On
the web @ www.globalinterfaithed.org
|
|
|
|
On the
Role of American Religious Communities
The Church Center at the United Nations
“The United Nations’ MDG Campaign for a
Better World” Thank you very much. It is great to be here. Religions are the conscience of society – that is what I feel. We at the Millennium Campaign reach out to many, many audiences and many communities, but for me, none is more appropriate or more relevant than the religious community. When I was preparing my notes for my speech this morning, I first thought “Let’s get together a lot of wonderful quotes by religious leaders which clearly show how the Millennium Goals framework fits perfectly with the principles of any world religion.” And then I thought, “Well, you are better at that than I am.” So instead let me just focus on what these Millennium Development Goals are and I shall leave it to you to underpin them with religion, although I might make some links myself. It was in the year 2000 that here in New York more world leaders came together than ever have before and in fact than have since. And if I may make just one religious reference (I myself am Roman Catholic, by the way), I feel the Spirit was in the meeting. I feel this because the Millennium Declaration that the leaders signed, is actually a miracle! If you have ever read any other United Nations text negotiated by some one hundred countries, you know you really don’t want to read another! But the Millennium Declaration is really incredibly inspiring and visionary: it says six times - and let me remind you that every world leader signed on to this – “we will spare no effort.” “We will spare no effort to put an end to extreme poverty; we will spare no effort to get all kids to school by the year 2015; we will spare no effort to reverse the AIDS pandemic; to reduce child mortality, maternal mortality.” In all it says six times “we will spare no effort” to ensure that globalization benefits all. So the declaration which gave birth to the eight Millennium Development Goals is a beautiful declaration. And in turn, the Goals are simple, they are measurable, they are time-bound, but most importantly, they are achievable. As you [Michael Gottsegen] were just saying earlier today, this is all possible. We should do what is possible. Actually, only two weeks ago, I signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the World Scout Movement that is also starting awareness-building campaigns for the Goals. The logo is “make the impossible possible.” In fact, I told the members “I’m not even asking you to make the impossible possible. This is really about making the possible possible.” The world has the resources, we have the know-how, the goals are all very doable. I insist on this because, if you look at the world today, of course we are not on track with the achievement of the Goals. So I insist on the fact that they are achievable because even in the region that is most behind, sub-Saharan Africa – which as a region won’t achieve any of the Goals during the coming century – even there, there are many success stories. At least ten of the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa are on track to meet the education goal of getting all kids to school in 2015. Uganda and Senegal have reversed the spread of HIV/AIDS. And, in terms of the empowerment of women, Rwanda already has more women parliamentarians than – not just the U.S. or the Netherlands but than – Sweden! Mozambique is on track to meet the poverty goal and the child mortality goal. And these are some of the poorest countries in the world! What is the secret behind these success stories? Both parties – developing countries and donors – lived up to their promises. The Goals are a global deal. Under this deal, it is the primary responsibility of poor countries to achieve the first seven Goals. They also have to improve their governments and fight corruption (President Bush is right about that, by the way). They have to do their part and put their money where their mouth is in terms of their commitments to primary education, primary health etc. But Goal 8 also acknowledges that the poor countries simply cannot achieve these Goals unless we – the rich countries – do a better job of providing more aid, better aid, better trading opportunities and more debt relief. These are the things that we, rich countries, should be doing. And, in the success stories in sub-Saharan Africa, the ten success stories, both parties lived up to their promises. The governments of these countries have relatively good policies in health and education and we – the international community – have been relatively generous with aid that is effective, and with debt relief for these countries. So it is possible to achieve the Goals in sub-Saharan Africa, and to quote the song about New York “If you can make it there, you’ll make it anywhere.” So you can’t argue that these Goals are not possible, but indeed, both parties have to do their homework.
The United Nations can act as an incredible platform at which world leaders come together, make fantastic promises and show vision. But, unfortunately, vision without implementation is just hallucination. And the problem is that many of these world leaders sign up to wonderful declarations and agreements, and make these beautiful tear-jerking speeches in the General Assembly, but then they get on the plane home to Berlin, Bogotá, Budapest, Managua, or Washington D.C., and they go back to business as usual, forgetting about what they just promised. And, we – at the UN – cannot send the police off to Finland if, for example, it does not live up to its pledge to provide 0.7%of GNI in official development assistance (ODA). It is only the citizens of UN member states that can hold their own governments to account for the promises made at the United Nations. Only if citizens are aware of the promises governments make and raise their voices telling their politicians “We want you to live up to what you promised. You can win votes, not lose them, if you do the right thing here” will we achieve the Goals. Now what does all of this imply for U.S. policies? Let me first tell you that when I make speeches in Africa, I tell them “You have no excuse, no matter what the lousy rich countries provide, there is always more that you can do yourself to get your kids to school.” I tell them that “it doesn’t cost a fortune and you can do much better yourself.” But when I speak in a rich country, I always focus on what that particular rich country promised and what that particular rich country should be doing. And if we are talking about Goal 8 – rich country commitments under the Goals – I have to note that it is very important for religious communities in rich countries to ensure that the voices of the poor reverberate in the halls of power. This is necessary to ensure that all our government policies – both social and economic – are actually helpful, and to ensure that they are just – both at a national and an international level. As I already mentioned, I am a Roman Catholic. In 1967, Pope Paul VI circulated his encyclical Populorum Progressio and I find it very interesting that, when you actually read that encyclical again, it is a perfect mesh with the Millennium Declaration. In fact, Paul VI spells out all of the Goal 8 issues. Sister Joan [Kirby] said to me earlier this morning, “Goal 8 is so difficult to achieve.” In fact, the Populorum Progressio encyclical in 1967 already points that out. Let me just quote. Pope Paul VI said: “Unless the existing machinery is modified, the disparity between rich and poor nations will increase rather than diminish. The rich nations are progressing with rapid strides while the poor nations move forward at a very slow pace.” So, he clearly makes the point that disparities will widen unless we change the international machinery, and what Goal 8 does is to provide us with a toolkit to actually modify that particular machinery. Again, it’s about more and better aid, about more fair trade rules, and about debt relief. Again, Pope Paul VI already noted in 1967 the principle that underlies Goal 8. Let me quote him again. “This duty concerns first and foremost the wealthier nations. Their obligations stem from the humane and human and supernatural brotherhood of man, and present the following obligations: (1) the aid that rich countries must give to developing countries; (2) social justice, the rectification of trade relations between strong and weak nations.” These are two of the three points of Goal 8. At the time - in ’67 – Pope Paul VI didn’t talk about debt. At that time, it was not yet an issue. But you now know that the Jubilee Campaign is working around the issue of debt … and the jubilee is a biblical notion. So it is clear that the Church’s teachings on this are quite consistent with Goal 8. Now what exactly does this mean for the United States? I wanted to give you all the data on the volume of aid, but you have already talked a lot about that. So let me compare U.S. performance with that of other rich countries. Indeed, the United States is the largest economy, so it is no surprise that it is the largest donor. But in terms of the percentage of its national income – or GNI – that is devoted by the U.S. to Official Development Assistance, the United States ranks poorly: it is one of the countries that devotes the least to development cooperation. It is also the only rich country that never committed to the international target of 0.7% of GNI for ODA. Nevertheless, the U.S. did commit itself in many, many declarations, to double aid. And it did commit itself as a member of the G8 in Canada in 2002 – when the G8 was focusing on Africa – by making the statement that “no country genuinely committed to poverty reduction, good government, and economic reform, would be denied the chance to achieve the MDGs through lack of finance.” It did commit itself to that. And the hardnosed economists of the World Bank have even spelled out how easily aid can be doubled and absorbed because of the tremendous improvement of governance and economic reform in Africa. And – by the way, and this is something I say in every speech I make in Europe – 0.7% of GNI is “very, very little.” In Southern Europe where members of voluntary groups organized to lobby parliamentarians representing their region on the MDGs, these groups had a brilliant idea. They said: “Let’s send our parliamentarians a pizza. And then we will cut out of that pizza a slice of 0.7%. Accompanying the pizza is a note asking “Are you so greedy? Do you really need it all for yourself?” But the funniest thing about this story is that when they actually ordered a normal size pizza and tried to figure out what a 0.7% slice was, they realized that there is no 0.7% slice of pizza. It’s just a line. You need a pizza the size of that table to actually have a visible slice that would represent a 0.7% share. That’s how little we are talking about giving in Europe. And here we are talking about giving even less and that only maybe. Nevertheless, the great news is that only ten days ago, the European Union decided – in view of the UN Summit in September – that each and every one of the older member states - the EU-15 i.e. excluding the poorer new ones – will achieve 0.7% ODA/GNI by 2015, and together the EU-15 will reach 0.56% by 2010. The EU today provides about 0.40%. The U.S. gave 0.16% in 2004. So what the average American gives is less than what the average Greek or Portuguese gives. There is a tremendous need in the United States to speak up and fight against ignorance on this issue. According to public opinion surveys Americans believe that, on average, 16-17% of