INTERVIEW: Eveline Herfkens – UN Special Adviser

"Poverty is the war of wars we have to win"

By Marwaan Macan-Markar

Eveline Herfkens is determined to prove her worth as the U.N. secretary-general’s executive coordinator for the millennium development goals (MDGs) campaign. For starters, she is taking on the pessimists of the world, who say that a war in Iraq will scupper the promises contained in the MDGs to lift the world’s poor up from misery. Not so, she argues, but concedes that the road ahead is littered with hurdles.

You told an audience at the WSF that the United Nation's MDGs can only be achieved through a multilateral approach, but the present U.S. government is forcing the developed world to dump that idea in favour of bilateralism and unilateralism. Are you being realistic?

We have shown that we can do things even if it does not involve the U.S., like the International Criminal Court (in The Hague). It is going to be a reality; it in not stoppable. There is a lot we can do under the present situation if you get other countries to campaign for it. For instance, rich nations can open their markets for the products made by the poor from least developed countries. There is also much more space within poor countries to better use public expenditures to fight poverty.

Who are the people you will target to translate those words into reality?

My being here is one part of that effort. I also hope to work with parliamentarians, given the spread of democracies, since they hold the purse. Local elected officials should also be part of this new agenda of taking the right actions and setting budgetary priorities to achieve the MDGs. What it takes is political will, linking these issues with the electorate. To me (Brazilian President) Lula’s programme is the MDGs – ending hunger, doing something about social services, health, education. His movement, and maybe he himself, don’t even realise that they are part of an international consensus that we have fought hard for.

But have you factored in how a possible U.S.-led war in Iraq will undermine your mission?

There is a danger that the additional five billion dollars the U.S pledged in Monterrey (in 2002 at the U.N. Conference on Financing for Development) will not come in. Yet I don’t see that danger in Europe. There is a lot of good news in Europe. For 25 years, it was just four countries – Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway – who met their aid commitments, but now that club is growing. But my biggest concern is this: are countries going to live up to their promises? That’s why I plead with everybody here coming from Italy, Spain and France to monitor whether their governments are doing what they promised.

So you are optimistic that despite a war in Iraq funds will flow into the developing countries to achieve the MDGs?

Yes, yes, absolutely, because a lot of the funds are not international transfers. Also developing countries have promised to establish better priorities, and in many countries it is not just the question of expanding your public expenditures but also to stop subsidising the rich at the expense of the poor. Or start collecting taxes where you never did before. So there is a potential within countries to use domestic space to do a better job in reducing poverty.

But there have been timelines set to achieve the MDGs. Are you saying a war will not impact them?

I really hate that everybody feels that a war in Iraq would affect our energies to continue to work on poverty issues. Please, let’s continue the work to fight poverty in the rest of the world. The real price would be the energy of people here being disillusioned and focusing on the war on Iraq, instead of continuing to fight a battle which is less sexy and less easy and really difficult, because it starts at home for all of us, and we have to generate the political will to do something about poverty. That is the war of wars we have to win, and we should not have our attention taken away because of another crisis.

How can the U.N. convince countries like the U.S., Canada and Australia, which have fallen far short of their commitment to earmark 0.7 percent of their GNP annually for development aid, to be more generous?

Highlighting good examples is one way. I am convinced that the announcement by the European Union before the Monterrey meeting shamed the U.S. It was a strong commitment by the EU to win the public relations battle (on aid) in Monterrey that prompted the U.S. to offer an additional five billion dollars. But in terms of the size of their economy this is peanuts.

Does this mean you will get on the "shaming and naming" bandwagon to get funding for development?

Absolutely, like the human development reports of the UNDP. They always raise public debates whenever a report comes out. Now we are going to have Millennium Development reports. It will have people in country A starting to wonder why country B, my neighbour, is doing better; they hate that, you know. Everybody has this feeling of nationalism. We also need to work with civil society and think-tanks to get lists of how rich countries are performing on aid, debt relief, market access, stopping agriculture subsidies that destroy the market for poor farmers. If we can get indicators and lists that name and shame countries, that will raise debates.

If you were given the chance to meet U.S. President George W. Bush tomorrow, what would you tell him?

That his people are a generous people and would like him to be helpful in terms of fighting poverty, and that his people like to cooperate internationally. Also, that multilateral ways of working and putting world poverty on top of your agenda is ultimately in the interest of the U.S. people. Because poverty breeds terrorism.