 |
|
| page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|
Jamie Rubin:
These are hopeful observations, but you must have looked around the world and seen the kind of poverty, the poorest of the poor, that we saw in this film, and elsewhere, and you have a big, big challenge. Do you ever get frustrated by the enormity of trying to deal with a billion people living in poverty?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, I don't get frustrated because we work with kids, but it is extraordinary that we have entered the 21st century with one-sixth of the human population not able to read or write. We're in the great world of technology, wherever the economic markets may be. Nevertheless, in the richer countries there's just availability of virtually everything, and in the poorer countries, the elements of poverty, war and conflict in so many places, HIV/AIDS, devastating systems, gender discrimination, girls around the world still confronting problems, 120 million children who ought to be in primary school who are not in primary school - 60 percent are girls -- the environmental deterioration that we've seen. . . I mean one of the reasons for greater instability in the world today as a result of natural disasters is that the environmental improvements that one had hoped for have not occurred in so many places. And then I could go on and on, corruption, inability of folks to really provide the leadership that should exist, so there's still an enormous amount to do even as we enter this extraordinary 21st century.
Jamie Rubin:
You're an American. You're the executive director of a UN organization. Do you ever feel difficulty in justifying the small size of America's foreign aid budget when you're working with your colleagues?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, it's a mixed picture. I think it is important to acknowledge that the United States is a major donor to humanitarian and development causes for the UN agencies. It's the major donor of a number of UN agencies, including UNICEF, and yet if you take a look at the entire budget of the United States on a per capita basis, the United States ranks quite far down in the list.
Jamie Rubin:
Isn't the United States the lowest of all of the major industrialized countries?
Carol Bellamy:
I don't know if it's the lowest, but it's certainly one of the lowest. So, yes, it is certainly a contributor, but if you take a look, the Nordic countries, for example, are far more generous on a per capita basis. And yet, we know the studies that Americans think much too much gets spent in foreign aid, but when they are questioned, "Are they willing to put some money into foreign aid?" "Of course." "Well, how much?" "Well, I don't know, maybe five percent." "Well, what would you think of if it was less than one percent?" "Well, we could do more than that." So, I think Americans are at heart, quite generous, and willing to assist more, and understand that it makes a difference for them. I mean that polio case that exists in Pakistan could be -- and I always hate to threaten -- but that polio case could be in the United States, 17 hours later.
Jamie Rubin:
So, you have a political background, you worked in New York City politics, tell us why if the American people are so supportive, of spending four, five, six times the current budget of foreign assistance, there is no political support for it in Washington?
Carol Bellamy:
You know, I don't think it is a hot button item, quite frankly. I do think Americans are generous. I think they're willing to help. I think they're willing to help beyond their cities and their communities, and their rural, suburban homes, but I don't think it's a major issue for them, and actually, I think they think that the US does actually more than it does.
Jamie Rubin:
So let's talk about a few of the critiques of foreign assistance, the ones that are made by the members of Congress who appropriate these funds. On one side there are those who say that somehow the foreign assistance that UNICEF might provide in a country like Burma, Myanmar, is somehow helping an anti-American government, do you find yourself often confronting this situation?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, I think some of these arguments have merit in a sense that there are governments clearly where there are development programs where UNICEF works. We work in over 160 countries around the world. There are some that are governments that are not pro-American by any means. There are some where we know there is corruption. But what I can say from a UNICEF side, and I would say from other UN agencies, is we try and make sure that the money gets to where it should go. If there is an immunization campaign, a measles campaign, tetanus campaign, a polio campaign that the money doesn't just sit over somewhere, but that the campaign actually takes place. If it's supposed to go for schoolbooks, or something to support education, or for hand pumps for a water program, we have to identify that. But it goes to places that are not always the nicest, friendliest, cuddliest governments, I admit that right from the beginning.
Jamie Rubin:
So when you're over there, and you're overseeing some project with an extremist government who's responsible for half of the misery in their country, and your programs are operating, how as an American do you feel listening to the views of those governments - without being specific?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, this probably sounds a little soppy, but it seems to me the people shouldn't be penalized twice. First of all, they have a bad government, and then they're penalized because they have a bad government because then nobody will try and provide any kind of assistance. Long ago when I was a Peace Corps volunteer, we had this big debate -- do you create the revolution first so they can change the government, or do you try to make sure people eat first? Well, I always came down on the side of let's try and make sure that people eat first, then maybe they'll be healthy enough to create the revolution. I think our responsibility is to try and make sure the money is used for what it is aimed for, but I really think that penalizing people in countries for bad government is something that's not in the interest of anybody.
Jamie Rubin:
Another argument is that by giving assistance in situations like this, you're locking in a corrupt and evil government's permanent situation. That without the upheaval that comes with hunger and strife, they're never going to change it, so that you're locking in these corrupt governments.
