KEY FINDINGS

The UN Conference on Financing for Development closed to mixed reviews overseas.  Most observers split into two camps: cautious optimists willing to give the Monterrey consensus and the Bush proposals a chance, and stalwart naysayers who dismissed the summit as a "farce."  Editorial praise, mainly in Europe and Asia, was couched in "wait and see" terms stressing that the U.S., its rich partners, and the "newly generous Mr. Bush" must stay "engaged" and deliver on their promises.  Critics, prevailing in Mexico and other West. Hemisphere outlets, found the "aid-with-strings attached" on U.S. terms offensive.  Across the spectrum, however, a majority agreed that, by raising poverty on the global agenda, the summit was at least "a good start."

 

MAJOR THEMES

--Eradication of poverty requires a 'clear commitment' by both rich and poor nations, plus greater attention to prevention and root causes of inequalities.  In London's independent Economist's words: "America and Europe must put their money where their mouth is, and developing countries must convince donors that aid...would not be money wasted."

 

--Making aid conditional on good governance and anti-corruption in general played positively, but detractors complained U.S. will take 'carte blanche' advantage.  According to Mexico City's nationalist El Universal:  "The U.S. came, saw and imposed its conditions.  It reminded us that it is the supreme king...with the stick in one hand and the wallet in the other."

 

--Monterrey full of promises, but 'nothing new;' words not expected 'to turn into deeds.'

As Toronto's leading Globe and Mail put it: "Promises were flying around like stale tortillas...at the UN Conference on Financing for Development.... There were so many strings attached to Bush's pledge that it looked like the New York Philharmonic sawing through Beethoven's Fifth."

 

--Recognition of a linkage between inequality and terrorism is a boost for development.

As Berlin's centrist Der Tagesspiegel saw it: "One phrase is valid for effective development assistance: It is the security policy of the 21st century."

 

COMMENTARY HIGHLIGHTS

Despite reservations about the particulars of the final document, many saw the summit as laying the groundwork for "constructive co-responsibility."  Editorials argued that it was time for underdeveloped countries to stop feeling "victimized" by developed countries and, instead, hold their own governments accountable.  Others stressed that rich nations and the international financing system must focus on programs that provide advantages to poor countries, while also leveling the playing field for free trade.  Writers in Germany, Canada and Morocco failed to be impressed, chiding the U.S. "as the most stingy among the club of rich nations."  Critics in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Ecuador and Jamaica formed the voice of pessimism and were quick to write off the conference as "too many words too late." 

EDITOR: Irene Marr

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report is based on 60 reports from 28 countries, March 22-28.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

MEXICO:  "A Meeting Of Crabs"

 

Gustavo Esteva stated in independent Reforma (3/27):  "The Monterrey summit agreed to do--finally--less of the same.  It will be forgotten even faster than the Millennium summit.  The operators of international institutions, who prepared the Monterrey summit, felt obligated to trot out dated slogans and formulas, trying to jointly package globalization with development, one symbol inside of another.  The best example of this is probably 'aid for development.'  The conference ignored all research on this topic done during the last three decades.  Even international studies acknowledge that 'aid for development' is not only ineffective, but also counterproductive."

 

"The Enemy Is Here"

 

Rafael Alvarez Cordero wrote in nationalist Universal (3/27):  "The Monterrey summit has ended, and whether one wants to accept this or not, it was one of President Fox's most shining moments.  If we compare the feeble achievements of the 1990s Washington Consensus with what is currently being proposed, in spite of all its criticism, we will agree upon one point: globalization is a fact, and rich nations will have to help, sooner than later--not with handouts--but with real help that could change the situation of millions of poor people.  And Mexico? It's not so poor that it requires aid, nor is it so rich that it has been able to satisfy the needs of its people.  Let's not be mistaken, neither the IMF nor the World Bank are responsible for the evils in our nation...the problem is internal, the enemy lies here, within the heart of the nation."

 

"An Absent Host"

 

Diego Valades observed in nationalist Universal (3/27):  "The Monterrey summit, without a doubt, was a half-way triumph....  The Monterrey Consensus is full of vacuous expressions, preceded by formulaic clauses, such as 'we suggest, we recommend, we call attention to, we acknowledge, we exhort'...in other words, nothing. Mexico cannot base its public policy on a text as weak as the one approved in Monterrey, nor transfer its responsibility to fight poverty at home to international philanthropy, let alone try to disguise the cause of poverty by saying its is a world problem whose solutions are also global."

 

"In Monterrey, There Were No Surprises"

 

Cuauhtemoc Cardenas averred in far-left Jornada (3/27):  "No one should be surprised by the abject submission of the Mexican government to U.S. policy nor the discourtesy displayed to Cuban leader Fidel Castro during the Monterrey summit.  President Fox's administration has not shown one sign of independent foreign policy during his 16 months in office.... Luckily, there are those who are offended by the submission and the abjection of our current leaders to the arrogance of U.S. leaders, and who argue that Mexico should ...adjust its international policies according to our constitution.  Returning to my main point, no one should be surprised by the results of the Monterrey summit...with this Foreign Relations Secretary and a President who employs this secretary, what other outcome could one expect?"

 

"The Telethon Of Globalization"

 

Ricardo Monreal judged in sensationalist Milenio (3/27):  "The so-called 'Monterrey Consensus' is actually a point of departure for dissension. One of the most solid consensuses to emerge from Monterrey is that unfortunately, global poverty will continue to rise.  The market, foreign investment, and international trade will not solve the problem of poverty and inequality, and this is not their objective....  The reduction of poverty is certainly an issue for the financing of development.  But if we leave this to market forces, the goodwill of rich nations or the philanthropy of world millionaires, we will have international telethons like Monterrey, but not in-depth solutions to create development policies with a human face."

