Canada Chided For "Lack of Interest" in Jeffrey Sachs' Agenda

Jeffrey Sachs disappointed in lack of ideological commitment

If anything is absolutely certain about Jeffrey Sachs, it's that he has everything about poverty in the developing world figured out.

Or at least he thinks he does.

Sachs' policies regarding alleviating poverty in the developing world have been nothing if not a spectacular failure. Yet instead of examining his own policies to figure out what's gone wrong, he prefers to simply blame countries that don't share his agenda in all its ideological glory.

Especially Canada.

But not Canada alone. Apparently, the United States is to blame as well.

“Where we are in 2010 is mostly a testimony about ourselves,” Sachs said. “Neither the Harper government nor the Obama administration is doing close to what I would expect of our countries living in the wealth and comfort of North America.”

So not just Canada. But mostly Canada.

“It’s just been very disappointing for me,” Sachs complained. “I’ve grown up believing in Canada’s leadership.”

Of course Sachs may simply be forgetting that Canada has taken the lead on a maternal health initiative for the developing world.

Sachs seems upset that countries in the developing world have hard choices to make.

“All of them were discussing whether to have children in school or whether to have mothers saved in childbirth or whether to have vaccine problems, because [they] can’t do all of these things,” Sachs fumed. “It’s an impossible choice.”

Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, who committed Canada to following Sachs' agenda, is similarly disappointed.

"When the Canadian numbers were revised down, that was a reneging on our commitment," Martin complained. "The 'reclarifying' of numbers, which Canada, Italy and France engaged in, is exactly the kind of thing that must not happen in the future."

Of course what Martin fails to mention is that the commitment Martin speaks of was the commitment of the government that he led. A future government was well within its rights to reevaluate the decision, and in the case of the Millenium Development Goals, was particularly right to have done so.

But Martin also admits that many of the countries due to be recipients of this generous aid commitment have their own part to play -- one they haven't played.

"Recipient countries have got to come to the table," Martin insisted. "When the MDGs were set up, it was with governments that said they would do certain things, for instance in education, and a number of those countries have not done it."

But even the commitments made by the countries in question were the wrong commitments.

New York University Economist William Easterly has been clear about the shortcomings of the economy of the developing world.

One of these shortcomings is the lack of key economic infrastructure -- banks, stock exchanges, securities regulators, courts of law -- that make a healthy economy possible in the first place. While the developing-world versions of institutions don't currently need to be nearly as sophisticated as they are in the developed world, they do need to impose a basic degree of law and order over these economies -- the kind that can contain and eliminate corruption and cronyism.

Beyond even that, Sachs' prized MDGs represent everything that has been wrong with the developed world's approach to fighting poverty in the developing world: they are centrally-planned, largely by the donors, and do not necessarily reflect the real needs of these economies.

They reflect the opinion of what Jeffrey Sachs and his cohorts think these countries need, and following the same broken model of sending billions and billions of dollars into the coffers of governments that have tended to either waste the funds, or steal them outright.

Jeffrey Sachs can be as disappointed as he likes that Canada has backed away from his agenda. His policies have overwhelmingly failed -- something that Sachs has declined to even acknowledge, let alone take responsibility for -- and it's time for a more constructive approach.

Is Foreign Aid Undermining African Democracy?

Coming via ForaTV, Dambisa Moyo presents an intriguing critique of current foreign aid programs.

According to Moyo, successes enjoyed under programs such as the AIDs program -- in which AIDs drugs are provided to HIV sufferers -- lead Africans to doubt their elected leaders, as they watch foreign organizations provide services their governments should be responsible for.

Paradoxically, aid programs that seek to by-pass Africa's entrenched system of government kelptocrats may be stifling the single best antidote to this kleptocracy: a strong, vibrant democracy in which oversight is ultimately wielded by a citizenry that has confidence in their system.

According to Economist William Easterly, the most effective aid programs are those that will democratize the process of prioritizing the areas by focusing on allowing the citizens of impoverished countries to build their own economies from the ground up by utilizing the principles micro-economics.

Aid planners, still under the thrall of Jeffrey Sachs and his mostly-failed policies, continue to favour the principles of macro-economics and a top-down method of building national economies.

But as Easterly has often pointed out, this risks the creation of aid programs that are dangerously out-of-touch with the needs of locals.

