreign aid programs at juncture

» CBC: African children thank Canada for new school

» Global Issues: The US and foreign aid assistance (July)

» Foreign Policy: Ranking the Rich 2004 (May/June)

» The Dominion: Millenium Development Goals Progressing Slowly (November 28)

Bush Suffers Setback Over Nuclear Bill

Mon, 29 Nov 2004 04:16:14 +0000

US Congress has rejected a bill to provide funds in the 2005 fiscal budget for the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. Led by Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), the repeal of the bill is a small but significant coup by Republicans, who went against their own administration and voted with Democrats to refuse funding for research on low-yield atomic bombs ("mini-nukes") and a high-yield "bunker-buster" weapon. Designed to destroy targets deep underground, the proposed high-yield warhead could be as much as 10 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Linton Brooks of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) stated that such weapons are needed to ensure that there is no "invulnerable sanctuary" in the event of a "hypothetical future confrontation with a hypothetical generic dictator." In his rejection of this rationale, Hobson argued that the Energy Department's obsession with a new generation of nuclear weapons would be better devoted to maintaining the safety and security of the existing stockpile. At a symposium debating the proposed funding, Hobson stated that his concern over the penetrator weapon stemmed from a fear that "some idiot might try to use it."

According to Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, the ruling "is an important rejection of the administration's costly and counterproductive drive to invent new nuclear arms for new missions." Critics have repeatedly criticized the proposed bill as indicative of the Bush administration's hypocritical nuclear policy in light of international nonproliferation efforts and particularly Washington's demands that North Korea and Iran abandon the development of their own nuclear weapons arsenals. Arms control advocates are adamant that the further development of "usable" nuclear weapons will only ignite a new arms race and increase the likelihood of war.

Surprised by the congressional rejection, the NNSA and the Bush administration must now decide whether or not to attempt to revive the bill in the fiscal 2006 budget which goes before Congress in January.

» Washington Post: Funds for atomic bomb research cut from spending bill

» Chicago Tribune: Arms control activists hail Bush setback

» Arms Control Association: Arms Control Association applauds lawmakers' move to cut funding for costly and counterproductive nuclear weapons projects

Humanitarian Crisis in Fallujah

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:26:52 +0000

After a five-day offensive, the US and Iraqi interim government are claiming control over the former rebel stronghold of Fallujah. The operations in the city are viewed as an attempt to restore order among the Sunni minority - which represents approximately one fifth of the Iraqi population - prior to scheduled elections in January.

1,000 insurgents have been reported killed, and 200 have been taken prisoner. While the US has claimed that civilian casualties were relatively low, residents are describing incidents in which non-combatants were killed and injured. Aid agencies have warned of a possible humanitarian disaster with reports of piles of dead bodies, numerous injured civilians, and no medical help available to those remaining in the city. It is estimated that the 200,000 refugees who fled in the days leading up to the fighting currently have no access to food, water, or shelter.

In a letter to the US, British, and Iraqi government heads, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the current offensive may alienate the Sunni population and further entrench resistance.

Events on the ground suggest that the insurgency may be spreading, notably to Mosul. The city has reportedly been abandoned by police, some of whom are suspected of joining the insurgents, while several banks and government buildings have been occupied by rebels. Unrest has also been reported in Ramadi, Samarra, and Baquba.

» Sunday Herald (Scotland): 'Mission accomplished' in Fallujah

» The Economist: Winning in Fallujah, losing elsewhere?

» Reuters AlertNet: Fallujah a "big disaster", aid needed - Red Crescent

» Agence France Presse: US troops control most of Fallujah, rebels take fight to Mosul

Daunting Task for New Somalia Government

Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:51:54 +0000

Following his own appointment in October as president, former warlord Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed has named Ali Mohamed Ghedi as prime minister and has given him a month to name a cabinet.

A member of the Darol clan, Yusuf's decision to appoint a Hawiye to the position is the first step in attempting to reconcile the clan-based divisions that have plagued the Somali peace process. Since the downfall of Siad Barre in 1991, the country has been without an effective central government, having been ruled by competing regional warlords backed by armed militias. Up to 300 000 people have been killed, and over two million displaced.

Thirteen previous peace initiatives and two attempts to establish a new government have failed to bring lasting peace. With virtually no infrastructure and no established revenue, no civil service, nor any buildings for officials to meet in, the new government faces overwhelming logistical obstacles to establishing itself in Mogadishu. The security situation in the country remains volatile to the extent that the new government must currently operate out of Nairobi in neighboring Kenya - host of the peace process over the last two years. Estimates suggest that over 55 000 militia remain throughout the country, carrying more than two million small arms.

Yusuf has called for significant help in both resources and peacekeeping forces so as to speed up the process of pacifying the country. While regional leaders and foreign observers agree that military help from African countries would be politically preferable, it is questionable whether the continent could provide the 20 000 peacekeepers Yusuf has requested. With growing crises in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other countries on the continent, resources are already stretched thin. And with the memories of the last UN peacekeeping effort in Somalia still lingering, the international community will likely be cautious about mandating the deployment of troops from outside Africa.

» IOL (South Africa): New PM to spearhead reconciliation process

» IRIN News: Hundreds of thousands killed in years of war, says new president

» Reuters AlertNet: Crisis Profile: Is peace possible in Somalia?