 

"Monterrey: The Story Of Success"

 

Jorge G. Castaneda concluded in independent Reforma (3/26):  "The International Conference for the Financing of Development was a profound success that can be shown in four different ways.  First, Monterrey was an example of successful organization.  Second, the conference was a success because of the calmness and serenity that reigned throughout the week. Third, the conference was a success for the quality of the debate.  Fourth, Monterrey was a success for Mexico's foreign policy.  It was a success for the oratory power of our government and our ability to place ourself on the vanguard of discussion (of development policy) that is qualitatively different from what it was a few months ago.  Monterrey was the catalyst of a new debate.  The consensus reached will provide us with the opportunity to build...a new world agenda to promote sustainable and robust economic progress."

 

"Consensus?"

 

Jorge Alcocer insisted in independent Reforma (3/26):  "The problem that Foreign Relations Secretary (SRE) Jorge Castaneda fails to address is the real meaning of 'consensus' (be it from Washington or Monterrey).  What do rich nations understand when they ask poor nations 'to put their houses in order?'  The fact is that such a demand is based on the ideal vision that rich nations have of 'order'...which ignores historical, cultural, social, political and economic differences that define nations and their people, giving them identity and national meaning.  Among the demands the United States has placed on its neighbors...is permission for direct surveillance, of border crossing points, air and sea ports...this would allow the FBI, the DEA, and the Border Patrol to operate in Mexican territory, with the authority to detain any national or foreign suspect that, in their view, could pose a security risk for the United States.  Fox's administration maintained a shameful silence in regard to the White House's stance as the judge of other governments in regard to human rights.  Consensus?  Whose?"

 

"Monterrey Dissension"

 

Abraham Nuncio observed in far-left Jornada (3/26):  "Russians, Africans, Vietnamese, Brazilians, Mexicans, and Argentines have realized that the neoliberal model will never allow them to develop; on the contrary, it will deepen their dependence and underdevelopment. Without abandoning the idea of development, those that participated in the Monterrey summit, either as heads of state or as representatives of civil society, were far from reaching a consensus.  Only demagoguery could call a unilateral act (a consensus)...but the reality that was plainly viewed by all was that of clear dissension-the dissension of Monterrey."

 

"Omissions From The Monterrey Summit"

 

Ifgenia Martinez argued in nationalist El Universal (3/26):  "Steps outlined in the 'Monterrey Consensus'...seem like an already-viewed film and could provoke growing inequality, if the following points are not taken into consideration: 1) respect for every nation's sovereignty to decide democratically what is the best way to balance its economy between the private and public sector; and 2) the utilization of the enormous productive capacity of developed nations to promote development through the special framework of the United Nations."

 

"Weak And Powerful "

 

Carlos Martinez Assad pointed out in nationalist El Universal (3/26):  "Mexico has decided to support the policies of large international organizations, which, if they did as much for development as they said they did, there would be fewer poor people in the world.  The most important thing for Mexicans is to know where our nation is located in relation to these categories of development because President Fox referred to 'less developed nations' as if he were an outside observer....  But to speak of globalization is to use a euphemism for the North Americanization of our nation."

 

"What Did The Summit Leave Us?"

 

Jesus Vergara Aceves stressed in nationalist El Universal (3/26):  "It is time to evaluate the events of Monterrey...the meeting was valuable for Mexico in terms of international relations.  The presence of the UN in Monterrey was also a triumph for Foreign Relations Secretary (SRE) Jorge Castaneda, although it could not hide some of his problems.  The agreements signed in Monterrey were already decided when international lending institutions arrived to formulate the document.  The passive reaction of lesser-developed nations...is explained by their dependency on international institutions.  The activation of Mexico's new role is clear: to be a bridge to export North American globalization to the rest of Central and South American nations."

 

 "At The Summit"

 

Sergio Sarmiento judged in independent Reforma (3/25):  "President Bush underscored the need for foreign assistance to be granted only to nations willing to adopt economic policies that would promote development.  This is reasonable....  However, these types of well-thought out policies are the ones that lead populist presidents, including Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, to state that institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF impose conditions that affect the sovereignty of borrowing nations."

 

"Monterrey"

 

Jesus Silva-Herzog Marquez asserted in independent Reforma (3/25):  "The most important contribution (of the UN conference) is that it offered a way out of the clichT of victimization and paved the way for constructive co-responsibility.  Victimization is the term used by many to maintain that the underdevelopment of a number of nations is the result of the development of another number of nations.  But in real terms, underdevelopment is not the consequence of development.  Chavez and Castro--two anecdotes at the Monterrey Summit--repeat the formula of victimization and fight with their speeches the evil vampire of neoliberalism....  The U.S. signal at the summit is that it is not willing to revise its financial assistance policy.  The U.S. Treasury Secretary said a couple of days before the summit that each nation should look after itself, and that there was no evidence that would show that international assistance would really work and would contribute to improve the living conditions in poor nations."

 

"Monterrey, 'Big Brother' Is Watching Us"

 

Ricardo Rocha held in nationalist El Universal (3/25):  "It (the U.S.) came, saw and imposed its conditions.  It simply reminded us that it is the supreme king...with the stick on one hand and the wallet on the other hand....  It is the largest lender in the world, and also the largest collector of interests....  The Monterrey Summit turned out to be a farce.  The first days of the conference were used to voice demands and complaints, but afterwards it was established that the Monterrey Consensus would not be changed at all.  In other words, there was everything but consensus in Monterrey.  From the heights of economic and political power, the world was reminded about a number of requirements that poor nations should meet in order to receive financial assistance."