An interesting case in point is a $15 billion agricultural aid program being pushed by Barack Obama. Investing in things such as seed, fertilizer, produce storage and research, the plan seems to be aimed at jump-starting a new green revolution in Africa.

While this satisfies an obvious need that impoverished countries have, locals may prefer to continue utilizing traditional agricultural methods as opposed to high-tech agricultural methods that will remain expensive -- likely prohibitively expensive -- long after aid dollars run out.

Easterly points out that, mixed in with successes, similar plans have been tried unsuccessfully before.

“The curse of aid is that they never learn from history,” Easterly said. “They need to go back and realize a lot of things promised today have been promised before.”

But even when the things that are promised are delivered, as Moyo points out, foreign aid is actually posing unforeseen problems for African democracies, as it undermines elected leaders who lack the resources to deliver on their own responsibilities.

If the western world truly expects democracy to flourish in Africa, it may be for the best to start to design foreign aid programs that allow it to function properly.

Sizing Up Conservatism's Challenges

Conservatives in Canada, US and UK face very different challenges

In a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Hugh Segal makes the case that the challenges to conservative parties being posed by elections are largely immaterial compared to the challenges being posed by the current economic times.

At a time when even conservative administrations are instituting lavish Kenyesian economic policies, it's easy for fiscal conservatives to wonder precisely what this means for conservatism and the free market:

"Imminent elections focus the mind. But the global intellectual challenge to those of us who consider belief in free markets an integral part of our conservatism is larger than the next or last election.

The fact that parties of the left and centre left did not do well in recent European elections is a hint that voters do not see either an ideological culprit for the collapse of over-engineered credit structures or an ideological saviour from anti-free market apostles. What is apparent is that balance and fairness do matter and are not outside the conservative political realm."

Segal is making an important point by noting this.

While the election of Barak Obama as US President is being viewed by many as the nadir of conservatism, perhaps not even merely in the United States, it's important to note that other left-of-centre parties are not enjoying the same level of success.

"The political geography of each of the UK, US and Canada is vastly different. Americans have just come off two terms of Republican prominence. The UK is at the point where a Labour Finance Minister who managed during good times finds special challenges managing in different times. In Canada, what is still a fledgling Tory minority faces a more competitive Liberal opposition. So the short-term challenges for conservatives are genuine but not insurmountable. The American Republicans must be credible and engaged by the mid-terms in less than two years. Both David Cameron in the UK and Prime Minister Harper here face more pressing moments of truth."

In Canada, Stephen Harper may be facing a fall election opposing a strengthened and (at least temporarily) re-engergized Liberal party led by Michael Ignatieff.

In Britain, David Cameron isn't expected to have to fight an election against Gordon Brown and the Labour party until 2010, but the expectation is that he may win a Tony Blair-style majority government.

What remains to be seen for Harper is whether or not he can keep is majority government alive at all, let alone manage to win a majority. For Davoid Cameron, the test will be whether or not he can successfully defeat the Labour party during what is expected to be a time of economic recovery.

In the United States, meanwhile, Republicans are facing an althogether different challenge -- the challenge of not shooting themselves in the foot:

"In the United States, the Obama presidency, while not flawless, is sophisticated in ways the United States has not seen before. Some conservatives, doing themselves and the Republican Party's mid-term election prospects absolutely no good, have chosen an arch ideological scream over reasoned and thoughtful engagement. With the US government now owning large chunks of the financial and industrial United States, the intellectual challenge for Republican conservatives is defining the new balance between social and economic opportunity, necessary stability and the market freedom vital to rebuild the US economy."

If one reduces conservatism to the preservation of the status quo, one has to realize that government ownership of formerly private enterprise -- General Motors clearly being the most prominent example -- will have become part of that status quo.

If one subscribes to a far more nuanced definition of conservatism, one still has to realize the scope of the challenge that government ownership of financial and industrial industry poses.

One way or the other, conservatives will have to address the issue of this ownership. Privatization of these industries would be a simple solution for conservatives to pursue.

Yet when government privatizes public assets or enterprises one thing that is undeniably part of the transaction is a depreciated return on the public's investment. Privatized government assets have proven to be a bargain for many private buyers for this very reason.

