At the end of the 20th century, Canada’s Official Development Assistance budget, excluding emergency food aid, totaled about $2 billion a year. But less than 20% of this amount was spent on meeting those basic human needs which have the most profound effect in improving the quality of life for ordinary women and men. Less that 20% was spent on things such as primary health care, basic education, safe water, sanitation, and family planning. And yet those are the areas which must be addressed if poverty and its effects are going to be eliminated.
When we look at what have been the most significant advances made in developing countries over the last twenty-five years, the period of time during which I’ve worked in this field, we see that much of it has been the result of the work of Non-Governmental Organizations. As a result of what these groups are doing within local communities, global nutrition (except in Africa) has generally improved. The rate of death for children under the age of five has been cut in half. Overall life-expectancy has improved. Girls in primary and secondary school have increased from 38% of the female population to 68%. Immunization has decreased preventable diseases and has eliminated others, such as smallpox. Access to clean water has improved.
These and many other accomplishments have only been achieved because of the efforts of community-based Non-Government Organizations in developing countries which are often—but not always—supported by overseas partners (like the YMCA) which have some access to funds from national development assistance programs such as CIDA. But CIDA support for NGOs is stingy, and the fact is that by further empowering NGOs much more could be accomplished.
In times of fiscal austerity, which seem to be the norm globally, International Aid is an easy target for reductions. Certainly Canada has no chance of reaching the promised 2015 target for committing 0.7% of GDP to International Aid. Other countries have; Canada has not, and will not.
But even if there were decreases in funds for Overseas Development Assistance [ODA], major improvements in the way Canada’s foreign aid dollars are spent could be achieved simply by redirecting them to the areas of greatest need and the areas which have greatest potential for success. The Canadian International Development Agency made an attempt to move in this direction by identifying twenty priority countries which met those dual conditions; then they undermined their own criteria by focusing most of their aid on Afghanistan, which did not meet the criteria. That was a political decision rather than a good development decision.
Many of the most effective programs to address basic human needs such as the provision of primary health care, basic education, family planning, nutrition, water and sanitation, and shelter, are not only effective but often fairly inexpensive. CIDA, however, has chosen to withdraw support for YMCA programs under $35,000 because they see the administrative costs for such projects as inefficient. As a consequence, for example, CIDA support for YMCA work in Cuba—one of the few civil society agencies in that country—came to an end, because the entire annual national budget of the Cuban Y was less than $35,000.
If CIDA would redirect funds from politically-based projects (like the Business Development programs) to agencies, like NGOs, which work directly for poverty reduction and ensuring basic human needs, our national aid program would be much more beneficial.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
53 - Canadian Foreign Aid Commitment
I have suggested elsewhere in this series of articles that the debt issue is the single most important matter that needs to be dealt with in the South. Any hope of further development, especially in the most needy nations, is compromised not only by the debt these nations have accumulated but also by the conditions applied by their creditors, such as the structural adjustments I described previously.
I have also explained that much of this debt was incurred because banks, desperate to reduce large cash reserves, made inappropriate loans. The situation was then exacerbated by falling commodity prices, rising interest rates, and currency devaluations. The result, as discussed, is that now more money flows from poor countries to rich countries than the other way around–a situation which entrenches inequity and poverty throughout the developing world.
If the developing world were able to get free of the stranglehold of this debt, they would be able to use their resources more effectively to promote social programs, poverty eradication and environmental protection.
Political pressure should be put on our leaders in Canada as well as on the leaders of the other industrially developed nations, to address the issue more effectively than they have in the past. Although the issue of debt forgiveness has been put on the agenda of G-8 meetings, it has never been adequately addressed. When Haiti was struck by the January 2010 earthquake and subsequent aftershocks, the U S government announced that they would be working with other states to relieve Haiti of all external debts so that the country’s scanty resources could be focused on reconstruction. But it took a disaster of those proportions to begin that process, and Haiti still remains indebted.
Debt forgiveness is a very complicated matter. But there’s another, much simpler, step which donor nations like Canada could undertake to improve conditions in the south. That is to redirect their development assistance dollars. Although, as I pointed out in previous postings, the way in which development assistance was provided in the past wasn’t always effective, the fact remains that developing countries do need assistance.
As a nation, Canada recognizes that, which is why then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney made a commitment to the United Nations that we would spend 0.7% (seven-tenths of one per cent) of our Gross National Product (our GNP) on Official Development Assistance. In spite of that promise, ODA expenditure in 2004 was only 0.29%. The 0.7% target is attainable and has been achieved by other nations, including Great Britain and France. Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have all exceeded this goal.
Further, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, all too often Canadian assistance still comes with strings attached. Canadian commercial and diplomatic interests can still determine where our aid goes and how it is used. These criteria can overshadow the actual needs of people in the countries to which aid is sent. The situation still exists that our foreign aid programs seem designed to benefit Canadian suppliers as much as, if not more, than the countries which receive our aid.
I have also explained that much of this debt was incurred because banks, desperate to reduce large cash reserves, made inappropriate loans. The situation was then exacerbated by falling commodity prices, rising interest rates, and currency devaluations. The result, as discussed, is that now more money flows from poor countries to rich countries than the other way around–a situation which entrenches inequity and poverty throughout the developing world.
If the developing world were able to get free of the stranglehold of this debt, they would be able to use their resources more effectively to promote social programs, poverty eradication and environmental protection.
Political pressure should be put on our leaders in Canada as well as on the leaders of the other industrially developed nations, to address the issue more effectively than they have in the past. Although the issue of debt forgiveness has been put on the agenda of G-8 meetings, it has never been adequately addressed. When Haiti was struck by the January 2010 earthquake and subsequent aftershocks, the U S government announced that they would be working with other states to relieve Haiti of all external debts so that the country’s scanty resources could be focused on reconstruction. But it took a disaster of those proportions to begin that process, and Haiti still remains indebted.
Debt forgiveness is a very complicated matter. But there’s another, much simpler, step which donor nations like Canada could undertake to improve conditions in the south. That is to redirect their development assistance dollars. Although, as I pointed out in previous postings, the way in which development assistance was provided in the past wasn’t always effective, the fact remains that developing countries do need assistance.
As a nation, Canada recognizes that, which is why then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney made a commitment to the United Nations that we would spend 0.7% (seven-tenths of one per cent) of our Gross National Product (our GNP) on Official Development Assistance. In spite of that promise, ODA expenditure in 2004 was only 0.29%. The 0.7% target is attainable and has been achieved by other nations, including Great Britain and France. Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have all exceeded this goal.
Further, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, all too often Canadian assistance still comes with strings attached. Canadian commercial and diplomatic interests can still determine where our aid goes and how it is used. These criteria can overshadow the actual needs of people in the countries to which aid is sent. The situation still exists that our foreign aid programs seem designed to benefit Canadian suppliers as much as, if not more, than the countries which receive our aid.
Monday, February 27, 2012
52 – Public Opinion
There have been improvements in the quality of life of many people living in developing countries, but those improvements can be reversed, and may very will be reversed if care isn’t taken now.
Earlier in this series of reflections, I established that there are good reasons for those of us fortunate enough to live in countries like Canada to be concerned about what is occurring in lesser developed nations. What happens in those countries affects not only their populations but affects us as well. We’re linked to them economically, environmentally, medically. We need to be concerned about them. We need to seek serious means of helping them to address the major problems they’re facing.
And if we recognize the patterns of interdependence which link the peoples of the world, we will also recognize that in saying this is something “we” need to do, we are not speaking only of the governments of countries like Canada and the US or of institutions like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank. “We” does not mean only world leaders or professionals in the field of international development. The fact is that all of us have a role to play in this matter.
To begin with, governments and international institutions respond to public opinion. And often, without the pressure of public opinion, they’re content to let things remain as they are. Therefore one of the most important things concerned people can do is simply to keep informed about the issues, because an informed public has the power to motivate governments and other institutions to respond to situations which might otherwise be neglected. For example, although activists had been talking about the importance of addressing environmental issues since at least the 1940s, world-wide, governments only became committed to doing something when there was a ground-swell of popular opinion forcing them to.
