EU Urged Not to Give Up Poverty Fight
UNITED NATIONS - When European leaders gather in Belgium this week, they might not be so pleased to see thousands of those who protested during the G8 Summit in Germany chasing them too on the streets of Brussels and asking the same old question: Why don’t you match your words with deeds to fight global poverty?
Aside from planning demonstrations and protest rallies, anti-poverty campaigners in Europe say over the past few months they have gathered more than 1 million signatures on a petition calling for the EU leadership to increase aid for poor nations and cancel their debts. 
The signature campaign organized by the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP), an umbrella organization comprising a wide array of social justice groups active in more than 100 countries, also seeks urgent actions on fair trade dealings with poor countries and concrete measures to tackle climate change.
GCAP and other social justice groups in Europe raised similar demands at demonstrations and meetings when the leaders of the Group of 8 (G8) economically powerful countries were attending their annual summit in Germany a little over a week ago. Despite intense public pressure, the G8 leaders failed to make any meaningful progress on issues related to poverty and development aid, campaigners said.
“Europe is so important in the worldwide battle against global poverty,” said Alison Marshall of British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND), a UK-based network of over 300 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in international development and emergency relief.
In a statement, Marshall, whose organization is part of the international campaign to fight poverty, described the G8 leaders’ response as “disgraceful” and said it indicated no sense of urgency for action.
“For millions of people around the world, giving up the fight against poverty is not an option,” Marshall noted with dismay.
Four of the EU members — Germany, Britain, France, and Italy - are also part of the G8. The other four who enjoy the membership in the exclusive club of the world’s most industrialized countries are the United States, Canada, Japan, and Russia.
The EU Summit, due to start Thursday, is likely to focus on the future of Europe and the EU constitution, but for their part, anti-poverty campaigners are trying hard to draw the attention of the continent’s leaders to their obligations in the fight against global poverty.
In 2005 major European governments and the G8 pledged to increase aid dramatically, particularly to Africa, and 80 percent of this new aid was to come from the EU. Yet overall aid increases have been very slow, and development assistance to Africa has been static since 2004.
EU countries currently provide 52 percent of all development aid. Since Europe is the world’s largest trade block, anti-poverty campaigners contend it must also play a pivotal role in global efforts to make trade fair for developing countries.
This year, Europe is expected to conclude trade negotiations with 76 countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. The move is sometimes referred to by diplomats and economists as the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).
In recent months, a number of countries have made it clear that more time is needed for pro-development trade agreements to be negotiated, so campaigners are asking the European Commission to stop using aggressive negotiation tactics to push unfair trade deals.
Earlier this month, in London, more than 10,000 people attended a protest against the G8 leaders for failing to deliver on promises to tackle poverty made at their annual meeting held in Gleneagles, Scotland, in 2005.
At that summit, the G8 leaders pledged about $50 billion more aid, debt cancellation for up to 42 countries, and access to affordable medications for people with HIV/AIDS by 2010. However, many of them have failed to act upon those promises.
Britain being an exception, the other European members of the G8 — Germany, France, and Italy — are still lagging on their commitments to fight poverty in Africa and other poorer parts of the world.
Currently, more than 2 billion people on the planet are living below the poverty line, a fact that many leaders of the developing world as well as UN officials have long cited to demand an end to unfairness in trade between the industrialized countries and those heavily relying on agricultural production.
During the G8 Summit, the UN-based largest coalition of developing nations, known as the Group of 77 and China (G77), said it was concerned about the industrial countries’ role in perpetuating inequalities in global trade and commerce.
On the eve of the G8 Summit, Munir Akram, Pakistan’s envoy to the UN and chairman of the G77, released a statement, in which he accused the G8 nations of not doing enough to help developing countries in their quest for development and the eradication of poverty.
“Developing countries have demonstrated a sincere commitment to fulfilling the pledges made in successive international conferences and summits during the past few years,” he said. “But, unfortunately, our development partners have not reciprocated.”
