In hosting this year’s G8 summit of major economies (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US), Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called for an “accountability summit,” to hold the G8 responsible for the promises that it made over the years.
So let’s make our own account of how the G8 did. The answer, alas, is a failing grade. The G8 this year illustrates the difference between photo-ops and serious global governance.
Of all of the G8’s promises over the years, the most important was made to the world’s poorest people at the 2005 G8 Gleneagles summit in Scotland. The G8 promised that, by this year, it would increase annual development assistance to the world’s poor by US$50 billion relative to 2004. Half of the increase, or US$25 billion per year, would go to Africa.
The G8 fell far short of this goal, especially with respect to Africa. Total aid went up by around US$40 billion rather than US$50 billion, and aid to Africa rose by between US$10 billion and US $15 billion per year rather than US$25 billion.
The properly measured shortfall is even greater, because the promises that were made in 2005 should be adjusted for inflation. Re-stating those commitments in real terms, total aid should have risen by around US$60 billion, and aid to Africa should have risen by around US$30 billion.
In effect, the G8 fulfilled only half of its promise to Africa — roughly US$15 billion in increased aid rather than US$30 billion. Much of the overall G8 increase in aid went to Iraq and Afghanistan, as part of the US-led war effort, rather than to Africa. Among G8 countries, only the UK is making a bold effort to increase its overall aid budget and direct a significant portion to Africa.
Since the G8 was off track in its aid commitments for many years, I long wondered what the G8 would say this year, when the commitments actually fell due. In fact, the G8 displayed two approaches. First, in an “accountability report” issued before the summit, the G8 stated the 2005 commitments in current dollars rather than in inflation-adjusted dollars, in order to minimize the size of the reported shortfall.
Second, the G8 summit communique simply did not mention the unmet commitments at all. In other words, the G8 accountability principle became: If the G8 fails to meet an important target, stop mentioning the target — a cynical stance, especially at a summit heralded for “accountability.”
The G8 did not fail because of the current financial crisis. Even before the crisis, the G8 countries were not taking serious steps to meet their pledges to Africa. This year, despite a massive budget crisis, the UK government has heroically honored its aid commitments, showing that other countries could have done so if they had tried.
However, isn’t this what politicians like to do — smile for the cameras, and then fail to honor their promises? I would say that the situation is far more serious than that.
First, the Gleneagles commitments might be mere words to politicians in the rich world, but they are matters of life and death for the world’s poor. If Africa had another US$15 billion to US$20 billion per year in development aid this year, as promised, with the amounts rising over future years (also as promised), millions of children would be spared an agonizing death from preventable diseases, and tens of millions of children would be able to get an education.
Second, the emptiness of G8 leaders’ words puts the world at risk. The G8 leaders promised last year to fight hunger with US$22 billion in new funds, but so far they are not delivering. They promised to fight climate change with US$30 billion of new emergency funds, but so far they are not delivering. My own country, the US, shows the largest gap between promises and reality.
Hosting this year’s G8 summit reportedly cost Canada a fortune, despite the absence of any significant results. The estimated cost of hosting the G8 leaders for one-and-a-half days, followed by the G20 leaders for one-and-a-half days, reportedly came to more than US$1 billion. This is essentially the same amount that the G8 leaders pledged to give each year to the world’s poorest countries to support maternal and child health.
It is absurd and troubling to spend US$1 billion on three days of meetings under any circumstances (since there are much cheaper ways to have such meetings and much better uses for the money).
However, it is tragic to spend so much money and then accomplish next to nothing in terms of concrete results and honest accountability. There are three lessons to be drawn from this sorry episode. First, the G8 as a group should be brought to an end. The G20, which includes developing countries as well as rich countries, should take over.
Second, any future promises made by the G20 should be accompanied by a clear and transparent accounting of what each country will do, and when. The world needs true accountability, not empty words about accountability. Every G20 promise should spell out the specific actions and commitments of each country, as well as the overall promise of the group.
Third, the world’s leaders should recognize that commitments to fight poverty, hunger, disease and climate change are life-and-death issues that require professional management for serious implementation.
The G20 meets later this year in South Korea, a country that has emerged from poverty and hunger over the past 50 years. South Korea understands the utter seriousness of the global development agenda and the poorest countries’ needs. Our best hope is that South Korea will succeed as the next host country, picking up where Canada has fallen far short.
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS