We must keep our overseas aid commitment and beware of cynicism, writes Michael D Higgins.
The chief economist with the Bank of Ireland, Dan McLaughlin, makes a late entry to the debate on overseas development aid with his recent article in The Irish Times. His timing is calculated to take advantage of an "aid weariness" that might be assumed to result from the G8 summit and the campaign up to it.
He makes reference to "A minority . . . still willing to blame all the worlds problems on global capitalism, multinationals, the US or the G8. But try telling that to an average person in India, China or other parts of southeast Asia where living standards have risen sharply as a result of hard work and a willingness to embrace capitalism".
In an extraordinarily snide article, Dr McLaughlin caricatures those campaigning for a new economic order. At the same time, he indulges in a simplistic set of generalisations on economic transition in areas such as southeast Asia. Behind the economic changes to which he alludes lies a whole set of state measures, be it in Singapore or more recently in China.
The intention of his piece is to suggest that it is in the characteristics of the undeveloped world that the causes of underdevelopment are to be found. This argument ended some time in the 60s. Yes it is a factor that significant transitions in continents such as Africa will require the development of civil society, taking account of varying cultural, social, and economic realities. Yes, it is a fact that good governance will be crucial, although the spokespeople of our banking system globally are hardly in a position to give lectures, on either good governance, social responsibility or plain morality.
The commitment sought by the UN from governments for 0.7 per cent of gross national product is 35-years-old. The Taoiseach's commitment to Ireland's achievement of this was made in September 2000 before the General Assembly of the United Nations. It was repeated in the election manifestos of both parties in Government. It was in their programme for government.
It was in the programme agreed with the social partners. Its fulfilment is a matter of trust. I do not recall the chief economist of the Bank of Ireland taking part in the debate following September 2000.
Those of us who did participate in the debate have always stressed the connection between aid, trade, debt relief, and reform of the international financial institutions. In relation to the recent G8 summit, we understood very well the importance of debt relief not being met out of aid allocations. We knew that a 1 per cent increase in its share of world trade would reduce poverty in Africa's poorest countries by 12 per cent. We know the rules of the International Monetary Fund could frustrate the best effects of debt relief.
The condition attached to modest debt relief in the past in Zambia was the privatisation of the National Zambian Commercial Bank.
When the government withdrew its proposals to meet this condition, the price to be paid was the loss of a billion dollars of debt relief.
It would have been interesting to have Dr McLaughlin write of the structure of debt. He could have debated the justification for debt service exceeding the combined allocation of so many countries in Africa for health and education. He could have written of the manner in which Swiss banks have afforded confidentiality to funds moved from countries by corrupt leaders.
He could have written of the oil companies who bribe with impunity and who move oil resources every day from some of the poorest parts of the world. He could have written of the Tobin Tax on speculative transactions that could yield $20 billion a year if set at a level of 0.01 per cent. He could have written on how different models of technology transfer favour different interests, eg the more labour intensive are the most distributive in societies where 70 per cent of the people are rural dwellers. He does none of this.
Instead he invites a division between the poor at home and the poor abroad. He sneers at the artists' tax relief. One might expect better from the chief economist of a leading bank.
Those campaigning to make poverty history, however, have probably been paying more attention to Prof Jeffrey Sachs, who reported to UN secretary general Kofi Annan on the achievement of the UN millennium goals.
Sachs said if the goals were achieved between 2005 and 2015: 500 million people would be lifted out of extreme poverty; 300 million people would no longer suffer from hunger; 350 million fewer people would lack access to clean water; 650 million people would have greater access to sanitation; 30 million children who would otherwise have died would be alive; the lives of two million women who would have died in childbirth would be saved.
The achievement of the goals will require a new partnership between the developed and developing world. It has implications for trade, for aid, for debt relief, for reform of the international financial institutions and for politics at every level.
The Government, having broken its commitment for 2007, is considering what year Ireland will meet it. This will be announced before the UN General Assembly in September. The trade issues will be considered in Hong Kong in December.
The campaign for reform of the international financial institutions continues. In surveys, the Irish public have supported the 0.7 per cent commitment. Scandinavian countries have gone beyond that. Norway has a new target of 1 per cent.
It is not a time for cynicism. It is not a time for breaking trust with a world commitment. It is not a time for saying that we are too rich to meet our commitment solemnly given to the poorest of the poor.
Michael D Higgins TD is Labour Party Foreign Affairs spokesperson