the federal budget goes to fund international development cooperation, while in fact the number is much less than 1%. If people only knew the truth, surely they would speak out and say “That’s really too little,” but there is a lot of ignorance. Goal 8 is not only about the volume of aid. As you know, many Americans are suspicious about foreign aid. Many Europeans are too. And indeed there are reasons for this. Traditional foreign aid has not helped to achieve the aspirations spelled out in the Millennium Development Goals. This is because foreign aid was driven by other motives: geopolitical concerns or the national economic interest of the donor countries, for example. So, we should not be surprised that foreign aid actually never helped to achieve poverty reduction. And you don’t have to take my word on this. If you ever want to read a very good report on these issues – one of the best I have read over the last thirty years – take a look at Report which came out of the Africa Commission, headed by Tony Blair. It stresses that there is no point in increasing the volume of aid unless we also improve the systems we use to deliver that aid. So we have to radically change the way we deliver aid. One of the issues that I consider most important for the United States is the need for aid to focus on poor countries. Too much of the aid that this country provides, actually leaks away to middle-income countries that don’t need external resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Many middle-income countries could achieve the Goals, if they would just let their own rich pay a little more in taxes and improve their governments. The real focus of aid should be the least developed countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. And although the President is right when he said yesterday “we tripled our aid to sub-Saharan Africa over the last two years,” he is talking about growth from one peanut to three peanuts. It is really very, very small. At the time that I was Development Minister in the Netherlands, U.S. aid to sub-Saharan Africa was so small that the Netherlands was a bigger donor in Africa than the U.S. So tripling American aid to Sub-Saharan Africa is not good enough, I think. But then I am not an American taxpayer. My point is that focusing on the poor countries is crucial. Also, as donors, we have to become more of a team. We have to work together and stop bothering recipient countries with all of our own little hobbies and little rules. If you were a civil servant working in the finance Ministry in Zambia today, you would have to write 2,000 different reports a year to please all your different donors. What we have done as a donor community is so focused on making poor governments accountable to us that we have been undermining the accountability of these countries to their own people, to their own Parliaments. So instead of creating these headaches based on our own little hobbies, we have to get together and say, “if the accounting system that the Germans require is good enough for Germany, it should be good enough for us too.” And if the procurement system for aid that the US requires is good enough, it should be good enough for us too. Let’s just put our money in one basket.
We also have to be prepared to fund what is really needed. For instance, let’s look at primary education. 90% of aid going to primary education doesn’t pay for the teachers or the teaching material; no, it is spent on technical consultants, on seminars, on saying to recipients, “You can have our dollars, but you have to buy American. You have to buy American goods, American consultants.’ This practice is really bad. Most Europeans have done away with the bad habit of giving out money but requiring that it be spent in our country. If the U.S. were to also untie its food aid, it would reach four times as many people, hungry people, and give far more bang for your buck. So don’t put your own national interest first when you give aid. That’s a very important point. Let me say this is not just about aid. Again, Sister Joan Kirby said Goal 8 is difficult. But let me tell you how simple it is, Joan. When I was Development Minister in the Netherlands, we had this wonderful project in which we helped poor farmers in Tanzania increase their production. These were dairy farmers and we Dutch people think we are the best in explaining how you can get more milk out of your cows. That project was tremendously effective. These Tanzanian cows were producing more and more gallons of milk a year. But poor farmers couldn’t market their milk because the local factories preferred Dutch milk powder because it was cheaper. How come it was so cheap? Because in Europe after the second World War we didn’t want to be hungry again so we created these incentives for our farmers to produce more, and more, and more milk than we could ever swallow. And what did we do with the surplus? We subsidized it, exported it, and dumped it on poor farmers markets. This is something Europeans are much worse at than the United States, but the United States also does it sometimes. For example, let’s consider the global impact of the subsidies for American cotton producers last year - which amounted to $3.9 billion dollars or three times as much as the U.S. provides in aid to Africa. American cotton subsidies have led to a total collapse of world cotton prices and very poor countries in West Africa, such as Mali or Benin which are totally dependent on the production and export of cotton, saw their national income just totally collapse. So, it is very important that we actually get these trade issues in focus as well. And at Doha where the new trade round was launched, we promised that this would actually be the first trade round where the developing countries would not be just the beggars at the feast. This would be the trade round where we would actually focus on what was important for poor countries, where we would provide them access to our markets, because until recently we have been saying “my market is mine.” Thus it is very difficult for a producer of simple T-shirts in Mozambique to actually them sell on any rich country market. However, if you are producing silk ties in Italy, you can sell them in any rich country without any barrier. Dealing with these trade issues is crucial. And, two-thirds of the world’s poor live in rural areas. They depend on agriculture to develop themselves. And after all, this is what this is about, it’s not about us developing them. They will develop themselves, if we allow them to. They cannot lift themselves out of poverty, whatever aid we give them, unless we stop destroying their markets and unless we allow them access to our markets.
