Earth Times - 03.20.2002

The Earth Times

Bush Proposals: What Will Be Their Impact?

By Jack Freeman

ONTERREY, Mexico -- Once again President George W. Bush has demonstrated, in most distressing fashion, two of the least attractive hallmarks of his operating style. One is his insistence on what he has criticized in others as "fuzzy math." The other is his "my way or the highway" attitude toward all discussions of international policy. What prompts this observation is the White House's significant revision of the president's proposed increase in US foreign aid, a plan that was outlined just last week. Last week US officials said the president was proposing to spend an additional $5 billion over three years, raising total aid during that period by about 15 percent. But the other day, just before the president left Washington for Monterrey to attend the International Conference on Financing for Development, his aides upped the ante. They announced that the administration now plans to increase the annual aid budget by 50 percent (from $10 billion yearly to $15 billion). The increase would be phased in over three years, they said, and thereafter aid would remain at the higher level.

Whichever set of numbers proves to be the real one, however, there are some things about them that must be remembered. First is that they are only proposals; the actual money will have to be appropriated by Congress, whatever the president may propose. And, second, nobody in Washington seems to regard this issue as an urgent priority. Current plans call for beginning the phase-in of the increase in fiscal year 2004 and not topping out until fiscal year 2006.

Clearly, many people regard even the more generous Bush proposal as too little and too late. But of even greater concern, perhaps, is what these proposals say about President Bush's dogged commitment to unilateralism. Whether US aid is to increase by 15 percent temporarily, or 50 per cent permanently, that decision-in the president's mind, at least-is one that is to be made by the US and the US alone. Development "cooperation?" "Partnership?" Forget it. Whether the subject is development assistance or global warming, the US under President George W. Bush doesn't negotiate with other nations to achieve consensus. It doesn't even consult with them. It dictates the terms of its participation and then sulks because people in other nations resent its high-handed behavior.

One other critical point that needs to be remembered: UN Secretary General Kofi A. Annan has said (and a panel of researchers has confirmed) that if the international community is to meet the goal agreed at the Millennium Summit two years ago-reducing global poverty by half by 2015-official development assistance will have to double. That is, it will have to go from the current $50 billion a year to $100 billion.

The US, the world's only economic superpower, is proposing to provide $5 billion of the additional $50 billion that is needed. The Europeans say they will increase their aid budget (which is far more generous than the current US aid budget) by about $9 billion. That leaves a shortfall of $36 billion. Where is that money supposed to come from? And can the world really afford to turn its back on the Millennium Summit goals, as it turned its back on the commitments made 10 years ago at the Rio Earth Summit?

A few months from now, many of the world leaders now gathering in Monterrey will be meeting again, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (also known as Earth Summit II) in Johannesburg. Will they once again sign their names to false and empty promises? Or will they have to agree (if only tacitly) to scale back the struggle against global poverty because the rich countries are unwilling to bear the cost? Either way, this generation of leaders cannot expect history to be kind to them.