Outcomes from the G8 Summit and Ancillary Meetings
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
July 13, 2009
Dear Friends and Colleagues;
This brief update from the Global Health Program covers two issues:
- Outcomes from the G8 summit and ancillary meetings
- Secretary Clinton’s recent announcements and the future of U.S. foreign
assistance
As we have entered the summer vacation months in the northern hemisphere no further
updates will released before mid-September, unless news developments warrant comment.
Therefore, as the old song goes, “See you in September.”
Outcomes from the G8 Summit and Ancillary Meetings
Expectations were so low for last week’s G8 (+5+1+5) Summit in L’Aquila that some
commentators are filled with cheer simply because the bulky gathering in an Italian
earthquake-devastated region managed to produce a couple of consensus statements. In the
lead-up to the gathering it seemed Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was preoccupied
with scandals and domestic crises, and it was hard to discern a genuine focus to the gathering.
A few days before the Group of Eight (plus China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico – the G5 countries
– AND Egypt, Australia, South Korea, Indonesia, Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, Algeria, Angola,
Ethiopia, Lybia, Senegal, and Nigeria, along with the African Union and all of the International Organizations)
gathered, Berlusconi gave a curious interview to a very contentious Bob Geldof – so odd, that
we have attached it at the bottom of this update for your perusal. In this on-the-record
argument (“Africa, I’m Sorry”), conducted on July 6th, Berlusconi acknowledged that Italy’s
track record on development assistance and African affairs is abysmal.
On the eve of the Summit, former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, published a blistering
attack on the credibility of the G8, in the form of a public letter to Berlusconi. Annan noted
that the G8 committed in 2005 at Gleneagles to double aid to Africa by 2010. Japan, Canada,
the US, UK, and Germany are roughly on track to deliver, but France and Russia are laggards.
And Italy is going backwards: in 2009 Italian aid administered by the foreign ministry was cut
by 56 percent.
"Not honoring commitments and reducing official development assistance would betray the
values of your country and be a breach of faith, dashing the hopes that these pledges have
generated," charged Annan. "A G8 meeting that does not result in substantive outcomes
backed by financial support for the world's poorer countries, not least to fulfill existing
commitments, will harm the group's credibility and leadership."
Similarly harsh words were hurled towards Rome by World Bank President Robert Zoellick
and the leaders of most of the major health and development NGOs and humanitarian
organizations.
Meanwhile, Berlusconi was concerned about the impact of the Summit on his own country,
and deliberately moved the
meeting from Sardinia to
earthquake-ravaged L’Aquila.
Remarkably, construction of
conference facilities, transport
for VIPs, housing and food
facilities rushed on schedule, and
much of the media coverage
seemed absorbed with this
uncharacteristic model of Italian
efficiency.
In the end, what was resolved?
The G8 (plus, plus) issued multiple statements on the urgency of dealing with climate change,
poverty, water purification and scarcity, the financial crisis, and a host of issues. But in
concrete terms the L’Aquila gathering yielded a food/agricultural scheme, a water
development plan, and promises to fulfill past promises on health and development.
2
Climate Change: India and China, present at the Summit, declined to commit to specific
carbon-reduction targets. Though climate change was a key element of President Obama’s
interventions at the meeting, and the major Copenhagen Climate Summit lurks just six
months away, few significant agreements were reached on the subject. In his summary speech
Obama tried to put a positive face on the carbon and energy agreements:
“So let me just summarize: We've made a good start, but I'm the first one to
acknowledge that progress on this issue will not be easy. And I think that one of the
things we're going to have to do is fight the temptation towards cynicism, to feel that
the problem is so immense that somehow we cannot make significant strides.
But, ultimately, we have a choice. We can either shape our future, or we can let events
shape it for us. We can fall back on the stale debates and old divisions, or we can decide
to move forward and meet this challenge together.”
Food: The strongest and most promising agreement reached at the Summit calls for provision
of $20 billion over three years for agricultural development, primarily in Africa. Significantly,
the scheme shifts from donating surplus foods, shipped from rich countries to poor ones, to
providing poor nations with the resources, tools and training to build up their own farming
capacities. This is very much in keeping with recommendations found in last year’s Global
Health Program food report and this year’s CFR foreign assistance reform action plan. As
noted in these reports, and in a more recent General Accounting Office assessment, more
than half of US taxpayer dollars for food relief are currently devoured by U.S. agricultural
producers and shippers, and still more evaporates on-the-ground in recipient countries
through inefficiencies and corruption.
Originally the G8 draft statement called for $15 billion in food aid, but at Obama’s urging the
commitment was up’ed to $20 billion ($3.5 billion of which will come from the U.S.), and
shifted from “food aid” to “agricultural development”. According to multiple press accounts,
the Summit opened with a draft $15 billion food aid accord, which seemed to quickly fall
apart on day one of the gathering, whittling down to $12 billion, and focusing on
humanitarian and famine relief. By all accounts, President Barack Obama stepped in on day
three with a major proposal aimed at increasing the dollar commitment, and shifting to, as the
White House put it, “helping Africa help itself.” Obama carried the day.
"Obama's dragging the G-8 along, but at this point, the money's not looking all that good,"
Gawain Kripke, U.S. policy director for Oxfam International, told reporters as day three
opened. By the end of the day Kripke and hundreds of other agricultural development
advocates were stunned, and delighted.
Obama pushed a “tough love” position on Africa (echoed in his Accra speech, as discussed below).
Getting Africa’s poorest nations out of generations of foreign dependency, the President
argued, requires investment in agricultural self-reliance.
The LA Times offered this enlightening rendition of Obama’s role inside the G8 Summit:
3
As leaders discussed the problem of world hunger, according to people who were
present, Obama at one point rose to make a personal appeal for a more substantial
commitment to food security.
When his father left Kenya five decades ago, his home country had a higher per capita
income and gross domestic product than did South Korea. Today, South Korea is
prosperous and Kenya still struggles with poverty, a state Obama attributes to stronger
social institutions in South Korea.
At his news conference, Obama acknowledged relying on his own history in arguing for
extra aid.
"My father traveled to the United States a mere 50 years ago," he said. "Yet now I have
family members who . . . live in villages where hunger is real."
The question he raised in the meeting, he said, was, "Why is that?"
"If you talk to people on the ground in Africa, certainly in Kenya, they will say that, part
of the issue here is the institutions aren't working for ordinary people," he said.
Ethiopian premier Meles Zenawi told Reuters the Obama stance makes sense, but, "The key
message for us is to ask the G8 to live up to their commitments."
Barely had the G8 leaders shaken hands on the $20 billion
agricultural agreement when White House aides discreetly began
pressing this very point: Fulfillment on commitments. President
Obama insists, aides say, that the only road to political stability in
Africa is one paved by plentiful food. The White House linked
national security concerns with food production independence for
Africa. "There is no reason that Africa cannot be self-sufficient when
it comes to food," Obama told reporters in L’Aquila.
Read declaration on food security Read White House statement
The Rome-based World Food Program (WFP) greeted the G8 initiative with a surprisingly
mixed response. While pleased that the G8 leaders were committed to agricultural reform,
WFP insisted that crisis food relief is still essential, as 1 billion people worldwide go to bed
hungry each night. In a press release WFP argued:
But as the world works to build the long term solutions to hunger, WFP is calling for due
attention to be also focused on the immediate needs of the hungry. WFP analysts note
that even tripling agricultural production overnight would not stop people being hungry
because in many cases food is available but people cannot access it, often for economic
reasons.
“Meeting urgent hunger needs is the best long term investment we can make,” said
Nancy Roman, WFP's Director of Communications, Public Policy and Private Sector
4
Partnerships. “It’s an investment in stability and world peace. It’s an investment in the
next generation of global citizens and an investment in global human development”.
In contrast to these cautionary, even negative WFP statements, most of the leading
development NGOs praised the G8, and many singled out President Obama for accolades.
For example:
• “Bread for the World welcomes the statement issued today by G8 member nations at their
meeting in L’Aquila, Italy, on reducing world hunger by increasing agricultural support and
development in the world’s poorest countries.” -- Rev. David Beckmann, president of Bread for
the World.
• “CARE’s work in the field demonstrates the need to ensure that assistance reaches those most
vulnerable to chronic hunger, the poorest of the poor. This initiative sets us on the path to do
that. We look forward to working with all parties to make this commitment a reality.” -- Dr.
Helene Gayle, president and CEO of CARE USA.
• “Catholic Relief Services...applauds President Barack Obama’s announcement that G-8 nations
have committed $20 billion to help millions of the world’s poor farmers to grow more food.” –
press release statement
• “To be realized these commitments must be pursued as part of a comprehensive strategy in
order to help the world’s poor. The success of this global food strategy rests on the ability of the
G-8 to be accountable to its promises. The bold decision of President Obama, the G8, and other
leaders to significantly increase aid to agriculture and to partner with vulnerable countries is
critical to addressing the food crisis and alleviating the disastrous impact of the global financial
crisis.” -- Samuel A. Worthington President and CEO of InterAction, an alliance of 183 U.S. non-
governmental organizations (NGOs).
• “If G8 leaders follow through on the global food security initiative and fortify their commitment
to maternal and child health with significantly increased investment, they could save millions of
children’s lives a year. We hope the new push for accountability among the world’s wealthiest
nations will turn good intentions into real results without delay.” -- Save the Children President
and CEO Charles MacCormack.
• “The G8 food security initiative committing $20 billion over three years to tackle global hunger is
a laudable step toward saving lives worldwide...” – World Vision press release
Malia and Sasha Obama walk along Rome's
historical center on July 8 while visiting with their
grandmother. Malia is sporting a peace-sign shirt,
traditionally worn by U.S. anti-war protestors. The
symbol was originally created in the UK during the
1950s as a sign of opposition to nuclear weapons.
5Water: For the first time in its 35 year history the Global Leaders Summit addressed
problems of water scarcity. Though no specific funds were committed to water problems, the
links between drinking water scarcities, hygiene and health, farming and climate change were
formally agreed to by the assembled 40 leaders.
A Stronger G8-Africa Partnership on Water and Sanitation
We are determined to build a stronger partnership between African and G8 countries to
increase access to water and sanitation, based on the principles of shared responsibility
and mutual accountability. Through the joint political weight of the G8 and the AU, we
will ensure adequate momentum and commitment on water and sanitation
improvements at national and international levels, for concrete results on the ground.
To support the implementation of the African commitments, G8 countries will: assist the
building of capacity in African countries to develop and implement national water and
sanitation plans; improve coordination within multi-donor platforms to promote aid
effectiveness; align assistance to better reflect national priorities; improve bilateral and
multilateral contributions to financial mechanisms aimed at mobilizing investment;
assist the AU Commission, AMCOW and Regional Economic Communities in response to
the African demands for institutional support.
While recognising that each country has the primary responsibility of its own
development success, both parties will prioritise the achievement of water-related
MDGs in the political agenda.
The G8 focus on water is framed in an African context. While water-related problems clearly
stymie health and farming developments in Africa, water is pivotal to the future of Asia, as
well. Disappearing glaciers in the Himalayas threaten the survival of most of the major river
systems of Asia, especially the Mekong, Ganges and Yellow Rivers. Researchers at
Singapore’s RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies this week issued a NTS-Alert
on “Water Woes and Food Security.” With rice the primary staple of Asia, water-dependency
for farming is acute and most Asian nations use upwards of 90% of scarce water supplies for
agriculture.
Financial Crisis: The G8+ Summit optimistically forecast that the world financial crisis will
soon resolve. In his closing press conference, Berlusconi said that “unanimity” was reached
that the worst of the financial crisis has passed. Berlusconi’s press department issued this
statement:
The World Leaders assembled in L’Aquila had also sent out an “unambiguous
message of confidence and hope to the public” in the face of a financial crisis
that “has now blown itself out,” at least as far as its impact on the economy was
concerned. The leaders had, the prime minister added, voiced their “displeasure
at the resumption of international speculation,” calling on the international
financial institutions to step in. The talk had then turned to the need to
introduce a new code of universally accepted and universally applied laws and
6rules based on three principles: the right to own property, the value represented
by ethics and morality and transparency.
Global Health, specifically: The L’Aquila Summit failed to take up new health-related
resolutions or commitments. Despite intense lobbying from the global health community,
and Japan in particular, the Summit made no new monetary commitments to any health-
related issue other than the above-described food program. Instead, the Summit reiterated its
Gleneagles obligations, promising to fulfill prior promises. In other words, the G8 promised
to promise.
"Despite the severe impact of the crisis on our
economies, we reiterate the importance of fulfilling our
commitments to increase aid made at Gleneagles," the
leaders said, acknowledging a failure to meet $25 billion
worth of health and anti-poverty commitments to Africa
since 2005. In his closing remarks, Berlusconi told
reporters that the G8 will come up with the $25 billion
within 12 months, though it may not all come from
government coffers. Given the Italian Parliament voted
to hack foreign assistance by more than 50% this year,
and further cuts through 2012, Berlusconi will have to
scramble to fill his country’s quota. He is a big fan of
“innovative financing,” which seeks to “tax” citizens of rich countries on behalf of poor
nations by levying fees on airplane tickets or various commodities. The RED campaign (set
up by Bono), the French air tax, and advance marketing commitments for pharmaceuticals are
all mechanisms that find favor with the leader of a country that refuses, politically, to provide
bilateral or traditional budgetary backing for global health and development.
At Italy’s insistence, the phrase “and other donors” was inserted into the pledge to meet
Gleneagles commitments – a reference to Berlusconi’s hope to find ways to meet his
country’s commitments without asking his Parliament for cash.
The global health and development advocacy community and NGOs were not pleased:
• "The reiteration of old promises is fine. The announcement of new plans is fine, but what we
really need is action, action to put food into peoples' mouths and deliver treatment to the sick.
Currently France is not meeting its promises and Italy is the worst performer, having slashed
aid.” -- Oliver Buston, spokesman for the ONE campaign
• "The buck stops here. The failure of the G8 to deliver the 50 billion dollars in aid promised to
poor countries is a crisis of credibility which will cost three million lives," said the international
group. What is the G8 for if they will not show leadership to save the lives of millions? They have
two days left to show us their emergency plan to meet their broken promise." -- Emma Seery,
spokeswoman for OXKAM International
7• "Today G8 leaders failed a credibility test on Africa, with unimpressive action. The G8 have again
failed to provide credible figures for how they will keep their Gleneagles promises on aid. If the
G8 isn't believable, then it isn't relevant.” -- Otive Igbuzor, head of ActionAid
• Save the Children told AP it was shocked that Italy had announced it would cut its foreign aid to
poor countries by another 10 percent in 2010, after a 56 percent reduction made in December
2008. "The Italian government has used the eve of its own summit to announce not a
reinstatement of aid but an extraordinary further cut. It's a disgrace. Coming from the host of
the G8, this action raises serious questions about the credibility of the summit." -- Adrian
Lovett, spokesman for Save the Children
• U2 lead singer Bono urged Italians to protest against Berlusconi and their Parliament.
It is possible the G8 leaders have concluded – for now – that their support of global health
campaigns is sufficient. Interestingly, the Kaiser Family Foundation and UNAIDS jointly
released a report during the Summit that demonstrates a dramatic trend in donor support.
The timing of release is curious, given the L’Aquila gathering, and the Global Fund’s recently
announced budgetary shortfall of nearly $4 billion. The report finds:
• Overall commitments in AIDS funding from the developed world totalled US$ 8.7 billion in 2008,
up from US$ 6.6 billion the previous year. Disbursements, which reflect actual resources made
available in a given year and therefore provide a better measure of resource availability, rose
even more rapidly, up 56 % to reach US$ 7.7 billion in 2008.
• Disbursements from the United States totalled US$ 4 billion in 2008, more than half of all
disbursements and more than any other single country. The United Kingdom was the second
largest donor, followed by the Netherlands, France, Germany, Norway and Sweden.
• Between 2002 and 2008, commitments and disbursements from developed nations each
increased by more than five-fold.
• In 2008, donor governments disbursed US$ 5.7 billion bilaterally and earmarked funds for HIV
through multilateral organizations, as well as an additional US$ 1.7 billion to combat HIV
through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and US$ 265 million to
UNITAID.
The Future of the G8+: In an editorial on July 11th the Times of India triumphantly declared,
“G8 is dead, long live G14!”
In remarks to the media, Berlusconi echoed the Indian proclamation, saying, “We saw that G8
is no longer a suitable format to show a global economic way of doing. Instead, a consolidated
G14 representing 80% of the world economy could help create a real dialogue. We want to
see if the G14 is the best solution for debates which will bring to us unique results.''
8Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon told
the press in L’Aquila that India will never again sit
still and allow the old G8 to convene: It is now, he
insisted, a G14, comprising India, the US, China,
Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Brazil, South
Africa, Mexico, Canada, the UK, Italy and one as-
yet-unnamed Middle Eastern country (odds are,
Egypt).
Expansion of the G8 is a double-edged sword for advocates of health, development, climate
change mitigation, and market structural reform. On the one hand, the debate is enlarged, and
more realistically mirrors world economics and population: How can any discussion of global
leadership take place without the presence of powerhouses China, India and Brazil? But as the
failures in L’Aquila climate negotiation illustrate, the needs and capacities of the traditional
rich world, versus the emerging new wealthy nations are not in harmony. In the context of
global health, it is hard to see how a broader G14 (or 18 or 20+) can build progressive
principles towards the human rights of HIV+ individuals, women’s access to family planning,
central government responsibility for provision of health, and the target of spending 0.7% of
GDP annually to support health and development in poor countries, especially African.