 

"Monterrey, Dissension Over Consensus"

 

Fernando Solana asserted in nationalist El Universal (3/25):  "The UN Summit on Financing for Development was an impressive gathering, but it is unlikely that it would have an impact on the situation of the 1.2 billion persons living under poverty levels in the world.  The Monterrey Consensus, resulted simply in more of the same."

 

"Who Was The Winner At The Summit?"

 

Manuel Villa stated in business-oriented El Financiero (3/25):  "The summit left the same feeling of other meetings of its kind-lack of depth in the discussions, and in dealing with the tough issue of the high costs of an international bureaucracy that took two years to develop the non-transcendent text of the Monterrey Consensus."

 

"Monterrey, A Success For Fox And Mexico"

 

Jorge A. Bustamante wrote in sensationalist Milenio (3/25):  "The Monterrey summit was successful in that it achieved its main goal of obtaining a commitment from rich nations to fight extreme poverty in lesser developed nations.  Those of us who live on this side of the border also gained from the Monterrey consensus.  Participants discussed ways to speed the crossing of people and goods in the aftermath of Sept. 11.  Participants discussed a 'Partnership for Prosperity' that will improve the quality of the environment on both sides of the border. They discussed ways to reduce the cost of migrant transfers, and a scholarship fund for Mexican students who wish to continue their studies in the United States... talk, talk, talk.  It is not the first time that many of these promises have been made and people believe them less and less.  President Fox and his team need to understand that they cannot continue to promise the vote in Mexican elections to those who are robbed in this way. "

 

"Counterpoints: Aid With No Condition?"

 

Jose Polendo argued in independent El Norte (3/24): To apply conditions is natural and even justified due to the lack of resources that every country experiences, rich and poor....  Rich countries have to use conditions because they need to inform their poor citizens as well as poor countries that resources are not inexhaustible; there's scarcity, regardless of the fact that the governments are partially the cause of this."

 

ARGENTINA:  "Too Many Words Too Late"

 

Jorge Elias, on special assignment in Monterrey for daily-of-record La Nacion, observed (3/24): "The U.S. and the EU debated on the amount of the assistance they're giving poor countries after having reduced it by a fifth in two decades.  After discussing the issue, President Bush promised $5 billion in three years, in addition to the $10 billion the U.S. already provides. The EU...promised to increase its quota from 0.33 to 0.39 percent of its GDP.  And, after further discussions, they both promised to open their markets to the Third World, at a hardly favorable moment of increased protectionism and reduced prices of farm products.... Too late for tears.  And this can be applied to the Monterrey Consensus, too many words and too late....  Reluctantly, Bush agreed to give more money, providing he can obtain...a mobilization of resources, the development of foreign trade...an eventual reduction of the foreign debt and uniform monetary and financial systems....  But nothing is for free.  In the meantime, poor countries in Latin America are negatively affected by subsidies, which, to our surprise, Bush has criticized in Monterrey....   Without trade barriers, developing countries would earn much more indeed, and, in truth, many of them would not need any help.  But rich countries would lose their power, by subordinating the state to the market, as they paradoxically preach."

 

BRAZIL:  "A False Consensus"

 

An editorial in liberal Folha de Sao Paulo stated (3/25): "The creation of a 'Monterrey Consensus' is an illusion.  The summit is supposed to take one more step towards reducing the gap in the so-called world economic order. The truth is that the participation of non-governmental sectors...is nothing but a footnote.  The accumulation of mistakes in the diagnosis and execution of financial policies by the main multilateral organization in the last three decades is shocking. The breach that has been opened in the official agenda, however, may be a starting point to reform the international financial system. That will depend on an authentic politicization of the summit, which will only happen if representatives of international civil society are given the opportunity to broaden their participation."

 

CANADA:  "Vague Words No Help To Poor"

 

Saskatoon's left-of-center StarPhoenix commented (3/25): "It is ironic that, as the Kyoto deal on greenhouse gases comes unravelled because of fundamental flaws in the way it was created, world leaders meeting in Monterrey, Mexico, have just made the same mistake about world poverty....  Like the Kyoto Protocol, the Monterrey Consensus states the obvious: International development requires more money, better governance and less corruption in recipient states, as well as a freer flow of goods.  It is essential to address the economic and social threats to the planet.  Like Kyoto, however, the Monterrey Consensus fails to establish the mechanisms that would provide secure funding to arm's-length bodies to deliver the aid, educate the many millions of people deprived of their rights by ignorance, assure fair trade and bring to justice those who would perpetuate the degradation of their fellow humans. Talk is cheap." 

 

"Too Many Strings In Monterrey"

 

The leading Globe and Mail opined (3/25):  "Promises were flying around like stale tortillas last week at the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico. U.S. President George W. Bush promised to boost annual aid spending by $5 billion (U.S.) by 2006....  [T]here were so many strings attached to [Mr. Bush's] pledge that it looked like the New York Philharmonic sawing through Beethoven's Fifth.... The first thing that needs to be said about all this is that the new aid levels are still not high enough.... Second, we must look critically at Mr. Bush's conditions, which are largely subscribed to by Canada's aid-dispensing agencies as well as by the World Bank and IMF....  Human-rights activists were voices in the wilderness years ago as they pleaded for assurances that foreign aid would not go to butchers.  Now their views are mainstream....  Dismantling market barriers is a different question. There is too great a tendency, particularly in Washington, to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to the developing world, and to require the governments of poor countries to beggar their own producers....   Mr. Bush should keep in mind that much of the best foreign aid has little to do with governments....  Finally, if rich countries wish to insist on political and economic reform in the developing world, they should display a greater willingness to forgive debts contracted by dictators, and to take a sledgehammer to their own structures of protectionism.  We all live in glass houses on this one...   In sum, on the long road toward equitable economic relationships among the peoples of the world, Monterrey was a milepost--but nothing more."

