(Click here or on the map for a zoomable version.) H/t Public Strategist – who also report, rather fabulously, that the map above was apparently devised by civil servants at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Over at Philanthocapitalism, Mike Green and Matthew Bishop are arguing that
The current 0.7% target [for aid spending] was the product of a different age when the fight against poverty was a matter almost exclusively for governments. With the rise of philanthrocapitalism, this is no longer the case. Out statistics should catch up and recognise that 1%, not 0.7%, is the magic number.
They’ve got some natty stats to back up their case, citing, for example, new Hudson Institute data that shows that
…far from being one of the stingiest countries, the United States is actually one of the most generous … in 2008 the US government gave 0.19% of national income in aid (which is very low) whereas private philanthropy to developing countries added another 0.26%.
At 0.45% in total, this still puts the US less than half way towards the goal of 1% but it is a big improvement to America’s position in the generosity standings, overtaking countries which rely largely on taxes to help the poor of the developing world, including France (0.42%) and Germany (0.41%), and towering over Japan, which is equally miserly with government monies and does little private giving, at 0.2%
I think they’re right that we need to be revisiting 0.7 (as I argued back in March last year). But I think that Mike and Matthew also overlook what to me is the most compelling reason for raising our estimate of finance for development needs: what climate change and resource scarcity mean for poor countries. (more…)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS5vm149vGc[/youtube]
Yesterday, I briefly blogged about how the Thai crisis underlines the obstacles to international mediation in Asian conflicts. I noted a new paper from CIC that explores this problem, and the limitations on the UN in particular. So I was struck by this story from the BBC today:
A [Thai protest] leader, Nattawut Saikua, said protesters were willing to hold UN-moderated talks to end the stand-off, providing that the army withdrew from the area around the red-shirt camp.
But government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn insisted that no outside help was needed.
“We reject their demands for UN mediation… No Thai government has ever let anyone intervene with our internal affairs,” he said.
There’s a significant historical dimension here: Thailand was never colonized, and Thai politicians are scared of anything that might look like “letting the colonizers in at last”. But this case highlights the UN’s wider problems in Asia…
When I took part in a wash-up after Copenhagen with a group of American policy makers, I was struck by the sense that, although the summit had been tough for the United States, they took great consolation that the Europeans had had a much worse time of it during the climate talks.
It all made me think of a quip attributed to Gore Vidal: “It’s not enough to succeed. Others must fail.”
Today, Richard posts the following digest of Hillary Clinton’s meeting with the UK’s new Foreign Secretary, William Hague (a man she is yet to grow as fond of as she was of his predecessor):
If you want to boil all this down to essentials, I’d suggest the following: (i) Mrs Clinton effectively said, “you’d better show discipline when it comes to the EU”; and (ii) Mr Hague basically said “OK”.
I’d parse the ‘better show discipline’ line in two ways. First, the US wants the UK to play an active role in Europe. Second, it needs the Europeans to respond with one voice to a growing roster of global problems.
Fine.
But to take this beyond complacent lecturing (“we may have a lamentable recent foreign policy record, but at least we’re not as shambolic as those awful old worlders”), the Obama administration needs to do what it can to create an incentive for European cooperation.
When it (i) starts listening to Europeans when they have caucused and arrived at a joint position; (ii) continues to listen, even if it doesn’t agree 100% with the European position; and (iii) foregoes the temptation to divide and conquer by playing favourites among European nations for short term tactical advantage – then, and only then, will I believe that the US is serious once again about the transatlantic relationship.
If Obama’s team wants a ‘disciplined Europe’, good. But it should back this up with its actions. Reward Europe with access when it’s united (as it was, more or less, on climate incidentally). Sideline it when it’s divided. And see the extent to which that makes Europeans pull together in the face of transnational challenges…