KEY POINTS:
Crusades such as that of Sir Bob Geldof against global poverty are most effective when underpinned by simple concepts. Communicating the message means there is no room for complexity. Heroes are heroes and villains are villains.
Thus it is that Sir Bob vilifies New Zealand because its $400
million overseas-aid budget is only 0.3 per cent of gross national income, well short of a United Nations goal of 0.7 per cent by 2015. That level of aid ranks this country 17th out of 22 OECD nations. Previously, Sir Bob has termed this "pathetic". On a flying visit last week, he was in no mood to recant, and challenged New Zealand to make a renewed effort to reach the UN target.
Neither his tenor nor his timing were apt. Sir Bob did acknowledge this country had its own issues of poverty, but he made no mention of a recessionary environment which, of necessity, reins in aid capability. Nor was there any concession to the fact that overseas aid is not just about money. Quality, not quantity, is the bottom line. Many of the countries that dispense aid far more lavishly than New Zealand have other policies which hinder the development of poor nations.
Such complications may not suit Sir Bob but they are the reality. And New Zealand rates highly on a well-respected measure that moves beyond simple comparisons.
This is the Commitment to Development Index, prepared by the United States-based Centre for Global Development. Last year, it rated New Zealand fifth of 21 of the world's richest countries in terms of dedication to policies that benefit people living in poorer nations. These countries were ranked on seven themes: foreign aid, openness to Third World exports, investment policies, migration, stewardship of the global environment, peacekeeping and support for new technologies.
This country is marked particularly well for its liberal trade and migration policies. European countries, in contrast, suffer because of high trade barriers and restrictions on entry. Norway, a big aid donor often cited as a model global citizen, finishes a distant last in the index's trade ranking because of its steep tariffs on agricultural imports from poor countries.
The damage caused by such obstacles cannot be overstated. It has been estimated that barriers to trade in developed economies cost poor nations more than $100 billion a year, about twice what rich countries give in aid. As much as financial help, overseas aid is about responsible policies that sponsor internal economic and social growth and trading opportunities for developing countries. Sir Bob's grandstanding, with its simplistic focus on spending comparisons, ignores this.
Overseas aid is also about effectiveness. On that score, organisations such as Oxfam have confirmed this country also rates well. It helps that New Zealand allots more than half its aid budget to its own backyard, through programmes in the Pacific Islands. This concentration offers the opportunity to make the maximum impact through a contribution that far exceeds the dollars spent. This was acknowledged by a 2005 OECD report, which praised such targeting. The incoming Government has suggested it will sharpen this focus, and end some contributions to far-flung countries. That seems logical.
As a small country, New Zealand has only a limited ability to fund overseas aid. But its standing in the Commitment to Development Index confirms its Third World aid profile is on the right track. More considered judges than Sir Bob rate our endeavours highly. He should acknowledge as much when he next visits these shores.
