| Author (Person) | Cronin, David |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.10, No.10, 18.3.04 |
| Publication Date | 18/03/2004 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 18/03/04 MARCH is the month when EU leaders chant a mantra about developing the world's most dynamic knowledge-based economy by the end of this decade. It would be easy to forget, then, that the same leaders have also signed up to a set of objectives more crucial to humanity. By 2015, most of the eight UN Millennium Development Goals are supposed to be a reality. These include halving the proportion of people who live on less than a dollar a day, ensuring primary school education for all, halting the spread of major killers, such as AIDS and malaria, halving the proportion of people without regular access to clean water and developing a global trading system more favourable to poor countries. "The EU has accepted the millennium development goals, so as a Union they clearly have a duty to work towards poverty eradication," says Rukmini Rao, an activist with the Centre for World Solidarity in India. "But the EU has to work in a more concerted way than it does today. For example, while half of the world's poor live in South Asia, only 10% of the EU's development budget is allocated to Asia. You have 400-500 million people still living on less than $1 a day." But Poul Nielson, the European development commissioner, believes "it is justified to note that we are moving in the right direction" towards reaching the goals. As part of that work, all of the current EU countries have undertaken to allocate at least 0.7% of their income to development aid. At the 2002 international 'financing development' conference in Monterrey, Mexico, an interim target of 0.39% by 2006 was set. According to data released recently by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) the only EU governments that exceed the 0.39% target are Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden. Perhaps the OECD's data, though, does not properly illustrate just how skewed the rich world's priorities can be. For example, the €425 million that Austria gave to poor countries in 2002 is little more than five times the amount in George W. Bush's re-election war chest. Yet Nielson takes heart from how all member states - bar one - are increasing their aid allocations. "What was promised two years ago in Monterrey is actually happening. That is something which should not be overlooked." The exception is his native Denmark. Copenhagen used to be the 'elite donor' in the Union, reserving 1% of its national income for aid. Yet a policy of retrenchment introduced by the centre-right administration of Anders Fogh Rasmussen saw that slip to 0.96%. Greater pressure needs to be applied, Nielson reckons, to other industrialized countries, which are falling considerably below the 0.39% level. The OECD has calculated that the US allocates 0.23% of national income and Japan 0.12% to development aid. And although Japan is the second largest economy on the globe, its aid budget shrank by more than 1% in 2001-02. "The United States is increasing, whereas Japan is not," says Nielson. "But the way in which the US is doing things is lacking predictability. There is more selectivity in their approach, it is more politicized." Indeed, some commentators have speculated that the reason why Ethiopia and Eritrea were among the small number of countries that signed up to the 'coalition of the willing', backing the US-led war in Iraq, was purely to secure higher American aid. Nielson also says that cooperation between leading aid donors is far from satisfactory. "In Monterrey, we also pledged to move towards better coordination. But the finance minister in Ghana told me he has 400 meetings per year with donors of different kinds to accommodate a working relationship with them. That is totally unmanageable. If this is something that is imposed by each donor individually, you can see where the craziness will end up. There is a need for a simple harmonized set-up." Nielson acknowledges he had reservations about the millennium goals when they were first agreed at a UN summit in September 2000. "As a starting point, I feared this would make it look impossible in the eyes of people. "But I've gradually changed my view on this. I believe if we use the old 0.7% target for ODA [official development assistance], we now have substantiated that these goals are achievable." An analysis published by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan last September registers some progress, especially on the education front. In the 1990s, said Annan, Benin increased its rate of children enrolled at school by one-fifth, while Mali increased the rate of children who complete primary schooling by the same proportion. Within seven years Mauritania was able to provide primary education to 90% of its girls - an increase of two-thirds, he added. Nevertheless, Annan painted a bleak picture about child mortality: "Nearly 11 million children still die each year before reaching their fifth birthday, mostly from easily preventable or treatable causes. In some regions, there has been good progress towards the target of reducing this rate by two-thirds by 2015, but in sub-Saharan Africa there was no significant progress between 1990-2001." Nielson feels it is preferable for EU states to concentrate on what they have already committed themselves to, rather than devising new plans. The Dane is scathing about a plan for an 'international finance facility' (IFF) championed by the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer. A key British contribution to the debate about the fight against poverty, Gordon Brown's plan has been designed to double aid from rich countries to poor ones to around €150 billion. Its central idea is that donor countries should make a series of aid commitments for the period up to 2015. These pledges would then be used as collateral for bonds issued in the capital markets, releasing cash now for education and health projects as well as the relief of debts crippling poor economies. Although the plan has won the support of Pope John Paul II and various anti-poverty campaigners, Nielson feels the extra borrowing implied by the IFF would add to the global debt problem. "I don't like it. It's problematic to base additional official development assistance on more borrowing from future generations. We've had enough of a debt burden in poor African countries. "Morally, I find it wrong not to discuss it with present citizens and taxpayers but to leave this burden to our children and grandchildren." He also dismisses a prediction by Brown that realizing the millennium goals in sub-Saharan Africa would not be possible until 2165, based on current trends. Nielson describes the deduction as "a senseless extrapolation based on what has happened in a few years", adding that many unknown factors make such predictions unreliable. "If X number of African countries are in conflict," he says, "then nothing is possible. If they are not in conflict, then lots of things are possible." The EU's development activities have come under fire from various quarters since Nielson began his stint in Brussels in 1999. That was the case, for example, after the Commission proposed, in April last year, to set up a €1 billion fund to invest in water facilities in the 77-country African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) bloc. The Water Fund aims at improving the drinking quality in the beneficiary nations. Yet some anti-globalization groups have perceived it as a vehicle for imposing privatization in poor countries. Dutch-based watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has made this claim due to the consultations that the Commission has had with major water firms such as Suez, Vivendi and Thames Water, as well as pro-privatization statements made by Margot Wallström, the environment commissioner. CEO reckons the Commission might be more influenced by water multinationals than the genuine needs of poor countries. It argues that Suez is particularly unscrupulous, pointing out that the company withdrew from water supply projects in Manila and Buenos Aires in recent years quoting "disappointing earnings". Nielson rejects the group's allegations. "The fact is we don't see privatization as the answer to all the problems on the surface of the earth. Privatization can easily end up as piratization. "It is not a correct analysis to think that European water companies are very keen to take over water companies in developing countries. There isn't a pressure of that kind. "What they might offer is managerial skill or technical expertise." More recently, the rock star and campaigner Bob Geldof told a conference on AIDS in Dublin Castle that the European Development Fund has had €11 billion lying dormant for the past two decades. The Irishman contended that this should be released to save the lives of people with AIDS. Nielson describes the Geldof remarks as "a gross misrepresentation of the facts". He admits that a large chunk of money still has to be spent but says the Commission is working actively with ACP governments to have the funds mobilized. "Life is too short to correct Mr Geldof continuously," he sighs. "I will never be a rock singer so my chance of having a strong say in the global discussion [about development] is only marginal." Article considers the European Union's progress in reaching the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals. |
|
| Source Link | Link to Main Source http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Politics and International Relations |