Now I was looking again at the notes on President Bush‘s press conference yesterday. Indeed, the United States has the AGOA – the African Growth and Opportunity Act – which is a very nice first step in providing access to the U.S. market for poor African countries. However, it excludes a lot of products that are relevant, so it should be much broader. Broader preferences are necessary to help poor countries actually access our rich country markets. The third and last issue under Goal 8 is debt. President Mkapa of Tanzania asked me to make the following point whenever I speak to an audience with potential Jubilee activists. He wanted to express his gratitude for the Jubilee [Debt Relief] Campaign, because today in Tanzania a million more kids go to school because the money that he would otherwise have had to pay back on debts to rich countries could be used to invest in primary education. The Jubilee did lead to some debt relief for some poor countries, but still, not enough. There are millions of other kids that could go to school if we would expand and deepen debt relief. And the debt relief was definitely not enough if the purpose is to provide sufficient resources to these countries to invest in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. So we need another round of debt relief. This was another point that came up yesterday in President Bush’s Press Conference. Really, something has to be done. So this is what Goal 8 is about: more aid, more effective aid, trading opportunities for poor people so that they can sell their products on our rich markets, and indeed an end to poor countries having to repay all debts to us while they cannot afford the minimum investments required for their own basic health and education. That is the essence. What can you do? I was very much in agreement with Michael Gottsegen’s opening speech. Those were exactly the issues that I wanted to raise. As for politicians … I should let you know that I have been a Member of Parliament. You won’t have read my whole C.V., thank God, but for ten years, I was in the Dutch Parliament. I know how politicians work. They do care. But they ask themselves “can I win or lose votes if I show leadership on pro-development issues?” In the United States, what is lacking is a transmission belt that makes clear to your Congressman or woman that it is not risky to show leadership on these issues, to make clear to them that Americans are generous people and that political leaders would gain and not lose votes if they spoke out on these issues and ensured that the government lives up to its promises. This is something you could decide to do, to become active in being that transmission belt. Faith organizations have a long tradition – reaching back decades or even centuries, long before the MDGs were formulated – of helping to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. This has been through contributions to your development agencies and your charities, through service provision and humanitarian relief. Please continue to do this, because it has improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And – from the perspective of human dignity - every life that becomes worth living is a success worth talking about. But in the face of 1.2 billion people living on less than a dollar a day, these direct efforts can never compensate for the lack of action by your own government. We need governments to take action and live up to their promises, or we shall never put an end to poverty for these 1.2 billion people. This is why I urge you to add advocacy to whatever projects you are doing in the field. You must develop a strategy for awareness raising and advocacy, to ensure that the policies of your government are indeed just and equitable. After all, you – as voters – are responsible for the policies of your government. There is a lot that can be done, and is being done on advocacy. Let me give you a few examples to inspire you . In Europe, we have an installation we call the “MDG Arches.” These are eight huge arches, each one symbolizing one of the 8 Millennium Development Goals. The arches are traveling from city to city in Europe to educate the public on the importance of achieving the MDGs by 2015. In August, the new Pope is going to make his first foreign visit to Cologne and Bonn where the Roman Catholic Church is holding a huge Youth Assembly to show the social face of Jesus. And they will be integrating the Millennium Development Goals into this effort, including by hosting the MDG Arches at the Youth Assembly. On his first foreign trip, the Pope will visit his own country and he will walk hand in hand with the President of Germany under these huge, colorful Arches. These images will be seen not only in Germany, but all over the world. (I just was on the phone with the President of Germany this very morning to ensure that the travel marshal from the Vatican would integrate this into the Pope’s program.) For another example, already three or four years ago the World Council of Churches produced a book about the Millennium Development Goals that ended with a challenge: to “think of the ten things that you can do as a community to help achieve the Goals.” They also included