But considering the scope of the public investment in ownership of these industries, government has the responsibility to recover the maximum value of that investment. As Benjamin Barber pointed out to Tim Geithner, the public has absorbed a great deal of risk in helping these companies effectively "start over" (something that has made GMs batch of PR ads on this very topic very much insufferable). The public has the right to expect a return on that risky investment.

For some conservatives, this may seem far too much like government reaping profits better left for private investors. This is market conservatism ad extremis -- one that denies the reality of this particular matter to the extent of being nearly self-destructive.

Conservatives the world over, meanwhile, should be as lucky as the British Conservative party's David Cameron:

"In the UK, Tory leader David Cameron, in embracing decentralization and more popular restraint on government excess, is true to both the Thatcherite and 'wet' side of Britain's Tory spectrum and the core centralizing myopia of 'big Government' Labour party approaches. The fact that this is done with a strong tilt to 'compassionate conservatism' provides both a spectrum-broadening base and intellectual frame for an eventual victory. But the intellectual challenge for British conservatism is being embraced head on.

At home, the universal kudos among critical international bodies like the OECD and World Bank for Canada's handling of the credit meltdown and US prime mortgage collapse speaking well of how Stephen Harper has managed to date. But the conservative intellectual challenge will also have to be met during the next election."

In facing the strengthening federal Liberal party, Stephen Harper will face a very different challenge than Cameron's.

For one thing, the Canadian Liberal party hasn't managed to burn nearly as many bridges as the British Labour party. And, as Barry Cooper points out, the Conservative party isn't nearly as adept at exploiting bureaucratic survival instincts for its own political advantage as the Liberals have been.

Even beyond this particular disadvantage, that the Canadian Conservative party has embraced stimulus economics with a fervour that seems to put the lie to fiscal conservatism, many of the challenges the Tories will face will be a result of their own emergency economic policy:

"That challenge might best be described this way. If stimulus and corporate stability investments have, along with economic downturn and tax cuts, produced a short-term deficit, what are the values Tories want to sustain through this for which they seek a mandate? This is not about what any government is doing or seeks to do in the future. This is about why we want to do it."

The Conservative party has provided a solid roadmap out of the current economic crisis for the country at large.

What the party has not produced is a solid roadmap for its own return to the fiscal conservative principles its expected to embody. This is certainly a problem, as it leads to a glut of policy deficiencies on numerous issues:

"National security is about domestic social and economic opportunity as well as a robust foreign and highly deployable defence capacity. It is about market freedom as an instrument of economic expansion and environmental competence. Ceding any of this ground to other parties weakens the Tory claim to a new mandate. Embracing it with clarity and intellectual integrity is what Canadians have the right to expect; it is what Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper have done when at their best. The argument to do it again has never been more compelling."

Of course, therein lies the rub.

It's easy for conservative political parties to be at their best during times of economic prosperity. They can move ahead on fiscally conservative programs without seeming callous or careless.

When times are bad, however, is when left-of-centre political parties tend to shine brightest. Canada's Conservative party hasn't led the country on any kind of a national project since sir John A MacDonald's ambitious railroad building project. This is a real problem for the party, as it leaves these opportunities to its left-of-centre opponents, who have led Canadians on national projects such as public health care.

Sadly, something in the conservative imagination tells conservatives that national projects are, in and of themselves, left-wing social engineering projects that undermine conservative values.

Yet an ambitious national project conceptualized and completed under the public-private partnership model embraces the principles of conservatives such as Segal. Such a project could be nation and enterprise at its best -- if only Canadian conservatives can muster the courage to attempt it.

There could even be opportunities to attempt such projects on an international scale:

"Kamalesh Sharma, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, recently called for an economic and social contract to ensure that the recovery does not make things worse for developing countries. In every country, the way out of the recession will be bracketed by concerns about market freedom and social justice. The challenge for Tories in the anglosphere is the same--a coherent plan for the way ahead that embraces both pillars underlying successful societies, market freedom and genuine equality of opportunity. Deserting either of these is not a rational way ahead in any industrialized country, and certainly not appropriate for conservatives of any variety."

As the world navigates its course out of the current economic crisis and its accompanying recession, we will also be confronted with opportunities to change the way we have approached policy issues such as foreign aid.

