 The road from Monterrey
UNITED NATIONS — While the road to the international development conference in Monterrey proved rocky, the road from the Mexican city will likely remain equally arduous as world leaders must now follow-up on financial promises made. The recently concluded Conference on Financing for Development proved that Presidents and Premiers would pledge monetary resources, but whether the aid would materialize like the Biblical manna from heaven remains to be seen. Mexico's President Vincente Fox stressed the need to forge a century of "bridges not barriers" and implored delegates to match economic growth in many lands with more evenly spread global development. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed the need for massive pledges to cut global poverty; such amounts are slated at an additonal $50 billion a year in aid which would theoretically half the number of poor by 2015. Happily, the reality emerged in Monterrey that foreign aid and development assistance is not necessarily synomous with waste, handouts, and corruption but a necessary building bloc for poor nations. Equally though, the conference confronted the glaring issue of corruption among many recipient countries and stated in no uncertain terms that aid must be linked to transparency. Attaching strings makes the policy more politically palatable in donor states, especially since such aid has been in decline since the end of the Cold War. As a UN conference briefing document stated, "Corruption has come to be recognized as a primary impediment to successful development and economic practice in all countries of the world." President George W. Bush stated the case succinctly and forcefully; "We fight against poverty, because hope is an answer to terror." The President shall ask Congress to increase U.S. aid to poor countries by 50% over three years to $15 billion in 2006. Indeed, the Bush Administration wants to open the aid flows as soon as possible BUT under the dome of transparency, good governance, and expanded trade policies. This is a key element to getting this policy past a skeptical Congress. Presently the European Union countries combined form the largest aid donor in the world. The average Official Development Assistance (ODA), now at 0.33% would be pumped up to 0.39% of GNP by 2006. This would add $20 billion. Japan, a major donor too, has begun to trim its once generous programs. Given the recession gripping Japan, few protested when the Tokyo government slashed outlays by 10% in the 2002-2003 budget. Still Japan's aid stands at $7 billion. In absolute terms, Tokyo was the world's largest donor state in the decade preceeding 2000. Poor but often resource-rich states feel marginalized and play the game of political victimization, blaming the former colonial powers, the USA, World Bank, globalization etc. Yet the politics of victimization offer few tangible rewards save for a slide on a slippery slope of reformed socialist policies, a blame game, and a mantra "it's someone else's fault." Mexico is a prime example. Traditionally the Mexican government through its one party rule, endemic corruption, and deliberately contrarian policies towards the Gringos to the north, shunned better ties with the USA. In recent years Mexico has changed radically, especially so under Vincente Fox. The same was the case with India, where a ruling socialist government foused on self reliance did not encourage foreign investment which held back the entrepreneurial skills of the Indian people. This too has changed for the better in the past decade. Because of such past policies, India missed the vast flows of investment which poured into Southeast Asia since the 1970's In fact the annals of development aid --beyond the media stories of waste and corruption --have often proven that when aid has been cut, countries can swim on their own. Look at South Korea. Following the dire devastation of the war in 1953, Seoul became dependent on aid. Later when Washington cut the assistance, Korea learned to stand on its own and through a judicious comibination of hard work, productivity and open market in the USA, was able to prosper. Taiwan has a similar legacy. Once aid primed the pump, the continued flow came from both domestic and foreign investment, enterprise capitalism, and bouyant open export markets. I often view development aid as a very necessary transition as with training wheels on a child's bicycle. In the beginning you need them, but if year after year the Child continues to use training wheels — while safe enough — will never give the cyclyst the confidence nor the opportunity to reach potential as a rider. To think that many countries continue to receive larger and larger dollups of aid for a generation and still have yet to make the transition to riding without the proverbial training wheels of ODA dependency, makes one wonder. The issue is not that people are lazy but that institutions of quasi-socialist governments, marinated in corruption and pulled by the undertow of graft make all efforts futile and keep the countries poor. The Bush plan brings compassion, focus, and oversight to foreign aid programs. It's a proper first step on the road from Monterrey.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
See current edition
of
   |
