World Bank chief asks govts to cut defence spend, hike aid t

[afrographX]

World Bank chief asks govts to cut defence spend, hike aid to poor

*******[ TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004 01:28:10 AM ]

WASHINGTON: There is a “ludicrous” gap between the billions of dollars of global military spending and the sum spent on trying to reduce world poverty, World Bank President James Wolfensohn said on Sunday. Around $900bn a year is thrown into defence spending compared to only $60bn for foreign aid, he estimates. “That seems to me to be the most nonsensical thing you can imagine,” Mr Wolfensohn said at the IMF and World Bank spring meetings.

Pouring money into the root causes of poverty may help prevent conflicts, the World Bank suggests. “I suggested humorously the other day that if you spend $900bn on development you probably wouldn't need to spend more than $50bn on defence,” he explained

Mr Wolfensohn was speaking at an event to draw attention to the lack of funding for education in poor countries. One of the UN Millennium Development Goals, which have the backing of the world's richest countries, is to make sure all primary school age children in the world have access to education by 2015.

The initiative needs an extra $5.6bn in funding. Aid group Oxfam estimates the US — the world's largest economy — spent 300 times more on the war in Iraq than on supporting education in poor countries.

The US Congress approved $87bn for the war while contributing $300m each year for basic education in developing countries. “We need to focus on the causes of conflicts and the causes of instability and one of the principal causes of all this is education and opportunity,” Mr Wolfensohn said.

The World Bank's policy setting committee of 184 countries said in a separate statement, that it was worried many countries will miss the UN's development targets. “We are very concerned that, based on current trends, most (goals) will not be met by most developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa,” they said. The goals aim to halve world poverty by 2015 through education, empowerment of women, a reduction in child mortality and beating HIV/AIDS and other diseases.

Poor countries say they urgently need more aid, debt relief and lower trade barriers from the rich world to do this. The UN recommends that developed countries give 0.7% of their gross national income to foreign aid. Only five countries meet that target. The UN's millennium goals agenda “risks falling at the first hurdle unless urgent action is taken now,” said Patrick Watt of aid agency ActionAid.

“Concrete progress is needed on a doubling of aid to $100bn a year, and deeper and faster debt relief, if the MDGs are going to be adequately financed.”


sources: http://www1.economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/641092.cms
another one here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/economicdispatch/story/0,12498,1205192,00.html


I totally agree !

[Kilgor]

He does fail to mention that technological advancement comes from defence research, its not like its wasted money.

[afrographX]

He does fail to mention that technological advancement comes from defence research, its not like its wasted money.

you could invest money directly into research. Just imagine what the world would look like if we've started spending much more money on development aid and such programs 10 or 15 years ago.

[weedman]

He does fail to mention that technological advancement comes from defence research, its not like its wasted money.

you could invest money directly into research. Just imagine what the world would look like if we've started spending much more money on development aid and such programs 10 or 15 years ago.Good point :)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Translation; hey America, quit spending so much on defense & give it to us! This hand wringing milksop should have made his plea on the steps of the US Capitol, not the UN. But then, he couldn't have pretended it was "international".

Nobody else has defense spending on par with the US - and it's damn sure that with such small budgets they surely couldn't cut any. So as with so many other things, financing lands on the back of US taxpayers.

As a US taxpayer, it's not my job to provide for others what they should be providing for themselves. And it is surely my not my job to enrich some two bit dictators under the guise of "international aid". It is however, my job to provide for my own defense...which I do.

[weedman]

He does fail to mention that technological advancement comes from defence research, its not like its wasted money.What about climate protection :lol:

[afrographX]

Translation; hey America, quit spending so much on defense & give it to us! This hand wringing milksop should have made his plea on the steps of the US Capitol, not the UN. But then, he couldn't have pretended it was "international".

Nobody else has defense spending on par with the US - and it's damn sure that with such small budgets they surely couldn't cut any. So as with so many other things, financing lands on the back of US taxpayers.

As a US taxpayer, it's not my job to provide for others what they should be providing for themselves. And it is surely my not my job to enrich some two bit dictators under the guise of "international aid". It is however, my job to provide for my own defense...which I do.

We, the northern industrial states, are responsible up to a large extent for today's situation of the world. We influenced the world's situation through kolonialism, both world-wars, the cold war --> imperialism, blind anti-communism (look at chile),(most dictatorships today are rooted in that time, look at africa). In addition we created the structure for today's global market and as such for a continous system of exploitation. Which we are still consolidating and enlarging with the neoliberal globalization.

So it's extremly arrogant to say that they should get out of the problems, we are resposible for, too, on their own. If the western world keeps this attitude it may be Ogoni from the Niger Delta making a terror attack on one oil companies headquater, or people from other parts of the world who suffer because of us.

It is impossible to guarante peace and prosperity, for us and the rest, if we don't care about the rest of the world in a reasonable way.

And I'm pretty sure that if we don't help them now, they will revolt in 50 years or something and turn against us.

[Elmo]

World Bank and IMF worried about poverty? Just hilarious. Do they really think they can keep up this discourse of good will and make people think they care?

BTW, 0,7 percent of GDP. What a joke. I wouldn't want to rant but I wonder how future generations are going to look back at us and our generous ways.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

While I don't see the west as the source of all the world's evils, what the World Bank calls "help", would of course only be a continuation of the west's interference, hegemony, and imperialism.

To endlessly bail them out only extends of our crippling of that part of the world. It's a form of oppression.

This of course is not the first time they've been handed money, aid etc. etc etc.. This is nothing new.

As with welfare payments to US citizens, we have made these people dependent upon suckling our mighty teet for their wellbeing. And as with US welfare recipients, the only true solution is for them to stop depending upon others to fix all their ills & to go out and become self sufficient.

In other words, put away the tin cup, and build something worthwhile. If it can't be done because of the "system" in place, then it's the system that's the problem - not a lack of funds. Handing these people money will only buy more gold plated AK-47s in somebody's palace.

And naturally there's another push on at the UN to forgive 3rd world debt. So if I have this straight, you simiply go to the UN, ask for money, lie about it's use, spend it all on junk, produce no results except enriching the ruling class, go back to the UN ask for your debt to be forgiven, and also ask for more money.

But if I go to a bank & ask for money, I'm asked what I plan to do with it. My credit is checked, and based on these factors, money is loaned or not loaned. All I'm asking for is for the same to be done in this case. If they can provide a reasonable economic plan, show the money will go where it's supposed to go, curb corruption, produce growth & self sufficiency, I would probably not have a problem with this.

But of course they can't. This is just another in a long proud line of handouts that will produce nothing but misery for most & tremendous wealth for the few. You'd think that they would have caught on by now.

[Kilgor]

If the US was to cut military spending, why should the funds be sent overseas when there is poverty in its own country ?

Surely it would be wrong not to focus on its own citizens needs before others are attended too ?

This global socialism would only increase the welfare mentality.

[afrographX]

@elmo, 0,7% doesn't sound much, but today only a minority of western countries reaches this goal (only Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Luxemburg/USA spends approximatelyless than 0,1). So this would be a step forward. And it also depends on how to spend the money.

If development aid does not aim on providing the third world countries with the ability to develop it makes no sense. Like arrested dev. says: ''give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he can eat forever''. This hits the point in my opinion. Some projects in the past and in the present as well, didn't reached that goal. But a lot do.

@kilgor, I think it's about an alternative way of preventive conflict handling. Improve the situation of the people, in order to eliminate the root sources of conflicts. To decrease military operations.

WELFARE-MENTALITY 2/3 of the world population live at or beyond the poverty line, which means less than 1 dollar a day. So you can't really say that there is a welfare mentality around in the third world.
There maybe a welfare mentality in the industrialized countries, but I personally think that most unemployed and those who receive welfare aid, do this, because they can't get a job. welfare receivers and the welfare system are used as a scapegoad for economic crisies which have totally different reasons.

@2Sheds_Jackson, I didn't say that 'the west is the source of all the world's evils', i wanted to point out that the west has a certain responsibility towards the third world.

I can't deny that some development aid only flows into the pockets of the respective elites. There may also be a lot of projects which failed. But nevertheless you can't oversee that their are numerous projects which really created progress and improved the situation, perhaps not of whole countries but of a large amount of single persons, villages and towns. But in order to make such improvements avaiable for more people you have to invest work and money.

And when you say you don't see any sense in giving more development aid, what would be the alternative?

[Red]

Translation; hey America, quit spending so much on defense & give it to us! This hand wringing milksop should have made his plea on the steps of the US Capitol, not the UN. But then, he couldn't have pretended it was "international".

Nobody else has defense spending on par with the US - and it's damn sure that with such small budgets they surely couldn't cut any. So as with so many other things, financing lands on the back of US taxpayers.

As a US taxpayer, it's not my job to provide for others what they should be providing for themselves. And it is surely my not my job to enrich some two bit dictators under the guise of "international aid". It is however, my job to provide for my own defense...which I do.

We, the northern industrial states, are responsible up to a large extent for today's situation of the world. We influenced the world's situation through kolonialism, both world-wars, the cold war --> imperialism, blind anti-communism (look at chile),(most dictatorships today are rooted in that time, look at africa). In addition we created the structure for today's global market and as such for a continous system of exploitation. Which we are still consolidating and enlarging with the neoliberal globalization.

So it's extremly arrogant to say that they should get out of the problems, we are resposible for, too, on their own. If the western world keeps this attitude it may be Ogoni from the Niger Delta making a terror attack on one oil companies headquater, or people from other parts of the world who suffer because of us.

It is impossible to guarante peace and prosperity, for us and the rest, if we don't care about the rest of the world in a reasonable way.

And I'm pretty sure that if we don't help them now, they will revolt in 50 years or something and turn against us.
What is your nationality?What make you think that the US should be responsible for using their own money to help others who complain that the US is trying to control the world and be the world policman.Do you see the contradictions a lot of people make?We hate the US because they are imperialists but we like their money.Why ont the EU cut their defense spending and give most of it to world aid

[afrographX]

We, the northern industrial states, are responsible

I meant all industrialized nations including the EU and Japan. I think that the EU is in some respects not any better than the USA. If they had the power and the resources they would follow a simliar egocentric politic of power. Look at the french interventions in africa. Some of them may have been necesary, but in the ivory coast for instance they intentionnally aggravated the crisis to justify an intervention because of natural resources in that country.

Concerning the contradiction I think that it's senseless to attempt to change the situation in the third world without the USA. You won't be able to trigger of a long-time campaign to improve the south's situation, so to fundfamentally change the world, against the USA. Morover you would need such institutions like the Worldbank, the IMF and the UN and the USA could already block all efforts in this organizations. So we(the industrialized states) have to agree on a policy and then execute it together.

[Red]

We, the northern industrial states, are responsible

I meant all industrialized nations including the EU and Japan. I think that the EU is in some respects not any better than the USA. If they had the power and the resources they would follow a simliar egocentric politic of power. Look at the french interventions in africa. Some of them may have been necesary, but in the ivory coast for instance they intentionnally aggravated the crisis to justify an intervention because of natural resources in that country.

Concerning the contradiction I think that it's senseless to attempt to change the situation in the third world without the USA. You won't be able to trigger of a long-time campaign to improve the south's situation, so to fundfamentally change the world, against the USA. Morover you would need such institutions like the Worldbank, the IMF and the UN and the USA could already block all efforts in this organizations. So we(the industrialized states) have to agree on a policy and then execute it together.
My question is why does the EU not cut their defense budget and give more to world aid?

[afrographX]

My question is why does the EU not cut their defense budget and give more to world aid?

Dunno. Perhaps their attitude towards the world and concepts to improve it isn't very differnt from the USA's ones. That's why the Worlbank chief doesn't only blame the USA, he adresses all the rich countries.

[martinexsquaddie]

well a start might be rich countries whineing about trade tariffs
while shovelling money at there own farmers so 3rd world farmers end up trying to compete in there own markets against dumped food :(
as a outsider the human race does tend to spend rather a lot of its cash on finding ways to kill one another and then calls it defence :roll:

[afrographX]

@martinexsquaddie, I agree we need a fair globalization, not one which consolidates the exploitation of the south through the north. A fair globalization means that you really create a free market, so no more trade barriers and subventions for own products by the first world.

[Old300]

I'd like to note a contradiction in the arguments of those who oppose globalization: on the one hand, they complain about rich countries exploiting the cheap labor markets of poor countries (i.e. producing cheap goods overseas by means of low wages); while on the other hand, they complain about rich countries subsidizing their own farmers (i.e. producing cheap food domestically, thus depriving poor countries of low wage jobs).

They can't have it both ways: if it is bad for our companies to make shoes in Cambodia for a fraction of the price for which we could make them ourselves, then it is also bad for our agribusinesses to produce food in poor countries for a fraction of the price for which we could make them ourselves. And vice-versa.

Which do y'all want: heavily-subsidized domestic industries; or outsourced-labor? Do you see the contradiction in your arguments?

I think we should end subsidies to farmers and produce things where they can be made the most efficiently, thus lowering prices for us while creating jobs in those countries that need them.

[Truthsayer]

Manufacture everything where it is cheapest.

Exploit the workers or give them decent salaerys (companys choice) and the let to consumers decide wich merchendise they want to buy. Use the political power of the money to make a change in the countries.

[afrographX]

*deleted*

[afrographX]

I'd like to note a contradiction in the arguments of those who oppose globalization: on the one hand, they complain about rich countries exploiting the cheap labor markets of poor countries (i.e. producing cheap goods overseas by means of low wages); while on the other hand, they complain about rich countries subsidizing their own farmers (i.e. producing cheap food domestically, thus depriving poor countries of low wage jobs).

They can't have it both ways: if it is bad for our companies to make shoes in Cambodia for a fraction of the price for which we could make them ourselves, then it is also bad for our agribusinesses to produce food in poor countries for a fraction of the price for which we could make them ourselves. And vice-versa.

Which do y'all want: heavily-subsidized domestic industries; or outsourced-labor? Do you see the contradiction in your arguments?

Of course I see the contradiction. But it's part of the art of globalization I strongly oppose. Those are not arguments of globalization critics.

I agree with, what you said in your final statement. Every country should have equal access to the world market and to the markets of other ounctries. This could help to establish a fair trade and than products are produced there where they can get produced best.

In addition, we should try to enforce international social and enviromental standards. As aresult of this the wage incidentals in poorer countries will increase, too, so that it becomes less attractive to outsource jobs to thos countries.