The outpouring of aid in response to the Indian Ocean tsunami brought hope to a troubled world. In the face of an immense tragedy, working-class families around the world opened their wallets to the disaster's victims. Former US president Bill Clinton called this response a "democratization of development assistance," in which individuals lend their help not only through their governments but also through their own efforts.
But, while more than 200,000 people perished in the tsunami disaster, an equivalent number of children die each month of malaria in Africa, a disaster I call a "silent tsunami." Africa's silent tsunami of malaria, however, is actually largely avoidable and controllable.
ILLUSTRATION: YUSHA
Malaria can be prevented to a significant extent, and can be treated with nearly 100 percent success, through available low-cost technologies. Yet malaria's African victims, as well as those in other parts of the world, are typically too poor to have access to these life-saving technologies. A global effort, similar to the response to the Asian tsunami, could change this disastrous situation, saving more than 1 million lives per year.
Herein lies the main message of the new report of the UN Millennium Project, which was delivered last month to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The project, which I direct on behalf of the secretary-general, represents an effort by more than 250 scientists and development experts to identify practical means to achieve the Millennium Development Goals to cut extreme poverty, disease and hunger by 2015. Our new report, entitled Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, shows that these goals can be achieved.
The key to meeting these goals in poor countries is an increase in investment in people (health, education, nutrition and family planning), the environment (water and sanitation, soils, forests and biodiversity) and infrastructure (roads, power and ports). Poor countries cannot afford these investments on their own, so rich countries must help.
If more financial aid is combined with good governance in poor countries, then these goals can be achieved on time. In short, our new report is a call to action. Rich countries and poor countries need to join forces to cut poverty, disease and hunger.
The reason that these goals are feasible is that powerful existing technologies give us the tools to make rapid advances in the quality of life and economic productivity of the world's poor. Illness and deaths from malaria can be reduced sharply by using insecticide-treated bed nets to stop the mosquitoes that transmit malaria, and by effective medicines when the illness strikes. The total cost of battling malaria in Africa would be around US$2 billion to US$3 billion per year.
With around 1 billion people living in high-income countries, it would thus cost just US$2 to US$3 per person per year in the developed world to fund an effort that could save more than 1 million children annually. When child mortality is reduced, poor families choose to have fewer children, because they are more confident that their children will survive to adulthood. Thus, paradoxically, saving children's lives is part of the solution to rapid population growth in poor countries.
Malaria is an important example where specific investment can solve the problems of disease, hunger and extreme poverty. Our report makes dozens of such practical recommendations.
Investment in soil nutrients and water harvesting could help African farmers double or triple their food yields. Anti-retroviral medicines can help save millions from death due to AIDS. Rural roads, truck transport and electricity could bring new economic opportunities to remote villages in Latin America, Africa and Asia. School meal programs using locally produced food could boost attendance by poor children, especially girls, and improve their ability to learn, while also providing an expanded market for local farmers.
These investments are an incredible bargain. Rich countries have long promised to increase their aid levels to 0.7 percent of national income (from around only 0.25 percent today). The promise of 0.7 percent means that the rich world would give developing countries a mere US$0.70 out of each US$100 of national income.
In recent weeks, many European countries have pledged to honor the 0.7-percent commitment, and five European countries -- Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden -- already do so. It's up to the US and Japan to follow through on their promises as well. Moreover, with the "democratization" of aid now underway, we can look forward to increased private efforts alongside official development assistance.
Of course, not all developing countries are sufficiently well-governed to use an increase in aid in an honest, effective way. The world should therefore start this bold effort by focusing on the poor countries that are relatively well governed and that are prepared to carry out needed investments in an efficient and fair manner. Ghana, Senegal, Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia are on that list. It is urgent that we get started in these and similarly well-governed poor countries this year.
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS