World Volunteer Web Home  
Volunteerism worldwide: News, views & resources
  Home   About us   Contact us   Contribute   Search   Sitemap 
 
Email page   Email page            Print page
What if?
30 March 2006
by Jane (of NetAid)

Jane, a young American volunteer and leader in the NetAid Global Citizen CorpsJane, a young American volunteer and leader in the NetAid Global Citizen Corps
When it comes to fighting terrorism and protecting national security, President Bush has shown he'll do whatever it takes. Imagine what could happen if he demonstrated the same commitment to fighting global poverty.

The way we approach the fight against terror does not have to be separate from the way we approach the fight against global poverty. The President speaks often of the importance of upholding our democratic ideals in the battle against terrorism. By providing more aid to developing countries around the world, the United States can promote the very same values. Simply by providing more aid to developing countries, the United States can gain prestige in the global arena. Just look at the response to the United States' relief efforts after the tsunami. According to Pew Global Attitudes Project, 79% of Indonesians say they have a more favorable view of the U.S. as a result of the tsunami relief efforts.

President Bush has urged wealthy nations to commit 0.7 percent of their total national income to fight global poverty. At the G8 Summit, President Bush promised to double U.S. aid to Africa by 2010. Commendable as these goals might be, months after making them, our government has yet to make any real effort to reach them. At present the U.S. government gives a mere 0.16 percent of its national income to fight poverty (only one-fifth of Bush's proposed commitment), ranking it second to last among developed countries in the amount of aid it provides. The United States has fallen short in providing its fair-share contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The President's 2007 budget proposal includes cuts for Child Survival, Development Assistance, Disaster Assistance, and funding for international organizations.

We live in a world in which 1 out of 6 people lives on less than $1 a day. We live in a world in which over 100 million children age six to 12 are not enrolled in school. We live in a world in which every hour 340 people die of AIDS. If the United States combined its fervor to fight terrorism with its commitment to fight global poverty, the impact could be enormous. These numbers could change drastically.

I am working with high school leaders around the country to make sure these numbers do change, to make sure the United States government upholds its current pledge of allocating 0.7 percent of the gross national income to fight poverty, and to help our schools and communities make some pledges of our own. We cannot afford to sit back and wait while the United States pursues other goals and misses another benchmark it has promised to meet. Neither can the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty.

From: NetAid
© NetAid


  User Comments        Add a comment

Posted by: vivek   Date: 04 April 2006 09:12   From: Philadelphia, USA
US political leaders (bulk) are representatives of the corporations. They dance to the tunes of the presidents of the Corporations. 22% of the children do not have enough to eat. Look at the size of the pockets of the heads of the Corporation.

Posted by: John   Date: 01 May 2006 14:28   From: Nairobi, Kenya
I totally concur with Jane.The reason the US has not bothered to honor its committments is the apparent lack of self interest in honouring the committments. But this past week there was an interesting development. The administration officials were grambling that China was making too many inroads in Africa motivated primarily that need to extract resources without regard to issues of good governance, human rights and development. It can only be hoped that in a bid to counter China's moves in Africa, the US will change its attitude and honor its committments, and especially as regards Africa.

Posted by: tich   Date: 22 June 2006 13:36   From: Townsville, australia
I agree with Jane and John, I reckon the Bush adminstration will try and rebel china's expansion and influnce in Africa. China is becoming a major power which in turn puts the US in an insecure position. I reckon in the long run, the US will try and increase its influence in Africa. Until then, poverty and health related issues in Africa are not its (US) top agendas. Another controversial issue is globalisation.. the expansion of capitalism has widened the gap between the global north and south. In turn the developed nations are only concerned with problems that hinder their nation interests and security. Thus African poverty does not hinder their interests in anyway (at the moment). But in the long run such issues will become a major concern due to the framing of "failed states". At the end of the day it is politics. (Not that I'm saying it's good but just trying to explain the politics behind such controversial issues).




  Related articles and resources
Read also:
Related resources:

 

Email page   Email page            Print page