Akram lamented that Official Development Assistance, the international aid given by wealthier countries to support the development of poorer ones, has declined in recent years. He feared it was likely to continue to decline in the near future.
The G77 urged the G8 members to take “bolder and innovative measures” to meet the internationally agreed upon target of putting 0.7 percent of national budgets toward development assistance for poorer countries.
Of the G8 member countries, none have yet reached that target. The United Kingdom came closest last year, allocating just over one half of one percent of its national income to development assistance. At 0.17 percent, the United States gave a lower percentage of its income than any other industrialized country except Greece.
Anti-poverty campaigners are also calling on European nations as well as other members of the G8 to reduce the huge subsidies provided to their agricultural sectors, which they say are artificially driving down prices worldwide and threatening the food security of billions living below the poverty line in poorer countries.
Copyright © 2007 OneWorld.net.








We are going to see the end of political corruption, poverty, hunger, racism, and war!
Cheers to all who are working on those issues!
Why is Samuel L. Jackson parking cars in South Africa?
There is no moral alternative to reducing poverty. There is no logical alternative to reducing poverty. People in abject poverty buy nothing. The re imposition of feudalism under the economic theory now presented as capitalism will lead to a new middle ages.
What do they call a Quarter Pounder in South Africa?
dinner for four
Get rid of the damn European Commission with its assorted bureaucratic appointed jack asses and let the elected representative of the EU’s people in the European Parliament make the decisions the way they don’t now, as the “commision and the Council of Europe, also appointed, decides even what legislation can even be taken up by the parliament. The EU needs democratization, not appointed bureaucratic despotism.
The goal is correct, the method to solve poverty is ineffectual.
In most nations, the people have already paid the price to end poverty. There is a plan (not religious, but a practical plan for all) that can be implemented in one day, at least in the United States; but can spread worldwide. I invite you to go to: WWUNITED.ORG.
Your brother and friend,
John
WWFRIENDSHIP.COM
The following is an excerpt from a
Book review by Luc Guillory of
(Well-known activist, writer, UN Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food, & senior Professor at the University of Geneva and the University of Sorbonne, Paris) Jean Ziegler’s book titled: L’Empire de la Honte [EMPIRE OF SHAME] Editions Fayard, Paris, France.
According to Ziegler, the multinational corporations are the new feudal powers. Their purpose is to maximize profits - whatever the human and national cost in lost jobs, crippled welfare systems and virtually non-existent public spending. They aim to eliminate national controls and “social obstacles”, thereby gaining control of the wealth of individual countries.
To achieve their aims they deliberately cause a scarcity of services, of capital and assets, so as to gain control of the global economic system. By way of illustration: in 1964 the global debt of the 122 developing nations was $54 billion; today it is $2,000 billion. At the same time, the net profitability of the 500 most powerful transcontinental corporations is 15 per cent per year. According to Standard & Poors, the financial reserves maintained by the 374 biggest corporations amount to some $555 billion. Despite this they continue to cause job and wage cuts and limit social spending.
Weapon of mass destruction
In 2003, the international ‘aid’ received by 122 developing countries totalled $54 billion; debt repayment from those developing countries back to the donor countries was a massive $436 billion. Debt, Ziegler says, is the new weapon of mass destruction that the modern feudal powers use to enslave whole countries.
The well-known British NGO Jubilee 2000 has calculated that every five seconds a child dies because of debt. Indebted governments of the South borrow loans with interest rates five to seven times higher than those on the financial markets. Just the annual servicing of this debt prevents them from making any investment in public schools, hospitals and social security, while police and military budgets are maintained, to protect the foreign investments, says Ziegler. Between 1992 and 1997, Cameroon allocated 4 per cent of its budget to social services, but 36 per cent to debt repayment. In Kenya it was 12 per cent and 40 per cent and in Zambia 6 per cent and 40 per cent respectively.
Although most of these countries keep up with their repayments, their external debt keeps on growing…
====
More on Professor Ziegler:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/08/1741
“Although most of these countries keep up with their repayments, their external debt keeps on growing…”
Guess they shouldn’t borrow money.