kEiThZ
Superstar
Personally, I think its a good thing we are directing aid towards achieving our national interests. That sounds cold-hearted but at the end of the day I want my government to put our national interests first (greater focus on latin america, emphasis on good governance, etc.). The NGOs who have other aims should be able to fundraise on their own.
--------------------------
PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2009.05.21
EDITION: National
SECTION: Canada
PAGE: A6
COLUMN: John Ivison
DATELINE: OTTAWA
BYLINE: John Ivison
SOURCE: National Post
WORD COUNT: 833
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bono will not be applauding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock stars make fickle bedfellows for politicians, as Paul Martin could testify. One minute Bono was attending his coronation as prime minister and Bob Geldof was calling him "dude"; the next they were urging every fairy from Cork to Dunleary to curse him for his failure to increase the foreign aid budget to 0.7% of GDP.
The Conservatives are less dazzled by celebrity. Bev Oda, the government's Minister of International Co-operation, is not even attempting to curry favour with the U2 singer or the former Boomtown Rat.
In a speech at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre yesterday, Ms. Oda gave a speech that Conservatives have billed as the "clearest articulation of aid policy in 20 years."
She was blunt from the outset: "What I will talk about is not something that aims to please Irish rock stars."
The goal is simple -- how to make Canada's $5-billion aid budget work better.
The strategy has been two years in the making -- since Ms. Oda became minister for the Canadian International Development Agency -- and has emerged in response to a range of reports critical of Canada's foreign aid spending. For example, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee issued a study entitled: Overcoming 40 Years of Failure, which concluded that Canada has tried to do too much in too many countries.
The committee, chaired by Conservative Hugh Segal, said spending should be redirected toward good government and responsible economic practices from health and education "welfare" projects. More priority, it suggested, should be given to economic development, including technical assistance and training, skills development and technology transfers. Funding should be directed toward agricultural productivity and privately delivered micro-finance projects.
This more "conservative" foreign aid policy was pretty much what Ms. Oda unveiled yesterday --and a lot of people are going to be extremely unhappy about it. The non-governmental organization community has already taken up arms over the government's decision to focus its bi-lateral aid programs on 20 "countries of concentration," including more countries in Latin America, where Canada is keen to expand its influence, and fewer in Africa. Now, Ms. Oda has signalled that Canada's $1.2-billion annual multilateral budget -- money spent through NGOs -- will focus on three key themes: - Projects that improve food security. - Initiatives that increase economic growth rates. - Programs that secure the future of children and youth.
Being poor doesn't cut it any more, despite CIDA's mandate being to support sustainable development in developing countries, in order to reduce poverty.
One of those who is already steaming mad at the new direction is John McKay, the Liberal MP who last year saw his private member's bill, the Development Assistance Accountability Act, passed with unanimous consent in the House of Commons. It set out a legislative mandate that required overseas development aid to be targeted at poverty alleviation.
After reading Ms. Oda's speech yesterday, he was exasperated. "What the hell did I just do for the last 2½ years? I'm looking for the phrase 'poverty alleviation' but I can't find it. There's not even a passing reference to the will of Parliament."
He said that the $5-billion should be directed to poor people, not to bolster Canada's defence or diplomatic interests. "This is 'if you vote for us, you get our money; if you trade with us, you get our money'.
"I think it is a worthwhile initiative to better focus aid but if you don't have moral clarity about the purpose of aid, then you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past."
Ms. Oda said the focus remains on reducing poverty but that the new approach will be geared toward enabling people to become self-sufficient.
"Every [funding] commitment we have now will be honoured but we have clearly said what we are focusing on and if organizations are in line with that focus, they have a better chance of being supported," she said in an interview yesterday.
The Conservatives have already taken some baby steps toward making aid more effective -- for example by ending the practice of tied food aid, where developing countries are given aid on the condition they buy food from Canada, something that often increases the cost.
But the concentration on a more market-oriented aid policy, particularly one where projects are chosen according to whether they are aligned with Canada's foreign policy priorities, is likely to be a tougher sell.
The opposition parties and the NGO community will find a natural ally in the CIDA bureaucracy, which famously views any alternative perspective to its own as "anti-aid." Implementing the new policy in the face of such opposition will be like drawing a knife through a bowl of marbles.
Ms. Oda remains resolute. "I know that not all these measures will be popular. There will be those who will complain that we aren't supporting this initiative or the other. But setting priorities is, fundamentally, about making choices."
