|
MONTERREY,
Mexico -- Mnterrey," said Mark Malloch Brown,
administrator of the UN Development Programme,
speaking of the International Conference on Financing
for Development, "lays out a big global
bargain. If it succeeds it will put development
at the heart
of global politics." And Gordon Brown, Great
Britain's finance minister, wants rich countries
to double their foreign aid for what he called
a new Marshall Plan.
The
Marshall Plan, under which the US provided huge sums
of money to the countries of Western Europe to help
them rebuild after World War II, stands as one of
the very few success stories in the history of international
development cooperation. It created a genuine win-win
situation that also, not so incidentally, served
as a major weapon in the cold war. But people tend
to ignore (or conveniently forget) that there are
vast differences between post-war Western Europe
and present-day sub-Saharan Africa. The Europeans,
after all, were not building from scratch; they were
reconstructing what had been one of the most powerful
industrial societies ever. They had the advantages
of a pre-existing business culture, stable and democratic
governments, an educated workforce-and, of course,
peace.
Malloch Brown's
comment also seems to ignore (or conveniently
forget) the context of history.
Ten years ago, at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro, the nations of the world solemnly
pledged to put development at the heart of
global environmental protection. They agreed
also that the rich countries would increase
their development assistance so poor countries
could afford to develop "sustainably." Unfortunately,
that version of the "big global bargain" collapsed
almost immediately, as official development
assistance provided by the donor countries
went into a steep decline. The developing countries,
bitterly disappointed, cried foul.
In a few months the international community
will be meeting again in an effort to revive
the Rio bargain. The World Summit on Sustainable
Development is to take place in Johannesburg
at the end of August, and the Monterrey conference
was supposed to play a key role in its success.
The very real danger, however, is that it could
guarantee its failure. The UN Secretary General
has said that international development assistance
will have to be doubled-from its current level
of $50 billion to $100 billion-if we are to
have a chance of achieving the goal agreed
at the UN's Millennium Summit: reducing global
poverty by half by the year 2015. But if the
US, the world's only economic superpower, is
planning to increase its aid budget by only
15 percent, then the 100 percent overall increase
urged by Annan becomes mathematically impossible.
Yes, some of the leaders of the donor nations
attending the Monterrey summit are prepared
to double the size of their aid programs. In
return, they are demanding that aid recipients
adopt a wide range of reforms.
Such reforms are described as necessary for
the poor countries to attract outside investment.
One could also argue that these reforms are
desirable for their own sake. But no country,
however poor, wants to have its government
policies dictated by outsiders.
Still, the
poorest countries do not have the option
of turning down this "big bargain." They
cannot refuse the help on offer, regardless
of the conditions attached to it. But neither
do they have any illusions. They will go along
as they went along with the bargain of "common
but differentiated responsibility" of
the Rio action program. But they know that,
just as that deal was something much less than "another
Marshall Plan," they can expect this one
to "put development at the heart of global
politics" just as soon as hell freezes
over.
|
