RSS Feed
The Financial Tsunami Drowning Poverty Agenda
The most shocking comment for me in last week's Vice Presidential debate was Joe Biden's rather casual suggestion that foreign assistance would be the first budget item to cut in the face of the current financial meltdown. Sadly, there has been no storm of protest, scarcely a whimper from secular or religious leaders. It was another sign that global poverty is plummeting to the bottom of the developed world's agenda once again.
Last month's UN meetings in New York, and a swirl of activities around them, presented the ideal opportunity to review progress on addressing the world's worst poverty, goals laid out during the Millennium Summit in 2000. The stage was set for a full bore review of the Millennium Development goals (MDGs), which Archbishop John Onaiyekan from Abuja, Nigeria terms the Minimum Development Goals (because they are so modest: cut poverty in half by 2015, for example). The deadline to meet the eight goals is 2015, so 2008 is mid-point.
It's clear from mountains of reports that there is progress, but it is halting and insufficient. It takes little hard analysis to bolster the cri de coeur of world political leaders, World Bank presidents, nongovernmental organizations, and community organizers and leaders that the brunt of the current crisis, especially spiraling food and energy prices, is already hitting the poorest people the hardest and eroding progress already made.
There were plenty of New York meetings where MDGs figured on the agenda and some offered real promise, for example the Sept. 25 rallying event about the revitalized global malaria campaign and the Clinton Global Initiative where the entry ticket is financial commitment to addressing central global issues. But the harsh truth is that intense preoccupation with the financial crisis drowned out much of the planned reflections. It would be a real Pinocchio stretch to suggest that the sacred covenant that world leaders agreed upon in September 2000 -- never to forget their promises to work together to bring the world's worst poverty to an end -- was revitalized.
On Sept. 24, I participated in a half-day meeting organized by Religions for Peace, a global interfaith organization, which planned to bring religious leaders together with heads of state to reinvigorate the MDG campaign. Religious leaders traveled from halfway across the world and got seven minutes to make their case. Instead of world leaders they met two government officials, Sierra Leone's minister of trade and industry, and Andrew Steer, director in the UK development ministry, DFID. Both are wonderful people who made moving statements. Steer noted that when he looks at his five-year-old son he can never forget the 10 million should-be-five-year-olds who are NOT alive because they died, mainly of preventable diseases. But these two leaders came to the meeting because they already are converted. The meeting produced a moving declaration stressing the moral imperative of honoring the year 2000 pledges, an important reminder but it's not making headlines.
We are looking for leadership that speaks to our better natures, to the core ethical principles that are the best of what world religions have to offer - compassion and community, building a fair society. So it's sad that foreign assistance is so easily discarded when times are tough at home.
Maybe we should just start with facts because there is so much misinformation about foreign assistance: if Americans are asked how much the U.S. government SPENDS, they are likely (according to many polls) to give estimates around 20%. If asked how much the U.S. SHOULD spend, the answers are often around 10%. The reality? Against a global target for richer countries of 0.7% of GNP, the figure for the U.S. is around 0.16%; yes, the decimals are in the right place.
I don't believe that either Barrack Obama or Joe Biden would jettison foreign assistance, but the fact that the suggestion was made is deeply sad. Surely the goal of helping people living in misery, without hope, should withstand even the powerful financial tsunami we face today.
By Kahterine Marshall |
October 6, 2008; 10:10 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Sarah Silverman and the Florida Jews |
Next: "Religulous": Cinematic New Atheism
Posted by: Concerned U.S. Citizen | October 12, 2008 6:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Ms. Katherine Marshall,
Thank you for your essay.
The global target for richer countries of 0.7% of GNP for foreign aid is not cast in stone, but a voluntary compliance by countries that have the means.
The Scandinavian countries, among others, do give a higher percentage of their GNP for foreign assistance. Over the years, so so Japan, and now increasingly China (the latter due to obvious political and economic interests).
US government aid since 9/11 is focussed on security to foreign governments in various forms, including training of security personnel and for relevant technical support. This is done mostly bilaterally and not multilaterally through global international organisations such as the United Nations system.
Of course the US is the biggest contributor of the UN system organisations, but only in set contributions, not voluntary contributions.
Most of the funds for social or developmental aid to poorer countries are by American NGOs as well as churches, and of course, charities and foundations set up by the likes of Bill Gates.
In these times, I would not judge too harshly if any American politician wants to reduce or do away with foreign aid, but to consider which area are to be do away with. Also, Americans disquieted and dismayed by the current financial and ensuing economic situation would, perhaps, rather charity to begin at home.
Heartless for me to say so, but a poor farmer in a third world country, used to no running water or electricity and dependent on traditional medical remedies for ailments, are used to spotty and unpredictable aid, which often surge after a natural disaster, and then again, never quite enough.
Yes, the WHO, the UNDP, UNICEF etc does good work, but never quite enough funding as contributed by countries. And yes, the European Union is now the biggest contributor of aid in various fields.
It does seem immoral, but for the politicians who say reduce or cut foreign aid, it is pragmatic. After all, the targets set by the United Nations, including the MDGs are only moral in nature and not enforceable or binding on countries with sactions imposed if they fail to comply. Only the United Nations Security Council resolutions are enforceable, but then again, some never are.
It would, again, be left to communities themselves as well as national and international NGOs to scrap what resources they have and can get in these times of possible scarcer disposable funds (by governments, groups and individuals) for aid and charities for the necessary social aid for those who need them.
Thank you and best regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 9, 2008 12:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
A Wasted Vote
by Rep. Chuck Baldwin
October 10, 2008
When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.
In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."
Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!
Take a look at the recent $850+ billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?
But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.
With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.
I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!
So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out:
http://www.baldwin08.com/
As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."