Among those likely to complain will be activists like Bono, who may change his tune about the world needing more Canada, and Mr. Geldof, once described by the U2 singer as having Tourette's of the soul, whose reaction should probably be left unreported by family newspapers.
jivison@nationalpost.com
--------------------------
PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2009.05.21
EDITION: National
SECTION: Canada
PAGE: A6
COLUMN: John Ivison
DATELINE: OTTAWA
BYLINE: John Ivison
SOURCE: National Post
WORD COUNT: 833
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bono will not be applauding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock stars make fickle bedfellows for politicians, as Paul Martin could testify. One minute Bono was attending his coronation as prime minister and Bob Geldof was calling him "dude"; the next they were urging every fairy from Cork to Dunleary to curse him for his failure to increase the foreign aid budget to 0.7% of GDP.
The Conservatives are less dazzled by celebrity. Bev Oda, the government's Minister of International Co-operation, is not even attempting to curry favour with the U2 singer or the former Boomtown Rat.
In a speech at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre yesterday, Ms. Oda gave a speech that Conservatives have billed as the "clearest articulation of aid policy in 20 years."
She was blunt from the outset: "What I will talk about is not something that aims to please Irish rock stars."
The goal is simple -- how to make Canada's $5-billion aid budget work better.
The strategy has been two years in the making -- since Ms. Oda became minister for the Canadian International Development Agency -- and has emerged in response to a range of reports critical of Canada's foreign aid spending. For example, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee issued a study entitled: Overcoming 40 Years of Failure, which concluded that Canada has tried to do too much in too many countries.
The committee, chaired by Conservative Hugh Segal, said spending should be redirected toward good government and responsible economic practices from health and education "welfare" projects. More priority, it suggested, should be given to economic development, including technical assistance and training, skills development and technology transfers. Funding should be directed toward agricultural productivity and privately delivered micro-finance projects.
This more "conservative" foreign aid policy was pretty much what Ms. Oda unveiled yesterday --and a lot of people are going to be extremely unhappy about it. The non-governmental organization community has already taken up arms over the government's decision to focus its bi-lateral aid programs on 20 "countries of concentration," including more countries in Latin America, where Canada is keen to expand its influence, and fewer in Africa. Now, Ms. Oda has signalled that Canada's $1.2-billion annual multilateral budget -- money spent through NGOs -- will focus on three key themes: - Projects that improve food security. - Initiatives that increase economic growth rates. - Programs that secure the future of children and youth.
Being poor doesn't cut it any more, despite CIDA's mandate being to support sustainable development in developing countries, in order to reduce poverty.
One of those who is already steaming mad at the new direction is John McKay, the Liberal MP who last year saw his private member's bill, the Development Assistance Accountability Act, passed with unanimous consent in the House of Commons. It set out a legislative mandate that required overseas development aid to be targeted at poverty alleviation.
After reading Ms. Oda's speech yesterday, he was exasperated. "What the hell did I just do for the last 2½ years? I'm looking for the phrase 'poverty alleviation' but I can't find it. There's not even a passing reference to the will of Parliament."
He said that the $5-billion should be directed to poor people, not to bolster Canada's defence or diplomatic interests. "This is 'if you vote for us, you get our money; if you trade with us, you get our money'.
"I think it is a worthwhile initiative to better focus aid but if you don't have moral clarity about the purpose of aid, then you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past."
Ms. Oda said the focus remains on reducing poverty but that the new approach will be geared toward enabling people to become self-sufficient.
"Every [funding] commitment we have now will be honoured but we have clearly said what we are focusing on and if organizations are in line with that focus, they have a better chance of being supported," she said in an interview yesterday.
The Conservatives have already taken some baby steps toward making aid more effective -- for example by ending the practice of tied food aid, where developing countries are given aid on the condition they buy food from Canada, something that often increases the cost.
But the concentration on a more market-oriented aid policy, particularly one where projects are chosen according to whether they are aligned with Canada's foreign policy priorities, is likely to be a tougher sell.
The opposition parties and the NGO community will find a natural ally in the CIDA bureaucracy, which famously views any alternative perspective to its own as "anti-aid." Implementing the new policy in the face of such opposition will be like drawing a knife through a bowl of marbles.
Ms. Oda remains resolute. "I know that not all these measures will be popular. There will be those who will complain that we aren't supporting this initiative or the other. But setting priorities is, fundamentally, about making choices."
Among those likely to complain will be activists like Bono, who may change his tune about the world needing more Canada, and Mr. Geldof, once described by the U2 singer as having Tourette's of the soul, whose reaction should probably be left unreported by family newspapers.
jivison@nationalpost.com