 

CHILE:  "Turning Monterrey Words Into Deeds"

 

Government-owned, editorially independent Santiago La Nacion stressed (3/25):  "We have no right to be indifferent to those who are suffering from hunger or who are victims of multiple forms of oppression throughout the planet.  One could criticize the mechanisms established by the international community to fight poverty, but those mechanisms are there to alleviate the suffering of many people....  What the entire world expects now is for the Monterrey Accord to turn into deeds.... This means rich nations and the international financing system must focus on those programs that would allow millions of human beings to leave behind their precarious way of life.  This must go hand in hand with the efforts of each and every nation to leave underdevelopment behind, which implies an immense responsibility from its leaders to assure that aid will be properly used."

 

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC:  "A New Form Of Neo-Protectionism"

 

Conservative El Caribe ran this op-ed by economist Miguel Ceara Hatton (3/26):  "Globalization is a fact, it is not an option.  Those isolated face a cost very high, but there is no conclusive evidence of a positive relationship between globalization and development.  It generates a great uncertainty, as well.  Pressured by the international environment, the DR is restructuring its economy in a determined direction, paying a high cost without the certainty that it will guarantee development.  The developed countries are creating commercial barriers more and more sophisticated.  A new form of neo-protectionism is being put up in the world, while the developing countries receive more pressure to open their markets immediately.  The developing countries are being pressured to create internal forces of structural reforms (new laws, fiscal reform, new institutional order) whose maturation is long term but whose costs are immediate.  The absence of transparency in the decision making mechanisms of international organizations act in prejudice toward developing countries."

  

"Monterrey And Sept. 11"

 

Conservative El Caribe ran an op-ed by Dario Valcarcel (3/25):  "The official reason of the [Monterrey] conference: Financing Development; but they know that there is another great tactical motive, the relation between development and terrorism after 9/11.  The rich world, 1 billion inhabitants, understands that they can not live on the backs of the 1.2 billion fellow human beings that [live on one dollar a day].... The post-industrial democracies cannot take away the problem of poverty with simple financial support of .3% of GDP.  [There is a] tendency of all civilization to close itself in defense of its model [of life].  But that is an impossible aspiration today, when the hegemonic power practices its role with a military machine proportionally superior to the Roman Empire.  America, however, cannot protect its global interests without alliances....  The United States has to confront with less hypocrisy its own evolution, without putting at risk business, material and morals.  The help toward development is also self-help for the rich countries in the manner that they contribute to eradicate terrorism.  Al Qaeda only could be defeated by a deal between intelligence services combined with the help of the Third World."

 

ECUADOR:  "A Little Of Everything"

 

Edmundo Ribadeneira opined in Quito's leading centrist El Comercio (3/27):  "Another summit on poverty...and I have lost count.  The summits repeat themselves and their results are nothing of nothing, as always.  In addition, during the Mexico summit, President Bush displayed even more his conditions of chief, of globalized administrator, of stubborn and omnipotent politician whose exclusive will has to predominate over the consecrated slaves....  For him, if our countries do not 'amend' past mistakes, they will not receive, nor deserve any aid.  They should fight against corruption--urged the U.S. leader-without realizing that corrupt Ecuadorian bankers, for example, enjoy harbor in the city of Miami, and that the International Monetary Fund, fills its coffers exploiting the whole world."

 

"Monterrey:  Aid-With-Strings-Attached Underway"

 

Leading centrist El Comercio's economic supplement "Lideres" held (3/25):  "Money, yes, but with conditions....  The leading singer in the international meeting was the U.S. president...that governments take actions to stop corruption, that they open their markets and implement serious political reforms.  The support, said Bush, must be given in the form of grants, not loans.  The assistance-with-strings-attached for development, in summary, is not aid at all."

 

"Fight Against Poverty"

 

A front-page editorial center-left (influential) Hoy stressed (3/23):  "The outcome of the UN International Conference on Financing Development is little encouraging....  The final document included once again general statements and good intentions, instead of concrete mechanisms....  The back drop of this summit was the concern about terrorism, producing the paradoxical result that military expenditures increase in order to fight it, but that so little is done to face the cutting poverty where it (terrorism) plants its roots."

 

"Monterrey Concerns"

 

An editorial in leading centrist El Comercio noted (3/22):  "[Latam] countries must be attentive to Monterrey's statements and results.  Some questions must be answered...among many other questions, 'what is the reason for the dangerous decrease in international assistance for development programs?  History is replete with lessons that show the serious convulsions produced when hunger becomes the leader of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse."