In 2003, the United Nation’s Special Envoy to Africa on the AIDS issue, Canadian Stephen Lewis, spoke out with passion about the situation on that continent. He called it “genocide by complacency” and called upon governments, in particular the Canadian government, to change the legislation protecting drug companies so that less expensive generic drugs could be made available in Africa. Public opinion responded to Lewis’s eloquence, and petitions were collected and forwarded to Ottawa.
The government responded quickly by promising to write the appropriate legislation. Drug companies at first resisted because they wanted to protect their patents, but when they saw the depth of public sentiment on the issue, they also announced their willingness to work with government in order to allow generic drug makers to produce inexpensive medicines for AIDS-stricken areas.
What both the government and the drug companies were responding to was public opinion.
It was also public opinion that drove the millennium Jubilee project which sought to have at least a portion of the debt of the world’s poorest nations cancelled. And while promises made at the turn of the century still haven’t been kept, the greatest incentive that governments and banks have to comply with those original agreements will come from continued public pressure.
Earlier in this series of reflections, I established that there are good reasons for those of us fortunate enough to live in countries like Canada to be concerned about what is occurring in lesser developed nations. What happens in those countries affects not only their populations but affects us as well. We’re linked to them economically, environmentally, medically. We need to be concerned about them. We need to seek serious means of helping them to address the major problems they’re facing.
And if we recognize the patterns of interdependence which link the peoples of the world, we will also recognize that in saying this is something “we” need to do, we are not speaking only of the governments of countries like Canada and the US or of institutions like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank. “We” does not mean only world leaders or professionals in the field of international development. The fact is that all of us have a role to play in this matter.
To begin with, governments and international institutions respond to public opinion. And often, without the pressure of public opinion, they’re content to let things remain as they are. Therefore one of the most important things concerned people can do is simply to keep informed about the issues, because an informed public has the power to motivate governments and other institutions to respond to situations which might otherwise be neglected. For example, although activists had been talking about the importance of addressing environmental issues since at least the 1940s, world-wide, governments only became committed to doing something when there was a ground-swell of popular opinion forcing them to.
In 2003, the United Nation’s Special Envoy to Africa on the AIDS issue, Canadian Stephen Lewis, spoke out with passion about the situation on that continent. He called it “genocide by complacency” and called upon governments, in particular the Canadian government, to change the legislation protecting drug companies so that less expensive generic drugs could be made available in Africa. Public opinion responded to Lewis’s eloquence, and petitions were collected and forwarded to Ottawa.
The government responded quickly by promising to write the appropriate legislation. Drug companies at first resisted because they wanted to protect their patents, but when they saw the depth of public sentiment on the issue, they also announced their willingness to work with government in order to allow generic drug makers to produce inexpensive medicines for AIDS-stricken areas.
What both the government and the drug companies were responding to was public opinion.
It was also public opinion that drove the millennium Jubilee project which sought to have at least a portion of the debt of the world’s poorest nations cancelled. And while promises made at the turn of the century still haven’t been kept, the greatest incentive that governments and banks have to comply with those original agreements will come from continued public pressure.
Monday, February 20, 2012
51 - The African Exception
When I am asked if I have seen evidence that conditions have improved in developing countries during the time I have worked in this field with the YMCA, I do have to qualify my answer by saying that it depends upon what you are looking at and how one defines “improvement.” But by and large, if one looks at the community level, then I would say that there has been an overall improvement in the quality of life for people in most developing countries. The exception, however, remains the nations of Sub-Sahara Africa, and this is an extremely important and significant exception. Because what has occurred in Africa demonstrates just how fragile any of these improvements can be.
Africans face many difficulties. There have been a number of self-serving governments and leaders in many African nations who have plundered the resources—and the aid received from more developed nations—for their own benefit, all too often with the support of Western governments. The list is a long and depressing one, including Idi Amin in Uganda, Mobuto Sese Seko in Zaire, Samuel Doe in Liberia, Sani Abacha in Nigeria, and Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya, among others.
Parts of the continent are vulnerable to periodic drought which compromises its capacity for food self-sufficiency; inter-tribal violence still rages in many regions. Political and social instability are rife. Refugees from one part of the continent seek asylum in other parts, adding to social tensions. Religious fundamentalism is creating further divisions within nations like Nigeria.
