Combatting the "Silent Tsunamis"

There's been a fair amount of media coverage of the just-released report on the so-called Millennium Goals for combatting global poverty (a good summary from the New York Times can be found here).

Produced by a team of researchers led by Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, the report concludes that, if the industrial nations agreed to give one half of one percent of their income to development, it could produce major improvements in the lot of the world's poorest, including dramatic reductions in deaths from malnutrition and diseases like malaria, AIDS, and tuberculosis--"silent tsunamis," in Sachs's phrase.

One half of one percent--fifty cents for every one hundred dollars--would represent a doubling of the current average percentage given to development aid, although of course the rate of giving varies by country. According to the Times:

In 2002, many world leaders, including President Bush, supported a declaration promising to "make concrete efforts" toward a target of providing seven-tenths of 1 percent of their national incomes for aid.

Five countries have achieved that goal: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Britain, France, Finland, Spain, Ireland and Belgium have committed to reach that level on specific timetables. The United States government, which allocates less than two-tenths of 1 percent for aid, has not made a comparable pledge; the Bush administration has increased American aid by a half, to 15 hundreds of 1 percent from one-tenth of 1 percent, but it is still the smallest percentage among major donor countries.

Is it likely that the US is now ready to step up to the plate? A separate article (find it here) offers this discouraging observation:

In an interview with Cable News Network (CNN) last week, the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States does not accept a percentage of GNP as the best measure of international aid. ”We do not accept that definition of giving,” he added, although the United States has reaffirmed the principle at several U.N. meetings over the years.

Still, there may be reason for hope. As the Times observes, the international climate is more favorable for development aid than it has been in years, thanks in part to the outpouring of concern in response to the South Asian tsunami disaster, in part to worries that the persistence of poverty provides breeding grounds for terrorism.

The Sachs report does not ignore the need for political and economic reforms in the developing nations if aid is to be effective. In fact, it specifically targets a dozen well-governed developing nations (Ghana, Mozambique, Mali, and others) where aid would be wisely invested, and where basic assistance programs such as distributing de-worming medications and bed nets treated with insecticide could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

A few years ago, I worked on a book project with Michael Weinstein, an expert on development, former economics columnist for the Times, and now director of policy, planning and research at the Robin Hood Foundation here in New York. Today I emailed Michael to ask, "Should I recommend to the readers of our blog that they back the Millennium plan?" He wrote back:

[Sachs] makes a compelling case. And convincing. My answer to your question is a raucous “yes.”

This looks like a cause that progressives ought to rally around. It's a perfect opportunity for a country that likes to brag about being "the most generous nation on earth" to put its money where its mouth is--and produce enormous humanitarian benefits in the process.