 

HONDURAS:  "Conditioned Aid Combats Corruption"

 

Editorial in economic supplement of conservative El Heraldo (3/26):  "At the UN Conference on Financing for Development...the rich countries made it clear that they are not disposed to continue helping poor countries that do not eliminate corruption and excessive public expenditure.   The rich countries' position is correct, only it is a shame that it has taken until now for them to realize that much of the assistance and loans that they have given have been stolen and returned to their own countries by those who are corrupt.  For this reason, the U.S. government intends to punish the corrupt of poor countries by denying them entry visas to that country, but it would be better for them to investigate and repatriate the capital that those individuals have deposited in U.S. banks....  This would contribute enormously to the fight against corruption and ensure that resources actually arrive at their destination in order that poor countries, like Honduras, can set out on the road to development and avoid continual dependence on international handouts."

 

JAMAICA:  "Trade Not Aid Is Still Important To Development"

 

Grassroots business journalist Raymond Forrest argues in the moderate, business-oriented, influential Financial Gleaner (03/28): "In line with WTO attempts to push markets open in many developing countries, we are yet to see great changes in  the agricultural protected markets of Europe, Japan and the U.S.  It is an expensive barrier to development and would contribute more than any aid sum.  Jamaica for example has faced declining levels of official aid inflows over the last 10 years...but a compensating sum could easily have been earned had there not been the massive decline in garment exports, ackee restrictions and various quota limits on other goods. In short you earn your way rather than beg your way in the world."

 

"The Challenges Of Monterrey"

 

The editor-in-chief of centrist, business-oriented Jamaica Observer wrote (3/24):  "This newspaper...hopes that [Monterrey] is not just another grand announcement that fizzles with time....  We applaud the undertakings by...George W Bush, to increase...America's aid to developing countries by 50 percent.  Indeed, the U.S. has been a laggard in its development assistance....  Of course, Mr. Bush is correct that development aid must really benefit the poor, rather than just going into programs that benefit the few, underpin corruption and to shore-up repressive regimes...  However, this cannot be a carte blanche for rich countries to set down a single blue print for how developed countries should organise themselves."

 

"A Sadistic Charade"

 

Veteran journalist reformed leftist John Maxwell argued in the centrist, business-oriented Sunday Observer (3/24): "Leaders of the world gathered this last week to pledge nothing less than the reformation of development aid to rescue the poor from poverty.  It was a noble ideal, but like UN summits of the past, it was another charade, an inspirational meeting for those who yearned to win foreign exchange and influence Wall Street."

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Staying Engaged"

 

The independent Economist online Global Agenda had this analysis (3/25):  "The newly-generous Mr. Bush.   So far so good.  Last weekˇ¦s United Nations (UN) aid summit in Monterrey, Mexico, delivered more in terms of specific aid pledges from the rich countries than skeptical observers had expected.  Instead of questioning the point of foreign aid for poor countriesˇ¦something many American political leaders are fond of doingˇ¦America and Europe found themselves squabbling over who had promised most new money....  The challenge is to turn those promises into hard cash for the developing world and for all the leaders who went to Monterrey to stay engaged, as the summitˇ¦s communiquT put it....  The transformation in American attitudes to foreign aid caught many people off guard. The new money promised still leaves America languishing in bottom place in the league table for aid contributions as a proportion of total GDP. But many long-standing critics of American aid policy seem prepared, for the time being, to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt....

 

"So, in principle, progress has been made.  In practice, though, America will have to recognise whatever its new rhetoric on aid effectiveness, its past aid policies have tended to reward less needy countries and those with dubious reputations for good governance....  It is no good banging on, as he did in Monterrey, about the need for an open trading system just after imposing tariffs on most imported steel, a move which has outraged Americaˇ¦s trading partners throughout the world.  But as the Monterrey consensus explicitly recognises, translating the promises made at the summit into action requires a clear commitment both from rich and poor countries alike.  America and Europe must put their money where their mouth is: and developing countries must convince donors that aid to them would not be money wasted."

 

GERMANY:  "A Success, In Principle"

 

Klaus Ehringfeld had this to say in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (3/25):  "It depends on the angle you look at it to say whether the International Conference on Financing Development was a success.  The industrialized countries speak of great progress that was achieved in Monterrey by pointing to the $12 billion which the United States and Europe want to spend by 2006 on development assistance.  But when asking the poor nations, the balance sheet of the conference looks different.  For the Group of 77 and the NGOs the Monterrey conference lags far behind expectations.  Despite the promised increase, the biggest economic power in the world will not spend more than 0.13 percent of its GDP on development assistance."

 

"Conditional Solidarity"

 

Christoph von Marschall opined in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (3/25):  "The United States and the EU will increase their development assistance by $15 and $32 billion respectively per year by 2006.  Even with this sum they are still under the self-commitment of the industrialized nations to spend 0.7 percent of their GDP for development assistance.... The 'Monterrey consensus' imposes certain conditions on the developing nations to get assistance.... President Bush summed it up and said that there will be no support without good governance and that the value of development assistance can be measured only against the results not against the sums that are spent...This would indeed be a new impulse and progress, but this only exists on paper and must be implemented with patience.  One phrase is valid for effective development assistance:  It is the security policy of the 21st century."

 

"The Superficial Spirit From Monterrey"

 

Arne Perras noted in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (3/25):  "We should not fool ourselves: the UN conference did not initiate a change in development policy.  The final document does not reveal that the fight against global poverty will become a priority of the rich nations.  One thing is striking.... The developing nations are clearly told what obligations they have.  This is certainly good.  But it would have been much better if the obligations for the industrialized nations were also binding....  Of course, it is progress that the rich North will spend at least a few billion dollars more in the coming years.  This money can alleviate the misery of thousands of people and only cynics will call this irrelevant.  But the industrialized countries have no reason to lean back in a self-complacent manner, because the path to a global development pact, as Kofi Annan has called for, is still very long."