But the most overwhelming problem Africans face is the uncontrolled spread of AIDS. This disease is crippling the continent. Two-thirds of all the individuals on the planet infected with HIV and AIDS are in Africa. The disease kills about 6000 Africans every day, more than wars, famine, and other natural disasters put together.
Elsewhere in the developing world, improved nutrition, improved health care for children, improved literacy have combined to contribute to an overall improvement in life-expectancy. In Africa, on the other hand, life expectancy is falling–and falling dramatically–from an average life expectancy of 60 years only a short time ago to an average of 43 now, a drop of nearly a third. In the five year period between 2000 and 2005, life expectancy in Lesotho fell by 24 years, in Swaziland and Botswana it fell by 28, and in Zimbabwe it fell by 35.
The continent has not benefited from the enormous amount of aid it has received for many reasons—political corruption is high on the list, inappropriate transfers of technology is another. All too often, the projects sponsored by “donor nations” appear to have been designed to benefit the donor more than the recipient. And, as has become evident throughout the planet, the movement from rural farming communities to the cities has resulted in a proliferation of urban slums, with the concomitant social problems common to such areas. A continent in which a 100 years ago almost all persons were engaged in food productivity in one way or another—farming, fisheries, cattle herding—has followed the path of other nations and become increasingly urban.
Africans face many difficulties. There have been a number of self-serving governments and leaders in many African nations who have plundered the resources—and the aid received from more developed nations—for their own benefit, all too often with the support of Western governments. The list is a long and depressing one, including Idi Amin in Uganda, Mobuto Sese Seko in Zaire, Samuel Doe in Liberia, Sani Abacha in Nigeria, and Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya, among others.
Parts of the continent are vulnerable to periodic drought which compromises its capacity for food self-sufficiency; inter-tribal violence still rages in many regions. Political and social instability are rife. Refugees from one part of the continent seek asylum in other parts, adding to social tensions. Religious fundamentalism is creating further divisions within nations like Nigeria.
But the most overwhelming problem Africans face is the uncontrolled spread of AIDS. This disease is crippling the continent. Two-thirds of all the individuals on the planet infected with HIV and AIDS are in Africa. The disease kills about 6000 Africans every day, more than wars, famine, and other natural disasters put together.
Elsewhere in the developing world, improved nutrition, improved health care for children, improved literacy have combined to contribute to an overall improvement in life-expectancy. In Africa, on the other hand, life expectancy is falling–and falling dramatically–from an average life expectancy of 60 years only a short time ago to an average of 43 now, a drop of nearly a third. In the five year period between 2000 and 2005, life expectancy in Lesotho fell by 24 years, in Swaziland and Botswana it fell by 28, and in Zimbabwe it fell by 35.
The continent has not benefited from the enormous amount of aid it has received for many reasons—political corruption is high on the list, inappropriate transfers of technology is another. All too often, the projects sponsored by “donor nations” appear to have been designed to benefit the donor more than the recipient. And, as has become evident throughout the planet, the movement from rural farming communities to the cities has resulted in a proliferation of urban slums, with the concomitant social problems common to such areas. A continent in which a 100 years ago almost all persons were engaged in food productivity in one way or another—farming, fisheries, cattle herding—has followed the path of other nations and become increasingly urban.
Monday, January 16, 2012
50 – Where Improvements Have Taken Place
Any analysis of conditions in the developing world will necessarily focus on the difficulties which persist throughout the region. The disparity between conditions in developed and under-developed nations is simply too stark to ignore. But nor can we ignore the fact that the trillions of dollars in bilateral aid transferred from north to south have not brought about significant improvements in poverty reduction in those countries.
Looking at the factors which banks and other credit rating agencies use to evaluate the strength of economies, then the situation throughout the south has only become worse in the past twenty-five years, the time I have been working in their field. At first glance, it is a very dispiriting situation. The reason I still have some optimism about what is happening in the countries where I have worked is because my focus has not been on government-funded programs but rather on the work of the non-governmental sector.
It is not difficult to see that improvements have taken place in the south, but it is intriguing to note where they’ve taken place. Many of the most significant ones have been brought about not at the national level in developing countries, but at the community level. The improvements which have occurred in education, in food production, in immunization have largely been community-based.