Inclusivity is the order of the day, however, as signaled by the G20 London summit on the
financial crisis four months ago. The emerging market nations are demanding seats at the
management tables of the IMF, World Bank, and other major institutions, and the Euro-
centric notions of health, governance and human rights will no doubt be modified in coming
years – for good, and possibly bad.
It was former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin who first proposed expanding the G8 to
a more inclusive G20. For many years, Martin and his former staff have quietly pushed the
expansion agenda, anticipating Canada’s 2010 turn at hosting the G8 in Ottawa. Given
Canada’s strong foreign assistance record, and Martin’s longstanding advocacy of global
governance inclusion policies, next year’s Summit might be cause for optimism, not only for
global health, but larger transnational management issues (e.g. climate change mitigation and
adaptation, trade policy, resource access equity).
Sadly, current Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is unpopular, and his government is
fraught with scandals that are mild by Italian standards, but sufficient
in polite Canada to get a leader booted out of office. In 2006, Harper
enjoyed a 66% approval rating from Canadian voters: Today that is
down to about 32%. And Harper’s conservative party is neck-and-
neck in Canadian popularity polls with the liberal party, and its
would-be PM, Michael Ignatieff. In L’Aquila Harper squandered
goodwill generated by his government’s foreign assistance pledges by
using the G8 Summit as an opportunity to attack Ignatieff – who he
labeled “unpatriotic”.
9It is almost certain that Harper will be forced to call a general election, but political insiders in
Ottawa predict it will be in the conservatives’ interests to drag the process out into early 2010.
Some observers predict Harper will wait until April, as his strongest base of support is in
rural Canada where winter elections are sparsely attended.
An alarming prospect therefore, is that Canada could be in the grips of a hotly contested
national election during precisely the time the government ought to be planning the 2010 G8
(or 14 or 20) Summit, and the actual meeting might take place under the leadership of a weak
government that has been in office less than four months. This would radically alter prospects
for next year’s Summit, regardless of whether the ultimate flavor of the Canadian
government is conservative or liberal, Harper or Ignatieff.
Sec. Clinton’s Announcements and the Future of U.S. Foreign
Assistance
The U.S. still has no designated leader for its foreign assistance agency (USAID), or structural
architecture for governance of its 40+ foreign aid programs, including those for AIDS,
malaria, maternal health, child vaccination, and food policy. For many observers in
Washington the apparent foot-dragging within the Obama Administration has been cause for
rising consternation. Though Dr. Paul Farmer’s name continues to be at the forefront of
Washington gossip about leadership of USAID, seven months into the Obama term rumors
dominate, where leadership and facts would be better appreciated.
This week, however, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to offer some clarity on
Administration schemes for foreign assistance when she delivers what her staff terms “a
major policy address” on the subject at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, DC.
(Clinton’s comments will appear on www.cfr.org Wednesday afternoon.) The broad outlines
of Clinton’s plan, coupled with comments delivered by President Barack Obama in Accra
over the weekend, offer clues to the direction the Administration plans to take with
everything from development of war-torn Afghanistan to vaccination of infants in
Guatemala.
At 10pm Thursday the House approved the
largest foreign assistance budget in American
history: $49 billion. For hours key
Republicans proposed modifications to the
budget, and key Democrats rallied their party
to vote the GOP down. In the end 76
Republicans voted with the Democrats to
pass the budget by a House vote of 318-106.
On the Senate side, the Appropriations
Committee passed a $48.6 billion foreign
10assistance package. The Senate bill includes $7.8 billion for global health (a $434 million
increase over FY09), $5.7 billion of which is for HIV/AIDS.
Some may quibble about the details, but $49 billion is a lot of foreign assistance money, with
more than one-out-of-every-seven of those dollars going to global health.
What remains unclear are the nature of a structure, hierarchy and professional staff to
implement programs with those dollars.
And that is where Sec. Clinton’s announcements and President Obama’s Accra speech come
in. First, let’s dissect the speech, and Obama’s “tough love” message.
There is a classic phrase in foreign policy
circles: “Only Nixon could go to China,”
referencing the thawing of Sino-U.S.
relations that could only succeed under a
conservative, pro-Taiwan Presidency. In a
similar sense, only a half-African U.S.
President could go to Africa, and speak truth
to power: “Only Obama could go to Africa.”
In a nutshell, Obama told rapt Africans that
America stands behind them in their pursuit of better futures, but the continent’s leaders and
their practices of corruption and conflict must change. It wasn’t quite a “pull yourself up by
your own bootstraps” lecture, but Obama told Africans that it was time for Africa, to fix
Africa.