 

ITALY:   "Bush: 'More Money To Those Who Choose Democracy'"

 

Ennio Caretto wrote from Monterrey in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (3/23):  "Last Friday was Fidel Castro's day, but yesterday was George Bush's day.  Bush surprised the participants in the UN conference by putting the fight on poverty within the framework of the war on terrorism and linked aid to the Third World with the adoption of the U.S. political and economic model.  He appeared like a leader determined to impose his own doctrine on development--the doctrine of freedom and legality, according to which there cannot be prosperity where these two elements are absent.  This doctrine can be summarized as follows:  the United States will help--and the EU should do the same--the countries that choose a free market, democracy, and a state of laws, and not the others."

 

"Bush: 'More Aid In Exchange For Reforms'"

 

Alessandro Plateroti filed from Monterrey in leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (3/23): "Even though the outcome of the Monterrey summit had already been agreed upon, and a few differences of approach have emerged between Europe and the United States--especially regarding the amount of money to be allocated for aid--the fact remains that, for the first time since the end of the Cold war, aid for poor countries is again an important element of the international agenda.... Most of all, there was a major agreement on the need to allocate funds based on development and on economic and social growth, and not to let them get lost in the abyss of waste and corruption."

 

RUSSIA:  "U.S. Policy Consistent"

 

According to Dmitriy Kiryushin reporting from Lima for the reformist Vremya MN (3/23): "Since Bush' s arrival in the White House, there's been certain consistency in the U.S. policy in Latin America.  Aiming to show 'who rules the roost,' the Americans have been using the good old stick-and-carrot methods to retrieve what was lost in the previous years."

 

BELGIUM:  "Bush's Solution: Trade"

 

Under a Monterrey dateline, special correspondent Philippe Regnier commented in left-of-center Le Soir (3/23):  "Financial aid to the Third World from the richest countries, or promotion of trade?  Washington and many European countries have a different opinion on this subject.  'When trade increases, it is clear that poverty decreases.' Bush clearly stated the American conviction to get the Third World out of poverty.  The formal conclusions of the summit are based on this approach. It is logical: indeed....  Yet, this approach of development which is first and foremost based on world trade and on foreign investments is criticized, especially by several European countries which...are convinced that many Southern countries will not be able to get out of poverty without assistance--because these countries do not interest foreign investors and because of their very limited capacity to offer product to world markets.  Besides, by reserving its financial aid--the smallest of the rich countries in terms of percentage of the GDP--to countries which are engaged in political, economic, and legal reforms, Washington is suspected of favoring its allies rather than the countries which are in need."

 

"Things Have Already Been Decided"

 

Special correspondent Philippe Regnier noted in left-of-center Le Soir (3/22): "In Monterrey, everybody is convinced that things have already been decided....  Promotion of foreign trade and investments is encouraged, in exchange for an effort of good governance on the part of Southern countries--all this with a little bit of financial assistance, but without any offer from the rich countries.  In the name of the Belgian Government, Guy Verhofstadt underlined that 'the injustice in the world gives the image of selfish rich countries.'...  It is everybody's interest which is at stake, Verhofstadt pointed out. 'The absence of any hope for hundreds of million people creates a climate which facilitates the development of terrorism.  Fanaticism cannot become the new opium of those who are excluded.'"

 

HUNGARY:  "The Poor Rich" 

 

Foreign affairs writer Orsolya Ruff pointed out in conservative Magyar Nemzet (3/25): "Will the UN's fight be successful against poverty?  It is quite doubtful.  Everybody interprets poverty, and the fight against it, in a different way."

 

IRELAND:  "Poverty A Time Bomb Against Liberty'"

 

The liberal Irish Times remarked (3/22):  "Reducing trade barriers and subsidies maintained by wealthy states is one of the quickest and most effective ways to help poor nations climb out of poverty, leaders of global financial institutions said in Mexico yesterday... The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Ms. Liz O'Donnell, is representing Ireland at the Monterrey conference.   She announced that Ireland would donate an additional EUR1.5 million to assist poorer countries in economic development programmes and improving their participation in the World Trade Organisation.   Ms. O'Donnell called on the world's rich countries to follow Ireland's lead in moving to increase development aid to meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP." 

 

"Third World Aid Should Be Hallmark Of Our Civilization"

 

Liz O'Donnell, Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, commented in the liberal Irish Times (3/22):  "The Conference...in Monterrey, Mexico, promises...to be different.  Firstly it is the first meeting to be prepared jointly by all of the major global organisations....  Secondly, the conference takes place in the aftermath of September 11th. The terrorist attacks in the U.S. have focused attention on the despair and hopelessness of people living in extreme poverty....  And lastly, the conference is dealing with a relatively clear and simple issue.  How will the world raise the money to meet the internationally agreed goal of lifting at least half the 1.2 billion people who live on less than $1 per day out of poverty by 2015?...  The primary motivation for development aid is not to protect our own contented societies, but humanitarian solidarity and the vindication of the rights of the poor.  Development aid should be one of the hallmarks of our civilisation, an expression of our fundamental human values."