And in fact, it is improvements such as these–improvements in the quality of life at the community level–which are most important to ordinary men and women. Generally people are not particularly concerned about their nation’s current international credit rating. What they care about is the quality of their lives: Are their children healthy? Do they have reasonable access to a decent standard of living, to food and shelter? These are the things that matter.
And it turns out that the majority of resources and money which has gone to promote this kind of development has come from the people of the South themselves. They’ve been the ones who have identified the needs of their communities and have sought effective ways to address those needs. It doesn’t take large amounts of money in order to bring about significant improvements in the way people live.
Many of the difficulties which ordinary citizens of the South face are matters which small, locally based cooperatives or Non-Governmental Organizations are quite capable of dealing with: improving nutrition, improving sanitation, providing basic health care and primary education, insuring that people have adequate housing and access to safe drinking water. These are the areas which are most likely to have the greatest impact on the lives of ordinary people.
Obviously there are major challenges facing many developing nations which are beyond the capacity of its citizenry alone to address. However, the reality for people living in places like Maquiteria is that they are used to the failure of their governments, local, region, and national, to respond to their needs. So they have time and again found ways of working collectively at the community level to seek ways to improve living conditions and the quality of their lives.
Looking at the factors which banks and other credit rating agencies use to evaluate the strength of economies, then the situation throughout the south has only become worse in the past twenty-five years, the time I have been working in their field. At first glance, it is a very dispiriting situation. The reason I still have some optimism about what is happening in the countries where I have worked is because my focus has not been on government-funded programs but rather on the work of the non-governmental sector.
It is not difficult to see that improvements have taken place in the south, but it is intriguing to note where they’ve taken place. Many of the most significant ones have been brought about not at the national level in developing countries, but at the community level. The improvements which have occurred in education, in food production, in immunization have largely been community-based.
And in fact, it is improvements such as these–improvements in the quality of life at the community level–which are most important to ordinary men and women. Generally people are not particularly concerned about their nation’s current international credit rating. What they care about is the quality of their lives: Are their children healthy? Do they have reasonable access to a decent standard of living, to food and shelter? These are the things that matter.
And it turns out that the majority of resources and money which has gone to promote this kind of development has come from the people of the South themselves. They’ve been the ones who have identified the needs of their communities and have sought effective ways to address those needs. It doesn’t take large amounts of money in order to bring about significant improvements in the way people live.
Many of the difficulties which ordinary citizens of the South face are matters which small, locally based cooperatives or Non-Governmental Organizations are quite capable of dealing with: improving nutrition, improving sanitation, providing basic health care and primary education, insuring that people have adequate housing and access to safe drinking water. These are the areas which are most likely to have the greatest impact on the lives of ordinary people.
Obviously there are major challenges facing many developing nations which are beyond the capacity of its citizenry alone to address. However, the reality for people living in places like Maquiteria is that they are used to the failure of their governments, local, region, and national, to respond to their needs. So they have time and again found ways of working collectively at the community level to seek ways to improve living conditions and the quality of their lives.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
49 - Mixed Messages
There are two main sources from which the general public derives its impressions about the developing world. The first is the news media and the second is advertising from agencies, both governmental and private, working in the development field. And these sources send mixed messages.
The news media tend to focus on issues which have dramatic content–disasters, political or social violence, extreme conditions of poverty or hardship. Local news sources, such as community newspapers or radio programs, may include stories about the work of volunteers who have gone to work in developing countries, but even these tend to emphasize the hardships the volunteers face. Stories on improvements in conditions don’t have the same editorial appeal and so are less frequently aired.
Governmental aid organizations try to stress their accomplishments, in order to provide evidence that international aid dollars are being used effectively. At the same time, they need to emphasize that current assistance programs are still necessary. So they try to balance positive imagery and stories with stories and imagery that continues to draw attention to the disparity in development between countries like Canada and nations in the Third World. The CIDA web site, for example, cites several indicators of progress over the past forty years, including: improvements in life expectancy; reduction in child mortality rates; the fact that, despite population growth, average incomes have doubled; and the fact that literacy rates have risen to 82 percent—the highest percentage in history. They then report that more than 1 billion people still struggle to survive on less than a dollar a day; that HIV and AIDS are wiping out an entire generation in some parts of Africa; and that every minute, another women dies during pregnancy or childbirth.