Carol Bellamy:
Well, actually, that one I would take on, because I actually believe that, and again I'm looking at our mandate. We work with kids. If kids get a basic education, that doesn't mean every kid will be wonderful. It's like every place else in the world, but if kids get a basic education, they will be better able to make choices about their lives. If they're better able to make choices about their lives, then some of them will make choices to try and make improvements in their countries. If those children die before the age of five, if they continue to be malnourished, and stunted, if they're not able to get an education, then you will create a population that will never really have the energy to challenge. That doesn't mean every kid that grows up will be a wonderful leader in a great democratic society, but unless they get the education, unless they're healthy enough to be able to get that education, then there's no hope that they will be able to make choices about their life in the future.
Jamie Rubin:
On the other side, you have those who in the context of sustainable development, the Johannesburg meeting you're going to, want foreign assistance to meet very high standards of environmental and human rights. Do you ever find yourself frustrated by those who impose those kind of standards on aid that you're trying to give?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, we believe passionately in children's rights, so we think that you can have a rights agenda that transcends just being a soap box finger waving, and really look at the basic right to health, the right to education. What I think is most important is that any kind of development assistance, try and be as realistic as possible. Achieve your objectives within a reasonable framework. For example, at Johannesburg, we are going to promote, it's our message, clean water and sanitary facilities at every school. That's something that is doable. It doesn't exist right now, but it's doable. It doesn't say, make the world perfectly environmentally wonderful in the next five years, because it won't be perfectly environmentally wonderful. But if you can focus on realistic things, and that's what I would argue to some of those who approach, I think, with passion, and with idealism, but with sometimes an unrealistic agenda.
Jamie Rubin:
So let's talk about clean water dams. The great dam projects get a lot of negative publicity. You judge how many children have access to clean water around the world, do you believe that some of these large dams actually, are the dams that provide that clean water, and that people need to understand that?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, they may, it's harder for me to judge that. I actually think sometimes a well in a village will do more good, because it's closer to where people are. I think you have to do some balancing. I think sometimes we get into a situation where those who are promoting the dam only see the good, and those that are against the dam only see the bad. Perhaps I'm a compromiser. I think you've got to look for how you reduce the environmental impact if you're going to have a large project that would, let's say take land because it's a dam, but at the same time, recognize that there are some benefits that come from it.
Jamie Rubin:
Again, as an American, I'm sure you get a lot of questions about American positions. The current one, you're probably going to get in Johannesburg, is why hasn't the United States ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. What do you say when people ask you that?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, people are absolutely shocked, the average person here in the United States, when they find out that the only two countries in the world that haven't ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child are Somalia and the United States. Now, obviously if one thinks about the world, and there are some pretty bad places in the world, it doesn't mean that even a country that's ratified the treaty is a great promoter of children's rights. But to think that the US hasn't done it is really quite shocking.
My response is several. One, the US, as I think most Americans if they read the paper know, is very suspicious of any kind of international treaty. The idea is that some extraterrestrial body, in other words, the UN, will intervene and will conflict with state's rights, or national decisions at the US level. That's quite apart from the particular issue of children's rights. It's just, generally, if we agree to an international treaty, does that mean the UN will tell us what our business is.
Jamie Rubin:
Let's stay on that for a second. You've been a local politician, and now you work for the UN, do you think there's any credence to these fears?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, I don't, and I'm also a lawyer, but it's been a long time.
Jamie Rubin:
And a lawyer!
Carol Bellamy:
So I don't make the legal argument. At least in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, I say, look, the convention has been around ten years, a number of the countries have ratified this for eight to ten years, so let's take a look, is that happening out there, and look at some of the countries in the North. Let's look at Germany. Let's look at Canada. Germany is a federation, has very strong states, not unlike the US, it's a little different but not unlike the US. Canada has very strong provinces, perhaps as strong as their national government. There's no indication in either of these countries of the UN coming in and telling some province in Canada what they should do, or some state in Germany what they should do. So, take into account the legal argument, but let's take a look at what the real experience is. There's no indication, no experience whatsoever of the UN intervening in the internal matters of an individual state.
Jamie Rubin:
But, in terms of the downside of the US not signing this treaty, you don't think that signing it would make it more likely that American children would be better treated, do you?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, no I don't. But I think it is wrong to assume that because it's the United States, and such a powerful and strong, and actually wealthy country, that everything is perfect here. There are challenges for children in the US. They may be different challenges, it may not be survival up to the age of five, but certainly the challenges of children in terms of violence against kids, kids dropping out of school, you can find child labor..
Jamie Rubin:
But we have domestic laws for that, don't we?
Carol Bellamy:
Indeed, we do, but what the convention allows around the world is it really challenges countries to try to do their own domestic work.
Jamie Rubin:
So it's more the message it sends by not signing?
Carol Bellamy:
Well, it's the message but it also talks about every child, and even in this country we know that minority kids in communities, very often will be less able to take advantage of certain opportunities than non-minority kids. I don't want to make an entire broadbrush…
|
|
| page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
continue to next page  |
|
|
 |
|
|
Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of UNICEF
|
|