suggestions for churches and other groups to support the goals. Next year the World Council of Churches General Assembly will meet under the banner of “God in Your Grace Transform the World.” And the focus of the assembly will include the Millennium Development Goals and advocacy “in order that all human beings, equal in their human dignity, may have fullness of life.” Last but not least, there is a network of African-Islamic faith-based organizations that produced a Declaration - the Abuja Declaration – some months ago declaring support for the Millennium Development Goals. Also, the Evangelical Community – who will also be speaking here – have agreed to call on Christians everywhere to hold their leaders accountable in securing a more just and merciful world. Now I know that you are not like world leaders, who too often make grand promises in international fora but then take the plane back home and continue with business as usual. I know that you will do something based on the discussion that we have had here. So, let me give you some words of advice. First, let me say “no more meetings in New York! This is not the place where you have to raise awareness, or display activism, or ensure that letters are sent to Congressmen. In New York, this can be taken for granted. You need to go back home – wherever that is – and use your network in Alabama, in Georgia, in Ohio, in Arizona, wherever, to get people and communities mobilized and organized. As a basis for this action you need to ensure that there is awareness around development issues. Organize public events in and around your churches. Debate and adopt resolutions about the Millennium Development Goals and use this process to engage public opinion. And – very important - get the media involved in everything you do. You should also participate in the broader alliances that already exist. For instance, in the U.S. there is the national campaign against poverty: the One Campaign. The Millennium Campaign has been involved in creating a global coalition of civil society – non-governmental organizations, faith-based organizations, trade unions among others – with national chapters in over one hundred countries. This global coalition is called the Global Call to Action Against Poverty, or GCAP. And this coalition is organizing White Band Days – days of mobilization where everyone will wear a white band as a mark of solidarity for the fight against poverty. One of the things GCAP has been doing in Europe is using large white bands to wrap up buildings or landmarks. These events have generated media and citizen interest in development issues. For instance, in Rome, the Mayor wanted to put a white band around the Coliseum. Unfortunately, he realized that it would cost too to create a white band in fabric, so he instead decided upon a system of lights which will project a white band around the Coliseum at night. In addition, activists all around Italy are organizing putting white bands on all statues with loose arms. And – you know – Italy is the country with the most statues per square foot. And, I don’t know if you have been in my country, but we have this monumental dam in Amsterdam and it will be wrapped in a white band. So, there will be landmarks wrapped in white bands all over. So, wrap your church tower in a white band! Show that you are part of this global coalition for action against poverty! One final point on awareness raising: it is very important to stress the importance of integrating development education into formal educational curricula in schools. Europe illustrates the importance of this. All of the European countries that have been providing 0.7% or more of their income in aid over the last thirty years, have spent a lot on development education, including through their formal education system. To conclude, the most important thing in the United States is what you have already outlined. You must fight ignorance on development issues. You must help breach the giant gap between what the American people think their government does – or equally what they feel that the government should do – and what the government actually does. As the OECD notes – in its report on the U.S. – there is an urgent need to “battle the inflated notion of the actual size of U.S. efforts.” So stand up and make your voice heard! These Millennium Development Goals are not just about ‘not yet another generation in poor countries growing up without seeing the inside of a school.’ They are just as much about ‘not yet another generation growing up in our countries without a clue on how their peers live and how their own society shares responsibility for that plight.’ We are the first generation that can put an end to poverty. And I hope you join us, in refusing to miss this unique opportunity!! Eveline Herfkens is the United Nations Secretary General’s Coordinator of the Millennium Development Goals Campaign. She is the former Minister of International Development for the Netherlands, former Dutch Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva including the World Trade Organization, and the former Dutch Representative to the World Bank.
|
|
Copyright 2007 Consortium for
Interfaith Education. All rights reserved.
|