Non-governmental organizations and private aid programs, such as child-sponsorship programs, also need to strike a balance, but their emphasis is often more on need than on accomplishment. The images chosen by these organizations are ones which, they hope, will encourage donations or sponsorships. Child-sponsorship programs, in particular, focus on imagery depicting children in desperate circumstances. On the other hand, these same organizations need to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs.
There have been very forceful critiques which have questioned the effectiveness of international aid; Dambisa Moyo’s Dead Aid is a provocative example. Ms. Moyo’s thesis is that aid to Africa has not only been ineffective, it has actually been detrimental to development on that continent. She asserts that African nations would fare better if their governments had to acquire development revenue from international credit markets; to do so they would need to address the inefficiencies and questionable financial practices of the past. It is difficult to find fault with the examples she provides, but they are selective and focus only on bi-lateral (government to government) projects. Even in Africa there have been improvements in the quality of life of many individuals at the community level over the past twenty-five years.
So it is understandable that the question is asked. Have things improved or haven’t they? And the answer remains: it depends upon where one looks and what criteria one uses to measure improvement.
The news media tend to focus on issues which have dramatic content–disasters, political or social violence, extreme conditions of poverty or hardship. Local news sources, such as community newspapers or radio programs, may include stories about the work of volunteers who have gone to work in developing countries, but even these tend to emphasize the hardships the volunteers face. Stories on improvements in conditions don’t have the same editorial appeal and so are less frequently aired.
Governmental aid organizations try to stress their accomplishments, in order to provide evidence that international aid dollars are being used effectively. At the same time, they need to emphasize that current assistance programs are still necessary. So they try to balance positive imagery and stories with stories and imagery that continues to draw attention to the disparity in development between countries like Canada and nations in the Third World. The CIDA web site, for example, cites several indicators of progress over the past forty years, including: improvements in life expectancy; reduction in child mortality rates; the fact that, despite population growth, average incomes have doubled; and the fact that literacy rates have risen to 82 percent—the highest percentage in history. They then report that more than 1 billion people still struggle to survive on less than a dollar a day; that HIV and AIDS are wiping out an entire generation in some parts of Africa; and that every minute, another women dies during pregnancy or childbirth.
Non-governmental organizations and private aid programs, such as child-sponsorship programs, also need to strike a balance, but their emphasis is often more on need than on accomplishment. The images chosen by these organizations are ones which, they hope, will encourage donations or sponsorships. Child-sponsorship programs, in particular, focus on imagery depicting children in desperate circumstances. On the other hand, these same organizations need to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs.
There have been very forceful critiques which have questioned the effectiveness of international aid; Dambisa Moyo’s Dead Aid is a provocative example. Ms. Moyo’s thesis is that aid to Africa has not only been ineffective, it has actually been detrimental to development on that continent. She asserts that African nations would fare better if their governments had to acquire development revenue from international credit markets; to do so they would need to address the inefficiencies and questionable financial practices of the past. It is difficult to find fault with the examples she provides, but they are selective and focus only on bi-lateral (government to government) projects. Even in Africa there have been improvements in the quality of life of many individuals at the community level over the past twenty-five years.
So it is understandable that the question is asked. Have things improved or haven’t they? And the answer remains: it depends upon where one looks and what criteria one uses to measure improvement.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
48 - Better or Worse?
Economically, throughout the developing world, if what one looks at are the standard indicators that banks and credit rating agencies use, then virtually all developing countries are worse off now than they were in 1985, when I began working for the YMCA.
Indebtedness remains a major impediment to development. As the year 2000 approached, the eight richest nations in the world–the G8–promised to cancel $100 billion of the debt owed by 52 of the world’s poorest countries, but by 2003 in fact only $18 billion had been cancelled and this for just four countries. In 2005, the issue of debt forgiveness was once more placed on the agenda of the G8 meetings held in Gleneagles, Scotland. Even though that meeting was disrupted by the Al-qaeda attack on London, a statement on debt forgiveness was issued; however, it focussed on only 18 of the more than 60 nations which require attention.