Jeffrey Sachs will certainly be first in line to attempt to re-start his (mostly) failed policies in the developing world. But conservative governments in countries such as Canada and (by then) Britain could -- and should -- quite easily bypass individuals such as Sachs and employ the wisdom of economists such as William Easterly, whose proposed policies vis a vis foreign aid call simply scream out for the P3 model.

The various industrial and financial firms that governments now find themselves owning significant portions of could even be offered the opportunity to work off their debt to the state by investing in these kinds of programs, allowing people in developing countries to shape aid programs through market forces and helping themselves out of poverty, as opposed to waiting to be saved.

It's on this note that one must remember something that Hugh Segal would certainly want Canadian conservatives to recognize: the current political and economic climate poses serious challenges to conservatives. But with difficult challenges come fantastic opportunities.

Conservatives, in Canada and elsewhere, can benefit greatly from these challenges if they can only prove able to grow into them.

Thank You For Calling, Mr Sachs

We have a message for you

It's positively wondrous what a prestigious United Nations posting can do for a person.

It provides an immediate career boost, accompanied by a surge in self-esteem... and completely blinds one to the failures of their own policies. And turns them into a bit of a loudmouth.

Jeffrey Sachs, Special UN advisor to Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon and director of the Millennium Project, recently had some sharp words for Canada in regards to "global leadership".

"We've seen essentially no global leadership from Canada on poverty, hunger, disease, climate change and foreign assistance," Sachs insisted. "This has been a huge surprise for me as a lifelong admirer of Canada, that we don't see the ambition of the Canadian people manifested in Canada's policies right now."

Yet Sachs himself, for quite a considerable period of time, has been thrust into a position of global leadership, and given billions upon billions upon billions of dollars to make the goals of the Millenium project a reality. The results of Sachs' leadership have been less than inspiring.

Consider the case of Mosquito nets. To date, billions of dollars have been spent on insecticide treated mosquito nets. Intended to solve the preeminent (and spreading) problem of Malaria, these mosquito nets have often been diverted into the black market by the bureaucrats entrusted with their distribution.

William Easterly points out that Sachs efforts to distribute the mosquito nets -- although having more recent successes -- have failed on one key point: people have needs, more often than not know their needs, and will act to meet them if they have the resources.

The fact that Non-profit non governmental organizations that sell heavily subsidized mosquito nets have had considerably more success distributing them than the (often corrupt) local agencies given the nets demonstrates a glaring hole in Sach's prescription for ending poverty in the developing world.

Sachs has, in the course of his career as a would-be economic visionary relied almost exclusively on macroeconomics as a solution to poverty.

His previous catastrophic failures in post-Soviet Russia certainly hasn't dissuaded him from deploying his disastrous shock therapy technique into developing economies -- in particular, Africa.

And just as when his policies failed in Russia, what Sachs insists is necessary is a massive bailout from G8 nations, which is probably what is behind his insistence that Canada contribute 0.7% toward his all too often ill-fated aid programs.

Despite Sachs' criticisms, Canada's contribution of $167 million to the UN food program last year made it the third most prolific donor in the world. In 2005, Paul Martin's Liberal government even changed policy that required food contributed to the program to be purchased from Canadian producers to allow it to be purchased from sources closer to their destination -- a wise decision that hastened delivery of aid considerably, although unfortunately at the expense of Canadian producers.

Yet such initiatives don't seem enough for Sachs, who instead wants to play partisan politics in a country foreign to his own.

"Canada did not show leadership on critical issues, like agriculture, for example, where I was shocked by discussions I had in Ottawa," Sachs insists. "Then the [Martin] government fell, and this government has come in and it's been antagonistic, rhetorically and in policy. It's almost mocking, some times, with these objectives."

Of course, it would be remiss to pretend that Sachs has had no successes. In the few occasions in which he has "lowered" himself to dabbling in some microeconomics -- the approach clearly favoured by Easterly -- Sachs has managed to help do some good in Africa. Consider the Millenium villages project, in which $100 per resident is invested every five years, resulting in some truly fantastic growth.

But the problem with the Millenium village approach is that there hasn't been nearly enough of them, and far too much of the money being spent elsewhere is simply being wasted.

Even Sachs' insistence that investing in research and development in developing states -- while possessing a considerable amount of potential -- overlooks the fact that many of these countries don't have the infrastructure for such R&D in place to begin with.

