When people debate U.S. aid for development, it doesn't take long for someone to mention the United Nations' International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico. Held in March 2002, it was the first UN conference to address key financial and development issues related to the Millennium Development Goals for combating poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women. More than 50 heads of state, including President Bush, attended.
What came out of it was the Monterrey Consensus, a 17-page document signed by participants and outlining how the world should finance development in poor countries. Language concerning the contribution levels of wealthier countries has continued to draw heat: "We urge developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) as ODA (official development assistance) to developing countries…"
According to the U.N., five high-income countries have already reached the 0.7 percent target, while six others have committed themselves to specific timelines to reach it. To date, the U.S. is not among them.
At the G-8 conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, in summer 2005, President Bush agreed to increase U.S. foreign aid. Just prior to that, he announced an increase in U.S. support for efforts to eradicate malaria in Africa. In September 2005, he again reaffirmed a general U.S. commitment to the Millennium Development Goals and the principles of the Monterrey Consensus. Since then, the U.S., working with the World Bank, has agreed to support massive debt relief for developing countries.
Depending on your point of view, U.S. inaction represents either a breach of promise or a prudent response — one that takes into account the arbitrary nature of the 0.7 percent target, as well as the U.S.'s standing as the world's largest donor in terms of dollars spent.