Political violence throughout the developing world, if anything, seems to be on the rise. Not just in the Middle East, but also in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. Again, just considering what took place in the year 2002, Hindu fundamentalists in Gujarat province in India killed over 1000 Muslims; Maoist rebels in Nepal slaughtered 129 police officers, soldiers, and civilians; in Nigeria, Moslems angered by the staging of the Miss World pageant went on a rampage which left 250 people dead and thousands homeless; in Africa, as civil war finally came to an end in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it broke out in Côte d’Ivoire; civil and political violence continued in Zimbabwe and broke out in the Central African Republic; Al-qaeda suicide bombings expanded to Tunisia and Kenya; the President of Colombia had to declare a large part of his nation a war zone; and in Peru, Sindero Luminoso, a Maoist terror group which it was thought had been effectively brought under control back in 1992, once more emerged.
All of this would suggest that conditions in developing countries are continuing to deteriorate. And yet the United Nations, International Aid agencies such as CIDA–the Canadian International Development Agency–and some Non-Governmental Organizations point to a wide spectrum of improvements which have taken place in developing countries during this same twenty year period: improvements in food production and nutrition, improvements in efforts to ensure that all children–in particular girls–have access to education. And as girls become better educated, these groups point to a range of positive consequences: The children of a woman who has had as little as four years of education are more than twice as likely to survive infancy as are the children of women who can’t read or write. So as the education of girls improves, there has also been a reduction in infant mortality rates. Many childhood diseases have been controlled. Approximately 80% of the world’s children have been immunised against the six major infectious diseases, and other diseases, like smallpox, have been eliminated. Because more children are surviving infancy and early childhood, globally the birth rate has also begun to come down.
Is this evidence of actual improvements in developing countries or is it just “spin”?
Indebtedness remains a major impediment to development. As the year 2000 approached, the eight richest nations in the world–the G8–promised to cancel $100 billion of the debt owed by 52 of the world’s poorest countries, but by 2003 in fact only $18 billion had been cancelled and this for just four countries. In 2005, the issue of debt forgiveness was once more placed on the agenda of the G8 meetings held in Gleneagles, Scotland. Even though that meeting was disrupted by the Al-qaeda attack on London, a statement on debt forgiveness was issued; however, it focussed on only 18 of the more than 60 nations which require attention.
Political violence throughout the developing world, if anything, seems to be on the rise. Not just in the Middle East, but also in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. Again, just considering what took place in the year 2002, Hindu fundamentalists in Gujarat province in India killed over 1000 Muslims; Maoist rebels in Nepal slaughtered 129 police officers, soldiers, and civilians; in Nigeria, Moslems angered by the staging of the Miss World pageant went on a rampage which left 250 people dead and thousands homeless; in Africa, as civil war finally came to an end in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it broke out in Côte d’Ivoire; civil and political violence continued in Zimbabwe and broke out in the Central African Republic; Al-qaeda suicide bombings expanded to Tunisia and Kenya; the President of Colombia had to declare a large part of his nation a war zone; and in Peru, Sindero Luminoso, a Maoist terror group which it was thought had been effectively brought under control back in 1992, once more emerged.
All of this would suggest that conditions in developing countries are continuing to deteriorate. And yet the United Nations, International Aid agencies such as CIDA–the Canadian International Development Agency–and some Non-Governmental Organizations point to a wide spectrum of improvements which have taken place in developing countries during this same twenty year period: improvements in food production and nutrition, improvements in efforts to ensure that all children–in particular girls–have access to education. And as girls become better educated, these groups point to a range of positive consequences: The children of a woman who has had as little as four years of education are more than twice as likely to survive infancy as are the children of women who can’t read or write. So as the education of girls improves, there has also been a reduction in infant mortality rates. Many childhood diseases have been controlled. Approximately 80% of the world’s children have been immunised against the six major infectious diseases, and other diseases, like smallpox, have been eliminated. Because more children are surviving infancy and early childhood, globally the birth rate has also begun to come down.
Is this evidence of actual improvements in developing countries or is it just “spin”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)