 

POLAND:  "Usury Or Assistanceˇ¦

 

Krzysztof Warecki wrote in Catholic Nasz Dziennik (3/22): ˇ¦The European Union criticized the United States at the Monterrey conference for not sufficiently helping poor countries.  EU diplomats argued that their proposals went further than the U.S. declarationsˇ¦. In 2000, EU assistance for the poor countries totaled $25.4 billion, while the U.S spent only $9.6 billion.  Based on these figures one could conclude that the worldˇ¦s wealthiest country shows a stinginess that does not befit its position, whereas the European Union--which is increasingly suffering from lack of resources, huge unemployment rate, and bad economic situation--is a paragon of generosity.  In fact, the picture is different. Even though the Americans give less total aid, most of it is in the form of grants, not loans that must be repaid.  The European Union, however, presents a different way of thinking.  As opposed to U.S. support, the EU ˇ¦assistanceˇ¦ sooner or later will have to be repaid with interest.ˇ¦

 

PORTUGAL:  "A Coalition Against Poverty"

 

According to an opinion piece by Lufs Amado, Portuguese State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Aid, in influential center-left Pˇ¦lico (3/22):  "The maintenance of a broad international coalition against poverty will  come with a new relation of confidence and a new political attitude toward the question of development, as much in the wealthy nations as in the less developed nations. "In the wealthy nations, with the revision of policies, demanding more coherence, more complementarity, more coordination between themselves, and reform of the instruments and institutional structures of intervention.   From less developed countries, more transparency and accountability in matters of state should be demanded, as a condition for greater political leadership in their process of development and in the definition and execution of their own strategies of development.  Finally, everyone is called on to make the effort to mobilize world public opinion in the fight against poverty.  We need more resources, new policies, new structures and instruments of intervention, and therefore, more political will and determination are necessary."

 

SPAIN:  "Misers In Monterrey"

 

Left-of-center El Pais concluded (3/23): "The lessons of 9/11 have not  been learned:  poverty and the abandonment to fate of countries such as  Afghanistan can be taken advantage of by terrorist groups.  The growing  inequality existing in this world is not sustainable in the short or  medium term.  Bush's new global deal is aimed at making internal political  and economic reform a condition of aid....  Summits such as the Monterrey  may seem useless.  However, in spite of their limitations they contribute  to increasing the awareness of the problems of poverty.   If  [Monterrey] hadn't taken place, neither the U.S. nor the EU would have committed  themselves to the little steps they have made in the last few days, which  are better than nothing, but still clearly insufficient."

 

"Hope In Monterrey"

 

Conservative La Razon commented (3/22): ˇ¦9/11 has damaged--above all--the Third World.  It seems logical to fight terrorism and fundamentalism in order to stop international terrorism, but it is also vital to fight inequalities....  It is now time for the U.S. Empire to take a step forward.  And that is up to Bush.ˇ¦

 

SLOVENIA:  "We Come And Out The Fire"

 

A commentary in left-of-center Delo by Gorzad Bohte mused (3/22): 'We do not ask why it is burning, we just come from time to time and put out the fire,' could be the slogan of the rich world's battle against poverty in the underprivileged parts of our planet. Of course, any measure against poverty is better than no measure; this is also true for the UN international Conference in Monterrey....   However...the foremost issue [discussed at] such conferences is how to put out large fires, whereas little or nothing is said about how to prevent fires from breaking out....  The United States may be an empire that has already passed its zenith, but so far, it has always broken competitive systems, from the Fascist-Nazi one to the Soviet-communist one....  Hence,  Pax Americana is a reality with which the world will have to deal for quite some time.... In the territories that cause the biggest problems...the system first strikes with the military, and afterwards brings economic assistance.  Due to the U.S.' great military power, the method has effective short-term results, but it causes great problems in the long run; this is explicitly illustrated by the case of Osama bin Laden.  A more righteous regime...requires a different approach.  More active and open-hearted philanthropy may be the first step."

 

EAST ASIA

 

CHINA:  ˇ¦Declaring War Against Povertyˇ¦

 

Zhu Mengkui commented in official Communist Party Peopleˇ¦s Daily (3/26): ˇ¦The increasingly prominent problem of poverty is hindering two major trends--peace and development.  In order to solve this problem, we need to accelerate the process of building a new international relationship.  In recent years, there are more problems in foreign assistance programs by developed countries and groups made up of developed countries.  Firstly, the amount of assistance has declined....  Secondly, some developed countries want to politicize assistance.  The seven Western countries insisted on linking 'human rights records' and 'democratic progress' with exempting and reducing debts of African countries in 1999.  The UN, international organizations and some developed countries have made effective efforts in helping the least-developed countries.  But there is still a significant difference in supply and actual need.  It should be appreciated that some developed countries are adjusting their foreign aid policies and increasing their contributions in this field.ˇ¦

 

JAPAN:  "Importance Of Fighting Poverty"

 

Business-oriented Nihon Keizai editorialized (3/25):  "The conference was successful in that nations of the world pledged to combat poverty, with rich countries promising to double their aid and poor nations agreeing to do more with what they get.  The 'leading star' at the anti-poverty conference was President Bush, who pledged a 50 percent increase in official development assistance for poor nations over a three-year period starting in fiscal 2004.  In a speech marking a departure from the previously cool U.S. stance to ODA, Bush stressed the need to eradicate poverty that could breed terrorism.  We welcome the president's pledge of increased ODA and a rising awareness among more world leaders of the importance of fighting poverty."

