A British View

Catherine Barber, MPA/ID 2002

“What does it mean to be British after September 11?” My compatriots at the Kennedy School were unenthused. “Just what it always did,” one of them grumbled.

On my return to the UK, I was inclined to concur with this assessment. Yes, British politicians have expressed strong support for America’s “war on terror,” and British troops are heavily involved in military operations in Afghanistan. But the public has been much less vociferous in support of the war than in the United States. The initial shock of the terrorist attacks having worn off, the person on the street is more likely to be talking about the new Euro notes across the Channel.

As a student of international development, however, I have been encouraged by the apparent growth of interest in the “development agenda.” In the immediate aftermath of September 11, a KSG student remarked in the Forum that an asymmetry between the United States and “the rest of the world” had been — terribly — corrected. This heightened awareness of global interconnections has similarly penetrated the British media, and — perhaps due to weaker public enthusiasm for the war — has pushed the issue of global poverty in particular up the political agenda.

The increased focus on development issues was demonstrated by Gordon Brown’s address to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, in November. The British chancellor of the Exchequer and chairman of the IMF’s International Monetary and Financial Committee called for a global New Deal for poorer countries. He envisaged new standards of macroeconomic accountability and transparency for all countries; a code of corporate ethics for all international businesses; a fairer trade regime, and (perhaps most dramatically) a “substantial transfer of additional resources from the richest to the poorest countries in the form of investment for development.”

Such a commitment would be a key step to achieving the millennium development goals, which were historically agreed on by the IMF, World Bank, OECD, and the UN, appropriately in New York itself. The international community has pledged that by 2015 it will give every child of primary education age the chance of schooling, reduce child mortality by two-thirds, and halve global poverty. These targets are ambitious, and because quantified, will be readily judged in 2015. But, while greater efficiency in aid delivery may realize some improvements, the targets will only be achieved if citizens in rich countries are prepared to reach into their pockets and support higher development spending.

Current development assistance amounts to $53 billion per annum — of which $30 billion goes to the poorest countries. A UN report by Ernesto Zedillo, former Mexican president, estimates that the primary education goal will require an extra $12 billion each year, the health targets, more than $10 billion, and the halving of poverty, $20 billion. In total, Zedillo’s report advocates an extra $50 billion per year — that is, almost a doubling of current development expenditures. Is this political fantasy? The official U.S. reaction has been lukewarm. Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill “remained to be convinced” after Gordon Brown’s endorsement of the Zedillo plan.

With the specter of recession looming, U.S. policymakers may choose to disregard development aid. This would be unfortunate. At present, the United States spends 0.1 percent of its GDP on overseas development assistance — the least of all donor countries and far short of the UN’s target of 0.7 percent. In Britain, although the UN target has not yet been achieved, the government is publicly committed to increasing the aid/GDP ratio. The changes in the political climate have also witnessed the creation of a new “peace cabinet,” including the deputy prime minister and the secretaries of state for international development and the environment, which will focus on sustainable development issues.

In brief, I find an element of hope in the British reaction to the tragic events of September 11. When the dust settles after the military campaign, there will be an opportunity for the international community to reassess its political priorities. As President Clinton said in a recent address at the Kennedy School Forum, it is cheaper to wage peace than war. May our leaders have the courage to focus on development, in deed as in word.