"For far too many Africans conflict is a part of life ... these conflicts are a millstone around
Africa's neck," Obama said. "No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the
economy to enrich themselves or the police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business
wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20% off the top... That is not
democracy. That is tyranny even if you sprinkle an election in it. Africa does not need strong
men, it needs strong institutions.”
In a Saturday address to the Ghanaian Parliament in Accra, Ghana, Obama said global health
efforts should be integrated and comprehensive. The U.S. will not invest in diseases in
isolation, Obama declared, adding that under his new $63 billion, 6-year Global Health
Initiative the U.S. will place strong emphasis on improving African health systems,
particularly those for maternal care and pregnancy.
First Lady Michelle Obama and The President visited USAID-funded maternal health
services at La General Hospital in Accra. President Obama told reporters at the hospital, "Part
of reason this is so important is that throughout Africa, the rate of both infant mortality but
also maternal mortality is still far too high."
11"The President made a strong statement
today to the women, children and families
in Ghana and throughout Africa that the
United States is committed to working in
partnership to reduce maternal and child
deaths on the continent," said Jeffrey L.
Sturchio, President and CEO of the Global
Health Council in a written statement.
"The Global Health Council commends
the Obama Administration's pledge to
institute a comprehensive U.S. global
health strategy that includes heightened commitment to maternal and child health and family
planning."
Implementation of the Global Health Initiative, newly-promised G8 food program, and
hundreds of other foreign assistance initiatives will be administered primarily by the State
Department, according to information that has dribbled out of Washington in advance of Sec.
Clinton’s Wednesday policy address, and elements were revealed to State Department
employees in a Friday town hall meeting. (See: Clinton to launch new development initiative)
The State Department will launch a new "Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review"
(QDDR) to be headed up by Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew and Policy Planning chief
Anne-Marie Slaughter. A similar review process is underway at the Defense Department,
where about 100 experts are re-envisioning every aspect of U.S. military affairs. It is not clear
how large the Clinton QDDR team will be, whether the yet-to-be-named head of USAID will
co-chair the exercise, or how many of the health-related programs (e.g. PEPFAR, PMI, MCC)
will have a seat at this table.
According to insiders, the QDDR process is intended to head off Congressional efforts to
mandate that the White House submit an over-arching strategic plan for foreign assistance to
the House Foreign Operation Committee, and to find a coherent organizational structure for
U.S. overseas operations.
One very “insider” blog, puts the QDDR effort in the context of a leaderless, demoralized
USAID, and wonders where Clinton and Obama plan to take the entire foreign assistance
mission:
There was much talk by the Obama team during the campaign about how international
development was so important to national security and how it needed to be a priority.
But six months into the Obama administration, the Agency for International
Development, though deeply troubled and adrift, now finds itself without a single top
job filled by an Obama appointee. This is not a question of a couple of senior folks being
"home alone." We're talking a virtual haunted house.
Given the Senate timetable, even if the White House moves immediately to put
someone in charge, it's most likely that no top officials will be confirmed for jobs over
12there until the fall or later. Most every one of the dozen Senate-confirmed jobs -- from
administrator down to the regional chiefs -- has someone "acting" in the job, meaning a
career officer babysitting and waiting for direction from new policymakers.
It's so bad that when we called yesterday to verify the listings -- and to ask why
Jonathan Addleton was listed as acting administrator for legislative and public affairs
when the White House had announced last week he was going to be ambassador to
Mongolia -- a spokeswoman said she could not talk about that or the other "actings."
She instead referred us to the National Security Council.
The Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) issued a statement on Friday
regarding the QDDR, from Co-Chairs David Beckmann (Bread for the World) and George
Ingram (Academy for Education Development). MFAN praised Clinton, calling her, “more
committed to development than any Secretary of State in history. Beckmann and Ingram
asked that the QDDR process take the following steps:
• Name a USAID director as soon as possible, and include that individual in the leadership of the
QDDR;
• Give the USAID director a seat on the National Security Council;
• Align U.S. development and global health policies across all agencies of the U.S. government,
not just the State Department. (In FY07 about 22% of foreign assistant was handled by the
Department of Defense.)
• Include NGOs and independent experts in the QDDR process.
The Global Health Program of the Council on Foreign Relations will, as always, endeavor to
keep you informed on these, and similar issues. If you are in the northern hemisphere, have a
great summer. (The Berlusconi/Geldof tête-à-tête follows.)