 

PHILIPPINES:  "Consensus In Monterrey"

 

Writing from Nuevo Leon, Mexico, former Miss International and Tourism Secretary Gemma Cruz Araneta noted in the top-circulation Manila Bulletin (3/26):  "Debt condonation--the South's perennial demand--was eliminated, of course. There were several measures designed to mitigate the vicious cycle of capital 'drought and abundance' and the harmful effects of volatile speculative investments....  Conditions should be created so developing countries will be encouraged to save because these domestic funds are best used for industrialization. Domestic markets should be strengthened and expanded. Needless to say, none of the above saw official print. Because developed countries have imposed trade liberalization as the supreme engine of growth and development, the Zedillo document stated that their markets should truly be opened to developing economies. That means no more subsidies to their agricultural sectors nor protection for their industries....  Unfortunately for environmentalists and those concerned about preserving and sharing the world's wealth in biodiversity, policies found in the original working document were not included in the final version....  Neither were recommendations for population concerns at the national and international levels.  Since the consensus at Monterrey was based on such a diluted document, people have wondered whether Fidel Castro was right after all.  Only time will tell if the [UN Conference] was worth all that trouble and expense."

 

"Campaign Has Just Begun"

 

The editorial of independent Today held (3/25):  "We are glad to hear from initial reports that the usual tendency of rich countries and global financial institutions to grandstand has somehow resulted in getting them to pledge substantial increases in their aid commitments to poor nations in the next few years....  From now on people will demand more coherence in international economic policy, more consistency between political goals set in UN  forums and actual financing practice by global institutions.  People...will demand that if the lofty Millennium Development Goals are to be met, then all barriers to helping nations achieve them must be set aside: including, if necessary, stupid advice from the IMF, such as that it dispensed to those affected by the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis....  But as always, the needy countries and the UN reformers must persist in demanding what they want....  The campaign has just begun."

 

THAILAND:  "A Vague But Desired Pact Against Poverty"

 

The lead editorial of the top-circulation, moderately conservative, English-language Bangkok Post stated (3/23):  "Mr. Bush announced this week that the U.S. will substantially increase its foreign aid provided the recipients promote a free market, good governance, improve education and health and care for its citizens, among other demands.  Judging from Mr. Bush's other foreign policies, if it is going to be positive for American businesses, aid will be forthcoming....  Despite the rhetoric, the vague Monterrey's consensus embodies a new partnership between rich and poor nations, with developing countries at least signing a document committing to clean government, democracy and economic reforms in exchange for more aid, trade and investment from the industrialized world.  What the Monterrey Consensus lacks is specifics on who will get what from whom and for what purpose.  And until that is decided, the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer."

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

INDIA:  "Aid And Accountability"

 

An editorial in the nationalist Hindustan Times observed (3/26): "It would appear that the rich countries are beginning to appreciate that mass poverty and terrorism may have a correlation.... Bush has reiterated that more aid would be conditional on poor nations undertaking serious political reform, opening up markets and rooting out corruption.... Unfortunately, these are the very attributes that are missing from poor countries. With good governance, many of the Third World problems could be easily disposed of.  Along with aid, the poorer countries will need greater trade helped by open market policies to be able to climb out of poverty faster."

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

MOROCCO:  "America The Wealthiest, America The Most Stingy"

 

The inside page column signed by Khalil Jabrane in government coalition, Arabic-language, USFP party Al Ittihad Al Ishtiraki stressed (3/24):  "Though the U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world, it is the most stingy among the club of rich countries, since its foreign assistance--as announced by President Bush at the Monterrey summit--has reached $10 billion; less than 0.15 percent of its GNP, compared to the EU's .3 percent.... The U.S.--with the world as well--would be better off if President Bush followed the example of former President Roosevelt who forged with courage the Marshall Plan in 1947.  If not, let President Bush recall September 11 and imagine that among every ten thousand children who die of hunger, there are tens or hundreds of children who could become 'potential terrorists,' venting their repression and anger on the symbols of U.S. power and arrogance."

 

AFRICA

 

SOUTH AFRICA: "Fighting Poverty" 

 

Afrikaans-language, centrist Die Burger held (3/25):  "The one issue worldwide which needs an urgent solution, is the eradication of poverty....  It was therefore a forward step when the UN held a summit on this topic in Monterrey, Mexico, in which nearly 60 countries took part.  Unfortunately no consensus was reached as to how this problem should be tackled....  Two  trains of though can be discerned.  The one is the orthodox (view), which is held by most poor countries:  that poverty relief should be tackled by  development assistance and debt relief from rich countries.  The other  train of though which is preached especially by President George Bush,  maintains that trade is the answer, but that positive trade conditions  should be linked to good democracy, good governance and sound (read:  capitalist) economic policies.  There is something to be said in favor of both...  Poor countries do have a point, especially with regard to the matter of debt relief....  On the other hand Bush is correct in emphasizing trade and conditions  linked to positive action.  Throughout history trade has always been the  best way in which to create wealth.  If the Third World therefore fails to close the bottom of the pit, no degree of assistance or debt relief will  do any good.  The problem is at least being acknowledged.  Which is better than nothing."

 

ZIMBABWE:  "A Regime Bent On Violence, Corruption Won't Get Aid"

 

The independent Daily News opined (3/25):  "In last week's conference...Bush linked aid to good governance.  He was told that an end to poverty around the world could reduce terrorism....  Clearly, world poverty has to be tackled with the full knowledge that unless a country governs its people with fairness, it cannot expect to attract much help to reduce poverty....  Like any other African countries, Zimbabwe has not always behaved responsibly with other people's money, particularly for poverty alleviation.... The conduct of the presidential election has been so overwhelmingly condemned as a travesty of fairness and justice that the few friends who had stuck with us after the killings of the 2000 election campaign have decided they have had enough....  What is good governance if it prevents people from freely choosing their own president?  On its present record of violence against its own people, the government of President Mugabe is unlikely to find too many countries willing to help it end poverty among its people.  As long as the killings continue, no conference on poverty is likely to help a regime so committed to violence."

##