What is needed in Africa isn't massive macroeconomic re-engineering as Sachs seems to insist. What is necessary, instead, is a rethinking of the basic economic principles at work in Africa, and a questioning of some of the assumption Sachs work is based upon.

For example, Sachs' model of Clinical Economics -- in which developing economies are treated as ailing patients and diagnosed and treated accordingly -- possesses tremendous potential. Unfortunately, too much of it relies on Sachs' so-called poverty trap: a concept that can be discarded after even a remedial economic analysis. (William Easterly demonstrates that the 50 poorest countries in the world today are not the poorest countries in the world as of 50 years ago -- obviously, lack of money is not the dominant factor in sustained poverty, although lack of economic development clearly is.)

What is needed in Africa is more microeconomic aid, on a wider scale, and designed as an incentive for the private sector to get involved in providing for the needs of otherwise destitute Africans. In particular, microloans have been very successful.

But these are successes that Sachs has taken advantage of only sparingly, if at all.

It's clearly time for Jeffrey Sachs to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate his own policies before engaging in finger pointing clearly designed to benefit those he considers his political allies.

Then again, that's yet another perk of being a UN appointee: incredible job security, regardless of whether or not one's track record warrants it or not.

We Hold the Answer

Ordinary Canadians need to become more involved with foreign policy

In the third and final installment of the What is Canada's Place in the World? series, blogger David Eaves stresses the importance of Canadian citizens becoming engaged abroad.

"For two decades, pundits have argued that Canada has lost its way in the world, that it no longer articulates a clear role for itself. But, in our search for answers, perhaps we've asked the wrong question. Rather than "what is our role," maybe we need to reaffirm "what is our goal?"

To this question, the answer is remarkably consistent. Canada's foreign policy has sought to model and advance the ideals of our national experiment: peace, order and good government. In a world too often governed by realpolitik, Canadians have worked tirelessly to preserve and promote an international system that, grounded in international law, allows peaceful people everywhere — including in Canada — to select their governments, to trade and to move about safely."

Of course, Canada's government hasn't always done the same. During his first encounter with then-Chinese premier Jiang Zemin then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien gently tried to drill him about "good governance and the rule of law". He couldn't even bring himself to say the words "human rights".

When now-Prime Minister Stephen Harper conjured the "audacity" to address human rights with China and Iran Michael Byers -- one of Canada's self-styled "top foreign policy 'experts'" -- indulged himself in a temper tantrum.

Canadians do believe in human rights -- intensively and passionately. Unfortunately, not all of those who claim to speak for us legitimately share those beliefs.

"For almost two centuries, we've pursued this objective. And yet, we've repeatedly redefined our role. In our efforts to improve and defend this system Canadians have, among other things: served as allies and fierce warriors, fighting in two world wars and one Cold one; operated as diplomatic honest brokers, inventing peacekeeping and preventing war between superpowers; and organized as human rights and human security activists, extending the benefits of stability and justice to those who've known little of either.

And yet the pundits and politicians want us to choose just one — we may yet have an election over this. But Canadians know better. We've been all these things, and are proud of them not for what they were, but for what they were in service of."

To this end, Eaves is certainly right. To pretend that we can either engage in peacekeeping or fight in wars is a false choice.

In fact, at this very moment, Canada has soldiers battling the Taliban in Afghanistan and peacekeepers in Haiti, Kosovo, and several other areas around the world. And when one considers the intensifying nature of foreign conflicts -- such as in Darfur and Kenya -- the ideal separation of peacekeeping from combat has faded more and more into the idyllic days of the Pearsonian era.

Canada can -- and should -- act as all of these things, as often as circumstance allows.

"More importantly, this diversity, and continuity, has never been more important. The challenges of the 21st century — international terrorism, global warming, ethnic conflict, weapons of mass destruction and collapsing eco-systems — are markedly different from those of the 20th century. Their dispersed and complex nature means no single actor — not even governments — can address them alone."

These very issues have made internationalism a vital issue. Global issues require global solutions. It's as simple as that.

But Eaves makes his greatest point when he considers the increasing role of Canadian citizens abroad.

