DEVELOPMENT: Countries Battle over Poverty Eradication

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 19 1995 (IPS) - The United Nations is embroiled in a dispute over the feasibility of setting a goal to eradicate poverty from the face of the earth by the year 2010.

“Reduction, yes, eradication, no”, say the 15-member European Union (EU) and other Western states.

Ambassador Felipe Mabilangan, the new chairman of the ‘Group of 77’ developing nations, says the eradication of poverty should be a primary objective of the March World Summit for Social Development. “And there is a need to set up, as appropriate, time- bound goals to achieve this.”

Mabilangan told IPS the Copenhagen summit — to be attended by more than 90 heads of state and political leaders — would be the “most ideal and appropriate forum” to set up realistic targets in the areas of poverty and unemployment.

The EU, on the other hand, dismisses the Third World proposal as a “utopian” concept and “an unrealistic goal”.

The three core issues to be discussed at the summit are poverty alleviation, productive employment, and social integration.

Ian McFarlane of the London-based charity Actionaid told IPS it appeared Western states were determined to avoid any commitments to eradicate poverty.

“They are making a distinction between “extreme poverty” and “poverty”, he said. “They are saying: reduce poverty and reduce debts. We are saying: eradicate poverty and cancel debts.”

Actionaid argues that “absolute poverty in today’s world, where the resources exist to overcome it, is morally unacceptable and socially unjust and should be eradicated”.

McFarlane said the social summit should call on all countries to prioritise the eradication of absolute poverty within a definite timeframe. He pointed out the irony of 1996 being the United Nations’ International Year for the Eradication of Poverty.

Speaking on behalf of the 70 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the South Asian Caucus, Dr. Amitava Mukherjee said it was unlikely that industrial nations would want their heads of state to commit themselves to eradicating poverty by early next century.

“They think it is too formidable a task to accomplish,” he said. “But what they don’t realise is that there is a world of difference between what constitutes Third World poverty and what constitutes poverty in the Western world.”

Of the estimated 1.3 billion people living below the poverty line, more than 450 million are in South Asia. And according to Actionaid, the number of people who live in “absolute” poverty is expected to rise to 1.5 billion by the year 2000.

“Poverty in the U.S. means someone who does not have a car, a colour television set or a refrigerator,” Mukherjee pointed out. “But poverty in South Asia means someone who does not have a square meal a day.”

Actionaid works with some of the poorest communities in the poorest countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

“We believe that the crucial outcome of the summit should be that resources for social development spending are increased and used effectively for the benefit of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society,” says an Actionaid position paper for the summit.

“An urgent effort to combat this trend is required from the international community both in terms of the resources disbursed and the focus of those resources,” it says.

But McFarlane says Western donors are not willing either to provide new resources or even to fulfill their existing pledges.

There is growing concern over declining Western aid budgets and Actionaid is urging governments to reverse that trend by aiming to devote 0.7 percent of their gross national product (GNP) to development aid — a target set by the U.N. General Assembly in 1970. Only Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands have reached that target.

Official Development Assistance (ODA) from Western donors to developing nations declined from 60.8 billion dollars in 1992 to 54.8 billion dollars in 1993.

McFarlane said Western countries did agree to the 0.7 target. “And we think they should stand by that”. He added, “It is not unreasonable to ask people to be more specific about increasing aid within a specific timetable.”

McFarlane noted that the Irish government, for example, had recently agreed to increase its overseas aid by half a percentage point .”It is only a small increment but at least they are making a commitment”.

He also pointed out that the United States spends about 50 percent of its budget on defence-related issues. “And I don’t think it is too much to ask for less than one percent to resolve many of the problems these weapons are causing,” he said.