Press conference by united kingdom on development financing

 

Today’s High-Level Financing for Development meeting was an important staging post on the way to the Millennium Summit in what was an extraordinary year for development, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for International Development told correspondents today at a Headquarters’ press conference.

Hilary Benn, who was also joined by the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, said he could never remember a time in his political life when the international community was debating poverty and its causes to the extent that it was, and when there was such faith in the capacity of the system to do something about it. 

With the Gleneagles summit taking place in less than two weeks, next Saturday there would be a large demonstration in Edinburgh, people calling on the G8 to do something -- not telling them to “get out of town” -- but asking leaders to make decisions that would make a difference.  That was important, as it sent a sign that people, working together, had the capacity to make a difference.

Two significant developments had already taken place in the last month, he said, including the European Union’s agreement to significantly increase official development assistance (ODA) between now and 2010.  The agreement -- reached between development ministers in Brussels -- would double the Union’s development assistance from $40 to $80 billion by 2010.  Half of that would go to Africa.  Looking at the report of the Commission for Africa and its recommendation that Africa needed an additional $25 billion in assistance by 2010, the European Union aid agreement alone would deliver two thirds of that money.

The second major step forward, he said, had been the agreement of the debt cancellation package by the United Kingdom’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, and his G8 finance minister colleagues.  That agreement had the potential to deliver $55 billion in debt cancellation for up to 38 countries.  Those two agreements very were powerful signals of the capacity of people working together to make a difference.

Describing his activities in New York today, he noted that, along with his statement to the General Assembly’s high-level meeting this morning, he had met with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and the new United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Administrator, Kemal Dervis.  He had also attended a breakfast meeting to discuss reform of the United Nations humanitarian system.  Given his experience in Darfur and in the wake of tsunami, he believed that system needed to change in order to enable the United Nations to do the job only it could to in responding to emergencies.  He hoped to make progress on renewing and revamping the revolving fund, providing it with the ability to more quickly respond to humanitarian crises when they occurred.  While some humanitarian crises were well publicized and well funded, others received little publicity and were, therefore, ill equipped to deal with the needs of the people which remained the same.

Responding to a comment that the United States had not made the same commitment as the European Union, Mr. Benn said it was not a question of blaming anyone.  Each country would have to determine what it was prepared to contribute to the enormous task, which the Secretary-General had described as the great moral challenge of our time.  American debt relief had increased significantly in recent years.  The Americans, as part of the Debt Cancellation Agreement, had announced that they were prepared to contribute additional resources.  One of the most significant things President Bush had recognized in his press conference with Prime Minister Blair was that additional money was needed to make that work. 

“In the run-up between now and Gleneagles, people are looking at all of us to see what more we can contribute”, he added.  The need was absolutely clear, and more aid was needed.  Properly used, aid could make a difference in terms of helping put children in school and tackling killer diseases.  Given the process of change taking place in Africa, now was the time to do that.  The developed countries were pressuring themselves and each other to contribute more, including the United States.

Asked whether he expected any other country to fill the gap, he said Canada had made a commitment to double its aid to Africa.  Japan had also made a commitment.  There were also the forward commitments in the Millennium Challenge Commission.  He hoped to reach by the end of the Gleneagles summit the $25 billion a year extra for Africa by 2010.  “That is the test we should set ourselves and against which we will judged”, he said.

Why, in terms of humanitarian crises, did Europeans give proportionately more than the United States? a correspondent asked.

Responding, he said all needed to do more.  Seeing the consequences of humanitarian crisis on television screens pricked everyone’s conscious.  In the case of the tsunami, for example, there had been an extraordinary response from people and governments.  By establishing a fund to hold resources, which the United Nations could call upon quickly, the world would be in a better position to deal with both the “orphans” and “darlings” of the humanitarian system, and to have more money to spend immediately.  While Britain was a strong contributor to humanitarian crises around the world, it was an issue for all countries collectively.  In the end, people were homeless, afraid and in need of medical care.  It was the United Nations’ responsibility to look after them, and it was the responsibility of nations to ensure that the Organization had the resources and capacity it needed to do its job.

It was especially necessary, Mr. Jones Parry added, to concentrate on the countries in which United Nations appeals produced only up to 4 per cent of the necessary requirements.

That was the argument for having a fund on which the United Nations could draw, Mr. Benn added. 

Asked to respond to the assertion that too much focus had been on generating money and not enough on the bargain made at Monterrey, namely that developing countries institute needed reforms, he said that real development -- the development that changed peoples lives for the better -- depended on both those things happening.  It was a partnership.  The deal was that the rich developed world contributed in terms of aid, debt cancellation and opening up the world trading system, but without peace, stability and good governance and democracy, countries would not be able to survive in the long term.

Looking at Africa, however, one could see a process of fundamental change taking place, he said, including the commitment to non-indifference adopted by the African Union.  Nigeria, a country that had suffered more than most the effects of bad governance, military dictatorship and turmoil, was doing much to reform its public financial management to tackle corruption, including through the dismissal of judges and government officials.  The recent decision of South African President Mbeki was another example.  No one could look at the continent of Africa and not say there was a practical expression of commitment to tackle the legacy of bad governance and corruption.

Asked whether he would like to see a greater commitment from the United States, he said he would like such commitment from all countries.  Aid, properly used, made a difference. 

Responding to a question on accountability mechanisms, he said accountability was important for British taxpayers, as people wanted to know that their money was going where it was meant to.  That was a form of political accountability.  Britain used different ways of giving aid depending on the circumstances. 

There were different types of conditionality, he continued.  Britain would no longer attach its aid to privatization and trade liberalization, which he believed was wrong in principle and for which the evidence was mixed.  When it came to human rights and governance, however, different considerations applied.  The recent decision he had taken concerning Ethiopia to hold, for the moment, the increase in direct budget support because of the crisis in that country was an illustration that the United Kingdom took governance and human rights very seriously.

Asked whether there was a link between poverty and the potential for terrorism, he said poverty could provide fertile soil in which those who wanted to stir up feeling and emotion in support of a particular cause could plant their ideas.  If poverty and injustice were not tackled around the world, no one’s home would be a safe place.  While there had always been a group of people who felt that poverty was a moral outrage about which something should be done, there was a growing number of people who saw the case for doing so in the interests of greater stability and security.  That was why he strongly supported proposals for the Peacebuilding Commission, which he expected would form such an important part of the debate at the September Summit.

* *** *