Sincerely,
Laurie Garrett
13Berlusconi in Geldof Interview: “Africa, I’m Sorry”
Jul 6th, 2009 4:09 PM EST
Sunday’s special edition of La Stampa which Bob Geldof edited, also presented an
opportunity for Geldof to interview Italy’s Prime Minister Berlusconi. In the interview,
Geldof asks some very pointed questions about Italy’s failure to deliver on their promises
to Africa, and the fact that Italy has only met 3% of what it had promised.
Full account of the interview, courtesy of Eloise Todd, below:
Silvio Berlusconi and Bob Geldof met each other in the courtyard of Palazzo Chigi. The
Prime Minister was suffering from a stiff neck, but kept the promise to respond to the
criticisms of the rock star famous for his public efforts for Africa. Geldof, straight in
from London, wanted to go over the questions and data on Italian aid to Africa.
They found each other again a moment later outside the study of the Prime Minister.
They sat in the centre, next to one another, their teams were on two sofas facing each
other, the advisers of ONE, the NGO for Africa, on one side, and the men of the Foreign
Ministry and Palazzo Chigi on the other, including Gianni Letta and Paolo Bonaiuti.
What followed was not a conventional interview, but an exchange which almost
resembled a boxing match. I thought at times that first Berlusconi, then Geldof, would get
up and abandon the meeting, but in the end they managed to get to the end of the
interview and the encounter stayed gentlemanly.
Geldof: “Signor Presidente, let’s get straight to the point. You are the senior statesman of
the G8. In 2001 in Genoa, you created the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria,
which made ARVs available for free for 3 million people in Africa. Then you
participated in the Gleneagles Summit, where you committed to invest 0.51% of GNI in
ODA by 2010 and 0.7% GNI by 2015: right now Italy has met only 3% of that promise.
From the hope of Genoa to the delusion of Gleneagles: do you feel the weight of this
responsibility?”
Berlusconi begins reading from a statement: “You are right. It’s a delay in payments. We,
however, were out of government for two and a half years. When we returned, we found
a deficit of 110% GDP. Now, because of the economic crisis, this deficit is up to 120%
and the European Union will not allow us to stay at this level. When considering the
budget law, the Parliament has decided to cut spending. Unfortunately they also cut aid to
Africa, and we have started a debate on this. The Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti is
committed to getting us back on track with our commitments in 3 years.”
Geldof becomes agitated: “The G8 is in 3 days, not 3 years, as President of this Summit,
what are you going to do?”
Berlusconi: “Look, what has happened is absolutely the opposite of what I have been
doing personally: this year I financed an orphanage in Thailand and a hospital for
children in Brazil. I understand your worry and I very much appreciate the work that you
have done for the poorest, but we have had external obstacles standing in our way.”
14Berlusconi gives the floor to the diplomatic adviser of Tremonti “we have begun to repay
the World Bank our outstanding payments, as well as other international financial
organisations. In 2010 we will reach 0.33% of GDP to ODA, and we’ll get to 0.51% by
2015…”
Geldof interrupts: “Excuse me, I am aware of all this. Thanks for the explanation,” and he
turns towards the Prime Minister: “I don’t believe you. In order to reach those levels you
will have to do an incredible job. And we don’t need any more plans, right now we need
action. I’m sick of plans, we just need to act. We must have more ODA. When we cut
aid, we take food from the mouths of the starving. We literally take the needles from the
arms of patients. Why must we behave like this? Africa is the second biggest emerging
market after China. It’s got more democratic countries than Asia. We’re talking about
tiny amounts of money: why is it so difficult to find this money for aid? The German
Chancellor, Angela Merkel Prime Minister Brown, even President Sarkozy have
increased aid, but Italy has cut by €400m. All these countries’ economies are a disaster,
but all have kept their promise they made to the poor. Except Italy. How can you lead the
G8? Where is your credibility? This is a human question, not a tactical question. We are
tired of seeing people that die of hunger!
Berlusconi starts to nod, he has been struck by the image of starving children.
Geldof adds: “I speak as a businessman. I’ve seen the agreement you have done with
Gadaffi, all business and concrete action: why not extend this beyond to the entire
continent? Guide the G8 towards a different perception of Africa?”
Berlusconi: “Yes, yes. I am also the leader with the most experience on these matters.
The others are children compared to me. On this point, however, I have had to follow the
position of my Finance Minister. He has a strong personality and maintains that the first
thing we must respect is our obligations to the EU institutions and international finance.
But he has promised that we will be back on track with the commitments on ODA in 3
years. Look, you live this problem with intense emotion: money is food, and I appreciate
your work very much. I have talked with Tremonti and have also argued with him about
this, he’s presented me with his resignation many times – jokes Berlusconi - I however,
have rejected it because I don’t have another Minister available. On the table at the G8
there will be 5 or 6 important issues: Africa will be one of these. Later, on the financing,
I’ll look at changing the recovery plan.”
Geldof shakes his head: He shows to Berlusconi the document that the PM approved at
the G8 in Gleneagles: “Here is the signature of a country and the honour of a man.”
Berlusconi reads it and admits: “I’m sorry, we have made a mistake.”
Geldof then continues: “A reason why this crisis is so serious is the fact that we left 50%
of the world outside the system. How is it possible to live on 2 dollars a day? And if you
have so little, how can you buy our products? Africa is a bigger market than Brazil ,
Russia or Mexico: shouldn’t we include it? If African citizens can buy our goods, there
would also be more jobs in Italy.”
Berlusconi clenches his fist: “You are right, when one commits to something, it has to be
maintained. We are behind, and we have to put this right. I’m sorry to have not
maintained these promises, you have to take into account all the things that have got in
the way of us achieving them. The crisis, the earthquake. We also have a big situation
with the opposition, the judges that attack us..”
15Gledof stops him again: “But this, Prime Minister, is not a discussion about media or the
judicial system: we are talking about defenceless poor people.”
At this point, looking to calm the tone, Gianni Letta intervenes “You heard: our Prime
minister has expressed willingness to find a solution.”
Geldof: “OK, but the G8 is in 3 days. The American President Obama has said that he
also wants to deal with the emergency in poor countries: can we get to something
concrete?”
Berlusconi: “I had a great meeting with President Obama, he made a great impression on
me. He said that he would like to create a fund for agriculture and food security; he
promised to give $1bn dollars for the next four years and now he would like that the other
7 countries of the G8 put in another $1 billion.”
Geldof: “Would that be new funds or from existing ODA?”
Berlusconi: “New funds, yes. You see that I’m serious? Before we met I read the things
you have written about us, berating Italy for not having met our commitments, and
despite that I have not avoided this interview. I’ve done it because I appreciate your
effort. We’re absolutely in the wrong and I want to put myself to work with someone like
you who spends his life pursuing this beautiful mission. OK? We’re trying not to
disappoint you.”
Geldof: “Prime Minister, let’s forget this interview with La Stampa and speak frankly
between us: what are we going to do?”
Once again Letta intervenes: “Our Prime minister recognises your suggestions and will
elaborate a response in the coming days.”
Geldof: “It’s a question of credibility. Political credibility. You risk becoming known as
‘Mr 3%’ someone who keeps only 3% of his promises. What are you going to do in
l’Aquila?”
Berlusconi doesn’t understand what ‘Mr 3%’ means. His assistant, Valentino Valentini,
who is providing interpretation for the meeting, explains Geldof’s accusation to him.
Berlusconi becomes more serious and clearly enunciates his words: “As an entrepreneur,
I have always fulfilled a promise, and with the electorate I have behaved in the same way.
In this case it’s because of an impossible situation in the budget that was not in my
control. If we had given funds in this way we would have received terrible penalties from
Europe. We’re in the impossible situation of trying to fulfil our goals, without having the
possibility of spending. Now we have to find a way to close other finances and put funds
in the direction of aid. Perhaps we will have the possibility to do it, but there will be very
painful cuts.”
Geldof: “But this would be an investment”
Berlusconi: “Yes, of that I’m sure. I read the latest UN report which said that in the next
15 years there will be 2 billion more people in the world, who will be born in countries
where there is no social welfare. We will do it all, if not there will not be a chance for
liberty, democracy and wellbeing to develop. But right now there has not been the
possibility to do it, because Europe threatens penalties….”
16Geldof: “Don’t blame Brussels, Prime Minister, Brussels is farther away from Rome than
Africa. I’ve been to Lampedusa: if you want to stop the tragedy of illegal immigration
you must help to create better living conditions and help build economies of the countries
the people come from. Prime Minister, when the rich get less rich, the poor get even
poorer.”
Berlusconi: “Of course: and the more poor a person becomes, the more desperate he
becomes. I know well that to help them is not only a duty but is also in our interest.”
Geldof: “Would you say that in l’Aquila you will do something?”
Berlusconi: “We will take the lead. Together with Obama we will act, of that I am
absolutely convinced. We’ll see what we can do.”
17You can also read
