Get E-Mail Updates

Bono and Jeff Sachs on Foreign Aid: Ending Dependency

During a recent trip to the African nation of Ghana, John Mulholland of the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper spoke to Bono (lead singer of U2 and co-founder of the ONE Campaign) and Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs (former director of the United Nation's Millennium Project) about the future of foreign aid.

Mulholland asked Bono and Sachs, who have collaborated for years on projects to help alleviate global poverty and disease, how they might respond to skeptics of the efficacy of foreign aid.

Below are excerpts of their answers.

Jeffrey Sachs: There are good ways to do things and bad ways to do things with aid. Aid works when it's practical, when it's focused, when it's targeted, when it's an investment, when it is part of a strategy; and aid does not work when it's money handed over in an envelope to a friendly ally, especially in a war zone or when it's a payoff for some other diplomatic support. It needs to be seriously managed, professionalized, results-based .... What's the bottom line? What are the results? What are we getting out of it? And it's being made into a very practical contract, in essence, between donor and recipient.

This is how it should be done. And when it is done that way, diseases can be brought under control, food productivity can rise, basic infrastructure can be built, kids can be educated, population growth can slow down as girls complete secondary education.

Bono: Clearly no one likes the culture of dependency. No one's arguing for it. We're arguing to end it. I think there's something a bit funky about aid as it stands right now. The two most important parties involved in the transaction – the taxpayer who's providing the resources and the person who needs those resources to stay alive or keep their family alive – are the two people who know the least about what's going on. So that has to change....The obfuscation of the facts that's going on is really a fog to excuse inaction. And we had to put out a fire in the United States that suggested there was massive corruption in Global Fund grants. There wasn't. There are some instances of corruption involved. The Global Fund is audited objectively, audited independently and prints on its own website when things are not what they should be – i.e., they out themselves.

These are then taken by critics of aid to be a reason to not do it, but it's rather the opposite. Transparency should give us confidence to go ahead. Think about it: there's 3.3 million people on anti-retroviral drugs from the Global Fund. And 1.3 million pregnant women not passing the virus onto their children. You have 5.6 million orphans involved in some sort of care made possible by the Global Fund. And 8.6 million cases of tuberculosis diagnosed and treated. ...Yet we've to go to Congress every year and fight for those budgets. In Germany, we have to fight for the Global Fund. In the UK we're campaigning with partners for a doubling of smart lifesaving aid for the Global Fund.

Read the interview in its entirety HERE.

Cathleen Falsani is Web Editor and Director of New Media for Sojourners. Follow Cathleen on Twitter @GodGrrl.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: Jamie

01-17-2012 @ 2:59pm

1. Unfortunately, in the areas such as where foreign aid does help as evidenced by scientiic studies, such as the global funds to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, Obama has broken his promises on his pledges lowering actual humanitarian aid below what Bush gave when he left office. (ironically, military spending has increased where nearly half the budget go towards wars and related items, while Obama has proposed a steady increase in military spending over the next 10 years in the form of predator drones and covert wars in the Middle East and Asia http://youtu.be/_v46U6QROzU). 


All it would take for Obama to meet his pledge promise is to reallocate 1/1000 of the military spending to the global funds to fight HIV/AIDS.  

Maybe the only way for substantive actual foreign aid or even demostic issues to be considered is if the bloated military budget is addressed, which is close to 2/3 to 1 trillion dollars (which equals the defecit incurred per year). 

2. The other issue is not just transparecy and developing strategy behind foreign policy, but also the U.S. federal government needs to address why the majority of foreign aid goes to nations in the Middle East to fund weapons and more U.S. bases?


The actual humanitarian aid to fight against for eg AIDS needs to be differentiated against the 1-2% of Foreign aid it comes from where the majority of it goes to for eg. weapons.  We may say we want more foreign aid, not knowing that most of it goes towards war-related or U.S. empire building initiatives. 

 

facebook.com/moonjp

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Jamie

01-17-2012 @ 2:59pm

1. Unfortunately, in the areas such as where foreign aid does help as evidenced by scientiic studies, such as the global funds to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, Obama has broken his promises on his pledges lowering actual humanitarian aid below what Bush gave when he left office. (ironically, military spending has increased where nearly half the budget go towards wars and related items, while Obama has proposed a steady increase in military spending over the next 10 years in the form of predator drones and covert wars in the Middle East and Asia http://youtu.be/_v46U6QROzU). 


All it would take for Obama to meet his pledge promise is to reallocate 1/1000 of the military spending to the global funds to fight HIV/AIDS.  

Maybe the only way for substantive actual foreign aid or even demostic issues to be considered is if the bloated military budget is addressed, which is close to 2/3 to 1 trillion dollars (which equals the defecit incurred per year). 

2. The other issue is not just transparecy and developing strategy behind foreign policy, but also the U.S. federal government needs to address why the majority of foreign aid goes to nations in the Middle East to fund weapons and more U.S. bases?


The actual humanitarian aid to fight against for eg AIDS needs to be differentiated against the 1-2% of Foreign aid it comes from where the majority of it goes to for eg. weapons.  We may say we want more foreign aid, not knowing that most of it goes towards war-related or U.S. empire building initiatives. 

 

facebook.com/moonjp