"In the face of these challenges, Canada has, quietly, carved out a new role. As a country we may appear adrift, but, as individuals, Canadians are more effectively and successfully engaged than ever. Quietly, we've transitioned from a middle power — a plucky country whose government prevented conflicts and ensured stability — to a model power — a country whose plucky citizens innovate solutions to new global challenges.

In an era where technology enables individuals to self-organize, deploy resources, or simply get involved, Canadians have jumped at the opportunity. New groups such as Engineers Without Borders, Peace Dividend Trust, Journalists for Human Rights, help people channel their energy and focus on results. Broader still, the recent Canada's World poll suggests that Canadians gave $7.3-billion to internationally focused non-profits over the past year. This is more than twice CIDA's budget of $3-billion, and equivalent to 0.6 per cent of our GDP. And this doesn't even include the $20-billion in remittances sent abroad annually or the hundreds of thousands of hours in international volunteer work donated by everyday citizens."

This should serve as food for thought for individuals like Jeffrey Sachs who decry the Canadian government's failure to meet the 0.7% of GDP figure outlined by Lester Pearson.

In fact, Canadians far more than pull their weight in terms of foreign aid -- at least in terms of raw cash. 0.7% of GDP seems all and good. Canadians, between government and citizenry, have contributed 0.9% of our GDP to the cause of foreign aid -- effectively doing Mike Pearson one better.

Furthermore, the citizens who donate their money directly toward NGOs (Non Government Organizations) are certainly getting far more bang for their buck than under Sachs' model, which advocates heavily for direct transfers between governments.

All too often, dollars transferred between governments have had a tendency to disappear. At least when someone writes a check to the Foster Parents Plan or the International Red Cross they can expect that there will be some services remitted on the ground. It's proven to be a far safer investment than depositing cash that far too often has wound up lining the pockets of military dictators.

And this is all before we consider the Canadian volunteer manpower employed abroad.

We are truly leading the world in terms of meeting our obligation to help the poorest and most destitute people in the world -- Romeo Dallaire's "80% living in the mud and blood of human indignity".

"As a model power, Canadians enjoy their ability to strike out and serve as global citizens. Those I speak with are looking for — but not willing to wait for — leaders who will draw on our multiple identities."

Indeed. And one wonders what Canadians could accomplish using a peace corps-styled approach to conflicts such as Darfur -- although we would still expect the Canadian government to account for the safety of such a peace corps.

"Canadians want leaders who will be warriors when confronting those who would use violence to remake our world, diplomats when addressing the threats and opportunities in our global commons, and activists against anyone — even our allies — who would use their power to impinge on the rights and opportunities of others."

Certainly true. Canadians do want these things.

But to simply wait for such a leader to emerge from the fog will be too long a time coming. More Canadians need to step up and be these leaders. Canada is disturbingly short of Kennedyesque foreign policy leaders with the courage of their convictions.

Far too many Canadians appear eager to embrace Clintonesque foreign policy leaders -- not the direction many Canadians want this country to be moving in.

"Most of all, Canadians are looking for leaders who will empower each of us. As employees, consumers, business owners, investors, aid workers and, above all, citizens, the decisions we each make increasingly shape Canada's reputation and impact. The modern world is one in which the capacity to affect international affairs is shared among organizations and, indeed, among all citizens. A foreign policy that enables each of us to make better choices in pursuit of our common goal will create a role in which Canada and Canadians will thrive."

Eaves makes a solid point with all of this, but there is still more that needs to be said.

First off, more Canadians need to get involved with the debate over what Canada's role in the world should be. It's one thing to insist that Canadians become more engaged abroad. We also need to become more engaged at home.

Canadians need to become more active in influencing Canada's foreign policy. In a recent speech at the University of Alberta, Senator and retired Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire went so far as to suggest the audience "harass" their MPs into supporting the kind of foreign policy they want. You want Canada to become more involved in Darfur? Email your MP every day, and get your friends and neighbours to email your MP every day -- make your voices so loud they cannot be ignored.

While allowing politicians the freedom to decide how they would implement such an agenda is all part of the political game, Dallaire's -- and Eaves' -- message is clear: Canadians need to start setting Canada's foreign policy agenda.

If we don't, we'll have little leeway to complain if our politicians promote foreign policy that we don't like.

We, as Canadians, hold the answer to the question of "what is Canada's role in the world?"