New info: U.N. Report Urges Rich To Give More

From The Washington Post (headline is linked)

U.N. Report Urges Rich To Give More

Nations Have Not Met Pledges to World's Poor

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 18, 2005; Page A13


UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 17 -- The United States and other rich nations need to increase their overseas development assistance this year by as much as $48 billion in order to achieve their commitment to slash in half global poverty for a billion people in the next 10 years, according to a United Nations report.
The 3,000-page U.N. report was based on the research of 265 scholars, scientists and poverty specialists. It recommends such practical measures as providing mosquito nets and building roads and ports to help lift people out of abject poverty.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist who oversaw the three-year U.N. Millennium Project, said he hopes the recommendations will prod governments to spend more on the world's poor and serve as a guide for countries seeking to channel money into anti-poverty programs. But he also noted that the distribution of international aid has been woefully inadequate in recent years, with only 30 cents of every aid dollar reaching the poor.
"We are in a position to end extreme poverty within our generation," Sachs said Monday in presenting the 13-volume report to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Sachs said most rich governments have fallen far short of their commitment at the U.N. Millennium Summit in 2000 to set aside 0.7 percent of their gross national product to fight global poverty. Development assistance from the world's 22 wealthiest nations averages about 0.25 percent, or $69 billion. The report recommends increasing it to 0.44 percent in 2006, or $135 billion, and 0.54 percent, or $195 billion, by 2015.
Only five countries -- Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway -- have met the goal, which was reaffirmed by President Bush and other world leaders at the 2002 conference on international finance at Monterrey, Mexico. Six others -- Britain, France, Ireland, Spain, Finland and Belgium -- have pledged to reach that level by 2015.
The United States, the world's richest country with an $11 trillion economy, provides 0.15 percent, or $16.3 billion, of its gross national product for overseas development assistance. It would need to spend $30 billion more a year to reach the 0.7 percent target.
The report's release comes just weeks after Jan Egeland, a senior U.N. aid official, said that the United States and other donor countries have been "stingy" in their development assistance.



... more at linked article

Yet more whining and crying from the U.N. for the U.S. and "other" rich nations to give, give, give more, more, more.

And please note yet again, The Washington Post writer (most of whom are not noted for their conservatism) references the calling of the U.S. and other donor countries as "stingy".

If these idiots ever learn to shut-up and be glad for the money we're giving them, all while being told by countries like Indonesia to "give us the goods and get the f--- out NOW" before we kill you, it'll be a total miracle. Of course, no amount is ever enough, at least not as long as we're a low tax nation that feeds the world. Bleh!
1,623 views 3 replies
Reply #1 Top
I'm sorry, but I have to side with the UN on this one. 0.15% is way too little as far as aid goes. However, seeing as we are already in debt up to our eyeballs, raising that amount doesn't seem like the best idea.
Reply #2 Top
I'm sorry, but I have to side with the UN on this one. 0.15% is way too little as far as aid goes. However, seeing as we are already in debt up to our eyeballs, raising that amount doesn't seem like the best idea.


Convert it back into real dollars, add in contributions from private charities, and then tell me it's too little.

If you, or others in the U.N., want me to be lazy and just give in the form of taxes, I'm gonna tell you to blow off and go off and give my contributions to organizations like the Red Cross, or others of my own chosing.
Reply #3 Top
terpfan,
do you really enjoy twisting every comment as negative? Get over the persecution complex! So the Washington Post decided Egeland called the US stingy. Well that's their opinion which he has clearly denied. Just because many people jump to the same conclusion does not make it true. If that was the case then it must be true that Bush is the Devil because millions of people believe he is. And twisting Indonesia's target of being self sufficient in aid distribution by March (hence the statement that all foreign troops should leave by then) is particularly sad as the US has already indicated it's desire to be gone well before then.

Looking at the 0.15% the US seemingly gives then maybe the Washington Post has a point? This isn't the UN picking a figure and telling the US you must contribute, this is the US promising to contribute a figure and then not doing so. A very different situation. The US made promises and is not keeping them. Maybe Bush should have just kept quiet and not made the promise in the first place. Or even better admit that the US has no intention of contributing 0.7% to overseas development assistance.

That's not to say that I don't approve of the aid the US does give. All aid is very welcome and must be praised. $16B is a lot of aid. It must also be pointed out that some forms of aid are not included in the total (such as the manpower and logistics the US has supplied to Indonesia).

Lets at least be honest in whether the US is keeping it's promises or contributing more than other nations. It's not and the strange illusion that people have of the US contributing the lions share of aid is false.

Paul.